EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-49299. April 15, 1988]

NORA CONTADO, ADELINA RAZON and NERA TIZON,
petitioners, vs. RUFILO L. TAN, LILIO BORJA, EDEN
BOCO, FELIPE ALDE, JR., DICKY CERNAL, PIO GOPOLE,
JOSE ALDE, ROMEO ESCOTO, JORGE SILLA, ABRAHAM
CODOY, PRIVADO ALIDO, ISAIAS COPADA, GONZALO
BORJA, EUFEMIO BORMATE, ROBERTO TAN, JR.,
BENITO PICCIO and several PC soldiers, respondents.
D E C I S I O N
TEEHANKEE, C.J.:
This is another tragic story of missing persons - desaparecidos -
during the martial law regime that must be told and recorded in
the annals of our jurisprudence for the lessons that should be
learned from it and never be forgotten by a freedom-loving
people.
This petition for habeas corpus was filed on November 20, 1978
by Nora Contado, Adelina Razon and Nena Tizon in behalf of
their spouses Crispo Contado, Cesar Razon and Jimmy Tizon.
The respondents are Rufilo L. Tan, the then Municipal Mayor of
Llorente, Eastern Samar; Lilio Borja, Eden Boco, Felipe Alde,
Jr., Dicky Cernal, Pio Gopole, Jose Alde, Romeo Escoto, Jorge
Silla, Abraham Codoy, Privado Alido -- then members of the
Integrated National Police of Llorente, Samar; Isaias Copada and
Gonzalo Borja -- residents of Llorente, Eastern Samar, then
government employees holding office at the municipal building
of Llorente, Eastern Samar; Eufemio Bormate -- then driver of
the ambulance car -- employee of the Llorente Community
Hospital and Health Center (medicare) of Llorente, Eastern
Samar; Roberto Tan, Jr. -- brother of then Mayor Rufilo Tan --
the head of the Llorente Community Hospital; Lt. Col. Benito
Piccio, then Provincial Commander of the Philippine
Constabulary/Integrated National Police at Camp Asidillo,
Borongan, Eastern Samar and the soldiers were under his
command.
Petitioners alleged that on September 13, 1978, their spouses
were arrested by members of the Integrated National Police of
Llorente, Eastern Samar, restrained of their liberty and were in
grave danger of being liquidated, if they had not already been
liquidated; that respondents conspired, helped one another and
cooperated in arresting and detaining said Crispo Contado, Cesar
Razon and Jimmy Tizon who were maltreated, tortured and
subjected to cruel and inhuman punishment in the municipal
building of Llorente, Eastern Samar; that the imprisonment of
the above detainees or the restraint of their liberty, or their
possible liquidation was without any legal authority or lawful
basis. Petitioners further alleged that detainees were abused,
maltreated, beaten and tortured by respondents led by then
Mayor Rufilo Tan and his brother Roberto Tan, Jr. They had
bloodied noses and mouths, broken teeth, black eyes, swollen
ears, and blackish parts of their bodies. They were brought down
from the second floor of the municipal building to the ground
floor where the jail is located, totally naked - with nothing to
cover their bodies, with the exception of Crispo Contado who
had only a brief. They were ordered to drink urine. Their backs,
hands and mouths showed cigarette burns. They were
handcuffed at the back even as handkerchiefs were tied into their
mouths. Respondents Eden Boco, Privado Alido and Felipe
Alde, Jr. entered the detention cell to beat and maltreat the three
by boxing and using karate chops on their mouths and bodies
while the three were handcuffed and helpless. The three were not
allowed to eat for several days. Their fellow detainees were
ordered not to give food to them. Even the relatives and friends
of Crispo Contado, a native of Llorente, Eastern Samar, were
prohibited to see him and bring him food. The petitioners
further stated that per their information, their husbands were
transferred from the Llorente Municipal Jail to the Philippine
Constabulary Stockade at Borongan, Eastern Samar and back.
They were also informed that on September 18, 1978 at 2:00
a.m. or 3:00 a.m., a very unholy hour, their husbands were taken
out of the Llorente Municipal Jail aboard an ambulance car and
brought to an undisclosed, unknown and secret place somewhere
in Can-avid, or Oras, Eastern Samar. Such ambulance car of the
Llorente Community Hospital and Health Center (medicare) was
driven by respondent Eufemio Bormate upon instructions of
Roberto Tan, Jr., the mayor's brother and was escorted by two
jeeploads of PC soldiers. Petitioners expressed their fear that in
such unknown, undisclosed and secret place, their husbands
might have already been liquidated without mercy and justice.
On the same date that the petition was filed on November 20,
1978, we issued the writ requiring respondents to make a Return
and to hear the petition on November 29, 1978. The respondents
filed their separate returns1[1] which alleged in substance that
they could not comply with the writ and present the persons of
the detainees as they had been released on the very same day of
their arrest, September 13, 1978 at 8:00 p.m.

