|
|
|
|
|
IN THE
MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS
CORPUS
G. R. No. L-56435
July 20, 1981
-versus-
HON.
JUAN PONCE ENRILE, Minister of
National
Defense,
FERNANDO, C.J.:
In this
application for habeas corpus
filed by Priscilla G. Trinidad on behalf of her spouse, Carlos A.
Trinidad,
and three other persons, Isidro Yalong, Mario Legaspi and Johnny
Legaste,
the basic allegation is that at the time of the filing of the Petition
on March 16, 1981, they were "confined, detained and restrained of
their
liberty" by the Philippine Constabulary at Camp Crame.[1]
Minister of National Defense Juan Ponce Enrile, Chief of the Philippine
Constabulary Major General Fidel Ramos, and Colonel Ishmael L. Rodrigo,
Commanding Officer of the alleged place of detention, were named as
respondents.[2]
It was then pointed out that the "continued confinement and detention
of
the four [4] persons on whose behalf this petition is filed is clearly
illegal because they are not charged of rebellion,. insurrection, or
any
other offense involving the security of the State, or any such offense
justifying the issuance" of an arrest and seizure order which was
served
on them on March 4, 1981.[3]
On March 17, 1981, the Court issued a writ returnable on or before March 23, 1981, the petition to be heard in the morning of the next day.[4] On March 23, the return was made on behalf of respondents by Solicitor General Estelito P. Mendoza.[5] After narrating what transpired in the statement of facts, the return set forth the following: "The accused were arrested by authority of ASSO NO. 4852 issued by the President on January 12, 1981. Under Section 4 of General Order No. 69 dated January 12, 1981, persons arrested by authority of an ASSO issued by The President should be turned over to the proper civil judicial authorities. As recited above, the Philippine Constabulary agents tried to turn over to the Provincial Fiscal of Bulacan, and later to the Court of First Instance of Bulacan, the custody over the accused in Criminal Case No. 4119-B but the Provincial Fiscal and the Court of First Instance of Bulacan refused to accept custody over them. Under the circumstances obtaining in this case, it does not indubitably appear that the detention of the accused in Criminal Case No. 4119-M is illegal."[6] The case was duly heard in the morning of March 24, 1981, petitioner being represented by Attorney Paquito C. Ochoa[7] and respondents, by Solicitor General Estelito P. Mendoza.[8] It was then set forth in the Resolution of this Court of March 24, 1981: "Petitioners were granted permission to file a manifestation regarding their plea for bail. Respondents also sought to file their manifestation to the effect that a warrant of arrest will be issued before Friday, March 27. Thereafter, the Court resolved to consider the case [submitted] for decision."[9] Then followed an Urgent Manifestation by counsel for petitioner, setting forth the the release of Juan Legaspi, alias Johnny and Legaste from the detention center. What was prayed, therefore, is an order from this Court "allowing petitioners, Carlos Trinidad and Isidro Yalong, to post bail in an amount set therein for their provisional liberty in Criminal Case No. 4119-M in the Court of First Instance of Bulacan, Fifth Judicial District, Branch VI, at Malolos, Bulacan, be earliest promulgated, for petitioners' relief from their languishing in jail after posting the requisite bail."[10] On April 2, 1981, this Court issued the following Resolution: "Acting on the urgent manifestation filed by counsel for petitioners wherein petitioners admitted 'that respondents had already caused the release of petitioners Juan Legaspi, alias Johnny Legaste and Mario Legaspi from the PC-CRSU detention center, Camp Crame on March 27, 1981 and praying that the decision in the above-entitled special proceeding be rendered or, if not, an order issue allowing accused Carlos Trinidad and Isidro Yalong to post bail in the amount set therein for their provisional liberty in Criminal Case No. 4119-M in the Court of First Instance of Bulacan, 5th Judicial District, Branch VI at Malolos, be earliest promulgated for petitioners' relief from their languishing in jail after posting the requisite bail, the Court Resolved to FIX bail bond in the amount of P15,000.00 for each of the two above-named accused for their provisional liberty."[11] On April 3, 1981, came this manifestation from the Solicitor General: "[Come Now] the respondents, through the Solicitor General, and to this Honorable Court, respectfully manifest that the Court of First Instance of Bulacan had already issued in Criminal Case No. 4119-M warrants of arrest against Carlos Trinidad and Isidro Yalong, and by virtue thereof, they have been turned over to the custody of the Provincial Warden, Bulacan Provincial Jail, at Malolos, Bulacan, on March 27, 1981. Petitioners Mario Legaspi and Juan [Johnny] Legaspi have also been released on March 28, 1981, as shown by a certification dated March 28, 1981, signed by said petitioners and Zenaida Yalong Legaspi, wife of Mario Legaspi."[12] Hence this resolution. It is clear that the petition has become moot and academic. It is not likely to occur in the future, as the practice of issuing arrest and seizure orders has ceased with the lifting of martial law. Nonetheless, it may serve as a timely reminder to members of the judiciary that with such lifting on January 17, 1981, there appears to be no justification for a court refusing custody of persons detained under an arrest and seizure order. Such an occurrence ought not to be repeated. The lower court judge was not entirely at fault as the deferment of such custody by civilian authorities was sought by the prosecutor himself. Now more than ever, the rights of a person detained under the Constitution and the Rules of Court are to be respected in every particular case. That is a solemn duty cast on the judiciary. This reminder during the period of martial law in Cayaga v. Tangonan[13] to the military has even more pertinence to civilian authorities: "Martial law has precisely been provided in both the 1935 Charter and the present Constitution to assure that the State is not powerless to cope with invasion, insurrection or rebellion or any imminent danger of its occurrence. When resort to it is, therefore, justified, it is precisely in accordance with and not in defiance of the fundamental law. There is all the more reason then for the rule of law to be followed. It is true, of course, as admitted by Willoughby, who would limit the scope of martial law power, that the military personnel are called upon to assist in the maintenance of peace and order and the enforcement of legal norms. They can, therefore, act like ordinary peace officers. In effecting arrests, however, they are not free to ignore, but are precisely bound by, the applicable Rules of Court and doctrinal pronouncements."[14] WHEREFORE, the
case is dismissed for being moot
and academic. Barredo,
Makasiar, Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Fernandez,
Guerrero, Abad Santos, De Castro, and Melencio-Herrera, JJ.,
concur.
Teehankee, J., took no part. _______________________________
[1]
Petition, par. 4.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|