Case Digest (G.R. No. 59118)
Facts:
Juan Dizon and Soledad Ramos v. Brig. Gen. Vicente Eduardo and Col. Teddy Carian, G.R. No. 59118, March 03, 1988, the Supreme Court En Banc, Teehankee, C.J., writing for the Court.Petitioners Juan Dizon and Soledad Ramos filed a petition for the issuance of the writ of habeas corpus on December 17, 1981 on behalf of their son Eduardo Dizon and daughter Isabel Ramos, respectively. The petition alleged that both youth were arrested without warrant on September 15, 1981 by Philippine Constabulary (PC) elements under Provincial Commander Col. Teddy Carian in Sta. Ana, Pampanga, detained at the PC stockade in San Fernando under the regional command of Brig. Gen. Vicente Eduardo, and interrogated without counsel. Respondents later filed release certificates dated September 24, 1981 but the petitioners maintained that the detainees were never in fact released and that the signatures on the release papers were falsified.
The Court issued the writ on December 24, 1981. Respondents, through then Solicitor General Estelito P. Mendoza, returned the writ on January 5, 1982, submitting affidavits of Major Reynaldo C. Cabauatan and 1st Lt. Roque S. Maranon asserting that the two had been released on September 24, 1981 after allegedly agreeing to act as informants. At the hearing petitioners presented specimen signatures and other documentary evidence (including voter registration and prior statements) to show that the signatures on the release certificates differed materially from undisputed signatures of the two desaparecidos; petitioners also pointed to procedural irregularities and regulatory violations surrounding the alleged release.
Chief Justice Teehankee’s resolution recounts the wider context of enforced disappearances during martial law and the earlier Diokno/Aquino habeas corpus episodes, and adopts the legal and humanitarian concern expressed in the United Nations General Assembly Resolution on disappeared persons (A/RES 33/173). After considering submissions and the evidentiary showing, the Court stated it had “grave doubts” about respondents’ claim of lawful release but acknowledged its institutional limits as a trier of facts and its inability to conduct full criminal investigations. Because of these limits and the presence of serious human-rights allegations, the Court, acting en banc, resolved to refer the case to the newly constituted national human-rights body for inquiry and appropriate a...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- When respondents assert that detainees were released but petitioners dispute that release and the detainees remain unaccounted for, does the burden of proof remain with petitioners or shift to respondents to prove the release?
- If the burden shifts, did respondents prove by clear and convincing evidence that Eduardo Dizon and Isabel Ramos were actually released on September 24, 1981?
- If respondents failed to satisfy that burden and the bodies of the desaparecidos cannot be produced, ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)