Professional Documents
Culture Documents
By Resolution of October 25, 2007, the Court issued in G.R. No. 179994 a xxxx
writ of amparo returnable to the Special Former Eleventh Division of the
appellate court, and ordered the consolidation of the amparo petition with 59. Saan ka dinala mula sa Sapang?
the pending habeas corpus petition.
Pagkalipas ng humigit kumulang 3 buwan sa Sapang, dinala ako sa Camp
Docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 002, respondents in the amparo case, through Tecson sa ilalim ng 24th IB.
the Solicitor General, filed their Return of the Writ on November 6, 2007. 15
In the Return, Gen. Palparan, Lt. Col. Boac and Lt. Mirabelle reiterated their
xxxx
earlier narrations in the habeas corpus case.
x x x x. Lt. Col. Anotado denied seeing or meeting Manalo. He posited that Manalo
recognized him because he was very active in conducting lectures in
61. Sino ang mga nakilala mo sa Camp Tecson? Bataan and even appeared on television regarding an incident involving
the 24th Infantry Batallion. He contended that it was impossible for
Manalo, Sherlyn, Karen and Merino to be detained in the Limay detachment
Dito sa Camp Tecson naming nakilala si Allan Alvin (maya-maya nalaman
which had no detention area.
naming na siya pala si Donald Caigas), ng 24th IB, na tinatawag na
master o commander ng kanyang mga tauhan.
Col. Eduardo Boyles Davalan, the then chief of staff of the First Scout
Ranger Regiment in Camp Tecson, testified that the camp is not a
Pagkalipas ng 2 araw matapos dalhin si Reynaldo sa Camp Tecson
detention facility, nor does it conduct military operations as it only serves
dumating sina Karen Empeo at Manuel Merino na mga bihag din. Inilagay
as a training facility for scout rangers. He averred that his regiment does
si Karen at Manuel sa kwarto ni Allan[.] Kami naman ni Reynaldo ay nasa
not have any command relation with either the 7th Infantry Division or the
katabing kwarto, kasama si Sherlyn.
24th Infantry Battalion.22
xxxx
By Decision of September 17, 2008,23 the appellate court granted the
Motion for Reconsideration in CA-G.R. SP No. 95303 (the habeas corpus
62. x x x x case) and ordered the immediate release of Sherlyn, Karen and Merino in
CA-G.R. SP No. 00002 (the amparo case). Thus it disposed:
Kaming mga lalake (ako, si Reynaldo at si Manuel) ay ginawang utusan,
habang sina Sherlyn at Karen ay ginawang labandera. WHEREFORE, in CA-G.R. SP NO. 95303 (Habeas Corpus case), the Motion
for Reconsideration is GRANTED.
Si Sherlyn ang pinahirapan nina Mickey, Donald at Billy. Sabi ni Sherlyn sa
akin na siyay ginahasa. Accordingly, in both CA-G.R. SP NO. 95303 (Habeas Corpus case) and in
CA-G.R. SP NO. 00002 (Amparo case), the respondents are thereby ordered
xxxx to immediately RELEASE, or cause the release, from detention the persons
of Sher[lyn] Cadapan, Karen Empeo and Manuel Merino.
63. x x x x
Respondent Director General Avelino Razon is hereby ordered to resume
xxxx [the] PNPs unfinished investigation so that the truth will be fully
ascertained and appropriate charges filed against those truly responsible.
Kaming lima (ako, si Reynaldo, si Sherlyn, si Karen at si [Merino]) ang
dinala sa Limay. Sinakay ako, si Reynaldo, si Sherlyn at si [Merino] sa isang SO ORDERED.
stainless na jeep. Si Karen ay isinakay sa itim na sasakyan ni Donald
Caigas. x x x x In reconsidering its earlier Decision in the habeas corpus case, the
appellate court relied heavily on the testimony of Manalo in this wise:
xxxx
With the additional testimony of Raymond Manalo, the petitioners have
66. Saan pa kayo dinala mula sa Limay, Bataan? been able to convincingly prove the fact of their detention by some
elements in the military. His testimony is a first hand account that military
and civilian personnel under the 7th Infantry Division were responsible for
Mula sa Limay, kaming 5 (ako, si Reynaldo, si Sherlyn, Si Karen at si
the abduction of Sherlyn Cadapan, Karen Empeo and Manuel Merino. He
Manuel) ay dinala sa isang safehouse sa Zambales, tabi ng dagat. x x x x
also confirmed the claim of Oscar Leuterio that the latter was detained in
(underscoring supplied; italics and emphasis in the original)
Fort Magsaysay. It was there where he (Leuterio) saw Manuel Merino.
His testimony that Leuterio saw Manuel Merino in Fort Magsaysay may be docketed as G.R. Nos. 184461-62, the first above-captioned case- subject
hearsay but not with respect to his meeting with, and talking to, the three of the present Decision.
desaparecidos. His testimony on those points was no hearsay. Raymond
Manalo saw the three with his very own eyes as they were detained and Erlinda Cadapan and Concepcion Empeo, on the other hand, filed their
tortured together. In fact, he claimed to be a witness to the burning of own petition for review also challenging the same September 17, 2008
Manuel Merino. In the absence of confirmatory proof, however, the Court Decision of the appellate court only insofar as the amparo aspect is
will presume that he is still alive. concerned. Their petition, docketed as G.R. No. 179994, was redocketed as
G.R. No. 184495, the second above-captioned case.
The testimony of Raymond Manalo can no longer be ignored and brushed
aside. His narration and those of the earlier witnesses, taken together, By Resolution of June 15, 2010, the Court ordered the consolidation of G.R.
constitute more than substantial evidence warranting an order that the No. 184495 with G.R. Nos. 1844461-62.24
three be released from detention if they are not being held for a lawful
cause. They may be moved from place to place but still they are
Meanwhile, Erlinda Cadapan and Concepcion Empeo filed before the
considered under detention and custody of the respondents.
appellate court a Motion to Cite Respondents in Contempt of Court for
failure of the respondents in the amparo and habeas corpus cases to
His testimony was clear, consistent and convincing. x x x. comply with the directive of the appellate court to immediately release the
three missing persons. By Resolution of March 5, 2009, 25 the appellate
xxxx court denied the motion, ratiocinating thus:
The additional testimonies of Lt. Col. Felipe Anotado and Col. Eduardo While the Court, in the dispositive portion, ordered the respondents "to
Boyles Davalan were of no help either. Again, their averments were the immediately RELEASE, or cause the release, from detention the persons of
same negative ones which cannot prevail over those of Raymond Manalo. Sherlyn Cadapan, Karen Empeo and Manuel Merino," the decision is not
Indeed, Camp Tecson has been utilized as a training camp for army scout ipso facto executory. The use of the term "immediately" does not mean
rangers. Even Raymond Manalo noticed it but the camps use for purposes that that it is automatically executory. There is nothing in the Rule on the
other than training cannot be discounted. Writ of Amparo which states that a decision rendered is immediately
executory. x x x.
xxxx
Neither did the decision become final and executory considering that both
In view of the foregoing, there is now a clear and credible evidence that the parties questioned the Decision/Resolution before the Supreme Court. x x
three missing persons, [Sherlyn, Karen and Merino], are being detained in x.
military camps and bases under the 7th Infantry Division. Being not held
for a lawful cause, they should be immediately released from detention. Besides, the Court has no basis. The petitioners did not file a motion for
(italic in the original; emphasis and underscoring supplied) execution pending appeal under Section 2 of Rule 39. There being no
motion, the Court could not have issued, and did not issue, a writ of
Meanwhile, in the amparo case, the appellate court deemed it a superfluity execution. x x x. (underscoring supplied)
to issue any inspection order or production order in light of the release
order. As it earlier ruled in the habeas corpus case, it found that the three Via a petition for certiorari filed on March 30, 2009 before this Court,
detainees right to life, liberty and security was being violated, hence, the Erlinda Cadapan and Concepcion Empeo challenged the appellate courts
need to immediately release them, or cause their release. The appellate March 5, 2009 Resolution denying their motion to cite respondents in
court went on to direct the PNP to proceed further with its investigation contempt. The petition was docketed as G.R. No. 187109, the last above-
since there were enough leads as indicated in the records to ascertain the captioned case subject of the present Decision.
truth and file the appropriate charges against those responsible for the
abduction and detention of the three. Only Lt. Col. Anotado and Lt. Mirabelle remained of the original
respondents in the amparo and habeas corpus cases as the other
Lt. Col. Rogelio Boac, et al. challenged before this Court, via petition for respondents had retired from government service.26 The AFP has denied
review, the September 17, 2008 Decision of the appellate court. This was
that Arnel Enriquez was a member of the Philippine Army. 27 The 6. The Court of Appeals erred in not granting the Interim Relief for
whereabouts of Donald Caigas remain unknown.28 Production of Documents;
In G.R. Nos. 184461-62, petitioners posit as follows: 7. The Court of Appeals erred in not finding that the Police Director
Gen. Avelino Razon did not make extraordinary diligence in
I investigating the enforced disappearance of the aggrieved
parties
THE COURT OF APPEALS GROSSLY MISAPPRECIATED THE VALUE
OF THE TESTIMONY OF RAYMOND MANALO. 8. The Court of Appeals erred in not finding that this was not the
command coming from the highest echelon of powers of the Armed
Forces of the Philippines, Philippine Army and the Seventh Infantry
II
Division of the Philippine Army to enforcibly disappear [sic] the
aggrieved parties
THE PETITION[S] FOR HABEAS CORPUS AND WRIT OF AMPARO
SHOULD BE DISMISSED BECAUSE RESPONDENTS FAILED TO PROVE
9. The Court of Appeals erred in dropping President Gloria
BY THE REQUIRED QUANTUM OF EVIDENCE THAT PETITIONERS
Macapagal Arroyo as party respondent in this case;
HAVE SHERLYN CADAPAN, KAREN EMPEO AND MANUEL MERINO
ARE IN THEIR CUSTODY.
10. The Court of Appeals erred in not finding that President Gloria
Macapagal Arroyo had command responsibility in the enforced
III
disappearance and continued detention of the three aggrieved
parties
PETITIONERS DENIALS PER SE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN TAKEN
AGAINST THEM BECAUSE THEY DID NOT REALLY HAVE ANY
11. The Court of Appeals erred in not finding that the Armed Forces
INVOLVEMENT IN THE ALLEGED ABDUCTION; MOREOVER, THE
Chief of Staff then Hermogenes Esperon and the Present Chief of
SUPPOSED INCONSISTENCIES IN THEIR TESTIMONIES ARE ON
Staff as having command responsibility in the enforced
POINTS IRRELEVANT TO THE PETITION.
disappearance and continued detention of the three aggrieved
parties30
IV
In G.R. No. 187109, petitioners raise the following issues:
THE DISPOSITIVE PORTION OF THE ASSAILED DECISION IS VAGUE
AND INCONGRUENT WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE COURT OF
[1] Whether the decision in the Court of Appeals has become
APPEALS.
final and executory[.]
V
[2] Whetherthere is a need to file a motion for execution in a
Habeas Corpus decision or in an Amparo decision[.]
THE COURT OF APPEALS IGNORED AND FAILED TO RULE UPON THE
FATAL PROCEDURAL INFIRMITIES IN THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF
[3] Whetheran appeal can stay the decision of a Habeas Corpus
AMPARO.29
[case] [or] an Amparo case[.]31
5. The Court of Appeals erred in not granting the Interim Relief for
Inspection of Places;
Essentially, the consolidated petitions present three primary issues, viz: a) The next day, Raymonds chains were removed and he was ordered to
whether the testimony of Raymond Manalo is credible; b) whether the chief clean outside the barracks. It was then he learned that he was in a
of the AFP, the commanding general of the Philippine Army, as well as the detachment of the Rangers. There were many soldiers, hundreds of them
heads of the concerned units had command responsibility over the were training. He was also ordered to clean inside the barracks. In one of
abduction and detention of Sherlyn, Karen and Merino; and c) whether the rooms therein, he met Sherlyn Cadapan from Laguna. She told him that
there is a need to file a motion for execution to cause the release of the she was a student of the University of the Philippines and was abducted in
aggrieved parties. Hagonoy, Bulacan. She confided that she had been subjected to severe
torture and raped. She was crying and longing to go home and be with her
G.R. Nos. 184461-62 parents. During the day, her chains were removed and she was made to do
the laundry.
Petitioners Lt. Col. Boac, et al. contend that the appellate court erred in
giving full credence to the testimony of Manalo who could not even After a week, Reynaldo was also brought to Camp Tecson. Two days from
accurately describe the structures of Camp Tecson where he claimed to his arrival, two other captives, Karen Empeo and Manuel Merino, arrived.
have been detained along with Sherlyn, Karen and Merino. They Karen and Manuel were put in the room with "Allan" whose name they later
underscore that Camp Tecson is not under the jurisdiction of the 24th came to know as Donald Caigas, called "master" or "commander" by his
Infantry Batallion and that Manalos testimony is incredible and full of men in the 24th Infantry Battalion. Raymond and Reynaldo were put in the
inconsistencies.32 adjoining room. At times, Raymond and Reynaldo were threatened, and
Reynaldo was beaten up. In the daytime, their chains were removed, but
were put back on at night. They were threatened that if they escaped, their
In Secretary of National Defense v. Manalo,33 an original petition for
families would all be killed.
