Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Facts:
July 6, 1982 – 9 out of 14 detainees were arrested when
3 teams of the PC/INP of Bayombong, Nueva Viscaya
led by Lt. Col. Coronel, lst Lt. de Guzman and lst Lt.
Baria, after securing a Search Warrant issued by Judge
Sofronio Sayo of the CFI of Nueva Viscaya conducted a
raid at the residence of Dra. Aurora Parong.
Apprehended during the said raid were Dra. Aurora
Parong, Benjamin Pineda, Sabino Padilla, Francisco
Divinagracia, Zenaida Mallari, Letty Ballogan, Norberto
Portuguese, and Mariano Soriano who were then having
a conference in the dining room of Dra. Parong's
residence.
The other four (4) detainees herein, namely: Imelda de
los Santos, Eufronio Ortiz, Jr., Juanita Granada, and
Bienvenida Garcia, were arrested on the following day.
The 14 detainees/petitioners were all detained at the
PC/INP Command Headquarters, Bayombong, Nueva
Vizcaya from July 6, 1982 until their transfer on the
morning of August 10, 1982 to an undisclosed place
reportedly to Camp Crame, Quezon City, to Echague,
Isabela, and to Tuguegarao, Cagayan.
August 13, 1982 – Josefina Garcia-Padilla, mother of
detained petitioner Sabino G. Padilla, filed a petition for
the writ of habeas corpus and mandamus.
The mandamus (to disclose the petitioners' present place
of detention and to order the respondents to allow
counsel and relatives to visit and confer with the
petitioners) aspect of the instant petition has, however,
become moot and academic, and whereabouts of
petitioners having already become known to petitioner
Josefina Garcia-Padilla.
The petition alleged that the arrest of petitioners was
patently unlawful and illegal since it was effected
without any warrant of arrest.
That the search warrant was illegal per se because it
does not state specifically the things that are to be seized
(Stonehill vs. Diokno, 20 SCRA 383);
That no criminal charges have as of yet been filed
against any of the detainees;
That there is no judgment, decree, decision or order
from a court of law which would validate the continued
detention of the petitioner;
That while it is true that a purported telegram stating
the issuance of a Presidential Commitment Order (PCO)
was shown to the detainees on or about July 11 and 12,
1982, but counsel and the detainees have not yet been
given a copy of such PCO nor notified of its contents,
raising a doubt whether such commitment order has in
fact been issued.
That respondents are denying the detainees their
constitutional right to counsel;
August 17, 1982 – In an en banc resolution, the writ of
habeas corpus was issued and respondents were required
to make a return of the writ.
Sol-Gen in return to writ alleged that:
1. Detainees are all being detained by virtue of a PCO,
pursuant to LOI No. 1211, in relation to Presidential
Proclamation No. 2045. The said PCO was issued by
President Ferdinand E. Marcos for violation of P.D.
No. 885.
2. The privilege of habeas corpus cannot be availed of
by petitioners. The courts cannot inquire into the
validity and cause of their arrest and detention.
Issue:
Whether or not the courts can inquire on the
Presidential suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus.
Whether or not there is right to bail during the
suspension of the privilege of the said writ.
Ruling:
Attendant Circumstances Considered:
At the time of the arrest of the 9 of the 14 detainees,
records reveal that they were then having conference in the
dining room of Dra. Parong's residence from 10:00 a.m. of
that same day. Prior thereto, all the 14 detainees were under
surveillance as they were then Identified as members of the
Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) engaging in
subversive activities and using the house of detainee Dra.
Aurora Parong in Bayombong, Nueva Viscaya, as their
headquarters. Caught in flagrante delicto, the 9 detainees
mentioned scampered towards different directions leaving
in top of their conference table numerous subversive
documents, periodicals, pamphlets, books, correspondence,
stationaries, and other papers, including a plan on how they
would infiltrate the youth and student sector (code-named
YORK). Also found were one (1) .38 cal. revolver with eight
(8) live bullets, nineteen (19) rounds of ammunition for M16
armalite, eighteen thousand six hundred fifty pesos
(P18,650.00) cash believed to be CPP/NPA funds, assorted
medicine packed and ready for distribution, as sizeable
quantity of printing paraphernalia, which were then seized.