1[1] Pages 34-53 and 117-131, Rollo.
After hearing the parties on November 29, 1978 the Court
required counsels for respondents to file, if they wished, a proper
return of the writ to counter the allegations in the petition and
counsels for petitioners to file a reply or traverse to respondents
separate returns as well as to submit any document or affidavits
specifically dealing with the factual issue of whether or not the
three persons arrested an September 13, 1978 and whose
whereabouts and release were sought in the petition at bar were
indeed released on the same day at 8:00 p.m. as alleged in the
returns.
In their separate amended returns,2[2] respondents denied the
material allegations of the petition stating that they (respondents)
merely invited the three missing persons for questioning and
reiterated that they had been released on the same day on
September 13, 1978 at 8:00 p.m. Respondents prayed that the
petition be dismissed for being moot and academic.
Petitioners, in their reply to the separate amended returns,3[3]
stated that the subject persons were never released on September
13, 1978 or on any day thereafter as shown by the affidavits of
one Diosdado Camora and one Diomedes Bono (Annexes "A"
and "B", Reply) who stated that they saw Crispo Contado, one of
the detainees at the municipal jail of Llorente, Eastern Samar on
September 14 and 15, 1978. Petitioners' counsel had
interviewed and talked with respondent Lt. Col. Piccio who told
him that he (Piccio) had recommended the release of the
detainees two nights after or on September 15, 1978 contrary to

2[2] Pages 64-95, Rollo.
3[3] Pages 96-116, Rollo.
respondents' claim that they released the subject persons on
September 13, 1978. Petitioners averred that if their spouses had
been truly released, they would have certainly gone home to
them and their children. Petitioners further stated that
respondents had not produced the bodies of the detainees,
neither had they offered a valid excuse not to produce them and
prayed that the respondents be adjudged guilty of contempt and
be imprisoned and fined.
At the resumption of the hearing on December 1, 1978, the
Court continued to interpellate respondents Piccio and Lilio
Borja as well as Messrs. Diosdado Camora and Diomedes Bano
who affirmed their statements in their affidavits (Annexes "A"
and "B" reply) and resolved, among others, to direct the Chief,
Philippine Constabulary thru Major Benito Y. Custodio to hold
respondents Lt. Col. Piccio, Cpl. Lilio Borja and Benedicto
(Dicky) Cernal in Metro Manila until further orders from the
Court and to direct NBI Director Jolly Bugarin to take the
alleged driver of the ambulance respondent Eufemio Bormate
under protective custody and to conduct an investigation as to
his alleged participation in spiriting away the three detainees to
an undisclosed place. The three (3) respondents who were under
PC custody were nevertheless allowed upon motion to be with
their respective families during the holidays by then Chairman of
the First Division, now the Chief Justice, in an order dated
December 28, 1978 provided that they returned and were held
back in Metro Manila from January 8, 1979 and thereafter.4[4]

4[4] Page 180, Rollo; the case had been assigned to the First
Division, then composed of Teehankee, J., chairman, and Felix
V. Makasiar, Guillermo S. Santos (who was designated to sit in
On December 11, 1978, respondent Eufemio Bornate filed a
manifestation of waiver with motion to lift order of protective
custody.5[5] On December 13, 1978, the Director of the National
Bureau of Investigation wrote the Court a letter stating that
efforts exerted by agents of his office to locate and place under
protective custody the person of Eufemio Bormate yielded
negative results, as persons knowledgeable of his whereabouts
were either hostile or uncooperative and transmitted a copy of
the Agents' Report for the Court's information and proper
action.6[6]
On January 3, 1979, the Court Resolved among others to deny
the prayer in the manifestation of waiver with motion to lift
order of protective custody personally filed by respondent
Eufemio Bormate with the assistance of his counsel and to
require said counsel to explain why he should not be held in
contempt of court or disciplinarily dealt with for obstructing the
implementation of the Court's resolution of December 1, 1978
and the investigation therein ordered to be conducted as to
Bormate's alleged participation in the alleged transporting and
killing of the detainees subject of the petition at bar and to
produce the person of Bormate before the NBI Director or
agents-in-charge of the case, both within 5 days from notice
hereof.7[7] Said lawyer complied when he filed his explanation

