G.R. No. L-46520. August 16, 1977.
IN RE: PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS. APOLINARIO MALOLOS, LUCENA LALAP and VICTORIAL JAVIER in behalf of POLICARPIO NAVARES, OLIMPIO LALAP and RODOLFO JAVIER, petitioners, vs. GEN. FIDEL RAMOS, Chief, Philippine Constabulary; The Chief, JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL, PC, and the Warden, HPC Stockade No. 2, Camp Crame, Quezon City, respondents.

FACTS

The petitioners filed this habeas corpus petition on July 19, 1977, seeking the immediate release of Policarpio Navares, Olimpio Lalap, and Rodolfo Javier from the Philippine Constabulary stockade at Camp Crame. They alleged the detainees had been illegally held since February 1977. The respondents, represented by the Solicitor General, countered that the three were detained as suspects in a robbery with homicide case committed in Los Baños, Laguna, on February 6, 1977, where Mateo Villegas, Jr. was killed. An eyewitness, the victim’s son, identified them.
The detention was formally effected under Commitment Orders issued by a Constabulary Judge Advocate pursuant to General Orders issued under martial law. The detainees were informed of the charges, and two executed sworn statements. After investigation, the case was processed through “Booking Sheets and Arrest Reports,” and a summary preliminary investigation was conducted where the detainees were assisted by counsel. The Solicitor General indicated the case would be transferred to civil authorities per General Order No. 59.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the continued detention of Navares, Lalap, and Javier by military authorities under the cited General Orders was lawful, thereby warranting the grant of the writ of habeas corpus.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition as moot and academic. The legal resolution was preempted by a supervening event: the respondents had already released the detainees on July 30, 1977, by order of General Fidel Ramos. This release was effected pursuant to General Orders Nos. 59 and 60, which directed the transfer of cases involving civilians from military to civil authorities. Consequently, the case against the detainees was transferred to the Municipal Court of Los Baños, Laguna, for preliminary investigation.
The Court’s dismissal hinges on the principle that habeas corpus is a remedy designed to inquire into the legality of a present detention. When the restraint on liberty is lifted before a judicial decision is rendered, the petition loses its very object and purpose. There is no longer any actual confinement to justify or to terminate through the writ. The Court therefore refrained from making a substantive ruling on the legality of the prior military detention under the then-prevailing martial law orders, as such a determination was rendered unnecessary by the detainees’ release. The petition was resolved solely on procedural grounds due to mootness.