Prohibition, Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order which was treated
as a petition under the Amparo Rule, said Rule having taken effect during
the pendency of the petition, the Court ruled on the truthfulness and On or about October 6, 2006, Hilario arrived in Camp Tecson. He told the
veracity of the personal account of Manalo which included his encounter detainees that they should be thankful they were still alive and should
with Sherlyn, Kara and Merino while on detention. Thus it held: continue along their "renewed life." Before the hearing of November 6 or 8,
2006, respondents were brought to their parents to instruct them not to
attend the hearing. However, their parents had already left for Manila.
We affirm the factual findings of the appellate court, largely based on
Respondents were brought back to Camp Tecson. They stayed in that camp
respondent Raymond Manalos affidavit and testimony, viz:
from September 2006 to November 2006, and Raymond was instructed to
continue using the name "Oscar" and holding himself out as a military
x x x x. trainee. He got acquainted with soldiers of the 24th Infantry Battalion
whose names and descriptions he stated in his affidavit.
We reject the claim of petitioners that respondent Raymond Manalos
statements were not corroborated by other independent and credible On November 22, 2006, respondents, along with Sherlyn, Karen, and
pieces of evidence. Raymonds affidavit and testimony were corroborated Manuel, were transferred to a camp of the 24th Infantry Battalion in Limay,
by the affidavit of respondent Reynaldo Manalo. The testimony and medical Bataan. There were many huts in the camp. They stayed in that camp until
reports prepared by forensic specialist Dr. Molino, and the pictures of the May 8, 2007. Some soldiers of the battalion stayed with them. While there,
scars left by the physical injuries inflicted on respondents, also corroborate battalion soldiers whom Raymond knew as "Mar" and "Billy" beat him up
respondents accounts of the torture they endured while in detention. and hit him in the stomach with their guns. Sherlyn and Karen also suffered
Respondent Raymond Manalos familiarity with the facilities in Fort enormous torture in the camp. They were all made to clean, cook, and help
Magsaysay such as the "DTU," as shown in his testimony and confirmed by in raising livestock.
Lt. Col. Jimenez to be the "Division Training Unit," firms up respondents
story that they were detained for some time in said military facility.
Raymond recalled that when "Operation Lubog" was launched, Caigas and
(citations omitted; emphasis and underscoring supplied)
some other soldiers brought him and Manuel with them to take and kill all
sympathizers of the NPA. They were brought to Barangay Bayan-bayanan,
On Manalos having allegedly encountered Sherlyn, Karen and Merino while Bataan where he witnessed the killing of an old man doing kaingin. The
on detention, the Court in the immediately cited case synthesized his tale soldiers said he was killed because he had a son who was a member of the
as follows: NPA and he coddled NPA members in his house. Another time, in another
"Operation Lubog," Raymond was brought to Barangay Orion in a house Petitioners finally point out that the parents of Sherlyn and Karen do not
where NPA men stayed. When they arrived, only the old man of the house have the requisite standing to file the amparo petition on behalf of Merino.
who was sick was there. They spared him and killed only his son right They call attention to the fact that in the amparo petition, the parents of
before Raymonds eyes. Sherlyn and Karen merely indicated that they were "concerned with Manuel
Merino" as basis for filing the petition on his behalf. 37
From Limay, Raymond, Reynaldo, Sherlyn, Karen, and Manuel were
transferred to Zambales, in a safehouse near the sea. Caigas and some of Section 2 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo38 provides:
his men stayed with them. A retired army soldier was in charge of the
house. Like in Limay, the five detainees were made to do errands and The petition may be filed by the aggrieved party or by any qualified person
chores. They stayed in Zambales from May 8 or 9, 2007 until June 2007. or entity in the following order:
In June 2007, Caigas brought the five back to the camp in Limay. Raymond, (a) Any member of the immediate family, namely: the spouse,
Reynaldo, and Manuel were tasked to bring food to detainees brought to children and parents of the aggrieved party;
the camp. Raymond narrated what he witnessed and experienced in the
camp, viz:
(b) Any ascendant, descendant or collateral relative of the
aggrieved party within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or
x x x x.34 (emphasis and underscoring supplied) affinity, in default of those mentioned in the preceding paragraph;
or
The Court takes judicial notice of its Decision in the just cited Secretary of
National Defense v. Manalo35 which assessed the account of Manalo to be a (c) Any concerned citizen, organization, association or institution, if
candid and forthright narrative of his and his brother Reynaldos abduction there is no known member of the immediate family or relative of
by the military in 2006; and of the corroborative testimonies, in the same the aggrieved party.
case, of Manalos brother Reynaldo and a forensic specialist, as well as
Manalos graphic description of the detention area. There is thus no
Indeed, the parents of Sherlyn and Karen failed to allege that there were no
compelling reason for the Court, in the present case, to disturb its
known members of the immediate family or relatives of Merino. The
appreciation in Manalos testimony. The outright denial of petitioners Lt.
exclusive and successive order mandated by the above-quoted provision
Col. Boac, et al. thus crumbles.
must be followed. The order of priority is not without reason"to prevent
the indiscriminate and groundless filing of petitions for amparo which may
Petitioners go on to point out that the assailed Decision of the appellate even prejudice the right to life, liberty or security of the aggrieved party." 39
court is "vague and incongruent with [its] findings" for, so they contend,
while the appellate court referred to the perpetrators as "misguided and
The Court notes that the parents of Sherlyn and Karen also filed the
self-righteous civilian and military elements of the 7th Infantry Division," it
petition for habeas corpus on Merinos behalf. No objection was raised
failed to identify who these perpetrators are. Moreover, petitioners assert
therein for, in a habeas corpus proceeding, any person may apply for the
that Donald Caigas and Arnel Enriquez are not members of the AFP. They
writ on behalf of the aggrieved party.40
furthermore point out that their co-petitioners Generals Esperon, Tolentino
and Palparan have already retired from the service and thus have no more
control of any military camp or base in the country.36 It is thus only with respect to the amparo petition that the parents of
Sherlyn and Karen are precluded from filing the application on Merinos
behalf as they are not authorized parties under the Rule.
There is nothing vague and/or incongruent about the categorical order of
the appellate court for petitioners to release Sherlyn, Karen and Merino. In
its discourse, the appellate court merely referred to "a few misguided self- G.R. No. 184495
righteous people who resort to the extrajudicial process of neutralizing
those who disagree with the countrys democratic system of government." Preliminarily, the Court finds the appellate courts dismissal of the petitions
Nowhere did it specifically refer to the members of the 7th Infantry Division against then President Arroyo well-taken, owing to her immunity from suit
as the "misguided self-righteous" ones. at the time the habeas corpus and amparo petitions were filed. 41
Settled is the doctrine that the President, during his tenure of office or An amparo proceeding is not criminal in nature nor does it ascertain the
actual incumbency, may not be sued in any civil or criminal case, and there criminal liability of individuals or entities involved. Neither does it partake
is no need to provide for it in the Constitution or law. It will degrade the of a civil or administrative suit.46 Rather, it is a remedial measure designed
dignity of the high office of the President, the Head of State, if he can be to direct specified courses of action to government agencies to safeguard
dragged into court litigations while serving as such. Furthermore, it is the constitutional right to life, liberty and security of aggrieved
important that he be freed from any form of harassment, hindrance or individuals.47
distraction to enable him to fully attend to the performance of his official
duties and functions. Unlike the legislative and judicial branch, only one Thus Razon Jr. v. Tagitis 48
enlightens:
constitutes the executive branch and anything which impairs his usefulness
in the discharge of the many great and important duties imposed upon him
[An amparo proceeding] does nor determine guilt nor pinpoint criminal
by the Constitution necessarily impairs the operation of the Government. x
culpability for the disappearance [threats thereof or extrajudicial killings]; it
x x 42
determines responsibility, or at least accountability, for the enforced
disappearancefor purposes of imposing the appropriate remedies to
Parenthetically, the petitions are bereft of any allegation that then address the disappearance49 (emphasis and underscoring supplied)
President Arroyo permitted, condoned or performed any wrongdoing
against the three missing persons.
Further, Tagitis defines what constitutes "responsibility" and
"accountability," viz:
On the issue of whether a military commander may be held liable for the
acts of his subordinates in an amparo proceeding, a brief discussion of the
x x x. Responsibility refers to the extent the actors have been
concept of command responsibility and its application insofar as amparo
established by substantial evidence to have participated in whatever way,
cases already decided by the Court is in order.
by action or omission, in an enforced disappearance, as a measure of the
remedies this Court shall craft, among them, the directive to file the
Rubrico v. Macapagal Arroyo43 expounded on the concept of command appropriate criminal and civil cases against the responsible parties in the
responsibility as follows: proper courts. Accountability, on the other hand, refers to the measure of
remedies that should be addressed to those who exhibited involvement in
The evolution of the command responsibility doctrine finds its context in the enforced disappearance without bringing the level of their complicity to
the development of laws of war and armed combats. According to Fr. the level of responsibility defined above; or who are imputed with
Bernas, "command responsibility," in its simplest terms, means the knowledge relating to the enforced disappearance and who carry the
"responsibility of commanders for crimes committed by subordinate burden of disclosure; or those who carry, but have failed to discharge, the
members of the armed forces or other persons subject to their control in burden of extraordinary diligence in the investigation of the enforced
international wars or domestic conflict." In this sense, command disappearance. In all these cases, the issuance of the Writ of Amparo is
responsibility is properly a form of criminal complicity. The Hague justified by our primary goal of addressing the disappearance, so that the
Conventions of 1907 adopted the doctrine of command responsibility, life of the victim is preserved and his liberty and security are restored. 50
foreshadowing the present-day precept of holding a superior accountable (emphasis in the original; underscoring supplied)
for the atrocities committed by his subordinates should he be remiss in his
duty of control over them. As then formulated, command responsibility is Rubrico categorically denies the application of command responsibility in
"an omission mode of individual criminal liability," whereby the amparo cases to determine criminal liability.51 The Court maintains its
superior is made responsible for crimes committed by his subordinates adherence to this pronouncement as far as amparo cases are concerned.
for failing to prevent or punish the perpetrators (as opposed to crimes he
ordered). (citations omitted; emphasis in the original; underscoring
Rubrico, however, recognizes a preliminary yet limited application of
supplied)44
command responsibility in amparo cases to instances of determining the
responsible or accountable individuals or entities that are duty-bound to
It bears stressing that command responsibility is properly a form of abate any transgression on the life, liberty or security of the aggrieved
criminal complicity,45 and thus a substantive rule that points to criminal or party.
administrative liability.
If command responsibility were to be invoked and applied to these Contrary to the ruling of the appellate court, there is no need to file a
proceedings, it should, at most, be only to determine the author who, at motion for execution for an amparo or habeas corpus decision. Since the
the first instance, is accountable for, and has the duty to address, the right to life, liberty and security of a person is at stake, the proceedings
disappearance and harassments complained of, so as to enable the Court should not be delayed and execution of any decision thereon must be
to devise remedial measures that may be appropriate under the premises expedited as soon as possible since any form of delay, even for a day, may
to protect rights covered by the writ of amparo. As intimated earlier, jeopardize the very rights that these writs seek to immediately protect.
however, the determination should not be pursued to fix criminal liability
on respondents preparatory to criminal prosecution, or as a prelude to The Solicitor Generals argument that the Rules of Court supplement the
administrative disciplinary proceedings under existing administrative Rule on the Writ of Amparo is misplaced. The Rules of Court only find
issuances, if there be any. 52 (emphasis and underscoring supplied) suppletory application in an amparo proceeding if the Rules strengthen,
rather than weaken, the procedural efficacy of the writ. As it is, the Rule
In other words, command responsibility may be loosely applied in amparo dispenses with dilatory motions in view of the urgency in securing the life,
cases in order to identify those accountable individuals that have the liberty or security of the aggrieved party. Suffice it to state that a motion
power to effectively implement whatever processes an amparo court would for execution is inconsistent with the extraordinary and expeditious remedy
issue.53 In such application, the amparo court does not impute criminal being offered by an amparo proceeding.
responsibility but merely pinpoint the superiors it considers to be in the
best position to protect the rights of the aggrieved party. In fine, the appellate court erred in ruling that its directive to immediately
release Sherlyn, Karen and Merino was not automatically executory. For
Such identification of the responsible and accountable superiors may well that would defeat the very purpose of having summary proceedings 56 in
be a preliminary determination of criminal liability which, of course, is still amparo petitions. Summary proceedings, it bears emphasis, are
subject to further investigation by the appropriate government agency. immediately executory without prejudice to further appeals that may be
taken therefrom.57
Relatedly, the legislature came up with Republic Act No. 9851 54 (RA 9851)
to include command responsibility as a form of criminal complicity in WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing discussions, the Court renders the
crimes against international humanitarian law, genocide and other following judgment:
crimes.55 RA 9851 is thus the substantive law that definitively imputes
criminal liability to those superiors who, despite their position, still fail to 1. The Petitions in G.R. Nos. 184461-62 and G.R. No. 184495 are
take all necessary and reasonable measures within their power to prevent DISMISSED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated September
or repress the commission of illegal acts or to submit these matters to the 17, 2008 is AFFIRMED with modification in that respondents in G.R.
competent authorities for investigation and prosecution. No. 184495, namely Lt. Col. Felipe Anotado, Lt. Francis Mirabelle
Samson, Gen. Jovito Palparan, Lt. Col. Rogelio Boac, Arnel Enriquez
The Court finds that the appellate court erred when it did not specifically and Donald Caigas are ordered to immediately release Sherlyn
name the respondents that it found to be responsible for the abduction and Cadapan, Karen Empeo and Manuel Merino from detention.
continued detention of Sherlyn, Karen and Merino. For, from the records, it
appears that the responsible and accountable individuals are Lt. Col. The petitions against Generals Esperon, Razon and Tolentino are
Anotado, Lt. Mirabelle, Gen. Palparan, Lt. Col. Boac, Arnel Enriquez and DISMISSED.
