TABLE OF CONTENTS

Writ of AmparoLadaga v. Mapagu1Gen. Yano v. SanchezRubrico v. Macapagal-ArroyoRev. Fr. Reyes v. CA

Writ of Habeas DataIn re: Melissa RoxasGamboa v. ChanManila Electric Co. v. Lim

Republic v. Coseteng-MagpayoUy v. ChuaDela Cruz v. GarciaReyes v. Alejandro

Ladaga v Mapagu | ChrissaNov 23, 2012IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF AMPARO IN FAVOR OF LILIBETH O. LADAGA: LILIBETH O. LADAGA, Petitioner vMAJ. GEN. REYNALDO MAPAGU, COMMANDING GENERAL OF THE PHILIPPINE ARMY'S 10TH INFANTRY DIVISION (ID); COL. LYSANDER SUERTE, CHIEF OF STAFF, 10TH ID, LT. COL. KURT A. DECAPIA, CHIEF, 10TH ID, PUBLIC AFFAIRS OFFICE; COL. OSCAR LACTAO, HEAD-TASK FORCEDAVAO; SR. SUPT. RAMON APOLINARIO, DAVAO CITY POLICE OFFICE DIRECTOR; AND SEVERAL OTHER JOHN DOES, Respondents

Also: IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF AMPARO IN FAVOR OF ANGELA A. LIBRADOTRINIDADand IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF AMPARO IN FAVOR OF CARLOS ISAGANI T. ZARATE:PERLAS-BERNABE, J

summary: Ladaga, Zarate and Trinidad found out from a leaked PPT that they were on the Order of Battle List of the Armys 10th ID headed by Mapagu. This list tagged them as members of the CCP, PA and other groups, and made them easy targets for extra judicial killings similar to what happened to others on the list. They also allege that they each have been followed by suspicious (military) men. RTC and SC denied the issuance of a writ of amparo, as although rules of evidence have been relaxed, they failed to provide substantial evidence necessary, and havent proven the link to their being on a list to the threat of extrajudicial killings.Doctrine: The Court may be more yielding to the use of circumstantial or indirect evidence and logical inferences, but substantial evidence is still the rule to warrant a finding that the State has violated, is violating, or is threatening to violate, amparo petitioners' right to life, liberty or security.

