MA. ESTRELITA D.
Petitioner,
Present:
Panganiban, CJ., Chairperson,
-
versus - Ynares-Santiago,
Austria-Martinez,
Callejo, Sr., and
Chico-Nazario, JJ.
Director General LEANDRO
MENDOZA, Chief
Superintendent
NESTORIO GUALBERTO, SR.,
Superintendent LEONARDO
ESPINA, SR.,
Superintendent
JESUS VERSOZA,
and JOHN DOES, Promulgated:
Respondents. August 17, 2006
x -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --- -- -- -- -- x
PANGANIBAN, CJ.:
When respondents deny custody of an allegedly detained
person, petitioners have the duty of establishing the fact of detention by
competent and convincing evidence; otherwise, the writ of habeas corpus cannot
be issued. Nonetheless, when the
disappearance of a person is indubitable, the law enforcement authorities are
duty-bound to investigate it with due diligence and to locate the missing
person. When the wrongdoing is
attributable to the police agencies and/or their agents, the aggrieved may
secure the assistance of the People’s Law Enforcement Board or the Commission
on Human Rights.
The Case
Before us is a Petition
for Review[1] under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to reverse the
“WHEREFORE, the
decision of the court a quo is REVERSED and the petition for habeas corpus is
DISMISSED.”[4]
The assailed Resolution denied reconsideration.
The Facts
The antecedent facts are narrated by
the CA in this wise:
“Petitioners are the mother and wife,
respectively, of Michael Martinez, a resident of 4570 Cattleya
Road, Sun Valley Subdivision, Parañaque City, who was
allegedly abducted and taken away by seven (7) persons around 7:30 in the
morning of November 19, 2001 while he was walking along Magnolia Street, on his
way to his mother's house at 3891 Marigold Street of the same subdivision. The abduction was reported by petitioners to
the Barangay, the Parañaque
Police and the Anti-Kidnapping Task Force at
“It appears that in the evening of November 19, 2001, the
Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG) of the Philippine National
Police (PNP) presented before the media a certain Phillip Medel,
Jr., who allegedly executed a statement confessing to his participation in the
killing of Dorothy Jones, a.k.a. Nida Blanca,
naming Michael Martinez as the person who introduced him to Rod Lauren Strunk, the husband of Nida
Blanca and alleged mastermind in her killing.
In a televised interview with a media reporter on November 26, 2001, Medel narrated that he saw Michael Martinez at the CIDG at
Camp Crame where he was being detained, and which the
former allegedly reiterated when he talked to Robert Paul Martinez, a brother
of Michael, on November 27, 2001 and he even described the clothes Michael was
then wearing, which were the same clothes worn by him when he was
abducted. Petitioners then made
representations with CIDG for the release of Michael Martinez or that they be allowed to see him, but the same were not granted.
“In view thereof, petitioners filed a petition for habeas
corpus with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 78, Quezon
City against respondents PNP Director General Leandro
Mendoza; Chief Superintendent Nestorio Gualberto, Sr., Chief of
the CIDG; Senior Superintendent Leonardo Espina, Sr.
and Senior Superintendent Jesus Versoza of the CIDG
and members of Task Force Marsha, which is investigating the Nida Blanca murder case, for them to produce before said
court the person of Michael Martinez or to justify the continued detention of
his liberty.
“In an Order dated
“At the hearing on
“At the hearing conducted by the court a quo,
respondents reiterated their claim that Michael Martinez is not and was never
in their custody. On the other hand,
petitioners presented Phillip Medel, Jr. who insisted
that he saw Michael Martinez inside a room at the CIDG where he was brought
before
“Finding that respondents denial pale beside Medel's positive assertion that Michael Martinez is in
their custody, the court a quo, in a Decision dated December 10, 2001
directed respondents to produce the body of Michael Martinez before it on
December 11, 2001 at 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon. A copy of said decision was received by
respondents on
“On
Ruling
of the Court of Appeals
The CA agreed with the Office of the
Solicitor General (OSG) that Medel’s credibility was
highly suspect. The appellate court
opined that he had contradicted himself as to material facts. Further negating his testimony was
Superintendent Espina’s positive testimony that he
was at home between
The CA relied on the presumption of
regularity in the performance of official duties. It held that, “[a]s aptly pointed out by
respondents, ‘the CIDG itself is equally
concerned with the safety of Michael Martinez relative to the final resolution
of the Nida Blanca slay. For he is definitely a
vital witness to his case. The
PNP-CIDG has no motive whatsoever to abduct him as it never did.’”[6]
Hence, this Petition.[7]
Issue
Petitioner has failed to make a
categorical statement of the issues for the Court’s consideration. She has also failed to state what relief she
prays for.
Nonetheless, the Court will resolve
the case on the issue of whether the CA erred in reversing the trial court and
dismissing the Petition for habeas corpus.
The Court’s Ruling
The present Petition for Review has no
merit.
Sole
Issue:
Reversible Error of the Court of Appeals
Petitioner contends that it is the evaluation of the RTC --
not the CA -- that should be upheld, because the trial court had the
opportunity to observe the witnesses and to determine whether they were telling
the truth when they testified.
On the other hand, respondents aver
that their candor and the veracity of their denial of the custody or detention
of Michael cannot be doubted by the Court.
Their argument is even strengthened in the face of the incredible and
contradictory testimony of petitioner’s witness, Phillip Medel
Jr.
Propriety
of
Habeas
Corpus
At the outset, it must be stressed
that petitioner’s anchor for the present case is the disappearance of
Michael. The matter of his alleged detention
is, at best, merely consequential to his disappearance.
