Case Digest (G.R. No. 160792)
Facts:
In the Matter of the Petition for Habeas Corpus of Capt. Gary Alejano, et al., G.R. No. 160792, August 25, 2005, the Supreme Court En Banc, Carpio, J., writing for the Court. Petitioners were lawyers Homobono Adaza and Roberto Rafael (Roel) Pulido, who filed a habeas corpus petition on behalf of detained junior officers Capt. Gary Alejano, Capt. Nicanor Faeldon, Capt. Gerardo Gambala, Lt. SG James Layug, Capt. Milo Maestrecampo, and Lt. SG Antonio Trillanes IV (the detainees). Respondents were Gen. Pedro Cabuay (ISAFP chief and custodian), with Gen. Narciso Abaya (AFP Chief of Staff), Sec. Angelo Reyes (Secretary of National Defense) and Sec. Roilo Golez (National Security Adviser) impleaded for command responsibility.On 27 July 2003 some 321 armed soldiers led by the detained junior officers occupied the Oakwood Premier Apartments in Makati, disarmed security, planted explosives, and publicly called for the resignation of the President; they surrendered that evening and later returned to barracks. On 31 July and 2 August 2003 Gen. Abaya issued directives transferring custody of several junior officers to the ISAFP Detention Center while investigations proceeded. On 1 August 2003 government prosecutors filed an Information for coup d’état in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati (Criminal Case No. 03-2784); the RTC subsequently issued Commitment Orders transferring custody of some accused to ISAFP commanders.
Petitioners filed the habeas corpus petition on 11 August 2003. On 12 August 2003 the Supreme Court issued a writ of habeas corpus and referred the case to the Court of Appeals for raffle, hearing, further proceedings and decision, directing respondents to make a return on 18 August 2003. Pursuant to that order, respondents produced the detainees and filed their Return and Answer; after memoranda were submitted the Court of Appeals heard and, on 17 September 2003, dismissed the petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 78545 but ordered Gen. Cabuay to adhere to Standing Operations Procedure No. 0263-04 and to honor visiting and exercise commitments.
Dissatisfied, petitioners sought review in the Supreme Court via a Rule 45 petition for certiorari. The Court of Appeals’ decision was penned by Associate Justice Josefina Guevara-Salonga (with Justices Brawner and Bri...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in reviewing and effectively reversing an order of the Supreme Court by conducting the factual hearing ordered by the Supreme Court?
- Was the remedy of habeas corpus appropriate to challenge the detainees’ confinement or the alleged curtailment of their constitutional rights?
- Were the regulations and conditions imposed at the ISAFP Detention Center (visiting hours, separation by bars/boarded grills, and the opening/reading of letters) unlawful, amounting to cruel, inhuman or otherwi...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)