Melliza v. Mitchell
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Felix Melliza, also known as Pinga, was a defendant in a criminal case, United States vs. Miguel A. Soler and Felix Melliza. At the time of the judgment in that case, Melliza was at liberty on bail. 2. Procedural History: On November 5, 1904, Melliza's sureties surrendered him to W.H. Mitchell, the deputy sheriff of Manila. Melliza then sought a writ of habeas corpus, which was granted by Justice Johnson on November 14, 1904, releasing him on the grounds that the judgment was void. The Solicitor-General appealed this order to the Supreme Court. Justice Johnson subsequently ordered Melliza committed unless he posted bail, which he did. 3. The Petition: This case is an appeal from Justice Johnson's order releasing Melliza. The Supreme Court, having previously ruled in a related case (United States vs. Soler) that the judgment was void and ordering a new trial, modified the appealed order. Melliza is to be remanded to the custody of the sheriff of Sorsogon Province for the purpose of the new trial, rather than being absolutely set at liberty.
Issue(s)
Whether the petitioner, Felix Melliza, should be absolutely set at liberty after the judgment against him was declared void and a new trial was ordered. Whether the order releasing the petitioner on habeas corpus should be affirmed or modified.
Ruling
The order appealed from is modified by directing that the petitioner be remanded to the custody of the sheriff of the Province of Sorsogon. In all other respects, the order is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the petitioner's release: The Court, in the related case of United States vs. Soler, held that the judgment therein was void and ordered the case remanded for a new trial. Consequently, the petitioner should not be absolutely set at liberty. The surrender by his sureties and the subsequent habeas corpus proceeding did not extinguish the obligation to face the new trial. On the modification of the order: The original order releasing the petitioner absolutely was based on the premise of a void judgment. However, the subsequent decision to remand the case for a new trial necessitates that the petitioner be available for said proceedings. Therefore, the petitioner should be delivered to the sheriff of the Province of Sorsogon for the purposes of the new trial, as ordered in the related case. The commitment order with bail was a temporary measure pending the appeal of the habeas corpus ruling, and the final disposition requires his presence for the new trial.
Main Doctrine
A defendant released on bail who is surrendered by his sureties may be recommitted pending appeal, especially when the judgment against him has been declared void and a new trial ordered.