Ostensibly, his disappearance has been
established. However, the grant of
relief in a habeas corpus proceeding is not predicated on the disappearance of
a person, but on his illegal detention. Habeas corpus generally applies to “all
cases of illegal confinement or detention by which any person is deprived of
his liberty or by which the rightful custody of any person is withheld from the
person entitled thereto.”[8]
Said this Court in another case:
“The ultimate purpose of the writ of habeas corpus is
to relieve a person from unlawful restraint.
It is devised as a speedy relief from unlawful restraint. It is a remedy intended to determine whether
the person under detention is held under lawful authority.”[9]
If the respondents are neither
detaining nor restraining the applicant or the person on whose behalf the
petition for habeas corpus has been filed, then it should be dismissed. This Court has ruled that this remedy has one objective -- to inquire into the cause of detention of a
person:
“The purpose of the writ
is to determine whether a person is being illegally deprived of his liberty. If the inquiry reveals that the detention is illegal, the
court orders the release of the person. If, however, the detention is
proven lawful, then the habeas corpus
proceedings terminate. The use of habeas corpus
is thus very limited.”[10]
Habeas corpus may not be used as a
means of obtaining evidence on the whereabouts of a person,[11]
or as a means of finding out who has specifically abducted or caused the
disappearance of a certain person.
When respondents
making the return of the writ state that they have never had custody over the
person who is the subject of the writ, the petition must be dismissed, in the
absence of definite evidence to the contrary. “The return of the writ
must be taken on its face value considering that, unless it is in some way
[convincingly] traversed or denied, the facts stated therein must be taken
as true”[12] for purposes of the habeas corpus proceedings.
Forcible
Taking and Disappearance
When forcible taking and disappearance -- not
arrest and detention -- have been alleged, the proper remedy is not habeas
corpus proceedings, but criminal investigation and proceedings.
Abduction or kidnapping is a crime
punishable by law. Investigations with
regard to crimes are first and foremost the duty of the Philippine National
Police (PNP) and the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), not the courts. There are instances when members of the PNP
-- the agency tasked with investigating crimes -- are suspected of being
responsible for the disappearance of a person, who is the subject of habeas
corpus proceedings. This fact will not
convert the courts into -- or authorize them through habeas corpus proceedings
to be -- forefront investigators, prosecutors, judges and executioners all at
the same time. Much as this Court would
want to resolve these disappearances speedily -- as in the present case, when
it is interested in determining who are responsible for the disappearance and
detention of Michael (if, indeed, he is being detained) -- it would not want to
step beyond its reach and encroach on
the duties of other duly established agencies.
Instead of rendering justice to all,[13]
it may render injustice if it resorts to shortcuts through habeas corpus
proceedings. In fine, this proceeding
for habeas corpus cannot be used as a substitute for a thorough criminal
investigation.
The Department of Interior and Local
Government (DILG), specifically the People’s Law Enforcement Board (PLEB),[14] is tasked to investigate abuses or
wrongdoings by members of the PNP. Thus,
if they or the NBI abuse or fail to perform their duties, as indicated in this
case, people may refer their complaints to the PLEB, which should be part of
their arsenal in the battle to resolve cases in which members of the PNP are
suspected of having caused the disappearance of anyone. Removing criminals from the ranks of those
tasked to promote peace and order and to ensure public safety would be a big
axe blow to the mighty oak of lawlessness.
Let each citizen contribute a blow, puny though
it may be when done alone; but collectively we can, slowly but surely, rid our
society of disorder and senseless disappearances.
Going back to the present case,
petitioner must establish by competent and convincing evidence that the missing
person, on whose behalf the Petition was filed, is under the custody of
respondents. Unfortunately, her evidence
is insufficient to convince the Court that they have Michael in their custody. Moreover, “a writ of habeas corpus should not
issue where it is not necessary to afford the petitioner relief or where it
would be ineffective.”[15]
Considering that respondents have
persistently denied having Michael in their custody, and absent any decisive
proof to rebut their denial, the Court is constrained to affirm the CA’s
dismissal of the Petition for habeas corpus.
In view of the established fact of
Michael’s suspiciously felonious disappearance, we exhort the NBI and the
National Anti-Kidnapping Task Force (NAKTAF) to continue their investigation
into the matter, so that all persons responsible can be prosecuted for whatever
crime they have committed.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED, and the assailed Decision and
Resolution of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED. No costs in this instance.
Let a copy of this Decision be
furnished the Commission on Human Rights and the Department of Interior and
Local Government for appropriate action.
SO ORDERED.
ARTEMIO
V. PANGANIBAN
Chairperson, First
Division
W E C O N C U R:
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ
Associate Justice Associate Justice
ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR.
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
Pursuant to
Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in
the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to
the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN
Chief Justice
[1] Rollo, pp. 4-31.
[2] Annex “A” of the Petition; id. at
34-35. Penned by Justice Marina L. Buzon and concurred in by Justices Cancio
C. Garcia (Division chair) and Eliezer E. de los
[3] Annex
“C” of the Petition; id. at 55-59.
[4] Assailed CA Decision, p. 11; rollo,
p. 44.
[5] Assailed CA Decision, pp. 1-3; rollo,
pp. 34-36.
[6]
[7] To resolve old cases, the Court created the Committee on
Zero Backlog of Cases on
[8] Rules of Court,
Rule 102, Sec. 1.
[9] Ngaya-an v. Balweg, 200 SCRA 149,
154-155,
[10] Alejano v. Cabuay, 468 SCRA 188, 200,
[11] Subayno v.
[12]
[13] All parties -- not only petitioner, but even respondents --
are entitled to justice, which includes the constitutionally enshrined right to
due process.
[14] Republic Act No. 6975 (1990), Secs. 41 and 43.
[15] Subayno v.