SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Search for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. L-46367 August 1, 1977

LEONISA DE LA PLATA, Petitioner, vs. MAJOR RUBEN ESCARCHA, PATROLMEN NAPOLEON RALLANKA, CELINO BRIONES, SALVADOR GUITAN and BENJAMIN MANTO, All Members of the Manila Police Department Assigned to Precinct No. 5, respondents.

AQUINO, J.: chanrobles virtual law library

On June 22, 1977 Leonisa de la Plata filed a petition for habeas corpus wherein she alleged that on June 21, 1977 respondent police officers apprehended her son, Rodolfo (19 or 23 years old), and detained him without lawful cause at Precinct No. 5 located at United Nations Avenue, Ermita, Manila.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

On June 27, 1977 this Court issued the writ of habeas corpus and required the respondents to make a return on or before July 1,1977.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

The respondents in their return alleged that Rodolfo de la Plata was arrested for vagrancy on June 21 by the members of the special operations group of the Western Police District, Metropolitan Police Force. On the following day, June 22, he was charged with vagrancy in the city court of Manila (Criminal Case No. 061332).chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Upon arraignment on June 29, Rodolfo, with the assistance of counsel, pleaded guilty. He was sentenced by City Judge Archimedes C. de Guzman to suffer imprisonment for ten days of arresto menor. An order for his commitment to the city jail was issued.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

In the meantime, or on June 23, Rodolfo, while in police custody, was investigated by the theft and robbery section for the crime of robbery in band or holdup of a bus of the Liner in August, 1976. He signed a statement in the presence of his mother Leonisa and brother Celestino who signed as witnesses. The statement was sworn to before an assistant city fiscal. In that statement he admitted his complicity in the holdup.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Before taking Rodolfo's statement Corporal Rodolfo Dimagiba apprised him of his rights to be silent and to obtain the services of counsel and he was warned that any declaration made by him might be used against him.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

On June 29 Rodolfo was committed to the custody of the Philippine Constabulary Metropolitan Command (Judge Advocate Staff Office) at Camp Crame pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 9, in relation to General Order Nos. 2-A and 6, by reason of his participation in robbery in band with the use of a firearm.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

At the hearing of the instant petition on July I Lieutenant Colonel Julian Alzaga of the Judge Advocate Staff Office manifested that there is a justification for Rodolfo's detention at Camp Crame.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Inasmuch as Rodolfo de la Plata is lawfully detained by the military authorities, the petition for habeas corpus is not in order (Romero vs. Ponce Enrile, L-44613, February 28, 1977).chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

WHEREFORE, the petition is dismissed. No costs.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

SO ORDERED.

FERNANDO, J., concurring:chanrobles virtual law library

As on the day of the hearing, he had not fully served his sentence for vagrancy.

BARREDO, J., concurring:chanrobles virtual law library

I concur in the dismissal of the petition in this case.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

At the time said petition was filed on June 22, 1977 and when this case was heard on July 1, 1977, Rodolfo de la Plata on whose behalf the petition was filed was under custody by virtue of a final judgment of the City Court of Manila in Criminal Case No. 061332 for vagrancy, in which he pleaded guilty. The validity of this judgment is not being questioned. Under such circumstances, We could not order his release. (Sec. 4, Rule 102.) chanrobles virtual law library

While thus under lawful custody, on the basis of intelligence information in the hands of the Philippine Constabulary Metropolitan Command, he was taken to Camp Crame for investigation in connection with his possible participation in a robbery in band with use of a firearm or hold up of a bus of the Y Liner which took place in August 1976. Such being the case, his continued detention by the military authorities is justified under the authority of Presidential Decree No. 9 in relation to General Orders Nos. 2-A and 6, the validity of which he has not impugned in any subsequent pleading. He is not therefore in any sense being illegally detained.

FERNANDO, J., concurring:

As on the day of the hearing, he had not fully served his sentence for vagrancy.

BARREDO, J., concurring:

I concur in the dismissal of the petition in this case.chanrobles virtual law library

At the time said petition was filed on June 22, 1977 and when this case was heard on July 1, 1977, Rodolfo de la Plata on whose behalf the petition was filed was under custody by virtue of a final judgment of the City Court of Manila in Criminal Case No. 061332 for vagrancy, in which he pleaded guilty. The validity of this judgment is not being questioned. Under such circumstances, We could not order his release. (Sec. 4, Rule 102.)

While thus under lawful custody, on the basis of intelligence information in the hands of the Philippine Constabulary Metropolitan Command, he was taken to Camp Crame for investigation in connection with his possible participation in a robbery in band with use of a firearm or hold up of a bus of the Y Liner which took place in August 1976. Such being the case, his continued detention by the military authorities is justified under the authority of Presidential Decree No. 9 in relation to General Orders Nos. 2-A and 6, the validity of which he has not impugned in any subsequent pleading. He is not therefore in any sense being illegally detained.