the First Division), Ramon C. Fernandez and Juvenal K.
Guerrero, JJ., members.
5[5] Pages 184-187, Rollo.
6[6] Pages 188-191, Rollo.
7[7] Page 201, Rollo.
and compliance8[8] and produced on January 12, 1979 at around
3:30 p.m. the person of Eufemio Bormate before NBI Director
Jolly Bugarin and Agent Antonio A. Reyes.
Meanwhile, Administrative Case No. 78-33 for grave
misconduct was filed against respondent Lilio Borja and
Benedicto Cernal with the National Police Commission of the
Ministry of National Defense,9[9] the investigation of which was
conducted by the Hearing Officer of the NAPOLCOM at its
headquarters here in Metro Manila instead of in Camp Asedillo,
Borongan, Eastern Samar.10[10] On January 19, 1979, Assistant
Commissioner Alfredo G. Pagulayan of the Inspection,
Investigation and Intelligence Branch of the National Police
Commission filed a letter stating that their office was directed by
then Minister of National Defense Juan Ponce Enrile to conduct
a thorough investigation on the alleged involvement of Mayor
Rufilo Tan of Llorente, Eastern Samar and some members of the
police station thereat in the mysterious disappearance of Crespo
Contado, Jaime Tizon and Cesar Razon and requesting that an
order be issued directing that Eufemio Bormate who was then
under NBI custody be escorted and accompanied to their office
for interrogation/interview.11[11] This was granted in the
resolution of January 19, 1979.12[12] Respondent Cpl. Lilio Borja

8[8] Pages 229-238, Rollo.
9[9] Page 219, Rollo.
10[10] Pages 223 and 270, Rollo.
11[11] Page 239, Rollo.
12[12] Page 241, Rollo.
and Benedicto (Dicky) Cernal who were then under PC custody
were also escorted/accompanied as requested to the Commission
for interrogation/investigation at the scheduled dates and
time.13[13]
In the comment14[14] filed by respondent Piccio on the
declarations of Diomedes Bano and Diosdado Camora in open
court of December 1, 1978, he stated that these two are not
telling the truth. Said comment was adopted by respondents
Lilio Borja and Benedicto Cernal.
On March 24, 1979, respondent Eufemio Bormate, thru counsel,
filed a motion to lift order of protective custody.15[15] The Court,
acting on said motion, required the Director of the National
Bureau of Investigation to comment on said motion and to
submit a status report on its investigation.16[16] In the same
resolution, the Court also directed Major General Fidel V.
Ramos, then Chief of the Philippine Constabulary and Director
General, Integrated National Police and Brig. Gen. Antonio P.
Uy, Commanding General, CIS to submit their report of the
thorough investigation conducted by them as per their Return of
November 29, 1978. In a letter dated April 10, 1979, the
Director of the National Bureau of Investigation offered
objection to Eufemio Bormate's motion on grounds of

13[13] Pages 256-257, Rollo.
14[14] Pages 206-217, Rollo.
15[15] Pages 277-280, Rollo.
16[16] Page 281, Rollo.
investigative necessity.17[17] Attached to said letter are copies of
their Agents' self-explanatory status reports dated 5 and 10
April, 1979 on the investigation conducted pursuant to the
resolution of 1 December 1978. General Ramos and Brig. Gen.
Antonio Uy, through Col. Santiago O. Tomelden, complied with
said resolution when it submitted its initial report dated April 27,
1979.18[18]
In the meantime, in the January 7, 1979 issue of the Times
Journal, page 119[19] under the heading "Marcos sacks Eastern
Samar town mayor" it was stated that then President Marcos has
ordered the ouster of the mayor of Llorente, Eastern Samar, for
his alleged participation in the unlawful arrest, arbitrary
detention, maltreatment and disappearance of three Manila fish
merchants three months ago.
On May 28, 1979, the Court Resolved among others to require
Commissioner Alfredo Pagulayan of the NAPOLCOM to submit
within ten (10) days from notice, a copy of the report to the
NAPOLCOM as reported in the Philippines Daily Express issue
of February 22, 1979, page 1 under the heading "Murdered
Trader's Body Dug Up" carrying the by-line of Ros Manlangit
stating that "the remains, said to be those of Manila businessman
Jaime Tizon, were discovered in a remote area in barangay
Calbang in Can-avid town, about 100 kilometers from Llorente,
in the town where the three were held earlier by the police and

17[17] Pages 283-292, Rollo.
18[18] Pages 294-361, Rollo.
19[19] Page 366, Rollo.
further reporting that "Commissioner Alfredo Pagulayan of the
NAPOLCOM said the grave digger (name witheld) admitted
having buried Tizon's body on orders of certain persons.20[20]
In compliance with the above resolution, Commissioner
Pagulayan stated that after digging the spot pointed to as the
alleged grave, the team, unearthed what Dr. Marcial B. Adal,
Municipal Health Officer of Can-avid certified as: part of the
scalp hair; whitish substance with bad peculiar odor probably
melted fatty tissues and cartiliges; blackish substances with a
foul odor probably melted muscles substances and blood and
pubic hair. The health officer was very certain that the remains
found and mentioned above were parts and accessory of a
human organism.21[21]
Commissioner Pagulayan further stated that on January 12 and
13, 1979, the statements of the two grave diggers, Salvador
Rebay and Peperion Hubayan, were taken down and they alleged
in substance that sometime in the month of September or
October, 1978, at Sitio Calbang, Barangay Carolina, Can-avid,
Eastern Samar, after hearing a burst of gunfire, they were called
by a group of unidentified soldiers and required to identify a
person who had gunshot wounds in his body and lying dead.
Having failed to ascertain the identity of the dead man, the two
and some other persons who were around at the time were
ordered by the said group of unidentified soldiers to dig up a
hole and bury him; they obeyed. One Salvador Rebay further
alleged that the male dead person had a mestizo feature.