Donald Caigas. They should thus be made to comply with the September
17, 2008 Decision of the appellate court to IMMEDIATELY RELEASE Sherlyn,
2. The petition in G.R. No. 187109 is GRANTED. The named
Karen and Merino.
respondents are directed to forthwith comply with the September
17, 2008 Decision of the appellate court. Owing to the retirement
The petitions against Generals Esperon, Razon and Tolentino should be and/or reassignment to other places of assignment of some of the
dismissed for lack of merit as there is no showing that they were even respondents herein and in G.R. No. 184495, the incumbent
remotely accountable and responsible for the abduction and continued commanding general of the 7th Infantry Division and the
detention of Sherlyn, Karen and Merino. incumbent battalion commander of the 24th Infantry Battalion,
both of the Philippine Army, are enjoined to fully ensure the release
G.R. No. 187109.
of Sherlyn Cadapan, Karen Empeo and Manuel Merino from
detention.1awphi1
Let copies of this Decision and the records of these cases be furnished the
Department of Justice (DOJ), the Philippine National Police (PNP) and the
Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) for further investigation to determine
the respective criminal and administrative liabilities of respondents.
All the present petitions are REMANDED to the Court of Appeals for
appropriate action, directed at monitoring of the DOJ, PNP and AFP
investigations and the validation of their results.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 191805 April 16, 2013 any possible liability or liabilities, within their respective legal competence,
that may have been incurred by respondents Gen. Victor lbrado, PDG. Jesus
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR THE WRIT OF AMPARO AND Verzosa, Lt. Gen. Delfin Bangit, Maj. Gen. Nestor Ochoa, Brig. Gen.
HABEAS DATA IN FAVOR OF NORIEL RODRIGUEZ, NORIEL Remegio De Vera, 1st Lt. Ryan Matutina, and Lt. Col. Laurence Mina. The
RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, Ombudsman and the DOJ are ordered to submit to this Court the results of
vs. their action within a period of six months from receipt of this Decision.
GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, GEN. VICTOR S. IBRADO, PDG JESUS
AME VERSOZA, LT. GEN. DELFIN BANGIT, MAJ. GEN. NESTOR Z. In the event that herein respondents no longer occupy their respective
OCHOA, P/CSUPT. AMETO G. TOLENTINO, P/SSUPT. JUDE W. posts, the directives mandated in this Decision and in the Court of Appeals
SANTOS, COL. REMIGIO M. DE VERA, an officer named MATUTINA, are enforceable against the incumbent officials holding the relevant
LT. COL. MINA, CALOG, GEORGE PALACPAC under the name positions. Failure to comply with the foregoing shall constitute contempt of
"HARRY," ANTONIO CRUZ, ALDWIN "BONG" PASICOLAN and court.
VINCENT CALLAGAN, Respondents.
SO ORDERED.
x-----------------------x
After a careful examination of the records, the Court was convinced that
G.R. No. 193160 the Court of Appeals correctly found sufficient evidence proving that the
soldiers of the 17th Infantry Battalion, 5th Infantry Division of the military
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR THE WRIT OF AMPARO AND abducted petitioner Rodriguez on 6 September 2009, and detained and
HABEAS DATA IN FAVOR OF NORIEL RODRIGUEZ, POLICE DIR. GEN. tortured him until 17 September 2009.
JESUS A. VERSOZA, P/SSUPT. JUDE W. SANTOS, BGEN. REMEGIO M.
DE VERA, 1ST LT. RYAN S. MATUTINA, LT. COL. LAURENCE E. MINA, Pursuant to the Decision ordering the Office of the Ombudsman to take
ANTONIO C. CRUZ, ALDWIN C. PASICOLAN and VICENTE A. further action, Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales sent this Court a
CALLAGAN, Petitioners, letter dated 23 May 2012, requesting an additional two-month period, or
vs. until 24 July 2012, within which to submit a report. The Ombudsman stated
NORIEL H. RODRIGUEZ, Respondent. that Noriel Rodriguez (Rodriguez) and his family refused to cooperate with
the investigation for security reasons.
RESOLUTION
On 6 January 2012, respondents filed their Motion for Reconsideration, 1
SERENO, CJ.: arguing that the soldiers belonging to the 17th Infantry Battalion, 5th
Infantry Division of the military cannot be held accountable for authoring
the abduction and torture of petitioner. Their arguments revolve solely on
On 15 November 2011, the Court promulgated its Decision in the present
the claim that respondents were never specifically mentioned by name as
case, the dispositive portion of which reads:
having performed, permitted, condoned, authorized, or allowed the
commission of any act or incurrence omission which would violate or
WHEREFORE, we resolve to GRANT the Petition for Partial Review in G.R. threaten with violation the rights to life, liberty, and security of petitioner-
No. 191805 and DENY the Petition for Review in G.R. No. 193160. The respondent and his family.2
Decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION.
On 18 January 2013, the Ombudsman submitted the Investigation Report,
The case is dismissed with respect to respondents former President Gloria as compliance with the Courts directive to take appropriate action with
Macapagal-Arroyo, P/CSupt. Ameto G. Tolentino, and P/SSupt. Jude W. respect to possible liabilities respondents may have incurred. The
Santos, Calog, George Palacpac, Antonio Cruz, Aldwin Pasicolan and exhaustive report detailed the steps taken by the Field Investigation Office
Vincent Callagan for lack of merit. (FIO) of the Office of the Ombudsman, concluding that no criminal, civil, or
administrative liabilities may be imputed to the respondents. It was
This Court directs the Office of the Ombudsman (Ombudsman) and the reflected therein that the lawyers for the Rodriguezes had manifested to
Department of Justice (DOJ) to take the appropriate action with respect to
the FIO that the latter are hesitant to appear before them for security We deny the motion for reconsideration.
reasons, viz:
The writ of amparo partakes of a summary proceeding that requires only
Karapatan (a non-governmental organization that provides legal assistance substantial evidence to make the appropriate interim and permanent
to victims of human rights violations and their families) could not locate reliefs available to the petitioner. As explained in the Decision, it is not an
Noriel and Rodel. As of this writing, the Rodriguezes refused to participate action to determine criminal guilt requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt,
in the present fact-finding investigation for security reasons. Atty. Yambot or liability for damages requiring preponderance of evidence, or even
disclosed (through a Manifestation dated March 30, 2012 that despite administrative responsibility requiring substantial evidence. The totality of
efforts to convince Noriel to participate in the present proceedings, the evidence as a standard for the grant of the writ was correctly applied by
latter remains unconvinced and unwilling to this date. this Court, as first laid down in Razon v. Tagitis:
Recent information, however, revealed that Noriel and his family are no The fair and proper rule, to our mind, is to consider all the pieces of
longer interested in participating in the present case. evidence adduced in their totality, and to consider any evidence otherwise
inadmissible under our usual rules to be admissible if it is consistent with
Instead of appearing before this Office for a conference under oath, SPO1 the admissible evidence adduced. In other words, we reduce our rules to
Robert B. Molina submitted an Affidavit dated June 13, 2012 stating that on the most basic test of reason i.e., to the relevance of the evidence to the
September 15, 2009, at around 11:00 oclock in the morning, Wilma H. issue at hand and its consistency with all other pieces of adduced
Rodriguez appeared before the Gonzaga Police Station and requested to evidence. Thus, even hearsay evidence can be admitted if it satisfies this
enter into the blotter that her son, Noriel, was allegedly missing in Sitio basic minimum test.6 (Emphasis supplied.)
Comunal, Gonzaga, Cagayan. Thereupon, he gathered information relative
to Wilmas report "but the community residence failed to reveal anything". 3 No reversible error may be attributed to the grant of the privilege of the
writ by the CA, and the present motion for reconsideration raises no new
The other accounts specifically that of respondent Antonino C. Cruz, issues that would convince us otherwise.
Special Investigator II of the Commission on Human Rights (CHR), as well
as the claims of respondents Mina and De Vera that they had disclosed to Respondents claim that they were not competently identified as the
the CHR that Noriel had become an agent ("asset") of the 17th Infantry soldiers who abducted and detained the petitioner, or that there was no
Battalion have been thoroughly evaluated and ruled upon in our Decision. mention of their names in the documentary evidence, is baseless. The CA
The OMB further laments, "If only he (Noriel) could be asked to verify the rightly considered Rodriguezs Sinumpaang Salaysay 7 as a meticulous and
circumstances under which he executed these subsequent affidavits, his straightforward account of his horrific ordeal with the military, detailing the
inconsistent claims will finally be settled," and that "(I)f there is one person manner in which he was captured and maltreated on account of his
who can attest on whether detention and torture were indeed committed suspected membership in the NPA.8
by any of the Subjects herein, it is Noriel Rodriguez himself, the supposed
victim."4 Petitioner narrated that at dawn on 9 September 2009, he noticed a soldier
with the name tag "Matutina," who appeared to be an official because the
The purported unwillingness of the petitioner to appear or participate at other soldiers addressed him as "sir."9 He saw Matutina again at 11:00 p.m.
this stage of the proceedings due to security reasons does not affect the on 15 September 2009, when his abductors took him to a military
rationale of the writ granted by the CA, as affirmed by this Court. In any operation in the mountains. His narration of his suffering included an
case, the issue of the existence of criminal, civil, or administrative liability exhaustive description of his physical surroundings, personal
which may be imputed to the respondents is not the province of amparo circumstances, and perceived observations. He likewise positively
proceedings -- rather, the writ serves both preventive and curative roles in identified respondents 1st Lt. Matutina and Lt. Col. Mina to be present
addressing the problem of extrajudicial killings and enforced during his abduction, detention and torture.10 These facts were further
disappearances. It is preventive in that it breaks the expectation of corroborated by Hermie Antonio Carlos in his Sinumpaang Salaysay dated
impunity in the commission of these offenses, and it is curative in that it 16 September 2009,11 wherein he recounted in detail the circumstances
facilitates the subsequent punishment of perpetrators by inevitably leading surrounding the victims capture.
to subsequent investigation and action.5 In this case then, the thrust of
ensuring that investigations are conducted and the rights to life, liberty,
and security of the petitioner, remains.
Respondents main contention in their Return of the Writ was correctly depended entirely on the report prepared by 1st Lt. Johnny Calub. No
deemed illogical and contradictory by the CA. They claim that Rodriguez efforts were undertaken to solicit petitioners version of the incident, and
had complained of physical ailments due to activities in the CPP-NPA, yet no witnesses were questioned regarding it.17 The CA also took into account
nevertheless signified his desire to become a double-agent for the military. the palpable lack of effort from respondent Versoza, as the chief of the
The CA stated: Philippine National Police.
In the Return of the Writ, respondent AFP members alleged that petitioner WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Motion for Reconsideration is
confided to his military handler, Cpl. Navarro, that petitioner could no hereby DENIED with FINALITY. Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished the
longer stand the hardships he experienced in the wilderness, and that he Ombudsman for whatever appropriate action she may still take under
wanted to become an ordinary citizen again because of the empty circumstances.
promises of the CPP-NPA. However, in the same Return, respondents state
that petitioner agreed to become a double agent for the military and SO ORDERED.
wanted to re-enter the CPP-NPA, so that he could get information regarding
the movement directly from the source. If petitioner was tired of life in the
wilderness and desired to become an ordinary citizen again, it defies logic
that he would agree to become an undercover agent and work alongside
soldiers in the mountains or the wilderness he dreads to locate the
hideout of his alleged NPA comrades.12 (Emphasis supplied.)
The writs curative role is an acknowledgment that the violation of the right
to life, liberty, and security may be caused not only by a public officials
act, but also by his omission. Accountability may attach to respondents
who are imputed with knowledge relating to the enforced disappearance
and who carry the burden of disclosure; or those who carry, but have failed
to discharge, the burden of extraordinary diligence in the investigation of
the enforced disappearance.15 The duty to investigate must be undertaken
in a serious manner and not as a mere formality preordained to be
ineffective.16
The CA found that respondents Gen. Ibrado, PDG Verzosa, LT. Gen. Bangit,
Maj. Gen. Ochoa, Col. De Vera, and Lt. Col. Mina conducted a perfunctory
investigation which relied solely on the accounts of the military. Thus, the
CA correctly held that the investigation was superficial, one-sided, and
PRESIDENT GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, SECRETARY EDUARDO
ERMITA, SECRETARY GILBERTO TEODORO, SECRETARY RONALDO
PUNO, SECRETARY NORBERTO GONZALES, GEN. ALEXANDER YANO,
P/DGEN. JESUS VERZOSA, BRIG GEN. REYNALDO MAPAGU, MAJ.
GEN. ISAGANI CACHUELA ANDPOL. SR. SUPT. EUGENE MARTIN,
Petitioners,
vs.
ARTHUR BALAO, WINSTON BALAO, NONETTE BALAO, JONILYN
BALAO-STRUGAR and BEVERLY LONGID, Respondents.
