G.R. No. L-36101. June 29, 1979.
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR THE HABEAS CORPUS OF BONIFACIO FLORENDO, RICARDO ROCERO and RENATO STA. ANA, petitioners, vs. CAPTAIN JAVIER OF THE PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY, ETC., respondents.

FACTS

The petitioners, Bonifacio Florendo, Ricardo Rocero, and Renato Sta. Ana, filed this petition for habeas corpus on January 15, 1973. They alleged that on December 4, 1972, individuals including a certain Captain Javier of the Philippine Constabulary, posing as police officers, took them from their residences. They were subsequently detained for over a month without any specific criminal charge being filed against them or any judicial writ ordering their commitment.
In his answer, respondent Captain Javier raised procedural defects, noting the petition was unverified as required by the Rules of Court. More substantively, he averred that the petitioners’ arrest and detention were lawful, being pursuant to a warrant of arrest issued by the Secretary of National Defense on November 24, 1972. He stated the petitioners were detained for the crime of direct assault with murder and for threatening witnesses, offenses covered by General Orders Nos. 2-A and 2-D, under which the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus had been suspended.

ISSUE

Whether the petition for habeas corpus should be granted, considering the respondents’ return explaining the cause of detention and the petitioners’ subsequent failure to contest that return.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The legal logic hinges on the procedural consequences of a petitioner’s inaction following the filing of a return in a habeas corpus proceeding. During the scheduled hearing, petitioners’ counsel manifested they would not argue the case, instead submitting it for adjudication based on arguments in similar pending cases. Critically, the petitioners subsequently failed to comply with a Court resolution requiring them to file a comment controverting the factual allegations in the respondents’ return and answer.
This failure is dispositive. Following Section 13, Rule 102 of the Rules of Court, as interpreted in precedents like Lorenzo v. McCoy and Arocha v. Vivo, when the allegations in the return are not traversed or denied, they are deemed admitted and constitute prima facie evidence of the legality of the restraint. The return here asserted that detention was under a warrant of commitment issued by the Minister of National Defense for specific crimes. By not filing a reply to deny this, petitioners are deemed to have admitted the truth of these allegations regarding the lawful cause of their detention. Consequently, habeas corpus, a remedy designed to inquire into the legality of custody, would not lie where the return’s unchallenged statements establish a legal basis for that custody. The petition was therefore dismissed.