20[20] Page 367, Rollo.
21[21] See Folder attached to Rollo, marked "Napolcom Report".
He further stated that one Leo Rebay, one of the alleged grave
diggers, gave his statement on January 24, 1979 and he
substantially corroborated the statements of Salvador Rebay and
Peperion Hubayan. When shown a line-up of photographs, Leo
Rebay readily picked up the picture of one Jaime Tizon and
pointed to it as that of the very person whom they buried in Sitio
Calbang, Barangay Carolina, Can-avid, Eastern Samar sometime
in the month of October 1978.
This report was noted in the resolution of June 22, 1979. On
June 4, 1979, respondent Lt. Col. Benito D. Piccio filed an
urgent ex-parte motion for permission to leave Metro Manila and
go home to Cebu City to attend to his daughter who was then in
the hospital.22[22] This motion was granted in the resolution of
June 6, 1979 provided he returned after ten days and reported
back to the Chief of the Philippine Constabulary in accordance
with the court's resolution of December 1, 1978.23[23]
On December 19, 1979, Brig. Gen. Prospero A. Olivas then
Acting Chief of Constabulary and Acting Director General of the
Integrated National Police filed a letter24[24] addressed to this
Court on behalf of respondents Lt. Col. Piccio, Cpl. Lilio Borja
and Pat. Benedicto (Dicky) Cernal who requested that their
custody be transferred from the Chief of Philippine Constabulary
through Major Benito Y. Custodio to the Regional Commander,
PC Regional Command No. 8 and the restriction of their

22[22] Pages 373-375, Rollo.
23[23] Page 400, Rollo.
24[24] Pages 418-425, Rollo.
movement to Metro Manila be enlarged to include Camp
September 21st, Leyte, where the Headquarters of PC Regional
Command No. 8 is stationed. This request was granted in the
Resolution of January 14, 1980 and the Court also Resolved to
Require the Chief of the P.C. and Director General, INP;
National Police Commission, Ministry of National Defense; and
the Director, NBI to submit their final reports of their respective
investigations conducted on the disappearance of Crispo
Contado, Cesar Razon and Jimmy Tizon.25[25]
On January 11, 1980, respondent Lt. Col. Benito D. Piccio filed
an urgent ex-parte motion for the Lifting of the order holding
him in Metro Manila in order that he could seek preferential
assignment in Region 7, with station in Cebu City, to enable him
to resettle his family in Minglanilla before his retirement on May
30, 1980.26[26] This was granted in the resolution of February 1,
1980.27[27]
In the report of Santiago O. Tomelden, Colonel, JAGS (PC)
GSC Constabulary Judge Advocate, for the Chief of
Constabulary/Director General, Integrated National Police and
the Commanding General, Criminal Investigation Service,
Philippine Constabulary, he stated that the result of his
investigation showed that there is no evidence which would
warrant prosecution of any persons or at least pinpoint

25[25] Page 426, Rollo.
26[26] Pages 428-431, Rollo.
27[27] Page 447, Rollo.
responsibility for the alleged disappearance of Crispo Contado,
Jimmy Tizon and Cesar Razon.28[28]
In the contrary investigation Report of the Inspection,
Investigation and Intelligence Branch of the National Police
Commission, Ministry of National Defense, thru Assistant
Commissioner Alfredo G. Pagulayan, it was stated, however,
that on the basis of its findings, it would appear that Mayor
Rufilo Tan, Dr. Roberto Tan, Jr., Castolo Ocampo, Isaias
Copada, Pat. Benedicto Cernal, Pat. Jose Alde, Pat. Privado
Alido, Pat. Jorge Silla, Pat. Eden Boco and Pat. Romeo Escoto
and PC Capt. Berting Casillana were probably liable for murder
under Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code; that the killing of
Jimmy Tizon and his two other companions almost resulted in a
perfect crime; that the precision in carrying out the plot was
almost perfect; that the arrest, detention, maltreatment, the use of
government personnels and equipments and the attempt to
mislead government agents were only some of the circumstances
that strengthened the suspicion that influential persons, military
and/or civilians, were involved in the killing; and it
recommended that all the suspects, namely Mayor Rufilo Tan,
Dr. Roberto Tan, Castolo Ocampo, Isaias Copada, Pat.
Benedicto Cernal, Pat. Jose Alde, Pat. Privado Alido, Pat. Jorge
Silla, Pat. Eden Boco, and Pat. Romeo Escoto, who were
positively identified by witnesses as responsible in connection
with the illegal arrest, detention, maltreatment and killing of
Jaime Tizon be arrested and detained; that PC Captain Berting
Casillano of the PC Command in Can-avid, Eastern Samar who
was identified by witnesses to be the Officer ordering the burial
of Jaime Tizon in Sitio Carolina, Can-avid, Eastern Samar, be