FACTS: Petitioners share the common circumstance of having their names included in what is alleged to be a JCICC "AGILA" 3rd Quarter 2007 Order of Battle Validation Result of the Philippine Army's 1Oth Infantry Division (10th ID), 3 which is a list containing the names of organizations and personalities in Southern Mindanao, particularly Davao City, supposedly connected to the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and its military arm, the New People's Army (NPA). They perceive that by the inclusion of their names in the said Order of Battle (OB List), they become easy targets of unexplained disappearances or extralegal killings In her Affidavit,5 Atty. Ladaga substantiated the threats against her life, liberty and security by narrating that since 2007, suspicious-looking persons have been visiting her Davao City law office during her absence, posing either as members of the military or falsely claiming to be clients inquiring on the status of their cases. Atty Trinidad: she has not committed any act against national security that would justify the inclusion of her name in the said OB List. In her Affidavit, she recounted that sometime in May 2008, two suspicious-looking men on a motorcycle tailed her vehicle as she went about her day going to different places. She also recalled that on June 23, 2008, while she was away from home, three unidentified men tried to barge into their house and later left on board a plate-less, stainless owner typevehicle. current Secretary General of the Union of Peoples' Lawyers in Mindanao (UPLM) and Davao City Coordinator of the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG), ATTY. CARLOS ISAGANI T. ZARATE (Atty. Zarate), was informed sometime in May 2009 that his name was also among those included in the OB List made public by Representative Ocampo at a forum concerning human rights violations in Southern Mindanao. said [PowerPoint] presentation was leaked by a conscientious soldier petitioners Ladaga were one in asserting that the OB List is really a military hit-list as allegedly shown by the fact that there have already been three victims of extrajudicial killing whose violent deaths can be linked directly to the OB List respondents' Mapagu inconsistent statements and obvious prevarication sufficiently prove their authorship of the subject OB List. Supposedly sourced from their own Press Releases,respondents have been quoted in several newspapers as saying: 1) that the 10th ID has its Order of Battle, and, it is not for public consumption 2) that the Order of Battle requires thorough confirmation and validation from different law enforcement agencies, and from various sectors and stakeholders who are the ones providing the information about the people and organizations 3) that an order of battle does not target individuals; it is mainly an assessment of the general threat to national security; 4) that Representative Ocampo utilized the material to disrupt the ongoing government efforts in the area by raising issues and propaganda against the military; 5) that [t]he public viewing of the falsified document of the OB was a deliberate act of Representative Ocampo x x x to mar the image of the military forces, gain media mileage and regain the support of the masses and local executives; 6) that Reperesentative Ocampo twisted the data and insinuated names as targets of the AFP/10ID when in fact these are targets (for infiltration) by the CPP/NPA; and 7) that this attempt of the CPP to attribute human rights violations to the Philippine government is a cover to mask their record of killing people. Its source email address, dpao10id@yahoo.com, has been identified by regular correspondent of the Philippine Daily Inquirer Jeffrey Tupas as the same one used by respondent Lt. Col. Decapia in sending to him previous official press statements On June 16, 2009, petitioners separately filed before the RTC a Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Amparo with Application for a Production Order RTC issued separate Writs of Amparo25 in each of the three (3) cases, directing respondents to file a verified written return within seventy-two (72) hours and setting the case for summary hearing In her Reply, Atty. Librado-Trinidad averred that the present petition substantially conformed with the requirements of the Amparo Rule, as it alleged ultimate facts on the participation of respondents in the preparation of the OB List, which naturally requires utmost secrecy. Petitioners Mapagu: virtual admission to the media of the existence of the OB List, as well as, the fact that known victims of past extrajudicial killings have been likewise labeled as communist fronts in similar orders of battle, more than satisfies the standard required to prove that petitioners' life, liberty and security are at risk. During the scheduled summary hearing on June 22, 2009, Representative Ocampo's oral testimony on the circumstances surrounding his obtention of the alleged military document was dispensed with and, instead, the Affidavit he executed on June 30, 2009 was presented in the hearing held on July 1, 2009 to form part of the documentary exhibits of petitioners. After submission of the parties' respective Position Papers, the RTC issued the three separate but similarly-worded Orders finding no substantial evidence to show that the perceived threat to petitioners' life, liberty and security was attributable to the unlawful act or omission of the respondents Petitioners Ladaga explicated that since respondents were being impleaded as the responsible officers of the 10th ID the military unit that supposedly prepared the OB List PowerPoint presentation, their general denials on the existence of the OB List without taking serious steps to find the persons actually responsible for the threat could not discharge respondents from the standard of diligence required of them under the Amparo Rule. RTC rejected MRHence, this petition for review on certiorari respondents argue35 that the purported OB List could not have come from the military because it does not have the distinctive marks and security classifications of military documents. No proof of threats, nor that Resps Magpu prepared the list ISSUE: WON Writs of Amparo should be issued (NO)The writ of amparo was promulgated by the Court pursuant to its rulemaking powers in response to the alarming rise in the number of cases of enforced disappearances and extrajudicial killings. It plays the preventive role of breaking the expectation of impunity in the commission of extralegal killings and enforced disappearances, as well as the curative role of facilitating the subsequent punishment of the perpetrators. In Tapuz v. Del Rosario: the writ of amparo is an extraordinary remedy intended to address violations of, or threats to, the rights to life, liberty or security and that, being a remedy of extraordinary character, it is not one to issue on amorphous or uncertain grounds but only upon reasonable certainty. Hence, every petition for the issuance of the writ is required to be supported by justifying allegations of fact on the following matters: (a) The personal circumstances of the petitioner; (b) The name and personal circumstances of the respondent responsible for the threat, act or omission, or, if the name is unknown or uncertain, the respondent may be described by an assumed appellation;(c) The right to life, liberty and security of the aggrieved party violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of the respondent, and how such threat or violation is committed with the attendant circumstances detailed in supporting affidavits; (d) The investigation conducted, if any, specifying the names, personal circumstances, and addresses of the investigating authority or individuals, as well as the manner and conduct of the investigation, together with any report; (e) The actions and recourses taken by the petitioner to determine the fate or whereabouts of the aggrieved party and the identity of the person responsible for the threat, act or omission; and (f) The relief prayed for. The petition may include a general prayer for other just and equitable reliefs.ON WHETHER THE TOTALITY OF EVIDENCE SATISFIES THE DEGREE OF PROOF REQUIRED UNDER THE AMPARO RULE. Sections 17 and 18 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo provide as follows: SEC. 17. Burden of Proof and Standard of Diligence Required. The parties shall establish their claims by substantial evidence. x x x x SEC. 18. Judgment. The court shall render judgment within ten (10) days from the time the petition is submitted for decision. If the allegations in the petition are proven by substantial evidence, the court shall grant the privilege of the writ and such reliefs as may be proper and appropriate; otherwise, the privilege shall be denied. Substantial evidence is that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. It is more than a mere imputation of wrongdoing or violation that would warrant a finding of liability against the person charged. The summary nature of amparo proceedings, as well as, the use of substantial evidence as standard of proof shows the intent of the framers of the rule to address situations of enforced disappearance and extrajudicial killings, or threats thereof, with what is akin to administrative proceedings. Suitable to, and consistent with this incipiently unique and informal treatment of amparo cases, the Court eventually recognized the evidentiary difficulties that beset amparo petitioners, arising as they normally would from the fact that the State itself, through its own agents, is involved in the enforced disappearance or extrajudicial killing that it is supposedly tasked by law to investigate. Thus, in Razon, Jr. v. Tagitis, the Court laid down a new standard of relaxed admissibility of evidence to enable amparo petitioners to meet the required amount of proof showing the State's direct or indirect involvement in the purported violations and found it a fair and proper rule in amparo cases to consider all the pieces of evidence adduced in their totality and to consider any evidence otherwise inadmissible under our usual rules to be admissible if it is consistent with the admissible evidence adduced. evidence is not to be rejected outright because it is inadmissible under the rules for as long as it satisfies the most basic test of reason i.e., relevance of the evidence to the issue at hand and its consistency with all other pieces of adduced evidence. This measure of flexibility in the admissibility of evidence, however, does not do away with the requirement of substantial evidence in showing the State's involvement in the enforced disappearance, extrajudicial killing or threats thereof. It merely permits, in the absence of hard-to-produce direct evidence, a closer look at the relevance and significance of every available evidence, 44 including those that are, strictly speaking, hearsay where the circumstances of the case so require, and allows the consideration of the evidence adduced in terms of their consistency with the totality of the evidence Brion: Evidence that would directly establish a violation of the right to life, liberty and security is indubitably in the States possession. The same is not equally true in cases where the amparo petitioner alleges (as in this case) a threatened violation of his/her rights since the facts, circumstances and the link between these that create an actual threat to his/her life are measurably within the ability of the amparo petitioner to prove. These include, among others, the alleged documented human rights violations by the military in Mindanao; documentary and/or testimonial evidence on the militarys counter-insurgency operations; corroborative evidence to support the allegations on the presence of suspicious men; and presumptive evidence linking the deaths of Celso Pojas, Ludenio Monzon and Dr. Rogelio Peera to their political affiliation and the similarity of their situation to those of petitioners. A mere inclusion of ones name in the OB List, without more, does not suffice to discharge the burden to establish actual threat to ones right to life, liberty and security by substantial evidence. The statement of Representative Ocampo that the respondents are the real source of the OB List is unquestionably hearsay evidence because, except for the fact that he himself received the OB List from an unnamed source merely described as a conscientious soldier, he had no personal knowledge concerning its preparation. But even if the Court were to apply the appropriate measure of flexibility in the instant cases by admitting the hearsay testimony of Representative Ocampo, a consideration of this piece of evidence to the totality of those adduced, namely, the Press Releases issued by the 10th ID admitting the existence of a military-prepared Order of Battle, the affidavits of petitioners attesting to the threatening visits and tailing of their vehicles by menacing strangers, as well as the violent deaths of alleged militant personalities, leads to the conclusion that the threat to petitioners' security has not be adequately proven. the existence of the OB List could not be directly associated with the menacing behavior of suspicious men or the violent deaths of certain personalities, This Court likewise sees no direct relation between the violent deaths of certain Celso Pojas, Ludenio Monzon and Dr. Rogelio Peera and the subject OB List. the existence of the subject OB List has not been adequately proven, as discussed heretofore, hence, reference to the same finds no basis. except for Celso Pojas, the names of the supposed victims of extrajudicial killings are manifestly absent in the subject OB List and the supposed connection of the victims to the militant groups explicitly identified in the OB List is nothing short of nebulous. Moreover, while respondents may have admitted through various statements to the media that the military has its own Order of Battle, such an admission is not equivalent to proof that the subject OB List, which was publicly disclosed by Representative Ocampo by way of a PowerPoint presentation, is one and the same with the Order of Battle that the military has in its keeping. the inclusion of petitioners' names therein does not, by itself, constitute an actual threat to their rights to life, liberty and security as to warrant the issuance of a writ of amparo. Secretary of National Defense v. Manalo: a person's right to security is, in one sense, freedom from fear and that any threat to the rights to life, liberty or security is an actionable wrong. The term any threat, however, cannot be taken to mean every conceivable threat in the mind that may cause one to fear for his life, liberty or security. The alleged threat to herein petitioners' Ladagas rights to life, liberty and security must be actual, and not merely one of supposition or with the likelihood of happening. And, when the evidence adduced establishes the threat to be existent, as opposed to a potential one, then, it goes without saying that the threshold requirement of substantial evidence in amparo proceedings has also been met. Thus, in the words of Justice Brion, in the context of the Amparo rule, only actual threats, as may be established from all the facts and circumstances of the case, can qualify as a violation that may be addressed under the Rule on the Writ of Amparo. The Court may be more yielding to the use of circumstantial or indirect evidence and logical inferences, but substantial evidence is still the rule to warrant a finding that the State has violated, is violating, or is threatening to violate, amparo petitioners' right to life, liberty or security. CAB: No substantial evidence of an actual threat to petitioners' life, liberty and security has been shown to exist in this case. Emphasizing the extraordinary character of the amparo remedy, the Court ruled in the cases of Roxas and Razon, Jr. that an amparo petitioner's failure to establish by substantial evidence the involvement of government forces in the alleged violation of rights is never a hindrance for the Court to order the conduct of further investigation where it appears that the government did not observe extraordinary diligence in the performance of its duty to investigate the complained abduction and torture or enforced disappearance. The Court directed further investigation in the case of Roxas because the modest efforts of police investigators were effectively putting petitioner's right to security in danger with the delay in identifying and apprehending her abductors. In Razon, Jr., the Court found it necessary to explicitly order the military and police officials to pursue with extraordinary diligence the investigation into the abduction and disappearance of a known activist because not only did the police investigators conduct an incomplete and one-sided investigation but they blamed their ineffectiveness to the reluctance and unwillingness of the relatives to cooperate with the authorities. In both of these cases, the incidents of abduction and torture were undisputed and they provided the evidentiary support for the finding that the right to security was violated and the necessity for further investigation into such violation. Unlike Roxas and Razon, Jr., however, the present petitions do not involve actual cases of abduction or disappearance that can be the basis of an investigation. Petitioners Ladaga would insist that respondents Magpube investigated and directed to produce the Order of Battle that they have admitted to be in their safekeeping and justify the inclusion of petitioners' names therein. However, without substantial evidence of an actual threat to petitioners' rights to life, liberty and security that consists more than just the inclusion of their names in an OB List, an order for further investigation into, or production of, the military's Order of Battle, would have no concrete basis.DISPOSITIVE: DENIED

Gen Yano vs. Sanchez | COFebruary 11, 2010GEN. ALEXANDER B. YANO, Chief of Staff, Armed Forces of the Philippines, LT. GEN. VICTOR S. IBRADO, Commanding General, Philippine Army, and MAJ. GEN. RALPH A. VILLANUEVA, Commander, 7th Infantry Division, Philippine Army, Petitioners, vs. CLEOFAS SANCHEZ and MARCIANA MEDINA, Respondents.CARPIO MORALES, J