DECISION
The Antecedents
The testimonies and statements of eyewitnesses established the following Thus, the Balao family, with the assistance of the CPA and other NGOs,
circumstances surrounding Jamess disappearance: tried to locate James. Teams were formed to follow Jamess route from
Fairview, Baguio City to Pico, La Trinidad and people along the way were
On September 17, 2008, at around 8:30 in the morning, a man clad in asked if they happened to see him. These searches, however, yielded
black jacket, black shirt, black visor and gray pants was standing infront of negative results. One of the teams also went to the office of the AFP-ISU
Saymors3 Store at Tomay, La Trinidad, Benguet. He had a belt bag and a (PA-ISU) in Navy Base and the office of the Military Intelligence Group in
travelling bag which was placed on a bench. Vicky Bonel was at the time Camp Allen, both in Baguio City, but the personnel in said offices denied
attending to the said store owned by her brother-in-law while Aniceto G. any knowledge on Jamess whereabouts. The family likewise went to
Dawing, Jr. and his co-employee were delivering bakery products thereat. A Baguio Police Station 7 to report Jamess disappearance. The report was
white van then arrived and stopped infront of the store. Five men in civilian duly entered on the blotter but there have been no developments as of the
clothes who were carrying firearms alighted from the van and immediately filing of the petition. They also sought the help of the media to announce
approached the man poking their guns on him. They grabbed and Jamess disappearance and wrote several government agencies to inform
handcuffed him. The man was asking why he was being apprehended. One them of his disappearance and enlist their help in locating him.
of the armed men addressed the people witnessing the incident, saying
they were policemen. Another warned that no one should interfere because Petitioners, moreover, enumerated in their petition several incidents of
the man was being arrested for illegal drugs. Thereafter, they pushed the harassments and human rights violations against CPA officers, staff and
man inside the van. One of the armed men went back to the store to get members.
the mans travelling bag. Before leaving the place, one of the armed men
was also heard telling the driver of the van that they are going to proceed Contending that there is no plain, speedy or adequate remedy for them to
to Camp Dangwa (PNP Provincial Headquarters in La Trinidad, Benguet). protect Jamess life, liberty and security, petitioners prayed for the
The van headed towards the direction of La Trinidad town proper. The issuance of a writ of amparo ordering the respondents to disclose where
witnesses later identified the man as James Balao after seeing his James is detained or confined, to release James, and to cease and desist
photograph which appeared in posters announcing him as missing. from further inflicting harm upon his person. They likewise prayed for (1)
an inspection order for the inspection of at least 11 military and police
The petition alleged that in May 2008, James reported surveillances on his facilities which have been previously reported as detention centers for
person to his family, particularly to his sister Nonette Balao (Nonette), and activists abducted by military and police operatives; (2) a production order
to CPA Chairperson Beverly Longid (Beverly). James supposedly observed for all documents that contain evidence relevant to the petition,
certain vehicles tailing him and suspiciously parked outside his residence, particularly the Order of Battle List and any record or dossier respondents
one of which was a van with plate number USC 922. He also claimed to have on James; and (3) a witness protection order.
have received calls and messages through his mobile phone informing him
that he was under surveillance by the PNP Regional Office and the AFP-ISU. Petitioners simultaneously filed an Urgent Ex-Parte Motion5 for the
To prove the surveillance, the informer gave the exact dates he visited his immediate issuance of a writ of amparo pursuant to Section 6 of the Rule
family, clothes he wore, and dates and times he goes home or visits friends on the Writ of Amparo.
and relatives. Attached to the petition were the affidavits4 of Nonette and
Beverly attesting to Jamess reports of surveillance to his family and to the
On October 9, 2008, the Writ of Amparo6 was issued directing respondents
CPA.
to file their verified return together with their supporting affidavit within
five days from receipt of the writ.
Respondents in their Joint Return7 stated: (1) that President Gloria Executive Secretary Ermitastated that upon receipt of copy of the petition
Macapagal-Arroyo is immune from suit and should thus be dropped as for a writ of amparo, he caused the issuance of a letter addressed to the
party-respondent; (2) that only Arthur Balao should be named petitioner PNP Chief and AFP Chief of Staff for the purpose of inquiring and
and the rest of the other petitioners dropped; (3) that there is no allegation establishing the circumstances surrounding the alleged disappearance of
of specific wrongdoing against respondents that would show their James Balao, and which letters also called for the submission of pertinent
knowledge, involvement or participation in the abduction of James; (4) that reports on the results of the investigation conducted, if any. 8
Exec. Sec. Ermita, Sec. Teodoro, Sec. Puno, Sec. Gonzales, Gen. Yano, Gen.
Cachuela, Gen. Mapagu and Gen. Verzosa in their respective affidavits Secretary Teodoro declared that soon after the promulgation by this Court
denied having such participation or knowledge of Jamess abduction, set of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo, he issued "Policy Directive on the
forth their actions taken in investigating the matter and undertaking to Actions and Defenses Under the Amparo Rule" which instructed members
continue exerting extraordinary diligence in securing the liberty of James of the AFP to undertake specific measures even without waiting for the
and bring all those responsible for his disappearance to the bar of justice, filing of an amparo petition in court whenever any member of the AFP or
including military or police personnel when warranted by the findings of any of its commands or units have been reported or published as being
the investigations; (5) that Supt. Martin already ordered an investigation, involved in the alleged violation of an individuals right to life, liberty and
came up with interviews of several witnesses, and held a dialogue with the security or threat thereof, as a preparatory step in the filing of a verified
Commander of the Military Intelligence Group I (MIG1) and the return as required by A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC. The AFP was therein also
Commanding Officer of the Internal Service Unit-Internal Security Group, directed to immediately coordinate with the PNP, NBI, DOJ and other
Philippine Army;and (6) that petitioners themselves did not cooperate with government agencies in the attainment of the desired actions in the event
police authorities in the investigation and neither did they ask the National a petition is filed. Said policy directive was contained in his Memorandum
Bureau of Investigation to locate James. dated October 31, 2007 to the Chief of Staff, AFP, and there is no reason
for him to doubt that the AFP will comply with it insofar as the present
Respondents contended that the petition failed to meet the requirement in petition for writ of amparo is concerned. 9
the Rule on the Writ of Amparo that claims must be established by
substantial evidence considering that: (1) petitioners allegations do not Secretary Puno confirmed receipt of a copy of the petition and said he will
mention in anyway the manner, whether directly or indirectly, the alleged write to the PNP Chief to call for pertinent reports relative to the
participation of respondents in the purported abduction of James; (2) circumstances of the alleged "taking" of the person in whose favor the writ
Nonette and Beverly do not have personal knowledge of the circumstances of amparo was sought. He undertook to make available any report he will
surrounding the abduction of James, hence, their statements are hearsay receive from the PNP on the matter.10
with no probative value; and (3) the allegations in the petition do not show
the materiality and relevance of the places sought to be
NSA Gonzales asserted that as a public officer, he is presumed to have
searched/inspected and documents to be produced, specifically the
performed his duties in accordance with law, which presumption remains
requirement that the prayer for an inspection order shall be supported by
undisturbed amid gratuitous assumptions and conclusions in the petition
affidavits or testimonies of witnesses having personal knowledge of the
devoid of factual and legal basis. Upon receipt of a copy of the petition, he
whereabouts of the aggrieved party.
caused to be issued letters/communications to the Director General of the
National Intelligence Coordinating Agency, the PNP Chief and the AFP Chief
Respondents further argued that it is the PNP as the law enforcement of Staff for the purpose of making active inquiries and establishing the
agency, and not the respondent military and executive officials, which has circumstances of the alleged disappearance insofar as the possible
the duty to investigate cases of missing persons. At most, the AFP may involvement of military/police personnel is concerned. He undertook to
inquire on the matters being alluded to them as may be ordered by the provide the material results of investigations conducted or to be conducted
proper superior, which is primarily done for possible court martial by the concerned agencies.11
proceedings. Hence, their common denials of having any knowledge,
participation or authorization for the alleged disappearance of James Balao.
General Yano narrated that prior to the receipt of a copy of the petition, he
Nonetheless, respondents executed their affidavits to show the actions
received a memorandum from the Department of National Defense
they have taken and reports submitted to them by the proper authorities,
transmitting the letter of Bayan Muna Representative Teodoro A. Casio
as follows:
inquiring about the alleged abduction of James Balao. On the basis of said
memo, he directed by radio message the NOLCOM Commander to conduct
a thorough investigation on the matter and to submit the result thereof to
the AFP General Headquarters. This was also done in compliance with the Darasa, Tanauan, Batangas; and USC 922 G & S Transport Corp. On
Policy Directive issued by Defense Secretary Teodoro. He reiterated his October 6, 2008, he received information regarding an abduction incident
October 6, 2008 directive to the PA Commanding General in another radio in Tomay, La Trinidad whereupon he ordered the Provincial Director of
message dated October 16, 2008. He undertook to provide the court with Benguet to conduct an in-depth investigation; said investigation disclosed
material results of the investigations conducted by the concerned units as that the person abducted was indeed James. On October 8, 2008, Task
soon as the same are received by Higher Headquarters.12 Force Balao with the help of the CPA and Balao family were able to
convince two witnesses in the abduction incident in Tomay, La Trinidad,
Lt. Gen. Cachuela said that even prior to the receipt of a copy of the Benguet to shed light on the incident; as a result, cartographic sketches of
petition, he was already directed by Higher Headquarters to conduct a the suspects were made. In the morning of October 9, 2008, he presided
thorough investigation on the alleged abduction of James Balao. Acting on over a dialogue which was attended by the Group Commander, MIG1 and
said directive, he in turn directed the 5th Infantry Division, PA to Commanding Officer of ISU, ISG and PA, for the coordinated efforts to
investigate the matter since the place of the commission of the abduction locate James. In the afternoon of the same day, he met with the family and
is within its area of responsibility. He undertook to furnish the court with a relatives of James to inform them of initial efforts and investigation of the
copy of the result of the investigation conducted or to be conducted, as case. The Task Force Balao was also able to secure the affidavits of
soon as NOLCOM receives the same.13 witnesses Aniceto Dawing and Vicky Bonel, and invited some members of
the CPA who retrieved Jamess personal belongings in Fairview, Baguio City
and his companions prior to his disappearance on September 17, 2008 to
BGen. Mapagu on his part declared that there is nothing in the allegations
appear before the Task Force Balao for some clarifications but none of
of the petition that would show the involvement of the PA in the reported
them appeared. The case is still under follow-up and continuing
disappearance of James Balao. He claimed that he immediately called the
investigation to know what really happened, identify the abductors,
attention of the "concerned staff" to give some information regarding the
determine the real motive for the abduction and file the necessary charges
case and directed them to submit a report if they are able to obtain
in court against those responsible.16
information.14
Also attached to the Return are the more detailed reports (with attached
Pol. Dir. General Verzosa set forth the actions and steps taken by the PNP,
affidavits of other witnesses) dated October 14, 2008 and October 6, 2008
particularly the PNP Regional Office-Cordillera (PRO-COR) headed by
submitted by Task Force Balao Commander P/S Supt. Fortunato B. Albas to
PCSupt. Eugene Martin, being the lead PNP unit investigating the case of
the PNP Cordillera Regional Director. Pertinent portions of the two reports
James Balao.15
read:
Pol. Chief Supt. Martin recounted that in the afternoon of September 17,
xxxx
2008, CPA Chairperson Beverly Longid called up and informed him of the
disappearance of James. On September 20, 2008, he was informed that
James was allegedly missing and immediately ordered the Office of the 2. Inquiries conducted from Mr. Zusimo Unarosa, a resident of Nr
Regional Intelligence Division (RID) to send flash alarm to all lower units to 126, Purok 3, Central Fairview, Baguio City, claimed that on the 1st
look for and locate James Balao. This was followed by a Memorandum with week of September 2008, he frequently observed two (2)
his picture and description. Upon his orders, Police Station 1 of the Baguio unidentified male persons aged 50-70 years old and about 51" to
City Police Office (BCPO) immediately conducted inquiries at the boarding 55" in height, bringing boxes from the house, the contents of
house of James at Barangay Fairview, Baguio City. Likewise, he ordered the which could not be determined. However, averred that these two
creation of Task Force Balao to fast track the investigation of the case. He (2) male personalities are not familiar in the barangay. He further
further instructed the RID to exert all efforts and supervise all lower units stated that he had never seen a van conducting surveillance on the
to intensify their investigation and ascertain the whereabouts and other house and have not heard of any incident of kidnapping or
circumstances surrounding the disappearance of James. Results of the abduction in the community.
investigations conducted were set forth in his affidavit. He had constant
coordination with the CPA leaders and Balao family who divulged the plate 3. Mr[.] Anselmo Alukim, a neighbor, residing adjacent to the house
numbers of vehicles allegedly observed by James prior to his of the subject, when interviewed, averred that he observed some
disappearance as conducting surveillance on his person. Upon verification unidentified male and female persons visiting the said house.
with the Land Transportation Office, the said vehicles were found to be
registered under the following persons: TNH 787 Narciso Magno of #20
4. Interview conducted on Mr[.] Danny Griba, a resident of said picture/photograph, a red motorcycle with two (2) male riders
barangay averred that James Balao is not a resident or occupant of allegedly conducted surveillance along the highway about ten (10)
the said house and claimed that he only saw the subject last meters away from the place where the victim was picked-up.
summer and stated there are five (5) unidentified persons Minutes later, a white Mitsubishi Adventure arrived and took the
occupying the said house. He further stated that three (3) male victim inside the car. The motorcycle riding in tandem followed the
persons aged 40 to 50 years old and a female aged between 20-30 Mitsubushi Adventure en route to Camp Dangwa, La Trinidad,
years old goes out during day time with several boxes and returns Benguet. Another witness overheard one of the abductors
at about 6:00 PM to 7:00 PM on board a taxi cab again with some instructing the driver to quote "pare sa Camp Dangwa tayo."
boxes of undetermined contents.