28[28] Pages 448-456, Rollo.
likewise arrested and detained; and that steps should be taken to
assure the safety of witnesses.29[29]
In the final report of the National Bureau of Investigation, it
stated that the involvement of respondent Bormate in the instant
case was established by evidence.30[30]
On February 20, 1980, the Court resolved to furnish the Minister
of Justice a copy of the aforesaid reports for the criminal
prosecution of the officials and persons involved on the basis of
the evidence collated by the National Police Commission and
National Bureau of Investigation.31[31]
On May 29, 1981, an amended information for murder was filed
with the Sandiganbayan against the herein respondents, more
specifically Criminal Case No. 2679 entitled "People of the
Philippines vs. Rufilo L. Tan, et al."
On January 29, 1982, the First Division of the
Sandiganbayan32[32] rendered its decision in the aforesaid case
wherein it found respondents Rufilo L. Tan, Dr. Roberto L. Tan,
Jr., Lilio G. Borja, Benedicto A. Cernal, Isaias A. Copada and
Castulo A. Campo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense
of Less Serious Physical Injuries. The remaining respondents

29[29] Pages 457-491, Rollo.
30[30] Pages 432-446, Rollo.
31[31] Page 492, Rollo.
32[32] Pamaran, PJ, Escareal, J. ponente, and Molina, J.
were acquitted for insufficiency of evidence. The pertinent
portion of the 72-page decision is hereunder reproduced:
"For any of the accused to be held liable for the death of Tizon
in Can-Avid, it is, therefore, imperative and essential that
conspiracy between them and those who killed Tizon be proven,
which proof of conspiracy is quite separate and different from
that which the prosecution has shown to have existed between
and among those who participated in the maltreatment of Tizon
and his companions. Unfortunately, the prosecution's evidence is
bereft of such proof of conspiracy between those who liquidated
Tizon in Can-Avid and the accused who are charged with having
detained and maltreated him in Llorente. Even Bormate, whose
participation in the transport of the three suspects to Can-Avid,
and Escoto, who is claimed to have been present during the
liquidation of Tizon, cannot be adjudged as co-conspirators in
the latter's killing in the absence of any fact or circumstance that
they performed any overt act in furtherance of such conspiracy
to kill Tizon or to conceal his remains. For conspiracy to be
adjudged against the accused herein, there should be proof of
community of design, concert of mind, unity of purpose and
execution, because mere knowledge, acquiescence or approval,
even presence at the scene of the crime, is not enough to
constitute one a party to a conspiracy.
Prescinding therefrom, the Court must, therefore, hold that none
of the accused herein can be held liable, individually or
collectively, for the death of Jimmy Tizon in Can-Avid.
Liability for such a heinous crime, as well as for the liquidation
of Cesar Razon and Crespo Contado, must be laid at the feet of
other persons who were pointed to by the prosecution to have
been led by one PC Sgt. Berting Casillano, acting presumably
under orders of their superiors for purposes which are not
reflected on the record and which should be ventilated in other
appropriate proceedings. That the prosecution failed in its
primary mission to secure the conviction of those who were
responsible for Tizon's death need not be belabored, considering
the legal restraints under which it proceeded, occasioned by the
split jurisdiction which resulted from the exclusion of military
personnel in the filing of the instant charge, although their
participation clearly appears from the facts gathered by the
NAPOLCOM team during its investigation (Exhibits H-2 to H-
182, inclusive).
"Accordingly, the exact nature of the liability of the accused
herein, if any, must be reckoned only with respect to the
incidents described and testified to by the prosecution witnesses
as having occurred in the afternoon of September 13, 1978
inside the offices of Sub-Station Commander Lilio Borja and
Mayor Rufilo Tan inside the municipal building of Llorente. As
proven by the prosecution's evidence, Jimmy Tizon was picked-
up, together with Cesar Razon, at Mamerta Cruz' carinderia at
around 4:30 o'clock in the afternoon of September 13, 1978, by
accused Patrolmen Abraham Codoy, Privado Alido and Eden
Boco. They were brought by the latter to the municipal building,
where they were joined later by Crespo Contado who was picked
up at his uncle's house by accused Patrolmen Alido, Boco, Jose
Alde and Gonzalo Borja. Tizon and his companions were then
maltreated (third-degreed) inside the office of the station
commander, after they were told by accused Pat. Benedicto
Cernal to undress and face the wall. After questioning by Cernal
as to the suspects' purpose in coming to Llorente resulted in their
claims of a business trip, Cernal got angry and boxed Contado
on the ribs, followed by a knee blow. Accused Dr. Roberto Tan,
Jr. and Castulo Campo arrived and both of them rained
continuous blows on the three suspects, including Tizon who
rolled on the floor as a result of the beating.
"Accused Mayor Rufilo Tan then arrived with a gun and because
his questions to the suspects did not satisfy him, fired a shot
between Razon's thighs after which he ordered Pat. Alde, Cernal,
Alido, Codoy and Jorge Silla to bring the suspects to his office
located two doors away. Thereat, Mayor Tan resumed his
questioning of the suspects and, because he did not like their
answers, he struck the throats of Contado, Razon and Tizon with
the tip of his fingers and stomped on them when they rolled on
the ground. Dr. Tan, Jr., then came in, holding a piece of wood,
2 x 2 inches, together with Campo. Dr. Tan hit Contado on the
left eye and body with the club, causing Contado's left eye to
almost pop out, after which he administered the same beating on
Tizon and Razon, causing Tizon to fall unconscious on the floor.
All the while, despite Razon's pleas, Mayor Tan sat on his table
smoking a cigarette, telling the suspects to tell the truth.
Thereafter, accused Isaias Copada came in and also administered
fist blows on Razon, Tizon and Contado.
"The foregoing proven facts indubitably reveal the existence of a
conspiracy between several accused, namely, Mayor Tan,
Station Commander Lilio Borja, Patrolmen Benedicto Cernal,
Dr. Roberto Tan, Jr., Castulo Campo and Isaias Copada to
maltreat Tizon and his companions. Such maltreatment had no
other purpose than to compel said suspects to admit that they had
come to Llorente for illegal or improper motives, overlooking
the obvious and indubitable fact that said suspects had come to
Llorente purposely for business and that even one of them is a
native of said town. The above-named accused having acted in
pursuance of a common purpose or objective, each doing a part
so that their acts, though apparently independent, were in fact
connected and cooperative thus indicating a closeness of
personal association and a concurrence of sentiment, then the
Court is justified in holding that they should be held liable as co-
conspirators (People vs. Cabrera, 43 Phil. 65; People vs.
Carbonnel, 48 Phil. 869, People vs. Caballero, 54 Phil. 585). The
community of interest due to relationship, the absence of
immediate and sufficient cause or provocation, the point of
attack, and the obvious plan to deal separately with the
complainant are facts and circumstances from which the unity of
design that characterizes conspiracy can be inferred without need
of direct proof (People vs. Co Unjieng, 61 Phil. 236), and it is
enough that from the individual act of each accused, it may be
reasonably deduced that they had a common plan to commit the
felony (People vs. Catao, G.R. No. 9532, April 29, 1960). It is
immaterial that the details of the common plan do not appear in
evidence as it is enough that each accused pursued the same
objective and achieved it through their collective acts (People vs.
