Florendo v. Javier
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Petitioners Bonifacio Florendo, Ricardo Rocero, and Renato Sta. Ana allege they were unlawfully detained for over a month without formal charges or judicial orders. They claim to have been apprehended on December 4, 1972, by individuals identifying themselves as police officers, including a Captain Javier of the Philippine Constabulary, and held without explanation. 2. Procedural History: The petitioners initiated this action by filing a petition for habeas corpus on January 15, 1973. The Supreme Court issued the writ and required the respondents to file an answer. The respondent, Captain Javier, in his answer, contested the petition, asserting it was unverified and lacked a cause of action. He further stated that the petitioners were arrested pursuant to a warrant issued by the Secretary of National Defense for direct assault with murder and threatening witnesses, offenses for which the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus had been suspended. 3. The Petition: The petitioners, through their counsel, initially filed a petition for habeas corpus. However, on the scheduled hearing date, they manifested their intention not to argue the case, submitting it for adjudication based on arguments presented in similar pending cases. Subsequently, the Court considered the case submitted for decision after the petitioners failed to comply with a resolution requiring them to comment on the return to the writ and the answer filed by the Solicitor General. This failure to reply led to the dismissal of the petition, as the allegations in the return were deemed admitted and prima facie evidence of the legality of the detention.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition for habeas corpus should be dismissed due to the petitioners' failure to controvert the allegations in the return. Whether the detention of the petitioners is lawful.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. Without pronouncement as to costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of dismissal due to failure to controvert the return: The Court held that the petition for habeas corpus must be dismissed because the petitioners failed to comply with the resolution requiring them to comment on the return to the writ and answer filed by the Solicitor General. This failure compels the Court to dismiss the petition in line with established jurisprudence. Unless the allegations in the return are controverted, they are deemed to be true or admitted. The return serves as prima facie evidence of the cause of restraint if it appears that the prisoner is in custody under a warrant of commitment in pursuance of law. In this case, the petitioners did not deny the allegations made in the return. On the issue of the lawfulness of the detention: The Court found that the detention of the petitioners was explained by the Solicitor General as authorized by an arrest, search and seizure order issued by the Minister of National Defense. This order was in connection with the crime of direct assault with murder and for threatening witnesses. Since the allegation that the arrest was by virtue of a "warrant of commitment in pursuance of law" was not denied by the petitioners, they are deemed to have admitted the legality of their detention. Consequently, the writ of habeas corpus would not lie.
Main Doctrine
The allegations in the return to a writ of habeas corpus, if controverted, are deemed admitted and prima facie evidence of the cause of restraint, thus warranting the dismissal of the petition if the detention is shown to be lawful.