GR L 37083; (May, 1974) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-37083. May 30, 1974.
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF SALLY PATRON FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS. SALLY PATRON, petitioner-appellant, vs. COMMANDING OFFICER, CUSTODY AND DETENTION (CAD), III PC Zone, JONES AVENUE, CEBU CITY, or LT. COL. ROMEO ZULUETA, CIS III PC ZONE, CEBU CITY, respondents-appellees.
FACTS
The case originated from a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by Sally Patron before the Court of First Instance, seeking the release of her husband, Michael Patron. It was alleged that Michael was under military custody and detention without any formal charge or complaint being filed against him. The lower court dismissed the petition, prompting an appeal to the Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals, however, certified the appeal to the Supreme Court. It found that no evidence was presented in the lower court, leaving only pure questions of law for resolution. These legal issues included: whether detention based on mere suspicion of robbery is lawful; whether the warrantless apprehension violated Department of National Defense Order No. 740; and whether Proclamation No. 1081, which declared martial law, suspended the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. The appellate court deemed these issues beyond its competence, necessitating certification to the Supreme Court under the Judiciary Act.
ISSUE
The core legal issue was whether the appeal from the dismissal of the habeas corpus petition should be resolved on its merits, given the pending question of the suspension of the writ under martial law.
RULING
The Supreme Court did not reach a substantive ruling on the certified legal questions. While the case was pending before the Tribunal, Sally Patron filed an urgent petition to withdraw her appeal. She based this motion on the ground that the military authorities had agreed to the temporary release of her husband, Michael Patron.
Consequently, the Court granted the motion. The Resolution, penned by Justice Fernando, stated that in accordance with the petitioner’s own plea, the appeal was considered withdrawn. The case was therefore terminated without the Court proceeding to adjudicate the significant constitutional and legal issues presented, including the effect of martial law on the privilege of the writ. The withdrawal rendered the certified questions moot and academic, leading to the immediate conclusion of the proceedings.