Mitra, No. LL-13339, June 30, 1960).
"While thus holding that the above-named accused are liable,
collectively, for the maltreatment of Tizon, however, such
liability cannot be made to fall under the provisions of Article
235 of the Revised Penal Code, since the offense described and
penalized therein can only be committed upon persons actually
confined in a penal establishment either as convicts or as
detention prisoners. Under Article 235, it is essential that the
maltreated prisoner be under the charge of the officer
maltreating him and that the former has either been committed
or actually placed in jail or in prison (People vs. Punzalan, 99
Phil. 259; People vs. Baring, 37 O.G. 1367; People vs. Oliva, 95
Phil. 962; People vs. Del Rosario, 110 Phil. 476).
"The liability, therefore, of said accused can only be made to fall
under Article 265 of the Revised Penal Code, for Less Serious
Physical Injuries, the evidence for the prosecution having clearly
and satisfactorily shown that the victim herein, Jimmy Tizon,
suffered physical injuries during his maltreatment September 13,
1978 while inside the offices of the station commander and the
mayor, respectively, resulting in injuries to his forearms, his jaw,
cheeks and throat. The nature of those injuries were testified to
by prosecution witnesses Fidel Loste, Leo Rebay and Ponciano
Geroy. Said injuries were still evident on the person of Tizon, as
testified to by Geroy who declared that when he saw Tizon for
the first time at the Can-Avid PC detachment camp in the third
week of September, 1978, Tizon was limping and had a swollen
jaw and swollen cheeks and could hardly swallow his food,
while Rebay declared that when Tizon was buried in his grave,
the forearms appeared broken when he raised the hands of Tizon
over his breast preparatory to burial. Since the injuries were
inflicted on September 13, 1978 and were still evident at the
time Tizon was brought to the Can-Avid PC detachment on
September 18, 1978 and also up to two weeks later or in the
early part of October 1978, then the duration of said injuries is
less than one month, hence, properly falling under Article 265 of
said Code.
"While it may be contended that the victim was not presented to
testify as to the fact of the infliction of injuries upon his person
or that no physician was presented to testify on said injuries and
the fact of incapacity for labor or the necessity of medical
attendance for the period required under Article 265, yet, on the
other hand, from the very nature and circumstances of the case,
the prosecution cannot be legally required to submit such kind of
evidence, considering that the victim had disappeared and had in
fact been liquidated. Thus, the Court must have to rest on
evidence of corpus delicti, or the fact of the commission of the
offense, and on this point, the Court finds and holds that the
evidence on record fully justifies and supports the fact of corpus
delicti.
"x x x Consistent with the foregoing doctrines, this Court finds
and holds, therefore, that the fact of infliction of the injuries on
Tizon by the above-named accused has been proven by the
prosecution in evidence, as well as the nature of the wounds, the
length or duration for said injuries to heal and, finally, the
perpetrators of the offense, those fully establishing corpus
delicti.
"Although the charge in the instant case is for Murder, a finding
of guilt for the offense of Less Serious Physical Injuries is
proper and in order, considering that the latter offense is
necessarily included in the former inasmuch as the essential
ingredients of Less Serious Physical Injuries constitute and form
part of those constituting the offense of Murder (Rule 120,
section 5). In the same manner, the accused may be convicted of
Slight, Less Serious or Serious Physical Injuries in a prosecution
for Homicide or Murder, inasmuch as the infliction of physical
injuries could lead to any of the latter offense when carried to its
utmost degree, despite the fact that an essential requisite of the
crime of Homicide or Murder is intent to kill but which is not
required in a conviction for physical injuries. Similarly, a person
accused of Attempted or Frustrated Murder or Homicide,
wherein intent to kill is alleged, may, as the case may be, be
convicted of physical injuries only, thus connecting that there
was no intent to kill, hence, the crime could not be elevated to
the category of an attempt or frustration of such offenses of
homicide or murder.
"Conformably, therefore, with the foregoing findings and
conclusions, the liability of accused Rufilo Tan, Dr. Roberto
Tan, Jr., Station Commander Lilio Borja, Patrolmen Benedicto
Cernal, Isaias Copada and Castulo Campo for the crime of Less
Serious Physical Injuries must be adjudged. Inasmuch as said
accused are all public officers, and, in the commission of the
offense charged, they acted with abuse of their public positions
and, likewise, took advantage of their numerical superiority
and/or superior strength in the infliction of these injuries on the
victim, Jimmy Tizon, then perforce, the Court finds that said
aggravating circumstances must be taken into account in the
imposition of the corresponding penalty. The record, however,
showing that said accused had voluntarily surrendered, then such
mitigating circumstance should be considered in their favor. On
the other hand, with respect to accused Gonzalo Borja, Eufemio
Bormate and Patrolmen Abraham Codoy, Privado Alido, Jose
Alde, Eden Boco, Jorge Silla, Pio Gopole, Felipe Alde, Jr. and
Romeo Escoto, against whom the evidence is insufficient to
warrant a finding of guilt, their acquittal must necessarily be
adjudged.
"WHEREFORE, accused Rufilo Tan y Loste, Dr. Roberto Tan,
Jr. y Loste, Lilio Boria y Grafil, Benedicto Cernal y Alde, Isaias
Copada y Alde and Castulo Campo y Averia are hereby found
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of Less
Serious Physical Injuries, as defined and penalized under Article
265 of the Revised Penal Code, as co-principals thereof, and
there being duly proven the aggravating circumstances of taking
advantage of their official positions and superior strength, offset
only by the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender,
hereby sentences each of them to suffer a straight imprisonment
of SIX (6) MONTHS of arresto mayor, to indemnify, jointly and
severally the heirs of Jimmy Tizon in the amount of P1,500.00,
representing moral damages, P1,500.00 as exemplary damages,
and to pay the cost of this action proportionately.
"Accused, Gonzalo Borja y Grafil, Eufemio Bormate y Bade and
Patrolmen Abraham Codoy y Conrada, Privado Alido y
Avendano, Jose Alde y Codoy, Eden Boco y Bertos, Jorge Silla
y Calzado, Pio Gopole y Albor, Felipe Alde, Jr. y Coritana and
Romeo Escoto y Candido are hereby acquitted for insuffiency of
evidence, with costs de oficio. The bail bonds posted for their
provisional liberty are hereby cancelled and their bondsmen
thereunder relieved of any further liability thereon."33[33]
This decision of the Sandiganbayan became final and executory
after this Court denied the convicted respondents petitions for
review in L-60592 entitled "Rufilo L. Tan vs. Sandiganbayan"
and L-60701 entitled "Roberto L. Tan, Isaias A. Copada, Lilio
G. Borja, Benedicto A. Cernal and Castulo A. Campo vs.
Sandiganbayan" on October 21, 1982. Their motion for
reconsideration of the resolution of October 21, 1982 was denied
in the resolution of December 3, 1982 and entry of final
judgment was made on January 7, 1983.
The Sandiganbayan decision, lenient as it was, proves beyond
peradventure the falsity of the incredible claim by respondents in
their returns and amended returns in the case at bar that they
released the three detainees-victims on the very same night of
their arrest on September 13, 1978. They thereby flaunted the
authority of this Court; brazenly perjured themselves in swearing
to their false returns; failed to give respect due to justice and

