Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1975 > February 1975 Decisions > G.R. No. L-39823 February 25, 1975 - HERMOGENES CRUZ v. ALFREDO MONTOYA, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-39823. February 25, 1975.]

HERMOGENES CRUZ, Petitioner, v. GENERAL ALFREDO MONTOYA and COLONEL RENE CRUZ, Respondents.

Orlando S. Ruiz for Petitioner.

Solicitor General Estelito P. Mendoza, Assistant Solicitor, General Hugo E. Gutierrez, Jr., Vicente V. Mendoza and Reynato S. Puno for Respondents.

SYNOPSIS


In this petition for habeas corpus, petitioner alleged that his detention in the Constabulary stockade was a clear case of denial or deprivation of personal liberty. The Solicitor General who represented the respondents, contended that the detention was legal on the basis of sworn complaint of farmers who were allegedly defrauded by petitioner.

On the date of hearing, the Solicitor General manifested that petitioner would be released provisionally to enable him to spend the Christmas season in his residence. He added that within the first the first week of the New Year, respondents would either file the corresponding charges or definitely release him. On the first week of the New Year, the petitioner, with three others, was charged with estafa and a warrant of arrest was issued. Based on the filing of the estafa charge and the issuance of a warrant of arrest, the Solicitor General moved for the dismissal of the petition. The petitioner failed to submit a comment on such motion of the Solicitor General, though required to do so.

Petition was dismissed.


SYLLABUS


1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; HABEAS CORPUS; DISMISSAL; FILING OF FORMAL CHARGE IN COURT RENDERS PETITION ACADEMIC. — The filing of a formal charge in court and the issuance of the warrant of arrest therefor cured whenever illegality that might have infected the detention, and rendered the petition for habeas corpus moot.

2. ID.; ID.; RESTRAINT OF LIBERTY. — The basic aim and intent of the writ of habeas corpus is to inquire into all manner of involuntary restraint as distinguished from voluntary, and to relieve a person therefrom if such restraint is illegal. Any restraint which will preclude freedom of action is sufficient.


D E C I S I O N


FERNANDO, J.:


Relying on the present Constitution which, in the language of this petition for habeas corpus, "safeguards and enshrines individual freedoms", 1 Hermogenes Cruz would seek release from his detention in the Constabulary stockade in Camp Vicente Lim, Laguna, under the command of respondent General Alfredo Montoya, with respondent Colonel Rene Cruz as his Chief of Staff. It is his principal allegation that his confinement is "without any legal basis and [thus] constitutes a clear case of denial or deprivation of personal liberty." 2 The petition was filed on December 12, 1974, and on December 13, this Court issued the writ of habeas corpus returnable to it requiring respondents to file an answer not later than December 16, 1974. On that date, there was a return and answer to petition submitted by respondents through their counsel Solicitor General Estelito P. Mendoza. 3 It is their main contention that contrary to the allegation of petitioner, his detention "is valid and legal" as set forth in the special and affirmative defenses. 4 It is their submission that as to petitioner the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus has been suspended. His detention, moreover, finding justification "on the basis of sworn complaints that he is engaged in illegal activities which not only delude, defraud, and victimize innocent and poor farmers into believing they would easily acquire title to valuable lands but are of such a nature and attract so many people as to compound critical land problems and cause serious social unrest inimical to the objectives of martial law; . . ." 5

The case was first heard on December 16, 1974, with petitioner being produced by respondents in compliance with the aforesaid writ. His counsel moved in open court that he be granted up to Thursday, December 19, 1974 within which to file a reply to the answer of the respondents. The motion was granted, and the case was set for hearing anew on Friday, December 20, 1974. There was, in his reply filed on December 19, 1974, a reiteration of his innocence of any crime, contrary to the imputation of respondents, specifically pointing out that all he did "as a membership recruiter of the [Twin R Farmers Association, Inc.] a lawful organization duly registered in August 1974 with the Securities and Exchange Commission, among whose principal objectives is the promotion of the governments’ Green Revolution Program, . . . had been to assure prospective members that the Association would help them secure titles to lands whenever, under the circumstances, they are entitled, under the laws, to their issuance. He [likewise] explained that, in the meantime, they should plant the lands which they had been tilling for years, to staple crops, root crops, or vegetables, to contribute to the success of the Green Revolution Program, assuring them at the same time that, for free, the Association would supply them their farming needs under government assistance and help them market their products if they should find difficulties in looking for profitable outlets." 6