Nature: Petition for writ of amparoSUMMARY: Nicolas and Heherson went missing. Their mothers filed a petition for a writ of Amparo. The petition was based on the testimony of Josephine, who testified that she saw the victims inside a camp. Respondent military officers denied participation. CA found no link between the disappearance to the respondent military officers but still granted reliefs such as inspection and investigation. SC ruled that the issuance of writ of amparo was properly denied because petitioners were not able to adduce substantial evidence.Doctrine: The failure to establish that the public official observed extraordinary diligence in the performance of duty does not result in the automatic grant of the privilege of the amparo writ. It does not relieve the petitioner from establishing his or her claim by substantial evidence. The omission or inaction on the part of the public official provides, however, some basis for the court to grant certain interim reliefs. (However, in this case, the reliefs should not have been granted since they were stale remedies, in light of the fact that the petitioners did not appeal). Substantial evidence such relevant evidence a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion

Facts: Cleofas Sanchez filed before the SC a petition for issuance of a Writ of Amparo with Motion for Production and Inspection directed against Gen. Esperon, then Chief of Staff of the AFP. SC resolved to issue a Writ of Amparo and ordered Gen. Esperon to make a verified return of the writ before CA Justice Sundiam, who was ordered to hear and decide the case. Cleofas amended her petition to include herein co-respondent Marciana Medina as additional petitioner, and to implead other military officers including Lt. Sumangil and Sgt. Villalobos. Amended Petition Cleofas and Marciana alleged that on Sep 17, 2006 at around 8pm their sons Nicolas Sanchez and Heherson Medina were catching frogs outside their home in Sitio Dalin, Barangay Bueno, Capas, Tarlac; that at around 1am the next day, Sep 18, 2006, Nicolas "wives" Lourdez and Rosalie Sanchez, who were then at home, heard gunshots and saw armed men in soldiers uniforms passing by; that at around 4am of the same day, Lourdez and Rosalie went out to check on Nicolas and Heherson but only saw their caps, slippers, pana and airgun for catching frogs, as well as bloodstains; and that they immediately reported the matter to the barangay officials. Cleofas and Marciana, together with other family members, proceeded on Sep 19, 2006 to the Capas Station of the PNP. Accompanied by officials of the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP), they also tried to search for Nicolas and Heherson at the Camp Detachment of the 71st Infantry Batallion of the Philippine Army in Barangay Burgos, San Jose, Tarlac, and at the Camp of the Bravo Company of the Armys 71st Infantry Batallion inside Hacienda Luisita, Tarlac City, but to no avail. Cleofas and Marciana alleged that Josephine Galang Victoria, also known as Antonina Galang, niece of a neighbor, later informed them that she had seen 2 men inside Camp Servillano Aquino of the Northern Luzon Command (Nolcom) in San Miguel, Tarlac City on Sep 21, 2006, whom Josephine identified as Nicolas and Heherson after they had shown her their photographs Josephine informed them that she saw the victims again on Sept 24, 2006 and Nov 1, 2006, this time at the Camp of the Bravo Company inside Hacienda Luisita, where she had occasion to talk to Lt. Sumangil and Sgt. Villalobos. Cleofas and Marciana then filed a case on Dec 21, 2006 before the Commission on Human Rights, which endorsed to the Ombudsman for appropriate action Contending that the victims life, liberty and security had been and continued to be violated on account of their forced disappearance, respondents prayed for the ff: issuance of a writ of Amparo production of the victims bodies during the hearing on the Writ, inspection of certain military camps issuance of temporary and permanent protection orders rendition of judgment under S 18 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo Jan 24, 2008: consolidated Return of the Writ, verified by Gen. Esperon, Lt. Sumangil, Sgt. Villalobos, Maj. Gen. Gomez as Commander of the Armys 7th Infantry Division, and Lt. Col. Bayani as Camp Commander of Camp Servillano Aquino of the Nolcom in Tarlac City, was filed with the CA Lt. Gen. Yano Commanding General of the Army, filed a Return of the Writ upon his return from an official trip abroad. In the Return, the military officers denied having custody of the victims. proper remedy of respondents was to file a petition for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus petitions ultimate objective was the production of the bodies of the victims, as they were allegedly abducted and illegally detained by military personnel petition failed to indicate the matters required by paragraphs (c), (d) and (e), S 5 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo, such that the allegations were incomplete to constitute a cause of action, aside from being based on mere hearsay evidence, and are, at best, speculative Cleofas and Marciana failed to present the affidavits of some other competent persons which would clearly validate their claim that the military violated the victims right to life, liberty or security by abducting or detaining them petition did not allege any specific action or inaction attributable to the military officers with respect to their duties; or allege that respondents took any action by filing a formal complaint or visiting the military camps adverted to in order to verify Josephines claim that she saw the victims on two different occasions inside the camps, or that they took efforts to follow up on the PNP Capas Stations further action on their complaint Gen. Esperons assertion: in compliance with the Defense Secretarys directive in relation to cases of Writ of Amparo against the AFP, he issued directives to the Nolcom Commander and the Armys Commanding General to investigate and establish the circumstances surrounding reported disappearances of victims insofar as the claim on the possible involvement of the military units was concerned undertook to bring any military personnel involved, when warranted by the evidence, to the bar of justice Maj. Gen. Gomez denied having custody or knowledge of the whereabouts of the victims, stating that it was not army policy to abduct civilians in his area of responsibility he was away on official business at the time of the alleged disappearance of the victims Lt. Col. Bayani attested he was designated Camp Commander only on Sep 1, 2007 and thus had no personal knowledge about the victims alleged disappearance or abduction on Sep 18, 2006 he was informed by his immediate predecessor that no individuals were detained in the camp as it did not even have detention facilities in compliance with Gen. Esperons directive, their command was conducting further investigation to verify the allegations in the petition Lt. Sumangil denied having spoken to Josephine inside the camp on Sep 24, 2006, on which date civilians were not allowed to enter except on official missions or when duly authorized to conduct transactions inside the camp. Josephine lied in claiming to have seen the 2 victims inside the Camp of the Bravo Company Recounted that on Sep 24, 2006, he spoke for the first and only time, but only at the gate of the camp, with a person who identified herself as "Antonina Galang," who informed him about the disappearance of the victims since Sep 18, 2006. Warning him that these men were members of the New Peoples Army (NPA), she advised him not to entertain any queries or complaints relative to their alleged disappearance Sgt. Villalobos disclaimed having any of the victims in his custody or meeting anyone named Josephine Victoria, or about the latter having entered the camps kitchen to drink water Lt. Gen. Yano stated that upon his return from his official functions overseas, he immediately inquired on the actions taken on the case. he had never participated directly or indirectly; or consented, permitted or sanctioned any illegal or illegitimate military operations In opposing the request for issuance of inspection and production orders, the military officers posited that apart from compromising national security should entry into these military camps/bases be allowed, these orders partook of the nature of a search warrant, such that the requisites for the issuance thereof must be complied with prior to their issuance. such request relied solely on bare, self-serving and vague allegations contained in Josephines affidavit CA absolved, by the assailed Decision of Sep 17, 2008, Gen. Esperon, Lt. Gen. Yano, Maj. Gen. Gomez, and Lt. Col. Bayani for lack of evidence linking them to the disappearances Reliefs granted by the CA in the interest of human rights and justice Inspections of camps Thorough and Impartial Investigation Military officers filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration, arguing in the main that since respondents failed to prove the allegations in their petition by substantial evidence, the appellate court should not have granted those reliefs.

