This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2008-01-29 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| Fundamentally, in order to justify the grant of the writ of habeas corpus, the restraint of liberty must be in the nature of an illegal and involuntary deprivation of freedom of action.[12] | |||||
|
2007-10-15 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| Measured by the foregoing yardstick, the petition, on its face, fails to convince us that petitioners are actually and unlawfully detained and restrained of their liberty. Sombong v. Court of Appeals, et al.[24] teaches us that for the writ of habeas corpus to issue, the restraint of liberty must be in the nature of an illegal and involuntary deprivation of freedom of action. More importantly, the prime specification of an application for a writ of habeas corpus is an actual and effective, and not merely nominal or moral, illegal restraint of liberty.[25] | |||||