Case Digest (G.R. No. 153795)
Facts:
Ma. Estrelita D. Martinez v. Director General Leandro Mendoza, et al., G.R. No. 153795, August 17, 2006, Supreme Court First Division, Panganiban, CJ., writing for the Court.
Petitioners, the mother and wife of Michael Martinez, filed a petition for the writ of habeas corpus after Michael allegedly was abducted on November 19, 2001 in Sun Valley Subdivision, Parañaque City. Petitioners reported the disappearance to barangay officials, the Parañaque Police and the Anti-Kidnapping Task Force at Camp Crame. On November 19, 2001 the Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG) publicly presented Phillip Medel, Jr., who—according to televised statements—confessed to involvement in the Nida Blanca killing and claimed he saw Michael at the CIDG being detained; he described Michael’s clothing consistent with what petitioners said Michael wore when abducted.
Acting on petitioners’ representations, the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 78, Quezon City, set the habeas corpus petition for hearing on December 3, 2001 and required respondents to show cause why the writ should not issue. At that hearing respondents—then heads and officers of the Philippine National Police (PNP) and CIDG—filed a return denying ever having Michael in custody. Petitioners presented Medel as a witness; Medel testified that he had seen Michael inside a CIDG room and implicated respondents’ officers by identifying them and describing physical contact.
The RTC found Medel’s testimony convincing and, in a Decision dated December 10, 2001, directed respondents to produce Michael on December 11, 2001 at 2:00 p.m. Respondents filed a notice of appeal on December 11, 2001. The Court of Appeals (CA), however, reversed the RTC in a March 22, 2002 Decision (CA-G.R. SP No. 68170), dismissing the habeas corpus petition, and denied reconsideration in a May 30, 2002 Resolution. The CA discredited Medel’s testimony as contradictory, accepted Superintendent Espina’s alibi, and invoked the presumption of regularity in official duties of the CIDG in its handling of a material witness in the Nida Blanca case.
...(Pro-only)Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals commit reversible error in reversing the RTC and dismissing the petition for the writ of habeas corp...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)