4. Follow[-]up investigation resulted in the identification of a
5. Mrs[.] Corazon Addun, resident of Nr 114, Purok 3, Central certain "KULOT" who also witnessed the alleged abduction.
Fairview, Baguio City averred that the subject is not residing in the However, he was hesitant to talk and instead pointed to the driver
said place and saw him only once, sometime on April 2008. She of the delivery van of Helens Bread. At about 8:30 AM of October
further narrated that a certain Uncle John aged 40 to 50 years old 9, 2008, Aniceto Dawing Jr[.] y Gano, the driver of the delivery van
and a male person aged 20 to 30 are among the occupants of said of Helens Bread, surfaced and gave his statements on what he
house. Accordingly, on September 21, 2008, Uncle John went to the witnessed on the alleged abduction.
house of Mrs. Addun and over a cup of coffee told her that he will
be going to Sagada, Mountain Province purposely to locate a 5. On October 12, 2008, one Vicky Bonel y Felipe, 19 years old,
missing colleague who was sent there. Accordingly[,] he received a single, native of Atok, Benguet, resident of Tomay, LTB and store
phone call that his missing colleague (James Balao) did not reach keeper of Saymor[s] Store appeared before the office of Benguet
the municipality and reported missing. After that short talk, she PPO and gave her sworn statement on the alleged abduction. A
never saw Uncle John again. Additionally, she did not notice any cartographic sketch was made on the person who identified himself
vehicle conducting surveillance therein and any unusual incidents as policeman. She further stated that it was when while she was
that transpired in said place. tending her brother-in-laws store, gun-wielding men, of about six
or more, handcuffed and shove the victim inside their vehicle. She
xxxx recalled that she can recognize the abductors if she can see them
again.
7. This office has likewise coordinated with MIG-1 and ISU, ISG, PA
but both offices denied any knowledge on the alleged abduction of 6. Another witness stated that she was preparing her merchandise
James Balao. in the waiting shed of Lower Tomay when she noticed a parked
motorcycle beside the elementary school at about 7:00 AM of
8. It was found out that it was SPO4 Genero Rosal, residing within September 17, 2008. The rider of the bike was suspiciously
the vicinity, who followed-up the incident because it was reported scouring the area and kept on calling someone from his cellular
to him by his neighbors. That after he learned about [James phone before the abduction was made.
abduction], he contacted PDEA, La Trinidad PS, RID ad Intel BPPO to
verify if they had an operation in Tomay, La Trinidad but all of them 7. Baguio City Police Office conducted follow-up investigation and
answered negative. were able to secure affidavit of Florence Luken y Mayames, 47
years old, married, and a resident of 135 Central Fairview averred
x x x x17 that James Balao together with a certain Uncle John about 65-75
years old, about 54" in height and a certain Rene about 30-35
years old and stands 55", were her neighbors for almost one year.
xxxx
She further stated that James Balao and company do not mingle
with their neighbors and only one person is usually left behind
3. A photocopy of the photograph of James Balao was presented to while James and Rene goes out at 6:00 or 7:00 AM and goes back
the witnesses wherein they confirmed that the picture is the same at around 6:00 or 7:00 PM.
person who was arrested and handcuffed. Another witness
divulged that prior to the arrest of the person in the
She further averred that she did not notice any van or any kind of Commanding Officer of ISU, SG, PA. Both commanders denied the
vehicle parked along the roadside infront of any residence not his accusations against them.
neighbors nor any person or persons observing the occupants of
the said house. Accordingly, at around 1:00 PM of September 26, 5. In the afternoon of the same day, a meeting with the family and
2008, a closed van (Ca[n]ter) with unknown plate number was relatives of James Balao was again presided by RD, PRO-COR
seen parked infront of the said house and more or less (10) wherein the results of the initial efforts and investigation were
unidentified male person[s] aging from 20-23 and an unidentified given to the family. He also reported the surfacing of another two
female entered the alleged rented house of James Balao and took (2) witnesses who described the suspect who handcuffed James
some table, chairs and cabinets then left immediately to unknown Balao.
destination.
6. PRO-Cordillera wrote a letter to the Cordillera Peoples Alliance
8. Mrs[.] Mina Cabati Serdan the owner of the house being rented requesting them to present Uncle John, Rene and his other
by James Balao averred that sometime May of 2007, a certain Mr[.] companions who are then residing in the same boarding house
June, a realtor agent, recommended to her that a certain James including all his companions on September 17, 2008 and prior to
Balao will rent the house for one (1) year term with an agreed his disappearance.
monthly rent of fifteen thousand pesos (P15,000.00). She stated
that James Balao had extended his stay for almost 4 months. On
REMARKS:
the last week of August 2008, Mrs[.] Serdan called up James Balao
through phone to inform him that she will terminate his stay at the
rented house on September 30, 2008. Mrs[.] Serdan further stated Case is still under follow-up investigation to identify the alleged abductors
that [she]visited the rented house only twice and that was the only to determine the real motive of the abduction and to file necessary charges
time she saw James Balao with an unidentified companions. against them in court.18
That she only discovered that James Balao was missing when a certain During the hearing, the affidavits and testimonies of the following
Carol informed her that he was missing. [Sh]e further stated that she witnesses were presented by petitioners:
visited her house and found out that the said occupants have already left
on September 26, 2008 and discovered that all personal belongings of the Aniceto Dawing19 testified that on September 17, 2008, around 8:00 in the
occupants have already been taken out by the relatives. morning, while he was delivering bread at Saymors Store in Tomay, La
Trinidad, Benguet, a white van stopped infront of them and five armed men
xxxx alighted. The armed men, who introduced themselves as policemen in
Filipino, held and pointed a gun at one male person. The armed men told
the male person that he was being apprehended for illegal drugs. They
VI. ACTIONS TAKEN:
then let the male person board the vehicle and informed him that they will
proceed to Camp Dangwa. Dawing admitted that he did not know that it
1. That a composite team "TASK FORCE BALAO" from this office was James whom he saw that time and came to know only of his identity
and the Regional Headquarters headed by [P/S SUPT] FORTUNATO when he saw a poster bearing Jamess photograph. On cross-examination,
BASCO ALBAS was formed. he stated that the white van did not have any markings that it was a police
vehicle and that the armed men were in civilian clothes and did not wear
2. That the composite team of investigators conducted ocular any police badges or identification cards. He just assumed that they were
inspection on the area. policemen because of their posture and haircut and because they
introduced themselves as such.
3. On October 8, 2008, two (2) witnesses namely: Marjore Domingo
Hipolito and Jenny Lynn Malondon Valdez gave their sworn Anvil Lumbag stated in his affidavit20 that he was also at Saymors Store in
statements and cartographic sketch of one of the abductors. the morning of September 17, 2008 to buy chicken. He said that a
ToyotaRevo stopped infront of the store from where four men alighted. The
4. On the morning of October 9, 2008, a dialogue was presided by men handcuffed a man who was standing infront of the store and uttered
RD, PRO-COR and attended by the Group Commander, MIG1 and "Walang makikialam, drugs kaso nito" while pointing a gun at the said
man. Then, they forced the man to board the Revo. Before the Revo fled, Samuel Anongos stated in his affidavit23 that he is a member of the
Lumbag heard one of the men say that they will be going to Camp Education Commission of the CPA. He claimed that when they conducted
Dangwa. Lumbags affidavit, however, did not mention if it was James who trainings and educational discussions on mining education in Abra,
was forcibly taken by the armed men. members of the AFP harassed the community and committed various
human rights violations. The AFP also allegedly held community meetings
Beverly Longid21 testified that she got to know James when she was a where they said that the CPA is part of the New Peoples Army. Attached to
member of the CPA youth organization in her student days. Every time Anongoss affidavit is a copy of a paper that the AFP was allegedly
James will have an activity that is CPA-related, he would coordinate with distributing. It shows the organizational structure of the Communist Party
Beverly, she being the CPA chair. She also testified that prior to his of the Philippines-New Peoples Army (CPP-NPA) wherein CPA was identified
disappearance, the last time she talked with James was in July or August of as one of the organizations under the National Democratic Front (NDF). 24
2008 when he reported surveillances on his person by the PNP and the AFP.
In her affidavit, she alleged that James reported to her several vehicles RTC Ruling
tailing him, one of which was a green van with plate number USC 922, the
same plate number she had seen at the Intelligence Security Unit in Navy On January 19, 2009, the RTC issued the assailed judgment, disposing as
Base, Baguio City, and which was attached to a silver grey van. follows:
Beverly admitted that at the time of the alleged abduction, she was in IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, judgment is hereby rendered:
Baguio City, at the Office of the Cordillera Peoples Legal Center and that
she only came to know that James was missing in the afternoon of
ISSUE a Writ of Amparo Ordering the respondents to (a) disclose where
September 18, 2008. She also confirmed that they met with Pol. Supt.
James Balao is detained or confined, (b) to release James Balao considering
Martin to seek assistance regarding Jamess disappearance.
his unlawful detention since his abduction and (c) to cease and desist from
further inflicting harm upon his person; and
Nonette Balao22 testified that she was at her bakeshop located in Km. 4, La
Trinidad, Benguet in the morning of September 17, 2008. At around 6:30
DENY the issuance of INSPECTION ORDER, PRODUCTION ORDER and
a.m., she received a text message from James saying that he will be going
WITNESS PROTECTION ORDER for failure of herein Petitioners to comply
home to their ancestral home to do some laundry. Thirty minutes later, she
with the stringent provisions on the Rule on the Writ of Amparo and
received another text message from James saying that he was already
substantiate the same.25
leaving his place in Fairview, Baguio City. When around 8:00 a.m. James
had not yet arrived at their ancestral home, she got worried. She texted
him but failed to get a reply, so she tried to call him. His phone, however, In denying respondents prayer that President Arroyo be dropped as party-
had already been turned off. She then called the CPA office to check if respondent, the RTC held that a petition for a writ of amparo is not "by any
James was there. She was told that he was not there so she went to stretch of imagination a niggling[,] vexing or annoying court case" 26 from
Jamess house in Fairview at around 9:00 a.m. Jamess housemates, which she should be shielded. The RTC ruled that said petition is nothing
however, told her that he left at 7:00 a.m. more than a tool to aid the president to guarantee that laws on human
rights are devotedly and staunchly carried out. It added that those who
complain against naming the president as party-respondent are only those
Nonette also testified that they only reported Jamess disappearance to the
who "either do not understand what the Writ of Amparo is all about or who
police on September 20, 2008 because they thought that it was necessary
do not want to aid Her Excellency in her duty to supervise and control the
that a person be missing for at least 48 hours before the disappearance
machinery of government."27
could be reported. They went to Sub-Station Police Precinct No. 1 in Baguio
and to the police precinct in La Trinidad to report the matter. They also
went to Camp Dangwa to see if James was there. In upholding the standing of Jamess siblings and Beverly to file the
petition, the RTC held that what Section 2 of the Rule on the Writ of
Amparorules out is the right to file similar petitions, meaning there could
Nonette claimed that she became worried because James never switched
be no successive petitions for the issuance of a writ of amparo for the
off his mobile phone and since he already texted her that he was coming
same party.
home, he could have texted again if there was a change of plans. Also,
James had told them since April 2008 that he had been under surveillance.
She does not know why James went to Tomay, La Trinidad.
The RTC further held that "more likely than not," the motive for Jamess IS BASED PURELY ON CONJECTURES, SURMISES AND HEARSAY
disappearance is his activist/political leanings and that Jamess case is one EVIDENCE; HENCE, IT MUST BE SET ASIDE.
of an enforced disappearance as defined under the Rule on the Writ of
Amparo. In so ruling, the RTC considered (1) the several incidents of II
harassment mentioned in Beverlys testimony and enumerated in the
petition; and (2) the references in the petition to the CPA as a front for the
RESPONDENT-PETITIONERS HAD PROVEN THAT THEY OBSERVED
CPP-NPA.
EXTRAORDINARY DILIGENCE AS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAWS,
RULES AND REGULATIONS IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THEIR
The RTC likewise ruled that the government unmistakably violated Jamess OFFICIAL DUTIES.
right to security of person. It found the investigation conducted by
respondents as very limited, superficial and one-sided. The police and
III
military thus miserably failed to conduct an effective investigation of
Jamess abduction as revealed by the investigation report of respondents
own witnesses, Supt. Martin and P/S Supt. Fortunato Basco Albas, the THE FACTUAL CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED IN
Commander of Task Force Balao. It further noted that respondents did not THE MANALO CASE ARE TOTALLY DIFFERENT FROM THE CASE AT
investigate the military officials believed to be behind the abduction as BAR; HENCE, THE TRIAL COURT GROSSLY ERRED IN APPLYING THE
said military officials were merely invited to a dialogue and there was no RULING THEREIN TO THE CASE AT BAR.
investigation made in Camp Dangwa where the abductors were believed to
have taken James as narrated by the witnesses. Moreover, the RTC IV
observed that despite the undertaking of respondents to investigate the
abduction and provide results thereof, four months have passed but THE TRIAL COURT CORRECTLY DENIED PETITIONER-RESPONDENTS
petitioners have not been furnished reports regarding the investigation. PRAYER FOR THE ISSUANCE OF AN INSPECTION ORDER,
PRODUCTION ORDER AND A WITNESS PROTECTION ORDER. 28
As to the denial of the interim reliefs, the RTC stated that the stringent
provisions of the rules were not complied with and granting said reliefs Our Ruling
might violate respondents constitutional rights and jeopardize State
security.
