GR 42399; (January 1976) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-42399 January 30, 1976
Rafaela G. Vda. de Castro, petitioner, vs. Major General Fabian Ver, et al., respondents.
FACTS
Rafaela G. Vda. de Castro filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of her son, Rolando G. Castro. She alleged that Rolando was arrested at their residence on January 13, 1976, without any warrant or Arrest, Search and Seizure Order (ASSO), by a certain Lt. Batac. He was subsequently detained at the Camp Crame stockade and held incommunicado, which she asserted was illegal and without legal authority. The Court issued the writ, commanding the respondents to produce Rolando and justify his detention.
On the scheduled hearing, the respondents, represented by the Solicitor General, produced Rolando Castro. They submitted a return stating his arrest and detention were by virtue of a validly issued Arrest, Search and Seizure Order (ASSO) No. 3140 dated January 10, 1976, from the Secretary of National Defense. The arrest was for violation of the Anti-Subversion Act ( Republic Act No. 1700 ) for allegedly joining the Communist Party of the Philippines. A firearm and ammunition were also seized from him. Respondents further asserted that his relatives were notified of his whereabouts within 72 hours as required.
ISSUE
Whether the writ of habeas corpus should be granted to release Rolando G. Castro from detention.
RULING
The Supreme Court did not rule on the merits of the legality of the detention because the petition was rendered moot. Attached to the respondents’ return was an affidavit from Rolando Castro himself. In it, he stated that he was not being held incommunicado and, significantly, that he did not agree with the filing of the habeas corpus petition. As a lawyer aware of his rights, he expressed his preference to clear his name through the ongoing investigation by the Philippine Constabulary. Consequently, he voluntarily moved for the withdrawal of the petition.
The Court granted the withdrawal, considering that it is the detainee’s personal liberty at stake and his voluntary choice to discontinue the legal action. The petition was therefore considered withdrawn and the case terminated. In its resolution, the Court took the opportunity to note that the filing of such petitions demonstrated the continued availability of the writ of habeas corpus even during the period of martial law, serving as a check against unjustified detention, except for those detained for acts related to the basic objective of the martial law proclamation.