Issue: #1: W/N the issuance of the writ of amaparo was properly denied (YES)#2: W/N granting of reliefs by the CA is proper (NO)

Held:#1: The issuance of the writ was properly denied because the witness testimony of Josephine/Antonina has been successfully destroyed. While Josephines story of how she saw the subject 2 missing persons appeared initially as plausible, however, her credibility as a witness had been successfully destroyed by the following witnesses presented by the military officers Barangay Captain Supan of Cut-Cut II, Tarlac City, attested that she knows a certain woman named Josephine Galang Victoria who introduces herself as Antonina Galang, he knows the reputation of Josephine Victoria as bad regarding her telling the truth, her truthfulness and integrity, known to fool others and invents stories for money reasons, that she cannot be trusted even if she is under oath before God and the State (May galit ka yata kay Josephine, kuya.) Gloria Galang Mansalay: she is a resident of Cut-Cut II since birth and knows Josephine because she is her niece being the daughter of her older brother; her general reputation in telling the truth, her fidelity and integrity is bad, known to fool others, a liar and invent [sic] stories for reason of money Clarita Galang Ricafrente saying that she is a resident of Cut-cut II and Antonina Galang is a niece and attested the same negative reputations against Antonina. Said negative testimonies of Josephine Galang Victorias relatives were never successfully rebutted by her and the SC gives credence to them. No ill motive [sic] were established against the said witnesses to testify against Antonina. Antonina Galang stated that she was in Camp Servillano Aquino when she first saw the missing persons riding in an army truck because she was visiting her uncle, Major Henry Galang, allegedly living in the camp. this story of Antonina Galang was put to doubt. TSG Edgard Reyes who attested that as a meter reader in the camp, Major Galang was no longer residing there in September 2006. This testimony and revelation of TSG Reyes only bolstered the testimonies of the other witnesses on Antoninas penchant to invent stories or tell a lie. We are not inclined to give credence to the claims. Antonina Galang never did see the faces of the two but were known to her through photographs. Certainly, there may be a difference between photographs and the faces in person. There was no express attestation that the 2 missing were in the company of armed men. The mothers neither moved for reconsideration nor appealed the appellate courts Sep 17, 2008 Decision. A party who did not appeal cannot assign such errors as are designed to have the judgment modified. All that said appellee can do is to make a counter-assignment of errors or to argue on issues raised at the trial only for the purpose of sustaining the judgment in his favor, even on grounds not included in the decision of the court a quo or raised in the appellants assignment of errors or arguments To avoid ambiguity in the presentation of issues, facilitate the setting forth of arguments by the parties, and aid the court in making its determinations. A party who fails to acquire complete relief from a decision of the court has various remedies to correct an omission by the court. He may move for a correction or clarification of judgment, or even seek its modification through ordinary appeal. There is thus no basis for the Court to skip the rule and excuse Cleofas and Marciana for failure to properly avail themselves of the remedies in the face of the parties contentions that have remained disputed.

#2: Granting of reliefs by the CA was not proper because reliefs are intended to assist the Court while it determines amparo petition. S 17 and 18 of the Amparo Rule lay down the requisite standard of proof necessary to prove either partys claim SEC. 17. Burden of Proof and Standard of Diligence Required. - The parties shall establish their claim by substantial evidence. The respondent who is a private individual or entity must prove that ordinary diligence as required by applicable laws, rules and regulations was observed in the performance of duty. The respondent who is a public official or employee must prove that extraordinary diligence as required by applicable laws, rules and regulations was observed in the performance of duty. The respondent public official or employee cannot invoke the presumption that official duty has been regularly performed to evade responsibility or liability SEC. 18. Judgment. - The Court shall render judgment within ten (10) days from the time the petition is submitted for decision. If the allegations in the petition are proven by substantial evidence, the court shall grant the privilege of the writ and such reliefs as may be proper and appropriate; otherwise, the privilege shall be denied. Requisite standard of proof substantial evidence - speaks of the clear intent of the Rule to have the equivalent of an administrative proceeding, albeit judicially conducted, in resolving amparo petitions. CA: evidence adduced in the present case failed to measure up to that standard substantial evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Since respondents did not avail of any remedy against the adverse judgment, the appellate courts decision is, insofar as it concerns them, now beyond the ambit of review. Failure to establish that the public official observed extraordinary diligence in the performance of duty does not result in the automatic grant of the privilege of the amparo writ. It does not relieve the petitioner from establishing his or her claim by substantial evidence. The omission or inaction on the part of the public official provides, however, some basis for the petitioner to move and for the court to grant certain interim reliefs. Section 14 of the Amparo Rule provides for interim or provisional reliefs that the courts may grant in order to, inter alia, protect the witnesses and the rights of the parties, and preserve all relevant evidence (Parts reproduced below were those highlighted by the SC) SEC. 14. Interim Reliefs. Upon filing of the petition or at anytime before final judgment, the court, justice or judge may grant any of the following reliefs: (a) Temporary Protection Order. The court, justice or judge, upon motion or motu proprio, may order that the petitioner or the aggrieved party and any member of the immediate family be protected in a government agency or by an accredited person or private institution capable of keeping and securing their safety. If the petitioner is an organization, association or institution referred to in Section 3 (c) of this Rule, the protection may be extended to the officers involved. (b) Inspection Order. The court, justice or judge, upon verified motion and after due hearing, may order any person in possession or control of a designated land or other property, to permit entry for the purpose of inspecting, measuring, surveying, or photographing the property or any relevant object or operation thereon. (c) Production Order. The court, justice, or judge, upon verified motion and after due hearing, may order any person in possession, custody or control of any designated documents, papers, books, accounts, letters, photographs, objects or tangible things, or objects in digitized or electronic form, which constitute or contain evidence relevant to the petition or the return, to produce and permit their inspection, copying or photographing by or on behalf of the movant provisional reliefs are intended to assist the court before it arrives at a judicious determination of the amparo petition. For the appellate court to, in the present case, still order the inspection of the military camps and order the army units to conduct an investigation into the disappearance of Nicolas and Heherson after it absolved petitioners is thus not in order. The reliefs granted by the appellate court to respondents are not in sync with a finding that petitioners could not be held accountable for the disappearance of the victims. At this late stage, respondents can no longer avail themselves of their stale remedies in the guise of praying for affirmative reliefs in their Comment. No modification of judgment could be granted to a party who did not appeal If respondents believed that the Sep 17, 2008 Decision of the CA was merely interlocutory, they had every opportunity to question the conclusion of said court, but they did not; could have opposed petitioners MR filed with the appellate court, it being a prohibited pleadingunder the Amparo Rule, but they did not.Dispositive: petition is GRANTED. The assailed September 17, 2008 Decision and March 3, 2009 Resolution of the Court of Appeals, insofar as it grants the assailed earlier-quoted reliefs are SET ASIDE

Rubrico v. Macapagal-Arroyo | KatFebruary 18, 2010LOURDES D. RUBRICO, JEAN RUBRICO APRUEBO, and MARY JOY RUBRICO CARBONEL,Petitioners, vs.GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, GEN. HERMOGENES ESPERON, P/DIR. GEN. AVELINO RAZON, MAJ. DARWIN SY a.k.a. DARWIN REYES, JIMMY SANTANA, RUBEN ALFARO, CAPT. ANGELO CUARESMA, a certain JONATHAN, P/SUPT. EDGAR B. ROQUERO, ARSENIO C. GOMEZ, and OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN,Respondents.VELASCO, JR.,J.

SUMMARY: Rubrico claimed to have been abducted by members of the AFP and PNP. Her family had also been harassed after her release. She filed a criminal complaint against her abductors with the Office of the Ombudsman. Later, she filed a petition for issuance of writ of amparo, naming as respondents President Macapagal-Arroyo, AFP Gen Esperon, PNP Gen Razon, two local PNP officials and the abductors. The CA dismissed her petition. Held: The petition was properly dismissed. The President had immunity from suit. The generals could not be held liable under the doctrine of command responsibility. Rubrico also failed to present substantial evidence to prove her allegations. The SC ordered the consolidation of the factfinding aspects of the amparo petition with the investigation of the criminal complaint, and the incorporation of the allegations in the amparo petition in the same criminal complaint.DOCTRINE: The Rule on the Writ of Amparo prohibits the filing of an amparo petition should a criminal action have been commenced; however when the criminal case is filed after the amparo petition, the petition shall be consolidated with the criminal action where the amparo rule shall nonetheless govern the disposition of the relief.