The Rule on the Writ of Amparo was promulgated on October 24, 2007
amidst rising incidence of "extralegal killings" and "enforced
Both parties appealed to this Court. disappearances." It was formulated in the exercise of this Courts expanded
rule-making power for the protection and enforcement of constitutional
The Consolidated Petitions rights enshrined in the 1987 Constitution, albeit limited to these two
situations. "Extralegal killings" refer to killings committed without due
Petitioners, in G.R. No. 186050, question the RTCs denial of the interim process of law, i.e., without legal safeguards or judicial proceedings. 29 On
reliefs. the other hand, "enforced disappearances" are attended by the following
characteristics: an arrest, detention, or abduction of a person by a
government official or organized groups or private individuals acting with
Respondents, on the other hand, assail in their petition in G.R. No. 186059,
the direct or indirect acquiescence of the government; the refusal of the
the issuance of the writ of amparo. They raise the following arguments:
State to disclose the fate or whereabouts of the person concerned or a
refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty which places such person
I outside the protection of law.30
THE TRIAL COURTS JUDGMENT ORDERING RESPONDENT- Section 18 of the Amparo Rule provides:
PETITIONERS TO: (A) DISCLOSE WHERE JAMES BALAO IS DETAINED
AND CONFINED; (B) TO RELEASE JAMES BALAO CONSIDERING HIS
SEC. 18. Judgment. - The court shall render judgment within ten (10) days
UNLAWFUL DETENTION SINCE HIS "ABDUCTION" AND (C) TO CEASE
from the time the petition is submitted for decision. If the allegations in the
AND DESIST FROM FURTHER INFLICTING HARM UPON HIS PERSON
petition are proven by substantial evidence, the court shall grant the
privilege of the writ and such reliefs as may be proper and appropriate; In the case of Roxas v. Macapagal-Arroyo,32 the Court noted that the
otherwise, the privilege shall be denied. (Emphasis supplied.) similarity between the circumstances attending a particular case of
abduction with those surrounding previous instances of enforced
The threshold issue in this case is whether the totality of evidence satisfies disappearances does not, necessarily, carry sufficient weight to prove that
the degree of proof required by the Amparo Rule to establish an enforced the government orchestrated such abduction. Accordingly, the trial court in
disappearance. this case cannot simply infer government involvement in the abduction of
James from past similar incidents in which the victims also worked or
affiliated with the CPA and other left-leaning groups.
In granting the privilege of the writ of amparo, the trial court ratiocinated:
(a) to identify the persons described in the cartographic This case is hereby REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court of La Trinidad,
sketches submitted by Task Force Balao; Benguet, Branch 63 for continuation of proceedings in Special Proceeding
No. 08-AMP-0001 for the purposes of monitoring compliance with the
(b) to locate and search the vehicles bearing the plate above directives and determining whether, in the light of any recent
numbers submitted by the petitioners and which James reports or recommendations, there would already be sufficient evidence to
Balao had reported to be conducting surveillance on his hold any of the public respondents responsible, or, at least, accountable.
person prior to his abduction on September 17, 2008, and After making such determination, the trial court shall submit its own report
investigate the registered owners or whoever the previous and recommendation to this Court for final action. The trial court will
and present possessors/transferees thereof; and to pursue continue to have jurisdiction over this case in order to accomplish its tasks
any other leads relevant to the abduction of James Balao; under this decision;
The incumbent Armed Forces of the Philippines Chief of Staff, Accordingly, the public respondents shall remain personally impleaded in
Philippine National Police Director General, or their successors, this petition to answer for any responsibilities and/or accountabilities they
shall ensure that the investigations and actions of their respective may have incurred during their incumbencies.
units on the abduction of James Balao are pursued with
extraordinary diligence as required by Sec. 17 of the Amparo Rule. No pronouncement as to costs.
Antecedent Facts On July 9, 2008, the CA rendered its Decision, 7 denying on formal and
substantial grounds the reliefs prayed for in the petition and dropping
On March 6, 2008, the petitioner filed with the Court a petition to be former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo as a respondent. The CA
granted the privilege of the writs of amparo and habeas data with prayers ratiocinated:
for temporary protection order, inspection of place and production of
documents.5 In the petition, he expressed his fear of being abducted and There was no attempt at all to clarify how petitioner came to know about
killed; hence, he sought that he be placed in a sanctuary appointed by the Zaldy Osios presence at their pier if the former had not gone home since
Court. He likewise prayed for the military to cease from further conducting the petition was filed and what Zaldy Osio was doing there to constitute
surveillance and monitoring of his activities and for his name to be violation or threat to violate petitioners right to life, liberty or security. This
excluded from the order of battle and other government records Court cannot just grant the privilege of the writs without substantial
connecting him to the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP). evidence to establish petitioners entitlement thereto. This Court cannot
grant the privilege of the writs applied for on mere speculation or
Without necessarily giving due course to the petition, the Court issued the conjecture. This Court is convinced that the Supreme Court did not intend
writ of amparo commanding the respondents to make a verified return, and it to be so when the rules on the writs of Amparo and Habeas Data were
referred the case to the Court of Appeals (CA) for hearing and decision.The adopted. It is the impression of this Court that the privilege of the writs
case before the CA was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 00024 WOA. herein prayed for should be considered as extraordinary remedies available
to address the specific situations enumerated in the rules and no other.
In the Return of the Writ,6 the respondents denied the assignment in the
units of Captains Lawrence Banaag and Rommel Gutierrez and Corporal xxxx
Ariel Fontanilla. The respondents also alleged that the names and
descriptions of "Capt. Alcaydo," "a certain First Sergeant," "Cpl. James," Not only did the petition and the supporting affidavit x x x fail to allege
"Pfc. Sonny," and "Joel" were insufficient to properly identify some of the how the supposed threat or violation of petitioners [right to] life, liberty
persons sought to be included as among the respondents in the petition. and security is committed. Neither is there any narration of any
circumstances attendant to said supposed violation or threat to
On the other hand, respondents General Hermogenes Esperon, Jr. (Gen. violatepetitioners right to life, liberty or security to warrant entitlement to
Esperon), Capt. Jacob Thaddeus Obligado, Pvt. Rizaldy A. Osio (Pvt. Osio), the privilege of the writs prayed for.
Pfc. Romanito C. Quintana, Jr. and Pfc. Jerico Duquil submitted their
affidavits. xxxx
The CA conducted hearings with an intent to clarify what actually A reading of the petition will show that the allegations therein do not
transpired and to determine specific acts which threatened the petitioners comply with the aforestated requirements of Section 6 Rule on the Writ of
right to life, liberty or security. Habeas Data of the pertinent rule. The petition is bereft of any allegation
stating with specific definiteness as to how petitioners right to privacy was
During the hearings, the petitioner narrated that starting April 16, 2007, he violated or threatened to be violated. He did not include any allegation as
noticed that he was always being followed by a certain "Joel," a former to what recourses he availed of to obtain the alleged documents from
colleague at Bayan Muna. "Joel" pretended peddling pandesal in the respondents. Neither did petitioner allege what specific documents he
vicinity of the petitioners store. Three days before the petitioner was prays for and from whom or [sic] from what particular office of the
apprehended, "Joel" approached and informed him of his marital status and government he prays to obtain them. The petition prays "to order
current job as a baker in Calapan, Mindoro Oriental. "Joel" inquired if the respondents to produce any documents submitted to any of them in the
matter of any report on the case of FRANCIS SAEZ, including all military WHETHER OR NOT THE NOTARIAL OFFICERS OMISSION OF REQUIRING
intelligence reports." FROM THE PETITIONER IDENTIFICATION CARDS RELATIVE TO THE LATTERS
EXECUTION OF THE VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM
xxxx SHOPPING JUSTIFIES THE DENIAL OF THE PETITION.
Both the rules on the writs of Amparo and Habeas Data (Section 17, A.M. WHETHER OR NOT THE CA COMMITTED GROSS ABUSE OF DISCRETION
No. 07-9-12-SC and Section 16, A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC) provide that the WHEN IT FAILED TO CONCLUDE FROM THE EVIDENCE OFFERED BY THE
parties shall establish their claims by substantial evidence. Not only was PETITIONER THE FACT THAT BY BEING PLACED IN THE ORDER OF BATTLE
petitioner unable to establish his entitlement to the privilege of the writs LIST, THREATS AND VIOLATIONS TO THE LATTERS LIFE, LIBERTY AND
applied for, the exigency thereof was negated by his own admission that SECURITY WERE ACTUALLY COMMITTED BY THE RESPONDENTS. 9
nothing happened between him and Joel after July 21, 2007. The filing of
the petition appears to have been precipitated by his fear that something Courts Resolution dated August 31, 2010
might happen to him, not because of any apparent violation or visible
threat to violate his right to life, liberty or security. Petitioner was, in fact, On August 31, 2010, the Court issued the Resolution 10 denying the petition
unable to establish likewise who among the respondents committed for review for the following reasons, viz:
specific acts defined under the rules on both writs to constitute violation or
threat to violate petitioners rights to life, liberty or security or his right to
A careful perusal of the subject petition shows that the CA correctly found
privacy thereof.
that the petition was bereft of any allegation as to what particular acts or
omission of respondents violated or threatened petitioners right to life,
xxxx liberty and security. His claim that he was incommunicado lacks credibility
as he was given a cellular phone and allowed to go back to Oriental
x x x The ruling in David, et al. vs. Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, et al. (G.R. No. Mindoro. The CA also correctly held that petitioner failed to present
171396, May 3, 2006, 489 SCRA 160, 224) is aptly instructive: substantial evidence that his right to life, liberty and security were
violated, or how his right to privacy was threatened by respondents. He did
"Settled is the doctrine that the President, during his tenure of office or not specify the particular documents to be secured, their location or what
actual incumbency, may not be sued in any civil or criminal case, and there particular government office had custody thereof, and who has possession
is no need to provide for it in the Constitution or law. It will degrade the or control of the same. He merely prayed that the respondents be ordered
dignity of the high office of the President, the Head of State, if he can be "to produce any documents submitted to any of them in the matter of any
dragged into court litigations while serving as such. Furthermore, it is report on the case of FRANCIS SAEZ, including all military intelligence
important that he be freed from any form of harassment, hindrance or reports."
distraction to enable him to fully attend to the performance of his official
duties and functions. x x x." Petitioner assails the CA in failing to appreciate that in his Affidavit and
Fact Sheet, he had specifically detailed the violation of his right to privacy
xxxx as he was placed in the Order of Battle and promised to have his record
cleared if he would cooperate and become a military asset. However,
despite questions propounded by the CA Associate Justices during the
IV. The petition lacks proper verification in violation of Section 12, 2004
hearing, he still failed to enlighten the appellate court as to what actually
Rules on Notarial Practice.8
transpired to enable said court to determine whether his right to life,
liberty or security had actually been violated or threatened. Records bear
On July 21, 2008, Petition for Review was filed assailing the foregoing CA out the unsubstantiated claims of petitioner which justified the appellate
decision with the following issues submitted for resolution: courts dismissal of the petition.
WHETHER OR NOT THE CA COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN DISMISSING As to petitioners argument that the CA erred in deleting the President as
THE PETITION AND DROPPING GLORIA MACAPAGAL ARROYO AS PARTY party-respondent, we find the same also to be without merit. The Court has
RESPONDENT. already made it clear in David v. Macapagal-Arroyo that the President,
during his or her tenure of office or actual incumbency, may not be sued in
any civil or criminal case, and there is no need to provide for it in the likewise "request the rectification or even the destruction of erroneous data
Constitution or law. It will degrade the dignity of the high office of the gathered and kept against him or her." In the petitioners case, he
President, the Head of State, if the President can be dragged into court specifically sought the production of the order of battle, which allegedly
litigations while serving as such. Furthermore, it is important that the included his name, and other records which supposedly contain erroneous
President be freed from any form of harassment, hindrance or distraction data relative to his involvement with the CPP.
to enable the President to fully attend to the performance of official duties
and functions.11 (Citation omitted) OSGs Comment
Hence, the petitioner filed the instant motion for reconsideration. 12 In the respondents comment16 filed by the OSG, it is generally claimed
that the petitioner advances no cogent grounds to justify the reversal of
Petitioners Arguments the Courts Resolution dated August 31, 2010.
