Ybañez v. Enrile
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Rolan "Levi" Ybañez, an officer of the Coalition Against People's Persecution, an education arm of the Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (BAYAN), was allegedly abducted on July 11, 1985, in Cebu City by armed men who forced him into a car. The abductors were suspected to be elements of the Regional Security Unit (RSU) and Military Intelligence Group (MIG). 2. Procedural History: Lilibeth Subayno, Ybañez's sweetheart and boardmate, filed a petition for habeas corpus on July 19, 1985. The Supreme Court issued the writ, and the respondents, including Hon. Juan Ponce Enrile and others, filed a return stating Ybañez was not in their custody. Hearings were held, and various witnesses, including military personnel and an eyewitness, testified. The Court directed a lineup of RSU and MIG personnel, which was conducted on July 2, 1986, though the petitioner deemed it inadequate. The Solicitor General and the Judge Advocate General's Office considered the lineup sufficient compliance. 3. The Petition: This case originated as a petition for habeas corpus seeking the release of Rolan "Levi" Ybañez, who was allegedly abducted. The core of the proceedings involved the Court's efforts to ascertain Ybañez's whereabouts and the identity of his abductors through hearings and a court-ordered lineup. The Supreme Court ultimately dismissed the petition, finding that the return of the writ was not sufficiently traversed and that a writ of habeas corpus should not be issued if it would be ineffective or unnecessary, while directing efforts to locate Ybañez.
Issue(s)
Whether the writ of habeas corpus may be used to investigate the whereabouts of an abducted person. Whether the return of the writ, which denies custody, should be taken at face value. Whether the conducted line-up was sufficient compliance with the Court's order.
Ruling
The petition for habeas corpus is dismissed without prejudice to its refiling should there be substantial proof that Rolan "Levi" Ybañez is under the custody of any person or entity. The respondents and all concerned in the Armed Forces of the Philippines are directed to exert utmost efforts in locating Rolan "Levi" Ybañez.
Ratio Decidendi
On the use of habeas corpus for investigation: The Court clarified that the August 16, 1985 investigation and the July 2, 1986 line-up were not a transgression of the jurisprudential mandate that the writ of habeas corpus may not be used as a means of obtaining evidence on the whereabouts of a person. These proceedings were resorted to due to the difficulty in ascertaining the identity of the abductors, despite evidence of the actual abduction. The Court cited Application of Cutting and 39 C.J.S. 476 to support this point, emphasizing that the writ's purpose is to determine if a person is illegally detained, not to uncover evidence of a crime. On the face value of the return: The Court held that under the given circumstances, the return of the writ must be taken on its face value. Unless the return is traversed or denied, the facts stated therein are presumed to be true. This principle, established in Lorenzo vs. McCoy, means that since the respondents denied custody of Ybañez, this denial is given weight in the absence of contrary proof presented by the petitioner that would traverse or deny the return. On the sufficiency of the line-up: While the Court ordered a line-up and it was conducted, the ultimate dismissal of the petition was based on the principle that a writ of habeas corpus should not issue where it is not necessary to afford the petitioner relief or where it would be ineffective. The Court noted the difficulty in identifying the abductors and the respondents' denial of custody. The petitioner's assertion that the line-up was inadequate was considered, but the overall ineffectiveness of the writ in this specific context, given the denial of custody and the lack of conclusive identification, led to the dismissal. The Court also referenced the principle that the writ would be ineffective if it could not provide the relief sought, citing 39 C.J.S. 477.
Main Doctrine
A writ of habeas corpus may not be used as a means of obtaining evidence on the whereabouts of a person, and should not issue where it is not necessary to afford the petitioner relief or where it would be ineffective. The return of the writ must be taken on its face value unless traversed or denied.