|
ManilaEN
BANC
IN THE
MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS
CORPUS
OF CARLOS TRINIDAD y ALCARAZ, ISIDRO
YALONG,
MARIO LEGASPI and JOHNNY LEGASTE,
Petitioner,
G. R. No. L-56435
July 20, 1981
-versus-
HON.
JUAN PONCE ENRILE, Minister of
National
Defense,
MAJOR GENERAL FIDEL RAMOS, Chief of the
Philippine
Constabulary and COL. ISHMAEL L. RODRIGO,
Commanding Officer, PC, NCRSU, Camp
Crame,
Quezon City,
Respondents.
R
E S O L U T I O N
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.cralaw:red
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.
_______________________________
Endnotes
[1]
Petition, par. 4.
[2]
Ibid, par. 3.
[3]
Ibid, par. 11.
[4]
Resolution of the Court of March 17, 1981.
[5]
He was assisted by Assistant Solicitor General Romeo C. de la Cruz and
Solicitor Cecilio O. Esteoesta.
[6]
Returns, 4-5.
[7]
He was assisted by Attorneys Alfredo Alto and Jose Valmonte.
[8]
He was assisted by Assistant Solicitor General Romeo de la Cruz and
Solicitor
Cecilio Estoesta.
[9]
Resolution of this Court dated March 24, 1981.
[10]
Urgent Manifestation, 2.
[11]
Resolution of this Court dated April 2, 1981.
[2]
Solicitor General Estelito P. Mendoza was assisted by Assistant
Solicitor
General Romeo C. dela Cruz and Solicitor Cecilio O. Estoesta
[13]
L-40970, August 21, 1975, 66 SCRA 216.
[14]
Ibid., 219-220. |