FACTS: April 3, 2007: Armed men belonging to the 301st Air Intelligence and Security Squadron (AISS) based in Fernando Air Base in Lipa City abducted Lourdes D. Rubrico, then attending a Lentenpabasain Bagong Bayan, Dasmarias, Cavite, and brought to, and detained at, the air base without charges. Following a week of relentless interrogation - conducted alternately by hooded individuals - and what amounts to verbal abuse and mental harassment, Lourdes, chair of the Ugnayan ng Maralita para sa Gawa Adhikan, was released at Dasmarias, Cavite, her hometown, but only after being made to sign a statement that she would be a military asset. The harassment, being tailed on at least two occasions at different places, i.e., Dasmarias, Cavite and Baclaran in Pasay City, by motorcycle-riding men in bonnets, continued; During the time Lourdes was missing, P/Sr. Insp. Arsenio Gomez, then sub-station commander of Bagong Bayan, Dasmarias, Cavite, kept sending text messages to Lourdes daughter, Mary Joy R. Carbonel (Mary Joy), bringing her to beaches and asking her questions aboutKarapatan,an alliance of human rights organizations. But, he failed to make an investigation even after Lourdes disappearance had been made known to him; A week after Lourdes release, another daughter, Jean R. Apruebo, was constrained to leave their house because of the presence of men watching them; Lourdes has filed with the Office of the Ombudsman a criminal complaint for kidnapping and arbitrary detention and administrative complaint for gross abuse of authority and grave misconduct against Capt. Angelo Cuaresma, Ruben Alfaro, Jimmy Santana and Jonathan, c/o Headquarters 301st AISS, Fernando Air Base and Maj. Sy/Reyes with address at No. 09 Amsterdam Ext., Merville Subd., Paraaque City, but nothing has happened; and the threats and harassment incidents have been reported to the Dasmarias municipal and Cavite provincial police stations, but nothing eventful resulted from their respective investigations. Two of the four witnesses to Lourdes abduction went into hiding after being visited by government agents in civilian clothes Karapatan conducted an investigation on the incidents which indicate that men belonging to the AFP, namely Capt. Cuaresma of the Philippine Air Force (PAF), Alfaro, Santana, Jonathan and Maj. Darwin Sy/Reyes, led the abduction of Lourdes; that unknown to the abductors, Lourdes was able to pilfer a "mission order" which was addressed to CA Alfaro and signed by Capt. Cuaresma The petition for the writ of amparo dated October 25, 2007 was originally filed before the SC The petition prayed that a writ of amparo issue, ordering the individual respondents (Macapagal-Arroyo et. al) (to desist from performing any threatening act against the security of the petitioners (Rubricos) and for the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) to immediately file an information for kidnapping qualified with the aggravating circumstance of gender of the offended party. It also prayed for damages and for Macapagal-Arroyo et. al to produce documents submitted to any of them on the case of Lourdes. After issuing the desired writ and directing the Macapagal-Arroyo et. al to file a verified written return, the Court referred the petition to the CA for summary hearing and appropriate action. President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, Gen. Hermogenes Esperon, then AFP Chief of Staff, Police Director-General (P/Dir. Gen.) Avelino Razon, then PNP Chief, Police Superintendent (P/Supt.) Roquero of the Cavite Police Provincial Office, Police Inspector (P/Insp.) Gomez, now retired, and the OMB filed, through the OSG, a joint return on the writ specifically denying the material inculpatory averments against them. OSG also denied the allegations against the impleaded persons, namely: Cuaresma, Alfaro, Santana, Jonathan, and Sy/Reyes, for lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the allegations truth. General affirmative defenses: (1) the President may not be sued during her incumbency; and (2) the petition is incomplete, as it fails to indicate the matters required by Sec. 5(d) and (e) of the Amparo Rule. Affidavits attached to the return: Gen. Esperon: Pursuant to a directive of then Sec. of National Defense (SND) Teodoro, Jr., he ordered the Commanding General of the PAF to conduct an investigation to establish the circumstances behind the disappearance and the reappearance of Lourdes insofar as the involvement of alleged personnel/unit is concerned. The Provost Marshall General and the Office of the Judge Advocate General (JAGO), AFP, also undertook a parallel action. Gen. Esperon manifested his resolve to provide the CA with material results of the investigation; to continue with the probe on the alleged abduction of Lourdes and to bring those responsible, including military personnel, to the bar of justice when warranted by the findings and the competent evidence that may be gathered; P/Dir. Gen. Razon: an investigation he immediately ordered upon receiving a copy of the petition is on-going, and a background verification with the PNP Personnel Accounting and Information System disclosed that the names Santana, Alfaro, Cuaresma and Jonathan do not appear in the police personnel records, although the PNP files carry the name of Darwin Reyes Y. Muga. Per the initial investigation report of the Dasmarias municipal police station, P/Dir. Gen. Razon disclosed, Lourdes was abducted by six armed men in the afternoon of April 3, 2007 and dragged aboard a Toyota Revo with plate number XRR 428, which plate was issued for a Mitsubishi van to AK Cottage Industry with address at 9 Amsterdam St., Merville Subd., Paraaque City. The person residing in the apartment on that given address is one Darius/Erwin See @ Darius Reyes allegedly working, per the latters house helper, in Camp Aguinaldo. P/Dir. Gen. Razon: Mrs. Rubrico never contacted nor coordinated with the local police or other investigating units of the PNP after her release, although she is in the best position to establish the identity of her abductors and/or provide positive description through composite sketching. He manifested that the PNP is ready to assist and protect the Rubricos and the key witnesses from threats, harassments and intimidation from whatever source and to assist the Court in the implementation of its orders. P/Supt. Roquero: started conducting, upon receipt of Lourdes complaint, an investigation and submitting the corresponding report to the PNP Calabarzon, observing that neither Lourdes nor her relatives provided the police with relevant information; P/Insp. Gomez: alleged that Lourdes, her kin and witnesses refused to cooperate with the investigating Cavite PNP; and Overall Deputy Ombudsman Orlando Casimiro: cases for violation of Articles 267 and 124, or kidnapping and arbitrary detention, respectively, have been filed with, and are under preliminary investigation by the OMB against those believed to be involved in Lourdes kidnapping; Upon receipt of the petition for a writ ofamparo, proper coordination was made with the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military and other Law Enforcement Offices (MOLEO) where the subject criminal and administrative complaints were filed. Rubricos arguments: The return was no more than a general denial of averments in the petition. They, thus, pleaded to be allowed to present evidenceex parteagainst the President, Santana, Alfaro, Capt. Cuaresma, Darwin Sy, and Jonathan. And with leave of court, they also asked to serve notice of the petition through publication, owing to their failure to secure the current address of the latter five and thus submit, as the CA required, proof of service of the petition on them. The hearing started on November 13, 2007. In that setting, Rubricos counsel prayed for the issuance of a temporary protection order (TPO) against Macapagal-Arroyo et.al. on the basis of the allegations in the petition. November 20, 2007 hearing:, the CA granted Rubricos motion that the petition and writ be served by the courts process server on Darwin Sy/Reyes, Santana, Alfaro, Capt. Cuaresma, and Jonathan. CA: dropped the President as respondent; denied TPO; and effectively denied the motion for notice by publication owing to Rubricos failure to submit the affidavit required under Sec. 17, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court. CA (July 31, 2008): dismissed petition with respect to respondent Gen. Esperon, P/Dir. Gen. Razon, Supt. Roquero, P/Sr. Insp. Gomez (ret.) and the Office of the Ombudsman. Nevertheless, in order that Rubricos complaint will not end up as another unsolved case, the heads of the AFP and the PNP are directed to ensure that the investigations already commenced are diligently pursued to bring the perpetrators to justice. The Chief of Staff of the AFP and P/Dir. Gen. Avelino Razon are directed to regularly update Rubricos and this Court on the status of their investigation. Hence petition for reviewISSUE #1: W/N the President should be dropped as party respondent? YES RATIO #1: The presidential immunity from suit remains preserved under our system of government, albeit not expressly reserved in the present constitution Fr. Joaquin Bernas, S.J. observed that it was already understood in jurisprudence that the President may not be sued during his or her tenure. The President, during his 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 Constitution or law. It will degrade the dignity of the high office of the President, the Head of State, if he can be dragged into court litigations while serving as such. It is important that he be freed from any form of harassment, hindrance or distraction to enable him to fully attend to the performance of his official duties and functions. Unlike the legislative and judicial branch, only one constitutes the executive branch and anything which impairs his usefulness in the discharge of the many great and important duties imposed upon him by the Constitution necessarily impairs the operation of the Government. And lest it be overlooked, the petition is simply bereft of any allegation as to what specific presidential act or omission violated or threatened to violate Rubricos protected rights.ISSUE #2: W/N the peitition should be dismissed? YESRATIO #2: None of the four individual respondents (Esperon et. al.) has been implicated as being connected to, let alone as being behind, the alleged abduction and harassment of Lourdes. Their names were not even mentioned in LourdesSinumpaang Salaysayof April 2007 nor in the respective Sinumpaang Salaysay and/or Karagdagang Sinumpaang Salaysayof Jeanand Mary Joy. CA: Gen. Esperon and P/Dir. Gen. Razon were included in the case on the theory that they, as commanders, were responsible for the unlawful acts allegedly committed by their subordinates against the Rubricos. "The privilege of the writ of amparo must be denied as against Gen. Esperon and P/Dir. Gen. Razon for the simple reason that the Rubricos have not presented evidence showing that those who allegedly abducted and illegally detained Lourdes and later threatened her and her family were, in fact, members of the military or the police force." The two generals would have been accountable for the abduction and threats if the actual malefactors were members of the AFP or PNP. As regards the three other answering respondents (Roquero et. al.), they were impleaded because they allegedly had not exerted the required extraordinary diligence in investigating and satisfactorily resolving Lourdes disappearance or bringing to justice the actual perpetrators of what amounted to a criminal act, albeit there were allegations against P/Insp. Gomez of acts constituting threats against Mary Joy.

