Remedial Law, Legal and Judicial Ethics, with Practical Exercises › Civil Procedure › Summons (Rule 14) › Service › Modes › Upon Specific Persons and Entities

(b) Prisoners

Exceptions

  • Witness resides more than 100 km away from the place where he is to testify.
  • Witness is a detention prisoner and there was no permission obtained from the court in which the case is pending.

Only a judicial officer and quasi-judicial officer specifically authorized by law can exercise the power of contempt in relation to subpoena. (Nazareno v. Barnes, G.R. No. L-59072, 1984)

The failure of a server to pursue substituted service after a frustrated attempt to personally serve the complainant a copy of the subpoena constitutes simple neglect of duty. (Macaspec v. Flores, A.M. No. P-05-2072, 2008)

No advance of reasonable cost of production of such books and documents was made.

Appeal Not Mooted by Accused’s Release on Parole

Appeal not mooted by accused-appellant’s release on parole. Parole refers to the conditional release of an offender from a correctional institution after he serves the minimum term of his prison sentence. Parole is not one of the modes of totally extinguishing criminal liability under Article 89 of the RPC. (People v. Abesamis, G.R. No. 140985, 2007).

When prisoner discharged if no appeal

When the court is satisfied that a prisoner is unlawfully imprisoned or restrained, an order will be made for the discharge from confinement. Such discharge will not be effective until a copy of the order is served on the officer or person detaining the prisoner. (R102, S5)

Prisoners

Defendant referred to by provision is in prison or otherwise confined in an institution.

Court Supervision of Detainees

The court shall exercise supervision over all persons in custody for the purpose of eliminating unnecessary detention. The executive judges of RTCs shall conduct monthly personal inspections of provincial, city or municipal jails and the prisoners within their respective jurisdictions.

However, an executive judge of the RTC has not been given any authority to interfere with the transfer of detainees in cases handled by other judges nor to grant hold-departure orders in cases not assigned to her sala. (Mupas v. Español, A.M. No. RTJ-04-1850, 2005)

Authorities

  • Macaspec v. Flores, G.R. No. P-05-2072
  • Mupas v. Español, G.R. No. A.M. No. RTJ-04-1850
  • Nazareno v. Barnes, G.R. No. L-59072, 25 April 1985
  • Rule 102, Sec. 5