Facts: On February 14, 2006, Raymond was sleeping in their house in Buhol na Mangga, San

Ildefonso, Bulacan. At past noon, he was abducted by CAFGU members. The van drove off,
then came to a stop. A person was brought inside the van and made to sit beside Raymond. Both
of them were beaten up. On the road, he recognized the voice of the person beside him as his
brother Reynaldos. They were suspected as members of the NPA. In the next days, Raymonds
interrogators appeared to be high officials as the soldiers who beat him up would salute them,
call them sir, and treat them with respect. After 18 months of detention and torture, the
brothers escaped on August 13, 2007.
Respondents initially filed an action for Prohibition, Injunction, and Temporary Restraining
Orderto stop petitioners and/or their officers and agents from depriving the respondents of their
right to liberty and other basic rights on August 23, 2007, prior to the promulgation of the
Amparo Rule. When the Amparo Rule came into effect on October 24, 2007, they moved to
have their petition treated as an amparo petition. The Court granted their motion.
On December 26, 2007, the Court of Appeals granted the privilege of the writ of amparo. The
CA ordered the Secretary of National Defense and the Chief of Staff of the AFP to furnish the the
two borthers and the court with all official and unofficial investigation reports as to their custody,
confirm the present places of official assignment of two military officials involved, and produce
all medical reports and records of the Manalo brothers while under military custody. The
Secretary of National Defense and the Chief of Staff of the AFP appealed to the SC seeking to
reverse and set aside the decision promulgated by the CA.
Issue: 1. Whether or Not filing for Writ of Amparo is proper.
Ruling:

Yes. Since their escape, respondents have been under concealment and protection by private
citizens because of the threat to their life, liberty and security. The threat vitiates their free will
as they are forced to limit their movements or activities. Precisely because respondents are being
shielded from the perpetrators of their abduction, they cannot be expected to show evidence of
overt acts of threat such as face-to-face intimidation or written threats to their life, liberty and
security. Nonetheless, the circumstances of respondents abduction, detention, torture and escape
reasonably support a conclusion that there is an apparent threat that they will again be abducted,
tortured, and this time, even executed. These constitute threats to their liberty, security, and life,
actionable through a petition for a writ of amparo.