COMMAND RESPONSIBILITY While in a qualified sense tenable, the dismissal by the CA of the case as against Gen. Esperon and P/Dir. Gen. Razon is incorrect if viewed against the backdrop of the stated rationale underpinning the assailed decision vis--vis the two generals, i.e., command responsibility. The Court assumes the latter stance owing to the fact that command responsibility, as a concept defined, developed, and applied under international law, has little, if at all, bearing in amparo proceedings. The evolution of the command responsibility doctrine finds its context in the development of laws of war and armed combats. "Command responsibility" means the "responsibility of commanders for crimes committed by subordinate members of the armed forces or other persons subject to their control in international wars or domestic conflict." Command responsibility is properly a form of criminal complicity. The Hague Conventions of 1907 adopted the doctrine of command responsibility,foreshadowing the present-day precept of holding a superior accountable for the atrocities committed by his subordinates should he be remiss in his duty of control over them. As then formulated, command responsibility is "an omission mode of individual criminal liability," whereby the superior is made responsible forcrimes committedby his subordinates for failing to prevent or punish the perpetrators(as opposed to crimes he ordered). The doctrine has recently been codified in the Rome Statuteof the International Criminal Court (ICC) to which the Philippines is signatory. Sec. 28 of the Statute imposes individual responsibility on military commanders for crimes committed by forces under their control. The country is, however, not yet formally bound by the terms and provisions embodied in this treaty-statute, since the Senate has yet to extend concurrence in its ratification. While there are several pending bills on command responsibility,there is still no Philippine law that provides for criminal liability under that doctrine. It may plausibly be contended that command responsibility, as legal basis to hold military/police commanders liable for extra-legal killings, enforced disappearances, or threats, may be made applicable to this jurisdiction on the theory that the command responsibility doctrine now constitutes a principle of international law or customary international law in accordance with the incorporation clause of the Constitution. Still, it would be inappropriate to apply to these proceedings the doctrine of command responsibility, as the CA have done, as a form of criminal complicity through omission, for individual respondents criminal liability (Esperon et. al) , if there be any, is beyond the reach of amparo. The Court does not rule in such proceedings on any issue of criminal culpability, even if incidentally a crime or an infraction of an administrative rule may have been committed. Secretary of National Defense v. Manalo,the writ of amparo was conceived to provide expeditious and effective procedural relief against violations or threats of violation of the basic rights to life, liberty, and security of persons; the corresponding amparo suit, however, "is not an action to determine criminal guilt requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt of administrative liability requiring substantial evidence that will require full and exhaustive proceedings." Razon v. Tagitis: (Nature and role of writ of Amparo) It does not determine guilt nor pinpoint criminal culpability for the disappearance [threats thereof or extra-judicial killings]; it determines responsibility, or at least accountability, for the enforced disappearance [threats thereof or extra-judicial killings] for purposes of imposing the appropriate remedies to address the disappearance [or extra-judicial killings]. As the law now stands, extra-judicial killings and enforced disappearances in this jurisdiction are not crimes penalized separately from the component criminal acts undertaken to carry out these killings and enforced disappearances and are now penalized under the Revised Penal Code and special laws. Reason: The Legislature has not spoken on the matter; the determination of what acts are criminal are matters of substantive law that only the Legislature has the power to enact. If command responsibility were to be invoked and applied to these proceedings, it should, at most, be only to determine the author who, at the first instance, is accountable for, and has the duty to address, the disappearance and harassments complained of, so as to enable the Court to devise remedial measures that may be appropriate under the premises to protect rights covered by the writ of amparo. The determination should not be pursued to fix criminal liability on respondents preparatory to criminal prosecution, or as a prelude to administrative disciplinary proceedings under existing administrative issuances, if there be any.NO SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE The Rubricos have not adduced substantial evidence pointing to government involvement in the disappearance of Lourdes. The Rubricos have not shown that the actual perpetrators of the abduction and the harassments that followed formally or informally formed part of either the military or the police chain of command. A preliminary police investigation report, would tend to show a link, however hazy, between the license plate of the vehicle allegedly used in the abduction of Lourdes and the address of Darwin Reyes/Sy, who was alleged to be working in Camp Aguinaldo. Then there were affidavits and testimonies on events that transpired which, if taken together, logically point to military involvement in the alleged disappearance of Lourdes, such as, but not limited to, her abduction in broad daylight, her being forcibly dragged to a vehicle blindfolded and then being brought to a place where the sounds of planes taking off and landing could be heard. Mention may also be made of the fact that Lourdes was asked about her membership in the Communist Party and of being released when she agreed to become an "asset." The identities and links to the AFP or the PNP of the alleged abductors, namely Cuaresma, Alfaro, Santana, Jonathan, and Sy/Reyes, have yet to be established. Based on the separate sworn statements of Maj. Paul Cianoand Technical Sergeant John N. Romano, officer-in-charge and a staff of the 301st AISS, none of the alleged abductors of Lourdes belonged to the 301st AISS based in San Fernando Air Base. Neither were they members of any unit of the Philippine Air Force, per the certificationof Col. Raul Dimatactac, Air Force Adjutant. A verification with the Personnel Accounting and Information System of the PNP yielded the information that, except for a certain Darwin Reyes y Muga, the other alleged abductors, i.e., Cuaresma, Alfaro, Santana and Jonathan, were not members of the PNP. The Rubricos, when given the opportunity to identify Police Officer 1 Darwin Reyes y Muga, made no effort to confirm if he was the same Maj. Darwin Reyes a.k.a. Darwin Sy they were implicating in Lourdes abduction. The Rubricos have not successfully controverted Esperon et. als documentary evidence, adduced to debunk the formers allegations directly linking Lourdes abductors and tormentors to the military or the police establishment. Lourdes, when queried on cross-examination, expressed the belief that Sy/Reyes was an NBI agent. The Court is aware of what was referred to in Razonas the "evidentiary difficulties" presented by the nature of, and encountered by the Rubricos in, enforced disappearance cases. But it is precisely for this reason that the Court should take care too that no wrong message is sent, lest one conclude that any kind or degree of evidence, even the outlandish, would suffice to secure amparo remedies and protection. Sec. 17, as complemented by Sec. 18 of the Amparo Rule, expressly prescribes the minimum evidentiary substantiation requirement and norm to support a cause of action under the Rule, thus: Sec. 17. Burden of Proof and Standard of Diligence Required.The parties shall establish their claims by substantial evidence. Sec. 18. Judgment.x x x If the allegations in the petition are proven by substantial evidence, the court shall grant the privilege of the writ and such reliefs as may be proper and appropriate; otherwise, the privilege shall be denied. Substantial evidence is more than a mere imputation of wrongdoing or violation that would warrant a finding of liability against the person charged;it is more than a scintilla of evidence. It means such amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other equally reasonable minds might opine otherwise. Per the CAs evaluation of their evidence, consisting of the testimonies and affidavits of the three Rubrico women and five other individuals, The Rubricos have not satisfactorily hurdled the evidentiary bar required of and assigned to them under the AmparoRule. In a very real sense, the burden of evidence never even shifted to answering respondents. POLICE OFFICERS NOT INVOLVED As regards P/Supt. Romero and P/Insp. Gomez, the Court is more than satisfied that they have no direct or indirect hand in the alleged enforced disappearance of Lourdes and the threats against her daughters. As police officers, though, theirs was the duty to thoroughly investigate the abduction of Lourdes, a duty that would include looking into the cause, manner, and like details of the disappearance; identifying witnesses and obtaining