CA denies Alice Guo’s appeal to be released from jail
Dismissed Bamban, Tarlac Mayor Alice Guo reacts as the Senate Committee on Women, Children, Family Relations and Gender Equality presents a portion of a conversation with Wang Fugui, who claimed that dismissed Bamban, Tarlac Mayor Alice Guo is a spy, during a hearing in Pasay City on October 8, 2024. Mark Demayo, ABS-CBN News/File MANILA — The Court of Appeals denied the motion for reconsideration filed by former Bamban, Tarlac mayor Alice Guo, or Guo Hua Ping, on the dismissal of her petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.
The CA said in its decision promulgated on October 5 that Guo’s petition was an improper remedy for her imprisonment.
The court noted in its decision that Guo claimed that she was unlawfully arrested by the Bureau of Immigration and the deportation proceedings against her came from supposedly constitutionally infirm findings.
Respondent BI, however, countered that habeas corpus should not be allowed once a detained person has already been charged and convicted.
The CA said the writ of habeas corpus was devised and exists as a speedy and effectual remedy to relieve persons from unlawful restraint.
“In other words, its vital purposes are to obtain immediate relief from illegal confinement, to liberate those who may be imprisoned without sufficient cause, and to deliver them from unlawful custody,” the court said in the decision penned by Associate Justice Emily San Gaspar-Gito.
Guo has been detained at the Correctional Institution for Women in Mandaluyong after she was found guilty of qualified human trafficking involving Philippine Offshore Gaming Operations or POGO in Bamban.
Aside from stating that Guo is not detained by the BI, the CA also noted that being detained at the CIW does not disqualify her from obtaining the writ of habeas corpus.
The CA said the writ may be availed as a post-conviction remedy under exceptional circumstances such as restraint resulting from the deprivation of a person’s constitutional right.
“There is neither allegation nor showing that such detention violated petitioner’s constitutional rights to speedy trial and to liberty,” the court said.
The court also noted that its earlier Joseph Sy decision is not applicable to the case of Guo, who was detained not by virtue of an order from the BI but by a warrant issued by the Regional Trial Court.
Sy was detained by the BI by virtue of deportation proceedings which were held as premature.
The court emphasized that it remains a “vanguard” in defense of constitutional rights but the writ of habeas corpus must also be employed with care.
“It is not a sledgehammer to clumsily bludgeon the lawful detention mandated by courts, which are not shown to be deprived with jurisdiction, as in this case,” the CA said.