33[33] Pages 61-72 of the decision found on pp. 112-123 of the
Record of G.R. No. 60592 of the Court.
truth and created and placed obstacles to the administration of
justice and prevented the resolution of this case with the
promptness which its very nature required, involving as it did,
the liberty and lives of the three victims.
Atty. Lutgardo B. Barbo, counsel for petitioners, merits the
Court's commendation for his fearless and unrelenting pursuit of
the cause of truth and justice for the tragic victims. He pleaded
in his reply to the separate amended returns thus:
"a) People do not just vanish into thin air. One, perhaps,
may disappear without a trace, two, may do the
same, but a group of three responsible married men
with wives and small children anxiously waiting for
them, is simply just too much. For this reason,
petitioners have no other recourse but to go to court
because they are convinced of the justness of their
cause; they certainly are not the type of people,
what with their limited education and financial
resources, who will go to court merely to harass
town officials of a faraway place, or maliciously
annoy the whole provincial Philippine
Constabulary/Integrated National Police Command
of Eastern Samar.
"b) Then there is also the unnatural behavior, if not
dereliction of responsibility, of the town officials
led by the mayor and the Sub-Station Commander
who admitted before this Honorable Court that they
did not inquire about the whereabouts of the three
innocent men whom they wrongly suspected of
being pirates even after their wives arrived from
Manila anxiously looking for their long missing
husbands. One can only surmise that the said mayor
and the sub-station commander know exactly what
happened to the three innocent men."
He prayed that respondents be held and punished for contempt
of court pursuant to the Court's power and authority to punish for
contempt as an incident essential to the execution and
maintenance of judicial authority.
It is beyond doubt the bounden duty of respondents having
custody of a detained person to respect and obey a writ of habeas
corpus issued by a court or judge having jurisdiction in the
premises and properly served upon them, and every person who
unlawfully disobey the Court's commands or unlawfully resists
or counsels resistance to its execution is in contempt of court and
may be summarily punished therefor. Disobedience to the writ
may take the form of neglecting or refusing to produce the
person whose presence is sought by the writ, of failing to make a
return, of making a false or evasive return, or of refusing to obey
the final order or judgment entered in the proceedings. What the
Court held in the early case of Villavicencio v. Lucban34[34] still
holds true as ever: "When one is commanded to produce a
certain person and does not do so, and does not offer a valid
excuse, a court must vindicate its authority, adjudge the
respondent to be guilty of contempt, and order him either
imprisoned or fined."
A punishment of contempt in this case is called for in order to
vindicate the dignity and integrity of the writ of habeas corpus
and to impress upon the respondents and all others the serious

