[ G.R. No. 62119. August 27, 1984 ] 216 Phil. 376
EN BANC
[ G.R. No. 62119. August 27, 1984 ]
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS FOR ARISTEDES SARMIENTO AND LAURA DEL CASTILLO SARMIENTO IGNACIO DEL CASTILLO, PETITIONER, VS. HON. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, LT. GEN. FIDEL V. RAMOS AND MAJ. GEORGE L. ALIÑO, RESPONDENTS. R E S O L U T I O N
ABAD SANTOS, J.:
At about 9:00 p.m. on October 9, 1982, Aristedes Sarmiento and his wife, Laura del Castillo Sarmiento, were apprehended by armed men in civilian attire as the couple left the Rosarian Hotel in Gumaca, Quezon. They were brought to Camp Arsenio Natividad, also in Gumaca, where they were interrogated without benefit of counsel. Laura was then eight months pregnant. She was not maltreated; at least she made no claim to that effect. But Aristedes complained that he was struck at his side with the barrel of an Armalite rifle.
The spouses were not released from detention despite the fact that they were said to have been merely invited for questioning. For this reason, Ignacio del Castillo, father of Laura, filed the instant petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus on October 20, 1982, with the assistance of the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG). We issued the writ on October 21, 1982; required the respondents to make a return on October 27, 1982; and set the case for hearing on October 28, 1982.
The return of the writ states in part:
“2. The evidence in the hands of the military shows that at the time of his arrest, Aristedes Sarmiento headed an operating unit of the New People’s Army (NPA) called the Pangkat JACINTO-BONIFACIO. This unit conducts agitation propaganda among the farmers and directly recruits members for the NPA. Laura Sarmiento was the unit’s finance officer.
“3. On October 14, 1982, Aristedes and Laura Sarmiento were charged with violation of the Revised Anti-Subversion Law (P.D. 885) as ranking leaders of the NPA in a complaint filed before the Municipal Court of Gumaca, Quezon in Criminal Case No. 8053. A copy of that Complaint is hereby attached as Annex 1.
“4. Upon preliminary examination duly had, the court found probable cause against the subject accused. Accordingly, they were ordered detained pending further proceedings in their case. A copy of the court’s directive committing the persons of the accused to the custody of the 232nd PC Company is attached hereto as Annex 2.
“5. Since Aristedes and Laura Sarmiento are being held by virtue of a valid order of the Municipal Court of Gumaca, Quezon, the writ of habeas corpus will not lie in their case. (Luna vs. Plaza, 26 SCRA 310; Celeste vs. People, 31 SCRA 391; Canary vs. Director of Prisons, 36 SCRA 29).”
On November 3, 1982, the respondents filed a supplement to the return of the writ. It states, inter alia, that “a Presidential Commitment Order against Aristedes and Laura Sarmiento was issued by the President of the Philippines on October 27, 1982, for the crime of subversion.” A copy of the PCO was attached as Annex 1 to the supplement. (Rollo, p. 45.)
Laura Sarmiento was temporarily released on March 14, 1983, for humanitarian reasons. She gave birth during detention and she was released to enable her to provide proper care for the infant child.
On March 31, 1983, the Sarmiento spouses were accused of subversion in two separate informations filed with the Regional Trial Court of Gumaca, Quezon. After the prosecution had presented its evidence and rested its case, the defense moved to dismiss the charges for insufficiency of evidence. And on March 15, 1984, the trial court issued an order dismissing the cases against the Sarmiento spouses. In doing so, the trial court said in part:
“After a careful and thorough examination and evaluation of the entire records in these two cases, this Court has arrived at the conclusion, that there is no prima facie case, or much less, probable cause, to let the Sarmiento couple stand trial on the charges against them.
“The sworn statement of prosecution witness, Luisito Marcuap, (Exh. A) executed by him together with P/Cpl Rolando Gonzales and C2C Jaime Mendoza, states, that he came to know about the Sarmiento couple only on October 9, 1982, which he confirmed in open court, upon clarificatory question by this Court, when he admitted that before said date he never had opportunity to see what said couple was doing, and that his knowledge about them was merely based upon information.
“Indeed, there is nothing that the Armed Forces of the Philippines or any of the law enforcement agencies of the Government, could offer to prove any connection of the Sarmiento couple with any subversive organization, even with the New People’s Army, if ever it is to be considered such, and much more as leaders thereof. It seems that the investigative agencies of the Armed Forces, notably the Philippine Constabulary with its highly efficient intelligence network, did not have any documented dossier against the Sarmiento couple, such as their being in the order of battle of the NPA as ranking leaders or even as members or mere sympathizers. All information obtained by them, come from surrenderees. But then, even the information gathered by them from such surrenderees, who were not presented on the witness stand, especially Honorio Estrada, would seem to indicate, that the NPA itself was not certain whether or not the Sarmiento couple were with it, so much so, that said surrenderee was sent to verify such fact.” (Rollo, pp. 108-109.)
Despite the dismissal of the charges, Aristedes Sarmiento was not released from confinement.
In a letter dated March 29, 1984, addressed to Defense Minister Juan Ponce Enrile, Atty. Jose W. Diokno of FLAG asked for the immediate release of Aristedes. He was not released. Accordingly, an Urgent Motion was filed with this Court on May 16, 1984, wherein it is prayed that the immediate release of Aristedes Sarmiento be ordered.
The respondents were required to comment on the Urgent Motion and after considerable delay they did so on July 14, 1984. They said that the Minister of Defense ordered the release of Aristedes on July 6, 1984, and he was actually released on July 11, 1984, at 2:30 p.m. They pray that the petition for habeas corpus being moot and academic be dismissed.
The majority of the Court, which does not include the undersigned ponente, is of the opinion that the petition for habeas corpus has become moot and academic because the Sarmiento spouses are no longer in detention.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby dismissed on the ground that it has been rendered moot and academic and it is so ordered.
The undersigned ponente is constrained to disagree with the majority of the Court and the statements following are entirely his own:
- I believe that the Court should have resolved the petition on the merits and it is for this reason that on the face of the Urgent Motion praying for the release of Aristedes Sarmiento after the trial court had dismissed the two cases against the spouses that I voted for immediate affirmative relief.
The unstated premise of the majority opinion is that a person who is detained under a PCO cannot be released except by executive action even if the charges against him have been dismissed or he has been acquitted by a court of competent jurisdiction. I hold the contrary view; it is consistent with what I have previously adopted, namely: “if and when a formal complaint is presented, the court steps in and the executive steps out.” (Morales, Jr. vs. Enrile, G.R. No. 61016, April 26, 1983, 121 SCRA 538, 594-596.) In the case at bar since the Sarmiento spouses had been brought before a court of competent jurisdiction, the fact that they were covered by a PCO is of no consequence; the court which acquired jurisdiction over them could order their release without recourse to executive action.
- The military authorities acted in a cavalier fashion in assessing the evidence against the Sarmientos which proved to be so worthless that they did not even have to rebut it. The whole process, from their arrest to their continued detention under a PCO, was a serious affront to their liberties.
SO ORDERED.
Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Escolin, Relova, Gutierrez, Jr., De La Fuente, and Cuevas, JJ., concur.
Fernando, C.J., and Makasiar, J., on official leave.
Teehankee, Acting C.J., dissents from the dismissal of the case as moot and academic and files a separate opinion.
Aquino, J., in the result.