Republic of the Philippines
G.R. No. L-61016 April 26, 1983
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF HORACIO R. MORALES, JR., petitioner, vs.
MINISTER JUAN PONCE ENRILE, GEN. FABIAN C. VER and COL. GALILEO KINTANAR, respondents. G.R. No. L-61107 April 26, 1983
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF ANTONIO C. MONCUPA, JR. ANTONIO C. MONCUPA, JR., petitioner, vs.
MINISTER JUAN PONCE ENRILE, GEN. FABIAN C. VER and COL. GALILEO KINTANAR, respondents. Lorenzo M. Tañada, Augusto Sanchez, Jejomar Binay and Antonio Quintos for petitioners. The Solicitor General for respondents.
CONCEPCION, JR., J.:
1. The petitions are without merit and are hereby DISMISSED. 2. Petitioners were arrested on April 21, 1982 at about 9:45 a.m. while they were riding together in a motor vehicle on Laong-Laan Street, Quezon City, by elements of Task Force Makabansa of the Armed Forces of the Philippines. Since their arrest, they have been under detention. Petitioner Morales filed his petition for habeas corpus with this Court on July 9, 1982, while petitioner Moncupa filed his on July 19, 1982. On July 20, 1982 petitioners, together with several others, were charged with rebellion (Art. 134, Revised Penal Code) before the Court of First Instance of Rizal in Criminal Case No. Q-21091 filed by the City Fiscal of Quezon City. The trial of the case has yet to be terminated. The continued detention of petitioners to answer for the offense charged is therefore legal. 3. Petitioners allege that they were arrested without any warrant of arrest; that their constitutional rights were violated, among them the right to counsel, the right to remain silent, the right to a speedy and public trial, and the right to bail. They also air the charge that they were subjected to maltreatment and torture; that they did not have the opportunity to present their defense before the inquest fiscal and therefore asked this Court to order the reinvestigation of the charges against them. Acting on such plea, this Court in a resolution en banc dated July 22, 1982 ordered the City Fiscal of Quezon City to conduct such reinvestigation and at the same time appointed him "to act as commissioner of this Court and receive evidence of the charges made by petitioners before this Court of alleged torture and violation of their constitutional rights, particularly the right to counsel." On September 28, 1982, the City Fiscal submitted his report on the reinvestigation affirming the existence of a prima facie case for rebellion against petitioners and several others. And on February 8, 1983 he submitted to this Court the transcript of the notes taken at the reception of the evidence on the charges of petitioners. 4. If petitioners had been arrested in a communist country, they would have no rights to speak of. However, the Philippines is a republican state. Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them. 1 We have a Constitution framed by a constitutional convention and duly ratified by the people. We subscribe to the rule of law. We believe in human rights and we protect and defend them. Petitioners are entitled to the full enjoyment of all the rights granted to them by law. And this Court stands as the guarantor of those rights. 5. Our Constitution provides:
SEC. 20. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to remain silent and to counsel, and to be informed of such right. No force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiates the free will shall be used against him. Any confession obtained in violation of this section shall be inadmissible in evidence. 2 6. After a person is arrested and his custodial investigation begins a confrontation arises which at best may be termed unequal. The detainee is brought to an army camp or police headquarters and there...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document