statements from them; and following evidentiary leads, such as the Toyota Revo vehicle with plate number XRR 428, and securing and preserving evidence related to the abduction and the threats that may aid in the prosecution of the person/s responsible. As we said inManalo,the right to security, as a guarantee of protection by the government, is breached by the superficial and one-sidedhence, ineffectiveinvestigation by the military or the police of reported cases under their jurisdiction. As found by the CA, the local police stations concerned, including P/Supt. Roquero and P/Insp. Gomez, did conduct a preliminary fact-finding on Rubricos complaint. They could not, however, make any headway, owing to what was perceived to be the refusal of Lourdes, her family, and her witnesses to cooperate. Rubricos counsel, Atty. Rex J.M.A. Fernandez, provided a plausible explanation for his clients and their witnesses attitude, "They do not trust the government agencies to protect them." The difficulty arising from a situation where the party whose complicity in extra-judicial killing or enforced is alleged to be the same party who investigates it is understandable, though. The seeming reluctance on the part of the Rubricos or their witnesses to cooperate ought not to pose a hindrance to the police in pursuing, on its own initiative, the investigation in question to its natural end. The right to security of persons is a guarantee of the protection of ones right by the government. And this protection includes conducting effective investigations of extra-legal killings, enforced disappearances, or threats of the same kind. Rodriguezcase: The duty to investigate must be undertaken in a serious manner and not as a mere formality preordained to be ineffective. An investigation must have an objective and be assumed by the State as its own legal duty,not a step taken by private interests that depends upon the initiative of the victimor his family or upon offer of proof, without an effective search for the truth by the government. NOT HARASSED There is nothing concrete to support the charge of having been harassed by respondent P/Insp. Gomez, save for Mary Joys bare allegations of harassment. During her cross-examination, when asked what specific act or threat P/Sr. Gomez committed against her or her mother and sister, Mary Joy replied "None "OMB TOOK ACTION OMB has taken the necessary appropriate action on said complaint. As culled from the affidavitof the Deputy Overall Ombudsman and the joint affidavitsof the designated investigators, all dated November 7, 2007, the OMB had, on the basis of said complaint, commenced criminaland administrative proceedings against Cuaresma, Alfaro, Santana, Jonathan, and Sy/Reyes. The requisite orders for the submission of counter-affidavits and verified position papers had been sent out.PRIVILEGE OF WRIT OF AMPARO The privilege of the writ of amparo, to reiterate, is a remedy available to victims of extra-judicial killings and enforced disappearances or threats of similar nature, regardless of whether the perpetrator of the unlawful act or omission is a public official or employee or a private individual.NOT PROVIDED CORRECT ADDRESSES AND NO SUPPORTING AFFIDAVITS Rubricos have not provided the CA with the correct addresses of respondents Cuaresma, Alfaro, Santana, Jonathan, and Sy/Reyes. The mailed envelopes containing the petition for a writ of amparo individually addressed to each of them have all been returned unopened. Rubricos motion before the appellate court for notice or service via publication has not been accompanied by supporting affidavits as required by the Rules of Court. The appealed CA partial judgmentdisposing of the underlying petition for a writ of amparo without (1) pronouncement as to the accountability, or lack of it, of the four non-answering respondents or (2) outright dismissal of the same petition as to themhews to the prescription of Sec. 20 of the Amparo Rule on archiving and reviving cases. Rubricos have also not furnished this Court with sufficient data as to where the afore-named respondents may be served a copy of their petition for review.NO LINK The petition did not allege ultimate facts as would link the OMB in any manner to the violation or threat of violation of the petitioners rights to life, liberty, or personal security.PRIVILEGE OF WRIT OF AMPARO The privilege of the writ of amparo is envisioned basically to protect and guarantee the rights to life, liberty, and security of persons, free from fears and threats that vitiate the quality of this life.It is an extraordinary writ conceptualized and adopted in light of and in response to the prevalence of extra-legal killings and enforced disappearances. Accordingly, the remedy ought to be resorted to and granted judiciously, lest the ideal sought by the Amparo Rule be diluted and undermined by the indiscriminate filing of amparo petitions for purposes less than the desire to secure amparo reliefs and protection and/or on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations.NO SUBSTANTIVE EVIDENCE Rubricos failed to adduce the threshold substantive evidence to establish the predicate facts to support their cause of action, i.e., the adverted harassments and threats to their life, liberty, or security, against responding respondents, as responsible for the disappearance and harassments complained of. This is not to say, however, that Rubricos allegation on the fact of the abduction incident or harassment is necessarily contrived. The reality on the ground, however, is that the military or police connection has not been adequately proved either by identifying the malefactors as components of the AFP or PNP; or in case identification is not possible, by showing that they acted with the direct or indirect acquiescence of the government. For this reason, the Court is unable to ascribe the authorship of and responsibility for the alleged enforced disappearance of Lourdes and the harassment and threats on her daughters to individual respondents. To this extent, the dismissal of the case against them is correct and must, accordingly, be sustained.AMPARO RELIEFS The appealed decision veritably extended the privilege of the writ of amparo to the Rubricos when it granted what to us are amparo reliefs. Consider: the appellate court decreed, and rightly so, that the police and the military take specific measures for the protection of Rubricos right or threatened right to liberty or security. The protection came in the form of directives specifically to Gen. Esperon and P/Dir. Gen. Razon, requiring each of them (1) to ensure that the investigations already commenced by the AFP and PNP units, respectively, under them on the complaints of Lourdes and her daughters are being pursued with urgency to bring to justice the perpetrators of the acts complained of; and (2) to submit to the CA, copy furnished the petitioners, a regular report on the progress and status of the investigations. The directives obviously go to Gen. Esperon in his capacity as head of the AFP and, in a sense, chief guarantor of order and security in the country. P/Dir. Gen. Razon is called upon to perform a duty pertaining to the PNP, a crime-preventing, investigatory, and arresting institution. As the CA, however, formulated its directives, no definitive time frame was set in its decision for the completion of the investigation and the reportorial requirements. It also failed to consider Gen. Esperon and P/Dir. Gen. Razons imminent compulsory retirement from the military and police services, respectively. The CA directives, as hereinafter redefined and amplified to fully enforce the amparo remedies, are hereby given to, and shall be directly enforceable against, whoever sits as the commanding general of the AFP and the PNP.TWO POSTULATES and their implications need highlighting for a proper disposition of this case [IMPT] First, a criminal complaint for kidnapping and, alternatively, for arbitrary detention rooted in the same acts and incidents leading to the filing of the subject amparo petition has been instituted with the OMB. The usual initial steps to determine the existence of aprima faciecase against the five (5) impleaded individuals suspected to be actually involved in the detention of Lourdes have been set in motion. It must be pointed out, though, that the filingof the OMB complaint came before the effectivity of the Amparo Rule on October 24, 2007. Second, Sec. 22of the Amparo Rule proscribes the filing of an amparo petition should a criminal action have, in the meanwhile, been commenced. The succeeding Sec. 23,on the other hand, provides that when the criminal suit is filed subsequent to a petition for amparo, the petition shall be consolidated with the criminal action where the Amparo Rule shall nonetheless govern the disposition of the relief under the Rule. Under the terms of said Sec. 22, the present petition ought to have been dismissed at the outset. But as things stand, the outright dismissal of the petition by force of that section is no longer technically feasible in light of the interplay of the following factual mix: (1) the Court has, pursuant to Sec. 6of the Rule, already issued ex parte the writ of amparo; (2) the CA, after a summary hearing, has dismissed the petition, but not on the basis of Sec. 22; and (3) the complaint in OMB named as respondents only those believed to be the actual abductors of Lourdes, while the instant petition impleaded, in addition, those tasked to investigate the kidnapping