The Office of the Solicitor General is to be commended for its attitude that reflected fidelity to the basic purpose and objective that inform this great writ of liberty. Thus, after the hearing on December 20, 1974, a resolution of this character was issued by this Court: "When this case was called for hearing this morning, Atty. Orlando S. Ruiz appeared for the petitioner, while Solicitor General Estelito P. Mendoza, assisted by Assistant Solicitors General Hugo E. Gutierrez and Vicente V. Mendoza, appeared for the respondents. The Solicitor General manifested that he had conferred with counsel for petitioner and had proposed that during the holiday season, petitioner would be given a pass so that he could spend Christmas Day until the 27th of December and New Year’s Day until January 2, 1975 in his residence and that thereafter within the first week of January 1975, respondents would either file charges or definitely release petitioner. . . ." 7 True to his word, Solicitor General Mendoza, on January 10, 1975, filed a manifestation and motion, the crucial paragraph of which states: "2. On January 6, 1975 petitioner Hermogenes Cruz, together with three others, was formally charged with estafa before the municipal court of Antipolo, Rizal, and on the following day a warrant was issued for the arrest of petitioner and his co-accused. . . . Other charges of a similar nature are pending investigation." 8 Its prayer was "that pursuant to Rule 102, Section 14 of the Rules of Court, the petition in this case be dismissed without cost." 9 Thereafter, on January 20, 1975, this Court, in a resolution, required petitioner Hermogenes Cruz to comment within ten days from notice on the above manifestation and motion of the Solicitor General to the effect that he had been charged with estafa and a warrant for his arrest had already been issued with a prayer that his petition be dismissed. Notwithstanding the lapse of the period alloted him, there has been no word from petitioner. It would appear therefore that the writ had served its purpose and whatever illegality might have originally infected his detention had been cured. In that sense, his petition has become academic. What is undeniable is that the ordinary civil process of the law is now being followed. The grievance complained of therefore no longer exists. What is more, there is adherence to the basic aim and intent that inform this great writ of liberty which, in the apt language of Justice Malcolm in the landmark case of Villavicencio v. Lukban, 10 "is to inquire into all manner of involuntary restraint as distinguished from voluntary, and to relieve a person therefrom if such restraint is illegal. Any restraint which will preclude freedom of action is sufficient." 11 This it could accomplish, for as so emphatically stressed by Justice Holmes, it "cuts through all forms and goes to the very tissue of the structure." 12

WHEREFORE, the petition having served its purpose may be dismissed. No costs.

Barredo, Antonio, Fernandez and Aquino, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Petition, par. 8.

2. Ibid.

3. He is assisted by Assistant Solicitors General Hugo E. Gutierrez, Jr., Vicente V. Mendoza and Reynato S. Puno.

4. Return to the Writ and Answer to Petition, par. 4.

5. Ibid, par. 5.

6. Petitioner’s Reply to Respondents’ Answer, Reply to Respondents’ Special and Affirmative Defenses, par. 2.

7. Resolution dated December 20, 1974.

8. Manifestation and Motion of Respondents.

9. Manifestation and Motion.

10. 39 Phil. 778 (1919).

11. Ibid, 790.

12. Frank v. Mangum, 237 US 309, 346 (1915).




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






February-1975 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-32042 February 13, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERTO R. BENITO

  • A.C. No. P-189 February 14, 1975 - IGNACIO HERMOSA v. JESUS PARAISO

  • G.R. No. L-24792 February 14, 1975 - PO SIOK PIN, ET AL. v. MARTINIANO VIVO

  • G.R. No. L-38659 February 20, 1975 - BEATRIZ MERCADO GUINEA, ET AL. v. MATILDE S. VDA. DE RAMONAL, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-159 February 21, 1975 - WENCESLA VALERA v. BENJAMIN BELARMINO

  • A.C. No. 507 February 24, 1975 - JOSE MONTAÑA, ET AL. v. EDMUNDO M. RUADO

  • G.R. No. L-30290 February 24, 1975 - VICENTE SALANDANAN v. TITO V. TIZON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39276 February 24, 1975 - JOSE ESPELETA v. CELSO AVELINO, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 68-MJ February 25, 1975 - ZACARIAS JUNIO v. SALVADOR T. MANANZAN

  • A.M. No. P-113 February 25, 1975 - JOSE RAÑOSA v. JOSE R. GARCIA

  • A.M. No. 723-MJ February 25, 1975 - NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE and SECURITY AUTHORITY v. LUIS MARTINEZ

  • G.R. No. L-22740 February 25, 1975 - PIO MARCOS v. ALFREDO BLANCO

  • G.R. No. L-24298 February 25, 1975 - ARMANDO MORALES v. PLACIDO RAMOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25783 February 25, 1975 - MACONDRAY AND COMPANY INC. v. ACTING COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-25818 February 25, 1975 - MUNICIPAL BOARD OF CABANATUAN CITY v. SAMAHANG MAGSASAKA, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-26321 February 25, 1975 - CITY OF CEBU, ET AL. v. JOSE M. MENDOZA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27523 February 25, 1975 - DIONISIO L. FALGUI, JR., ET AL. v. PROVINCIAL FISCAL OF BATANGAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28018 February 25, 1975 - MODESTA DAS SOLLORANO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-30825 February 25, 1975 - TEODORO V. JULIANO v. ABELARDO SUBIDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-32480 February 25, 1975 - GONZALO PUYAT & SONS, INC. v. PEDRO LABAYO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-33680 February 25, 1975 - PHIL. APPLIANCE CORP. EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION-NATU, ET AL. v. PHIL. APPLIANCE CORP., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-35767 February 25, 1975 - RAYMUNDO A. CRYSTAL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-35992 February 25, 1975 - LEONOR S. LITTON, ET AL. v. B. JOSE CASTILLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-36949 February 25, 1975 - BIBIANO M. VIÑA, ET AL. v. PASTOR BRAVO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-37883 February 25, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LOMINOG MACATANAW

  • G.R. No. L-37952 February 25, 1975 - FIRESTONE PILIPINAS EMPLOYEES ASSOC., ET AL. v. FIRESTONE TIRE AND RUBBER CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38435 February 25, 1975 - VICTORIO V. MULATO v. ARTEMIO R. SALDIVAR

  • G.R. No. L-38798 February 25, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CONRADO V. DE LEON

  • G.R. No. L-38988 February 25, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAFAEL DALUSAG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39823 February 25, 1975 - HERMOGENES CRUZ v. ALFREDO MONTOYA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-40181 February 25, 1975 - TRINIDAD HERRERA v. JUAN PONCE ENRILE