G.R. No. 80591 ; August 5, 1991
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS IN BEHALF OF DANIEL NGAYA-AN, CARMENCITA NGAYA-AN, CLEMENTE WINGNGA and FELISA NGAYA-AN TACALIG, petitioners, vs. CONRADO BALWEG, alias KA AMBO, SAGMAYAO APPAG, alias KA SULONG, and THE CORDILLERA PEOPLE’S LIBERATION ARMY (CPLA), respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners, relatives of Daniel Ngaya-an, filed a petition for habeas corpus alleging that on October 5, 1987, Daniel, Chairman of the Cordillera Bodong Association, was forcibly taken at a checkpoint by elements of the Cordillera People’s Liberation Army (CPLA) under respondent Sagmayao Appag alias “Ka Sulong.” They claimed he was detained at CPLA headquarters in Cagaluan, Pasil, Kalinga-Apayao, without legal basis. Petitioners further alleged that respondent Conrado Balweg, the CPLA head, admitted in a radio interview the CPLA’s responsibility for Daniel’s disappearance and hinted he may have been killed. The Court issued a writ and directed hearings in Baguio.
Despite multiple attempts, the Court could not serve its resolutions on respondent Appag, as he was “unknown” at the provided address. Respondent Balweg, through counsel, eventually filed a compliance, categorically denying any custody or responsibility for Daniel’s disappearance. He argued he never resided at the address used for service and had not defied court orders. The Court subsequently lifted an earlier order for his arrest and exonerated him from contempt.

ISSUE

Whether a writ of habeas corpus should be granted to compel respondents to produce the body of Daniel Ngaya-an.

RULING

The petition is dismissed. For a writ of habeas corpus to be granted, the petitioner must establish by competent and convincing evidence that the missing person is under the custody of the respondent. The Court found no evidence that Daniel Ngaya-an was detained by respondent Conrado Balweg. Balweg categorically denied custody and responsibility. While testimony indicated respondent Sagmayao Appag might be responsible for the initial abduction, the Court never acquired jurisdiction over Appag because all processes were returned unserved; he was unknown at the address stated in the petition. Consequently, the Court could not issue an order against him. The legal logic is clear: habeas corpus relief requires a showing of actual custody by the respondent before the court. Since custody by Balweg was not proven, and jurisdiction over Appag was never obtained, the writ cannot be issued. The dismissal is without prejudice to reinstatement if petitioners can furnish Appag’s exact address for service. The Court directed law enforcement agencies to investigate the disappearance.