34[34] 39 Phil. 778 (1919)
consequences of disobedience or willful evasion of the great writ
of liberty. It is likewise necessary to maintain the authority of
the court and to vindicate its honor and dignity whenever it is
outraged.
The Court herein exercises this power on a corrective and not a
retaliatory or vindictive principle (though it could impose a
heavier penalty and order respondents' imprisonment for a
substantial period of time) and therefore finds respondents guilty
of contempt of court and sentences each of them to pay a fine of
One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00) as hereinbelow ordered. But
the respondents must face criminal charges for their perjured
returns to the writ, as set forth hereinabove.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court, finding respondents guilty of
contempt of court, sentences each of them to pay a fine of One
Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00) payable within ten (10) days from
notice or to suffer ten (10) days imprisonment should they fail to
pay such fine within the aforesaid period.
The Court refers this case to the Secretary of Justice for the
criminal prosecution of the respondents for perjury and other
charges, including murder as may be warranted in the premises,
and of other parties not herein impleaded led by then PC
Sergeant Berting Casillano and pointed to by the prosecution as
responsible for the death in Can-avid of Jimmy Tizon and the
two other hapless victims Cesar Razon and Crespo Contado, as
stated in the Sandiganbayan's decision of January 29, 1982 in
Criminal Case No. 2679 thereof (supra, pp. 15-17).
This decision is immediately executory.*
SO ORDERED.
Yap, Fernan, Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Cruz, Paras, Feliciano,
Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin, Sarmiento, and Cortes, JJ., concur.
Grio- Aquino, J., no part.
Gutierrez, Jr., J., absent.




* In immediately executory decisions, no extension of time to
file motion for reconsideration shall be granted.