There is no doubt that circumstances attendant in the arrest
of the herein detainees fall under a situation where arrest is
lawful even without a judicial warrant as specifically
provided for under Section 6(a), Rule 113 of the Rules of
Court and allowed under existing jurisprudence on the
matter. As provided therein, a peace officer or a private
person may, without a warrant, arrest a person when the
person to be arrested has committed or actually committing,
or is about to commit an offense in his presence.”
From the facts as above narrated, the claim of the
petitioners that they were initially arrested illegally is,
therefore, without basis in law and in fact. The crimes of
insurrection or rebellion, subversion, conspiracy or proposal
to commit such crimes, and other crimes and offenses
committed in the furtherance on the occasion thereof, or
incident thereto, or in connection therewith under
Presidential Proclamation No. 2045, are all in the nature of
continuing offenses which set them apart from the common
offenses, aside from their essentially involving a massive
conspiracy of nationwide magnitude. Clearly then, the arrest
of the herein detainees was well within the bounds of the
law and existing jurisprudence in our jurisdiction.
Facts:
Simeon de Guzman, an American citizen, died
sometime in 1968, leaving real properties in the
Philippines. His forced heirs were his widow, private
respondents, Helen Meyers Guzman, and his son, David
Rey Guzman, both of whom are also American citizens.
August 9, 1989 - Helen executed a deed of quitclaim
assigning, transferring and conveying to David Rey all
her rights, titles and interests in and over six parcels of
land which the two of them inherited from Simeon.
Among the said parcels of land is that now in litigation,
situated in Bagbaguin, Sta. Maria, Bulacan, containing
an area of 6,695 square meters, covered by Transfer
Certificate of Title No. T-170514 of the Registry of
Deeds of Bulacan. The quitclaim having been registered,
TCT No. T-170514 was cancelled and TCT No. T-
120259 was issued in the name of appellee David Rey
Guzman.
February 5, 1991 - David Rey Guzman sold said parcel
of land to private respondent, Emiliano Cataniag, upon
which TCT No. T-120259 was cancelled and TCT No. T-
130721(M) was issued in the latter’s name.
Petitioners, who are owners of the adjoining lot, filed a
complaint before the RTC Malolos, Bulacan,
questioning the constitutionality and validity of the two
conveyances -- between Helen Guzman and David Rey
Guzman, and between the latter and Emiliano Cataniag
-- and claiming ownership thereto based on their right
of legal redemption under Art. 1621of the Civil Code.
March 10, 1992, RTC dismissed the complaint.
It ruled that Helen Guzman’s waiver of her inheritance
in favor of her son was not contrary to the
constitutional prohibition against the sale of land to an
alien, since the purpose of the waiver was simply to
authorize David Rey Guzman to dispose of their
properties in accordance with the Constitution and the
laws of the Philippines, and not to subvert them.
On the second issue, it held that the subject land was
urban; hence, petitioners had no reason to invoke their
right of redemption under Art. 1621 of the Civil Code.
CA:
CA denied the appeal, affirming RTC’s decision that the
subject land was urban.
It further held that, although the transfer of the land to
David Rey may have been invalid for being contrary to
the Constitution, there was no more point in allowing
herein petitioners to recover the property, since it has
passed on to and was thus already owned by a qualified
person.
Issue:
Whether or not the Court:
1. Erred in affirming the conclusion of the trial court that
the land in question is urban, not rural
2. Erred in denying petitioners right of redemption under
Art. 1621 of the Civil Code
3. Having considered the conveyance from Helen Meyers
Guzman to her son David Rey Guzman illegal, erred in not
declaring the same null and void
Ruling:
1. The land is urban. Thus, no right of redemption
Whether the land in dispute is rural or urban is a factual
question which, as a rule, is not reviewable by this
Court. Basic and long-settled is the doctrine that findings of
fact of a trial judge, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals,
are binding upon the Supreme Court. This admits of only a
few exceptions, such as when the findings are grounded
entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures; when an
inference made by the appellate court from its factual
findings is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; when
there is grave abuse of discretion in the appreciation of facts;
when the findings of the appellate court go beyond the
issues of the case, run contrary to the admissions of the
parties to the case or fail to notice certain relevant facts
which, if properly considered, will justify a different
conclusion; when there is a misappreciation of facts; when
the findings of fact are conclusions without mention of the
specific evidence on which they are based, are premised on
the absence of evidence or are contradicted by evidence on
record.