Florendo vs. Captain Javier

An uncontroverted return asserting custody under a warrant of commitment issued pursuant to law supports dismissal of a habeas corpus petition. Under Section 13, Rule 102, the return constitutes prima facie evidence of the cause of restraint, and the petitioners’ failure to deny the asserted lawful basis of custody amounted to an admission of the legality of their detention.

Bonifacio Florendo, Ricardo Rocero, and Renato Sta. Ana were detained under circumstances they disputed with Capt. Javier of the Philippine Constabulary. According to Javier, a warrant of arrest issued by the Secretary of National Defense on November 24, 1972 authorized their arrest. He attributed their detention to direct assault with murder involving the late Pat. Antonio Paz of the Police Department of Pasig, Rizal, and to threatening witnesses, invoking General Orders Nos. 2-A and 2-D.

The petitioners alleged that on December 4, 1972, individuals posing as police officers, including Javier, took them from their respective residences. They maintained that they remained detained for more than one month without any specific offense being filed against them and without any judicial writ or order for their commitment. On January 15, 1973, they filed their petition for habeas corpus, and the SC directed issuance of the writ and required an answer.

At the scheduled hearing on January 22, 1973, the petitioners’ counsel manifested that they would not argue the case because similar cases already heard by the SC remained pending adjudication. They instead submitted the case for adjudication, adopting arguments their counsel had previously advanced in similar cases, and noted that the petitioners had been brought before the SC that day. The SC required them to comment on the return and answer, but they did not comply; consequently, the assertion that their custody was authorized by a national defense arrest, search and seizure order remained uncontroverted.

• Unlawful Detention: The petitioners maintained that individuals posing as police officers, including Capt. Javier, had taken them from their residences and detained them for more than one month without any specific offense being filed against them or any judicial writ or order authorizing their commitment.

• Adoption of Earlier Arguments: The petitioners submitted the case for adjudication on the arguments their counsel had previously advanced in similar cases pending before the SC.

• Defective Petition: Capt. Javier argued that the petition was not verified as required by Section 3, Rule 102 of the Rules of Court and stated no cause of action.

• Authority for Arrest and Detention: Javier maintained that the petitioners were arrested pursuant to the Secretary of National Defense’s November 24, 1972 warrant and detained for direct assault with murder involving Pat. Antonio Paz and for threatening witnesses.

• Suspension of the Privilege of the Writ: Javier asserted that the offenses fell under General Orders Nos. 2-A and 2-D and that the privilege of the writ had been suspended with respect to those offenses.

• Uncontroverted Return: Whether habeas corpus could prosper when the petitioners failed to controvert the return asserting that they were detained under a warrant of commitment issued pursuant to law.

• Uncontroverted Return: No. Under Section 13, Rule 102, a return showing custody under a warrant of commitment issued pursuant to law constitutes prima facie evidence of the cause of restraint. The petitioners’ failure to deny that assertion meant that they were deemed to have admitted the legality of their detention.

• Uncontroverted Return: Section 13, Rule 102 gives prima facie evidentiary effect to a return showing that a prisoner is held under a warrant of commitment issued pursuant to law. Applying Lorenzo vs. McCoy and Arocha vs. Vivo, the SC explained that allegations in the return are deemed true or admitted unless controverted. The Solicitor General explained that an arrest, search and seizure order issued by the Minister of National Defense authorized the petitioners’ custody in connection with direct assault with murder and threats against witnesses. Although specifically directed to comment on the return and answer, the petitioners filed no reply. Their failure left the asserted lawful basis of detention undenied and amounted to an admission of its legality; consequently, habeas corpus would not lie.

• Prima Facie Effect of the Return to the Writ — Under Section 13, Rule 102, the return constitutes prima facie evidence of the cause of restraint when it shows that the prisoner is in custody under a warrant of commitment issued pursuant to law. The respondents’ return asserted such authority through the national defense order covering the offenses attributed to the petitioners.

• Uncontroverted Allegations in the Return — Allegations in the return are deemed true or admitted unless controverted. Because the petitioners failed to deny the asserted lawful authority for their custody despite being required to comment, the SC treated the legality of their detention as admitted and dismissed the petition.

• “return shall be considered 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” — This passage from Section 13, Rule 102 identifies the evidentiary effect of a return asserting custody under lawful commitment.

• “Since this allegation that the arrest was by virtue of a "warrant of commitment in pursuance of law" has not been denied, petitioners are deemed to have admitted the legality of their detention, and habeas corpus would, accordingly, not lie.” — This states the decisive application: the petitioners’ failure to deny the asserted authority for detention defeated their petition.

• Lorenzo vs. McCoy, 15 Phil. 559 — Followed for the rule that allegations in the return are deemed true or admitted unless controverted.

• Arocha vs. Vivo, 21 SCRA 532 (1967) — Followed for the same rule governing an uncontroverted return in habeas corpus proceedings.

• Section 13, Rule 102, Rules of Court — Gives prima facie evidentiary effect to a return showing custody under a warrant of commitment issued pursuant to law. The SC applied it to the respondents’ undenied assertion that a national defense order authorized the petitioners’ detention.