Contrary to the CAs findings, it had been shown by substantial evidence The Courts Disquisition
and even by the respondents own admissions that the petitioners life,
liberty and security were threatened. Military personnel, whom the While the issuance of the writs sought by the petitioner cannot be granted,
petitioner had named and described, knew where to get him and they can the Court nevertheless finds ample grounds to modify the Resolution dated
do so with ease. He also became a military asset, but under duress, as the August 31, 2010.
respondents had documents allegedly linking him to the CPP and including
him in the order of battle. The petitioner claims that the foregoing
The petition conforms to the
circumstances were not denied by the respondents.
requirements of the Rules on the
Writs of Amparo and Habeas Data
The petitioner likewise challenges the CAs finding that he was not
rendered incommunicado as he was even provided with a cellular phone.
Section 517 of A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC (Rule on the Writ of Amparo) and Section
The petitioner argues that the phone was only given to him for the purpose
618 of A.M. 08-1-16-SC (Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data) provide for what
of communicating with the respondents matters relative to his infiltration
the said petitions should contain.
activities of target legal organizations.
In the present case, the Court notes that the petition for the issuance of
The petitioner cites Secretary of National Defense v. Manalo, 13 which
the privilege of the writs of amparo and habeas data is sufficient as to its
pronounced that "in the amparo context, it is more correct to say that the
contents. The petitioner made specific allegations relative to his personal
right to security is actually the freedom from threat". 14 According to the
circumstances and those of the respondents. The petitioner likewise
petitioner, his freedom from fear was undoubtedly violated, hence, to him
indicated particular acts, which are allegedly violative of his rights and the
pertains a cause of action. Anent the quantum of proof required in a
participation of some of the respondents in their commission. As to the pre-
petition for the issuance of the writ of amparo, mere substantial evidence
requisite conduct and result of an investigation prior to the filing of the
is sufficient. The petition "is not an action to determine criminal guilt
petition, it was explained that the petitioner expected no relief from the
requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt, or liability for damages requiring
military, which he perceived as his oppressors, hence, his request for
preponderance of evidence, or administrative responsibility requiring
assistance from a human rights organization, then a direct resort to the
substantial evidence that will require full and exhaustive proceedings". 15
court. Anent the documents sought to be the subject of the writ of habeas
data prayed for, the Court finds the requirement of specificity to have been
Sadly, in the petitioners case, the court not only demanded a greater satisfied. The documents subject of the petition include the order of battle,
quantum of proof than what the rules require, but it also accorded special those linking the petitioner to the CPP and those he signed involuntarily,
preference for the respondents evidence. and military intelligence reports making references to him. Although the
exact locations and the custodians of the documents were not identified,
The petitioner also cites a speech delivered in Siliman University by former this does not render the petition insufficient. Section 6(d) of the Rule on the
Chief Justice Reynato Puno who expressed that "the remedy of habeas data Writ of Habeas Data is clear that the requirement of specificity arises only
can be used by any citizen against any governmental agency or register to when the exact locations and identities of the custodians are known. The
find out what information is held about his or her person." The person can Amparo Rule was not promulgated with the intent to make it a token
gesture of concern for constitutional rights.19 Thus, despite the lack of petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. As a rule then, the Court is
certain contents, which the Rules on the Writs of Amparo and Habeas Data not bound by the factual findings made by the appellate court which
generally require, for as long as their absence under exceptional rendered the judgment in a petition for the issuance of the writs of amparo
circumstances can be reasonably justified, a petition should not be and habeas data. Be that as it may, in the instant case, the Court agrees
susceptible to outright dismissal. with the CA that the petitioner failed to discharge the burden of proof
imposed upon him by the rules to establish his claims. It cannot be
From the foregoing, the Court holds that the allegations stated in the overemphasized that Section 1 of both the Rules on the Writ of Amparo and
petition for the privilege of the writs of amparo and habeas data filed Habeas Data expressly include in their coverage even threatened
conform to the rules. However, they are mere allegations, which the Court violations against a persons right to life, liberty or security. Further, threat
cannot accept "hook, line and sinker", so to speak, and whether substantial and intimidation that vitiate the free will although not involving invasion
evidence exist to warrant the granting of the petition is a different matter of bodily integrity nevertheless constitute a violation of the right to
altogether. security in the sense of "freedom from threat".21
No substantial evidence exists to It must be stressed, however, that such "threat" must find rational basis on
prove the petitioners claims the surrounding circumstances of the case. In this case, the petition was
mainly anchored on the alleged threats against his life, liberty and security
by reason of his inclusion in the militarys order of battle, the surveillance
The Court has ruled that in view of the recognition of the evidentiary
and monitoring activities made on him, and the intimidation exerted upon
difficulties attendant to the filing of a petition for the privilege of the writs
him to compel him to be a military asset. While as stated earlier, mere
of amparo and habeas data, not only direct evidence, but circumstantial
threats fall within the mantle of protection of the writs of amparo and
evidence, indicia, and presumptions may be considered, so long as they
habeas data, in the petitioners case, the restraints and threats allegedly
lead to conclusions consistent with the admissible evidence adduced. 20
made allegations lack corroborations, are not supported by independent
and credible evidence, and thus stand on nebulous grounds.
With the foregoing in mind, the Court still finds that the CA did not commit
a reversible error in declaring that no substantial evidence exist to compel
The Court is cognizant of the evidentiary difficulties attendant to a petition
the grant of the reliefs prayed for by the petitioner. The Court took a
for the issuance of the writs. Unlike, however, the unique nature of cases
second look on the evidence on record and finds no reason to reconsider
involving enforced disappearances or extra-judicial killings that calls for
the denial of the issuance of the writs prayed for.
flexibility in considering the gamut of evidence presented by the parties,
this case sets a different scenario and a significant portion of the
In the hearing before the CA, it was claimed that "Joel" once inquired from petitioners testimony could have been easily corroborated. In his
the petitioner if the latter was still involved with ANAKPAWIS. By itself, such Sinumpaang Salaysay22 dated March 5, 2008 and the Fact Sheet dated
claim cannot establish with certainty that the petitioner was being December 9, 200723 executed before the Alliance for the Advancement of
monitored. The encounter happened once and the petitioner, in his Peoples Rights-Southern Tagalog (KARAPATAN-ST), the petitioner stated
pleadings, nowhere stated that subsequent to the time he was asked about that when he was invited and interrogated at the military camp in Naujan,
his involvement with ANAKPAWIS, he still noticed "Joel" conducting Oriental Mindoro, he brought with him his uncle Norberto Roxas, Barangay
surveillance operations on him. He alleged that he was brought to the Captain Mario Ilagan and two of his bodyguards, and Edwardo Estabillo
camp of the 204th Infantry Brigade in Naujan, Oriental Mindoro but was five witnesses who can attest and easily corroborate his statement but
sent home at 5:00 p.m. The petitioner and the respondents have curiously, the petitioner did not present any piece of evidence, whether
conflicting claims about what transpired thereafter. The petitioner insisted documentary or testimonial, to buttress such claim nor did he give any
that he was brought against his will and was asked to stay by the reason for their non-presentation.This could have made a difference in light
respondents in places under the latters control. The respondents, on the of the denials made by the respondents as regards the petitioners claims.
other hand, averred that it was the petitioner who voluntarily offered his
service to be a military asset, but was rejected as the former still doubted
The existence of an order of battle and inclusion of the petitioners name in
his motives and affiliations.
it is another allegation by the petitioner that does not find support on the
evidence adduced. The Court notes that such allegation was categorically
Section 19 of both the Rules on the Writ of Amparo and Habeas Data is denied by respondent Gen. Avelino I. Razon, Jr. who, in his Affidavit dated
explicit that questions of fact and law can be raised before the Court in a March 31, 2008, stated that he "does not have knowledge about any
Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) order of battle which allegedly lists liberality accorded to amparo and habeas data cases does not mean that a
the petitioner as a member of the CPP."24 This was also denied by Pvt. Osio, claimant is dispensed with the onus of proving his case. "Indeed, even the
who the petitioner identified as the one who told him that he was included liberal standard of substantial evidence demands some adequate
in the order of battle.25 The 2nd Infantry (Jungle Fighter) Division of the evidence."30
Philippine Army also conducted an investigation pursuant to the directive
of AFP Chief of Staff Gen. Esperon,26 and it was shown that the persons The President cannot be
identified by the petitioners who allegedly committed the acts complained automatically dropped as a
of were not connected or assigned to the 2nd Infantry Division. 27 respondent pursuant to the doctrine
of command responsibility
Moreover, the evidence showed that the petitioners mobility was never
curtailed. From the time he was allegedly brought to Batangas in August of In Noriel Rodriguez v. Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, et al., 31 the Court stated:
2007 until the time he sought the assistance of KARAPATAN-ST, there was
no restraint upon the petitioner to go home, as in fact, he went home to
a. Command responsibility of the President
Mindoro on several instances. And while he may have been wary of Pvt.
Osios presence at the pier, there was no claim by the petitioner that he
was threatened or prevented by Pvt. Osio from boarding any vehicle that Having established the applicability of the doctrine of command
may transport him back home. The petitioner also admitted that he had a responsibility in amparo proceedings, it must now be resolved whether the
mobile phone; hence, he had unhampered access to communication and president, as commander-in-chief of the military, can be held responsible
can readily seek assistance from non-governmental organizations and even or accountable for extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances. We
government agencies. rule in the affirmative.
The respondents also belied the petitioners claim that they forced him to To hold someone liable under the doctrine of command responsibility, the
become a military informant and instead, alleged that it was the petitioner following elements must obtain:
who volunteered to be one. Thus, in his Sinumpaang Salaysay 28 executed
on March 25, 2008, Pvt. Osio admitted that he actually knew the petitioner a. the existence of a superior-subordinate relationship between the
way back in 1998 when they were still students. He also stated that when accused as superior and the perpetrator of the crime as his
he saw the petitioner again in 2007, the latter manifested his intention to subordinate;
become a military informant in exchange for financial and other forms of
assistance. b. the superior knew or had reason to know that the crime was
about to be or had been committed; and
The petitioner also harps on the alleged "monitoring" activities being
conducted by a certain "Joel", e.g., the latters alleged act of following him, c. the superior failed to take the necessary and reasonable
pretending to peddle pandesal and asking him about his personal measures to prevent the criminal acts or punish the perpetrators
circumstances. Such allegation by the petitioner, however, is, at best, a thereof.
conclusion on his part, a mere impression that the petitioner had, based on
his personal assessment of the circumstances. The petitioner even
The president, being the commander-in-chief of all armed forces,
admitted in his testimony before the CA that when he had a conversation
necessarily possesses control over the military that qualifies him as a
with "Joel" sometime in July 2007, the latter merely asked him whether he
superior within the purview of the command responsibility doctrine.
was still connected with ANAKPAWIS, but he was not threatened "with
anything" and no other incident occurred between them since then. 29 There
is clearly nothing on record which shows that "Joel" committed overt acts On the issue of knowledge, it must be pointed out that although
that will unequivocally lead to the conclusion arrived at by the petitioner, international tribunals apply a strict standard of knowledge, i.e., actual
especially since the alleged acts committed by "Joel" are susceptible of knowledge, such may nonetheless be established through circumstantial
different interpretations. evidence. In the Philippines, a more liberal view is adopted and superiors
may be charged with constructive knowledge. This view is buttressed by
the enactment of Executive Order No. 226, otherwise known as the
Given that the totality of the evidence presented by the petitioner failed to
support his claims, the reliefs prayed for, therefore, cannot be granted. The
Institutionalization of the Doctrine of Command Responsibility in all while the President cannot be completely dropped as a respondent in a
Government Offices, particularly at all Levels of Command in the petition for the privilege of the writs of amparo and habeas data merely on
the basis of the presidential immunity from suit, the petitioner in this case
Philippine National Police and other Law Enforcement Agencies (E.O. 226). failed to establish accountability of the President, as commander-in-chief,
Under E.O. 226, a government official may be held liable for neglect of duty under the doctrine of command responsibility.
under the doctrine of command responsibility if he has knowledge that a
crime or offense shall be committed, is being committed, or has been Compliance with technical rules of
committed by his subordinates, or by others within his area of procedure is ideal but it cannot be
responsibility and, despite such knowledge, he did not take preventive or accorded primacy
corrective action either before, during, or immediately after its
commission. Knowledge of the commission of irregularities, crimes or Among the grounds cited by the CA in denying the petition for the issuance
offenses is presumed when (a) the acts are widespread within the of the writs of amparo and habeas data was the defective verification
government officials area of jurisdiction; (b) the acts have been repeatedly which was attached to the petition. In Tagitis,35 supporting affidavits
or regularly committed within his area of responsibility; or (c) members of required under Section 5(c) of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo were not
his immediate staff or office personnel are involved. submitted together with the petition and it was ruled that the defect was
fully cured when the petitioner and the witness personally testified to
Meanwhile, as to the issue of failure to prevent or punish, it is important to prove the truth of their allegations in the hearings held before the CA. In
note that as the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, the president has the instant case, the defective verification was not the sole reason for the
the power to effectively command, control and discipline the military. CAs denial of the petition for the issuance of the writs of amparo and
(Citations omitted) habeas data. Nonetheless, it must be stressed that although rules of
procedure play an important rule in effectively administering justice,
Pursuant to the doctrine of command responsibility, the President, as the primacy should not be accorded to them especially in the instant case
Commander-in-Chief of the AFP, can be held liable for affront against the where there was at least substantial compliance with the requirements and
petitioners rights to life, liberty and security as long as substantial where petitioner himself testified in the hearings to attest to the veracity of
evidence exist to show that he or she had exhibited involvement in or can the claims which he stated in his petition.
be imputed with knowledge of the violations, or had failed to exercise
necessary and reasonable diligence in conducting the necessary To conclude, compliance with technical rules of procedure is ideal but it
investigations required under the rules.1wphi1 cannot be accorded primacy. In the proceedings before the CA, the
petitioner himself testified to prove the veracity of his allegations which he
The Court also stresses that rule that the presidential immunity from suit stated in the petition. Hence, the defect in the verification attached to the
exists only in concurrence with the presidents incumbency. 32 petition. Hence, the defect in the verification attached to the petition was
deemed cured.
