Short answer. Not unless a court with jurisdiction orders it. Rule 102, Section 17 provides that a person set at liberty upon a writ of habeas corpus shall not be imprisoned again for the same offence except by the lawful order or process of a court having jurisdiction of the cause or offence.
What the law says
A person who is set at liberty upon a writ of habeas corpus shall not be again imprisoned for the same offense unless by the lawful order or process of a court having jurisdiction of the cause or offense
Rule 102, Section 17 — Person discharged not to be again imprisoned. Read the full provision →
What the law says
notwithstanding any colorable pretense or variation in the warrant of commitment
Rule 102, Section 17 — Person discharged not to be again imprisoned. Read the full provision →
The release is protected, not absolute
Rule 102, Section 17 states the rule in one sentence: A person who is set at liberty upon a writ of habeas corpus shall not be again imprisoned for the same offense unless by the lawful order or process of a court having jurisdiction of the cause or offense. Read both halves. The discharge cannot be undone by the same officers simply taking the person back into custody — that is the protection. But it is not immunity from the offence itself: a court that actually has jurisdiction over the cause or the offence can still issue lawful process, and detention under that process is outside the prohibition.
What re-imprisonment costs the person who orders it
The rule backs its prohibition with personal liability. A person who knowingly, contrary to its provisions, recommits or imprisons — or causes to be committed or imprisoned — for the same offence, or a pretended offence, someone set at liberty under the writ, or who knowingly aids or assists in it, forfeits one thousand pesos to the party aggrieved, recoverable in a proper action. The same conduct may also be punished by the court or judge granting the writ as for contempt. The liability attaches to whoever knowingly participates, which is aimed squarely at jailers and officials tempted to treat the discharge as advisory.
Relabelling the detention does not work
The drafters anticipated the obvious evasion — rearresting the person on paperwork dressed up to look different. The forfeiture applies notwithstanding any colorable pretense or variation in the warrant of commitment, and the prohibition extends to a pretended offense. In other words, changing the label on the warrant, or inventing a charge to stand in for the old one, does not take the re-imprisonment outside the rule. What matters is the substance: the same offence for which the court already found the detention unlawful, however the new commitment papers describe it.
If it happens anyway
A person rearrested after discharge should look first at the source of the new detention. If it rests on the lawful order or process of a court with jurisdiction — a new commitment properly issued in a criminal case, for instance — the rule permits it, and the fight moves into that case. If it rests on anything less, the remedies sit in the section itself: the forfeiture recoverable by the aggrieved party in a proper action, and contempt before the judge who granted the writ. Keep the discharge order close; it is the document every one of those remedies is built on.