G.R. No. L-71359. October 28, 1986.
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF ROLAN “LEVI” YBAÑEZ, LILIBETH SUBAYNO, petitioner, vs. HON. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, et al., respondents.

FACTS

Rolan “Levi” Ybañez, an officer of a BAYAN-affiliated organization, was forcibly abducted by armed men in Cebu City on July 11, 1985. Eyewitness accounts described his captors forcing him into a brown car with tinted windows. Alleging that the abductors were military intelligence personnel, Ybañez’s companion, Lilibeth Subayno, filed this habeas corpus petition. The Court issued the writ. In their verified Return, the respondents, including the Minister of National Defense and military commanders, categorically denied that Ybañez was or had ever been in their custody.
To ascertain the facts, the Court conducted hearings. A key eyewitness, Feliciana Duran, testified to the abduction but could not initially identify the perpetrators from photographs. The Court subsequently ordered a police line-up of personnel from the implicated military units. This line-up was eventually conducted in July 1986, but the petitioner deemed it inadequate. Throughout the proceedings, the respondents maintained their denial of custody and argued that the habeas corpus proceeding was being improperly used as a tool for criminal investigation into the abduction.

ISSUE

Whether a writ of habeas corpus should be granted to produce Rolan Ybañez based on the evidence presented.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The core legal principle governing habeas corpus is that the writ is a remedy to inquire into the legality of a person’s detention by a public authority or individual. Its function is to compel the production of the body and to require the person restraining liberty to justify such restraint. In this case, the respondents filed a verified Return explicitly stating under oath that Ybañez was not and had never been under their custody or control. This return was not successfully traversed or disproven by the petitioner. The Court emphasized that unless the facts in a return are convincingly contradicted, they must be taken as true.
The extensive hearings and the ordered line-up, while unusual, were undertaken due to the gravity of the enforced disappearance and the difficulty in identifying the abductors. However, these investigative steps did not yield substantial proof linking Ybañez’s current whereabouts or custody to the named respondents. The Court clarified that habeas corpus cannot be used primarily as a means to gather evidence for a criminal case or to conduct a general investigation into a person’s disappearance absent a showing of current custody by the respondent. Since the petitioner failed to overcome the respondents’ denial of custody, the writ could not issue. The dismissal was without prejudice, allowing a new petition should substantial proof of custody by any entity emerge. The Court also directed the military to exert all efforts to locate Ybañez and referred the matter to the Commission on Human Rights.