Conversely, this presidential privilege of immunity cannot be invoked by a
non-sitting president even for acts committed during his or her tenure. 33 WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petitioner's motion for
Courts look with disfavor upon the presidential privilege of immunity, reconsideration is DENIED WITH FINALITY.
especially when it impedes the search for truth or impairs the vindication
of a right.34 SO ORDERED.
DECISION
Factual Antecedents
On March 31, 2008, at around 8:30 p.m., a vehicle of Asian Land Strategies
Corporation8 (Asian Land) arrived at the house of Lolita M. Lapore (Lolita)
located at 7A Lot 9, Block 54, Grand Royale Subdivision, Barangay Lugam,
Malolos City. The arrival of the vehicle awakened Lolitas son, Enrique
Lapore (Bong), and Benhur Pardico (Ben), who were then both staying in
her house. When Lolita went out to investigate, she saw two uniformed
guards disembarking from the vehicle. One of them immediately asked
Lolita where they could find her son Bong. Before Lolita could answer, the
guard saw Bong and told him that he and Ben should go with them to the
security office of Asian Land because a complaint was lodged against them
for theft of electric wires and lamps in the subdivision. 9
Shortly thereafter, Bong, Lolita and Ben were in the office of the security
department of Asian Land also located in Grand Royale Subdivision. 10 The
supervisor of the security guards, petitioner Edgardo Navia (Navia), also Subsequently, petitioners received an invitation 15 from the Malolos City
arrived thereat. Police Station requesting them to appear thereat on April 17, 2008 relative
to the complaint of Virginia Pardico (Virginia) about her missing husband
As to what transpired next, the parties respective versions diverge. Ben. In compliance with the invitation, all three petitioners appeared at the
Malolos City Police Station. However, since Virginia was not present despite
having received the same invitation, the meeting was reset to April 22,
Version of the Petitioners
2008.16
Petitioners alleged that they invited Bong and Ben to their office because
On April 22, 2008, Virginia attended the investigation. Petitioners informed
they received a report from a certain Mrs. Emphasis, a resident of Grand
her that they released Ben and that they have no information as to his
Royale Subdivision, that she saw Bong and Ben removing a lamp from a
present whereabouts.17 They assured Virginia though that they will
post in said subdivision.11 The reported unauthorized taking of the lamp
cooperate and help in the investigation of her missing husband. 18
was relayed thru radio to petitioners Ruben Dio (Dio) and Andrew Buising
(Buising), who both work as security guards at the Asian Land security
department. Following their departments standard operating procedure, Version of the Respondent
Dio and Buising entered the report in their logbook and proceeded to the
house of Mrs. Emphasis. It was there where Dio and Buising were able to According to respondent, Bong and Ben were not merely invited. They were
confirm who the suspects were. They thus repaired to the house of Lolita unlawfully arrested, shoved into the Asian Land vehicle and brought to the
where Bong and Ben were staying to invite the two suspects to their office. security office for investigation. Upon seeing Ben at the security office,
Bong and Ben voluntarily went with them. Navia lividly grumbled "Ikaw na naman?"19 and slapped him while he was
still seated. Ben begged for mercy, but his pleas were met with a flurry of
At the security office, Dio and Buising interviewed Bong and Ben. The punches coming from Navia hitting him on different parts of his body. 20
suspects admitted that they took the lamp but clarified that they were only Navia then took hold of his gun, looked at Bong, and said, "Wala kang
transferring it to a post nearer to the house of Lolita. 12 Soon, Navia arrived nakita at wala kang narinig, papatayin ko na si Ben."21
and Buising informed him that the complainant was not keen in
participating in the investigation. Since there was no complainant, Navia Bong admitted that he and Ben attempted to take the lamp. He explained
ordered the release of Bong and Ben. Bong then signed a statement to the that the area where their house is located is very dark and his father had
effect that the guards released him without inflicting any harm or injury to long been asking the administrator of Grand Royale Subdivision to install a
him.13 His mother Lolita also signed the logbook below an entry which lamp to illumine their area. But since nothing happened, he took it upon
states that she will never again harbor or entertain Ben in her house. himself to take a lamp from one of the posts in the subdivision and transfer
Thereafter, Lolita and Bong left the security office. it to a post near their house. However, the lamp Bong got was no longer
working. Thus, he reinstalled it on the post from which he took it and no
Ben was left behind as Navia was still talking to him about those who might longer pursued his plan. 22
be involved in the reported loss of electric wires and lamps within the
subdivision. After a brief discussion though, Navia allowed Ben to leave. Later on, Lolita was instructed to sign an entry in the guards logbook
Ben also affixed his signature on the logbook to affirm the statements where she undertook not to allow Ben to stay in her house anymore. 23
entered by the guards that he was released unharmed and without any Thereafter, Navia again asked Lolita to sign the logbook. Upon Lolitas
injury.14 inquiry as to why she had to sign again, Navia explained that they needed
proof that they released her son Bong unharmed but that Ben had to stay
Upon Navias instructions, Dio and Buising went back to the house of Lolita as the latters case will be forwarded to the barangay. Since she has poor
to make her sign the logbook as witness that they indeed released Ben eyesight, Lolita obligingly signed the logbook without reading it and then
from their custody. Lolita asked Buising to read aloud that entry in the left with Bong.24 At that juncture, Ben grabbed Bong and pleaded not to be
logbook where she was being asked to sign, to which Buising obliged. Not left alone. However, since they were afraid of Navia, Lolita and Bong left
contented, Lolita put on her reading glasses and read the entry in the the security office at once leaving Ben behind.25
logbook herself before affixing her signature therein. After which, the
guards left. Moments after Lolita and Bong reached their house, Buising arrived and
asked Lolita to sign the logbook again. Lolita asked Buising why she had to
sign again when she already twice signed the logbook at the headquarters. a) The lawful defenses to show that the [petitioners] did
Buising assured her that what she was about to sign only pertains to not violate or threaten with violation the right to life, liberty
Bongs release. Since it was dark and she has poor eyesight, Lolita took and security of the aggrieved party, through any act or
Buisings word and signed the logbook without, again, reading what was omission;
written in it. 26
b) The steps or actions taken by the [petitioners] to
The following morning, Virginia went to the Asian Land security office to determine the fate or whereabouts of the aggrieved party
visit her husband Ben, but only to be told that petitioners had already and the person or persons responsible for the threat, act or
released him together with Bong the night before. She then looked for Ben, omission; and
asked around, and went to the barangay. Since she could not still find her
husband, Virginia reported the matter to the police. c) All relevant information in the possession of the
[petitioners] pertaining to the threat, act or omission
In the course of the investigation on Bens disappearance, it dawned upon against the aggrieved party.
Lolita that petitioners took advantage of her poor eyesight and naivete.
They made her sign the logbook as a witness that they already released (4) GRANTING, motu proprio, a Temporary Protection Order
Ben when in truth and in fact she never witnessed his actual release. The prohibiting the [petitioners], or any persons acting for and in their
last time she saw Ben was when she left him in petitioners custody at the behalf, under pain of contempt, from threatening, harassing or
security office.27 inflicting any harm to [respondent], his immediate family and any
[member] of his household.
Exasperated with the mysterious disappearance of her husband, Virginia
filed a Petition for Writ of Amparo28 before the RTC of Malolos City. Finding The Branch Sheriff is directed to immediately serve personally on the
the petition sufficient in form and substance, the amparo court issued an [petitioners], at their address indicated in the petition, copies of the writ as
Order29 dated June 26, 2008 directing, among others, the issuance of a writ well as this order, together with copies of the petition and its annexes. 30
of amparo and the production of the body of Ben before it on June 30,
2008. Thus:
A Writ of Amparo31 was accordingly issued and served on the petitioners on
June 27, 2008.32 On June 30, 2008, petitioners filed their Compliance 33
WHEREFORE, conformably with Section 6 of the Supreme Court Resolution praying for the denial of the petition for lack of merit.
[in] A.M. No. 07-[9]-12-SC, also known as "The Rule On The Writ Of
Amparo", let a writ of amparo be issued, as follows:
A summary hearing was thereafter conducted. Petitioners presented the
testimony of Buising, while Virginia submitted the sworn statements 34 of
(1) ORDERING [petitioners] Edgardo Navia, Ruben Dio and Andrew Lolita and Enrique which the two affirmed on the witness stand.
Buising of the Asian Land Security Agency to produce before the
Court the body of aggrieved party Benhur Pardico, on Monday, June
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
30, 2008, at 10:30 a.m.;
On July 24, 2008, the trial court issued the challenged Decision 35 granting
(2) ORDERING the holding of a summary hearing of the petition on
the petition. It disposed as follows:
the aforementioned date and time, and DIRECTING the
[petitioners] to personally appear thereat;
WHEREFORE, the Court hereby grants the privilege of the writ of amparo,
and deems it proper and appropriate, as follows:
(3) COMMANDING [petitioners] Edgardo Navia, Ruben Dio and
Andrew Buising to file, within a non-extendible period of seventy-
two (72) hours from service of the writ, a verified written return (a) To hereby direct the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) to
with supporting affidavits which shall, among other things, contain immediately conduct a deep and thorough investigation of the
the following: [petitioners] Edgardo Navia, Ruben Dio and Andrew Buising in
connection with the circumstances surrounding the disappearance
of [Benhur] Pardico, utilizing in the process, as part of the
investigation, the documents forming part of the records of this partys right to life, liberty and security are clear. Petitioners assert that in
case; the case at bench, Virginia miserably failed to establish all these. First, the
petition is wanting on its face as it failed to state with some degree of
(b) To hereby direct the NBI to extend to the family of [Benhur] specificity the alleged unlawful act or omission of the petitioners
Pardico and the witnesses who testified in this case protection as it constituting a violation of or a threat to Bens right to life, liberty and
may deem necessary to secure their safety and security; and security. And second, it cannot be deduced from the evidence Virginia
adduced that Ben is missing; or that petitioners had a hand in his alleged
disappearance. On the other hand, the entries in the logbook which bear
(c) To hereby direct the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of
the signatures of Ben and Lolita are eloquent proof that petitioners
Bulacan to investigate the circumstances concerning the legality of
released Ben on March 31, 2008 at around 10:30 p.m. Petitioners thus
the arrest of [Benhur] Pardico by the [petitioners] in this case,
posit that the trial court erred in issuing the writ and in holding them
utilizing in the process, as part of said investigation, the pertinent
responsible for Bens disappearance.
documents and admissions forming part of the record of this case,
and take whatever course/s of action as may be warranted.
Our Ruling
Furnish immediately copies of this decision to the NBI, through the Office of
Director Nestor Mantaring, and to the Provincial Prosecutor of Bulacan. Virginias Petition for Writ of Amparo is fatally defective and must perforce
be dismissed, but not for the reasons adverted to by the petitioners.
SO ORDERED.36
A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC or The Rule on the Writ of Amparo was promulgated to
arrest the rampant extralegal killings and enforced disappearances in the
Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was denied by the
37
country. Its purpose is to provide an expeditious and effective relief "to any
trial court in an Order38 dated August 29, 2008.
person whose right to life, liberty and security is violated or threatened
with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or
Hence, this petition raising the following issues for our consideration: employee, or of a private individual or entity." 40
4.1. WHETHER X X X THE HONORABLE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY Here, Bens right to life, liberty and security is firmly settled as the parties
ERRED IN RULING THAT RESPONDENT IS ENTITLED TO THE do not dispute his identity as the same person summoned and questioned
PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF AMPARO. at petitioners security office on the night of March 31, 2008. Such
uncontroverted fact ipso facto established Bens inherent and
4.1.1. WHETHER X X X RESPONDENT WAS ABLE TO ESTABLISH constitutionally enshrined right to life, liberty and security. Article 6 41 of the
THAT PETITIONERS HAVE COMMITTED OR ARE COMMITTING ACTS International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights42 recognizes every
IN VIOLATION OF HER HUSBANDS RIGHT TO LIFE, LIBERTY, OR human beings inherent right to life, while Article 943 thereof ordains that
SECURITY. everyone has the right to liberty and security. The right to life must be
protected by law while the right to liberty and security cannot be impaired
4.1.2. WHETHER X X X RESPONDENT SUFFICIENTLY ESTABLISHED except on grounds provided by and in accordance with law. This
THE FACT OF THE DISAPPEARANCE OF BENHUR PARDICO. overarching command against deprivation of life, liberty and security
without due process of law is also embodied in our fundamental law. 44
4.1.3. WHETHER X X X RESPONDENT WAS ABLE TO ESTABLISH
THAT THE ALLEGED DISAPPEARANCE OF BENHUR PARDICO WAS AT The pivotal question now that confronts us is whether Bens disappearance
THE INSTANCE OF HEREIN PETITIONERS. 39 as alleged in Virginias petition and proved during the summary
proceedings conducted before the court a quo, falls within the ambit of
A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC and relevant laws.
Petitioners Arguments