G.R. No. 112330 - Spouses Co vs. Court of Appeals

Petitioners Bonifacio Florendo, Ricardo Rocero, and Renato Sta. Ana were taken from their respective residences on December 4, 1972.
The apprehension was carried out by individuals posing as police officers, including Captain Javier of the Philippine Constabulary.
The petitioners were detained for more than one month without any specific offense being charged and without any judicial writ or order authorizing their commitment.

The petition for habeas corpus was filed on January 15, 1973.
On the same day, the Court issued a resolution for the issuance of the writ of habeas corpus and simultaneously required the respondents to file an answer to the petition.
The hearing was scheduled for January 22, 1973.

In the answer, respondent Captain Javier argued that the petition was not verified as required by Section 3, Rule 102 of the Rules of Court.
He further contended that the petition stated no cause of action.
The respondents asserted that the petitioners were arrested pursuant to a warrant issued on November 24, 1972, by the Secretary of National Defense.
It was claimed that the petitioners were detained in connection with the alleged crime of direct assault with murder of the late Patrolman Antonio Paz, as well as for threatening witnesses, in conformity with General Orders Nos. 2-A and 2-D.

On the day set for hearing, the counsel for petitioners manifested their intention “not to argue the case” because of the existence of several similar pending cases.
Petitioners submitted the case for adjudication by adopting arguments previously advanced in similar cases.
Counsel for petitioners noted that the petitioners were present in the Supreme Court on the day scheduled for the hearing.

A resolution dated February 20, 1973, considered the case submitted for decision after petitioners failed to respond or comment on the return of the writ and the answer filed by the Solicitor General.
The absence of a reply by the petitioners led the Court to assume that the allegations in the return were uncontroverted and thus deemed accepted under Section 13, Rule 102 of the Rules of Court.
Consequently, the petitioners were deemed to have admitted the legality of their detention.

Whether the petition for habeas corpus was properly verified in accordance with Section 3, Rule 102 of the Rules of Court.
Whether the lack of verification and failure to assert a cause of action undermined the petitioners’ claim.

Whether the arrest and subsequent detention, being founded on a warrant issued by the Secretary of National Defense, were lawful.
Whether detention under circumstances involving serious charges (direct assault with murder and witness intimidation) exempts the petitioners from seeking a writ of habeas corpus.

Whether the failure of the petitioners to file a reply or comment on the return and answer causes their allegations to be automatically accepted as true.
Whether such non-response precludes the use of habeas corpus as a remedy against the alleged illegal detention.