Tacla

G.R. No. 190108 and G.R. No. 190473

SO

v. TACLA 

and

TACLA v. SO

FACTS

Petitioner David (So) filed the petition for the writs of habeas corpus andamparo on behalf of his daughter, Ma. Elena So Guisande (Guisande),accused of Qualified Theft in a criminal case pending before Judge Tacla.Petitioner alleged that Guisande was under a life-threatening situationwhile confined at the National Center for Mental Health (NCMH), thegovernment hospital ordered by the RTC to ascertain the psychologicalstate of Guisande, who was being charged with a non-bailable offense.The criminal case was subsequently dismissed.

ISSUE

Whether or not the writs should be issued

HELD/RATIO

No, the petition for the writs of habeas corpus and amparo are DENIED forbeing moot and academic.The privilege of the writ of amparo is envisioned basically to protect andguarantee the rights to life, liberty, and security of persons, free from fearsand threats that vitiate the quality of this life. It is an extraordinary writconceptualized and adopted in light of and in response to the prevalence of extra-legal killings and enforced disappearances. Accordingly, the remedyought to be resorted to and granted judiciously, lest the ideal sought bythe Amparo Rule be diluted and undermined by the indiscriminate filing of amparo petitions for purposes less than the desire to secure

amparo reliefsand protection and/or on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations.Certainly, with the dismissal of the non-bailable case against accusedGuisande, she is no longer under peril to be confined in a jail facility, muchless at the NCMH. Effectively, accused Guisande’s person, and treatment of any medical and mental malady she may or may not have, can no longerbe subjected to the lawful processes of the RTC Mandaluyong City. Inshort, the cases have now been rendered moot and academic