and detention incidents and their superiors at the top. Yet, the acts and/or omissions subject of the criminal complaint and the amparo petition are so linked as to call for the consolidation of both proceedings to obviate the mischief inherent in a multiplicity-of-suits situation. Given the above perspective and to fully apply the beneficial nature of the writ of amparo as an inexpensive and effective tool to protect certain rights violated or threatened to be violated, the Court hereby adjusts to a degree the literal application of Secs. 22 and 23 of the Amparo Rule to fittingly address the situation obtaining under the premises. Towards this end, two things are at once indicated: (1) the consolidation of the probe and fact-finding aspects of the instant petition with the investigation of the criminal complaint before the OMB; and (2) the incorporation in the same criminal complaint of the allegations in this petition bearing on the threats to the right to security. Withal, the OMB should be furnished copies of the investigation reports to aid that body in its own investigation and eventual resolution of OMB Case. OMB shall be given easy access to all pertinent documents and evidence, if any, adduced before the CA. Lourdes, as complainant in OMB case, should be allowed, if so minded, to amend her basic criminal complaint if the consolidation of cases is to be fully effective.DISPOSITION: PARTIALLY GRANTS this petition for review Affirming the dropping of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo from the petition for a writ of amparo; Affirming the dismissal of the amparo case as against Gen. Hermogenes Esperon, and P/Dir. Gen. Avelino Razon, insofar as it tended, under the command responsibility principle, to attach accountability and responsibility to them, as then AFP Chief of Staff and then PNP Chief, for the alleged enforced disappearance of Lourdes and the ensuing harassments allegedly committed against petitioners. The dismissal of the petition with respect to the OMB is also affirmed for failure of the petition to allege ultimate facts as to make out a case against that body for the enforced disappearance of Lourdes and the threats and harassment that followed; and Directing the incumbent Chief of Staff, AFP, or his successor, and the incumbent Director-General of the PNP, or his successor, to ensure that the investigations already commenced by their respective units on the alleged abduction of Lourdes Rubrico and the alleged harassments and threats she and her daughters were made to endure are pursued with extraordinary diligence as required by Sec. 1749of the Amparo Rule. They shall order their subordinate officials, in particular, to do the following: Determine based on records, past and present, the identities and locations of respondents Maj. Darwin Sy, a.k.a. Darwin Reyes, Jimmy Santana, Ruben Alfaro, Capt. Angelo Cuaresma, and one Jonathan; and submit certifications of this determination to the OMB with copy furnished to petitioners, the CA, and this Court; Pursue with extraordinary diligence the evidentiary leads relating to Maj. Darwin Sy and the Toyota Revo vehicle with Plate No. XRR 428; and Prepare, with the assistance of petitioners and/or witnesses, cartographic sketches of respondents Maj. Sy/Reyes, Jimmy Santana, Ruben Alfaro, Capt. Angelo Cuaresma, and a certain Jonathan to aid in positively identifying and locating them. The investigations shall be completed not later than six (6) months from receipt of this Decision; and within thirty (30) days after completion of the investigations, the Chief of Staff of the AFP and the Director-General of the PNP shall submit a full report of the results of the investigations to the Court, the CA, the OMB, and petitioners. This case is accordingly referred back to the CA for the purpose of monitoring the investigations and the actions of the AFP and the PNP.*May Separate Opinion rin si Carpio Morales but on command responsibility not the writ so I wont put it naSeparate Opinion BRION,J. (only on Amparo parts) With this law (of Republic Act No. 9851 (RA 9851), otherwise known as "An Act Defining and Penalizing Crimes Against International Humanitarian Law, Genocide and Other Crimes Against Humanity, Organizing Jurisdiction, Designating Special Courts, and for Related Purposes" which defined enforced or involuntary disappearance, and liability under the doctrine of command responsibility), the Rule on the Writ ofAmparois now a procedural law anchored, not only on the constitutional rights to the rights to life, liberty and security, but on a concrete statutory definition as well of what an "enforced or involuntary disappearance" is. The doctrine of command responsibility is a substantive rule that establishes criminal or administrative liability that is different from the purpose and approach of the Amparo Rule. The Amparo Rule merely provides for a procedural protective remedy against violations or threats of violations of the constitutional rights to life, liberty and security. It does not addresscriminal, civil or administrative liabilityas these are matters determined from the application of substantive law. Liability under the doctrine of command responsibility is no longer simply administrative (based on neglect of duty),but is now criminal. This new development all the more stresses that the doctrine of command responsibility has limited application to the Rule on the Writ ofAmparowhose concern is the protection of constitutional rights through procedural remedies. The factual issue an Amparo case directly confronts is whether there has been a disappearance or an extrajudicial killing or threats to the constitutional rights to life, liberty and security. If at all possible, a preliminary determination can be made on who could have perpetrated the acts complained of, but only for the purpose of pointing the way to the remedies that should be undertaken. On the basis of a positive finding, the case proceeds to its main objective of defining and directing the appropriate procedural remedies to address the threat, disappearance or killing.In meeting these issues, theAmparoRule specifies the standard of diligence that responsible public officials carry in the performance of their duties. Expressly,one duty theAmparoRule commands is the investigation of a reported crime that, by law, the police is generally duty bound to address. It has never been the intention of the Amparo Rule to determine liability, whether criminal or administrative; the Court, under theAmparoRule, can only direct that procedural remedies be undertaken for the protection of constitutional rights to life, liberty and security. Theponenciaholds that the needed additional actions should be undertaken by the CA. I concur with this ruling as it is legally correct; the CA started the fact-finding on the case and has adequate powers and capability to pursue it. I wish to reiterate in this Separate Opinion, however, that an alternative way exists that is more direct and more efficient in achieving the goals of the Rule on theWritofAmparo i.e. the full and complete investigation with the observance of extraordinary diligence, and the recommendation for the prosecution of the parties who appear to be responsible for the violation of the constitutional rights to life, liberty and security. This alternative is based on the relevant provisions of theAmparoRule, particularly Sections 20 to 23 which provide: SECTION 20. Archiving and Revival of Cases. The court shall not dismiss the petition, but shall archive it, if upon its determination it cannot proceed for a valid cause such as the failure of petitioner or witnesses to appear due to threats on their lives. A periodic review of the archived cases shall be made by theAmparocourt that shall, motu proprioor upon motion by any party, order their revival when ready for further proceedings. The petition shall be dismissed with prejudice upon failure to prosecute the case after the lapse of two (2) years from notice to the petitioner of the order archiving the case. The clerks of court shall submit to the Office of the Court Administrator a consolidated list of archived cases under this Rule not later than the first week of January of every year. SECTION 21. Institution of Separate Actions. This Rule shall not preclude the filing of separate criminal, civil or administrative actions. SECTION 22. Effect of Filing of a Criminal Action When a criminal action has been commenced, no separate petition shall be filed. The reliefs under the writ shall be available by motion in the criminal case. The procedure under this Rule shall govern the disposition of the reliefs available under the writ of amparo. SECTION 23. Consolidation. When a criminal action is filed subsequent to the filing of a petition for the writ, the latter shall be consolidated with the criminal action. When a criminal action and a separate civil action are filed subsequent to a petition for a writ ofAmparo, the latter shall be consolidated with the criminal action. After consolidation, the procedure under this Rule shall continue to apply to the disposition of the reliefs in the petition. SECTION 26. Applicability to Pending Cases. This Rule shall govern cases involving extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or threats thereof pending in the trial and appellate courts. Section 22 of theAmparoRule would be the closest provision to apply to the present case since a criminal action has been commenced before the Ombudsman (on April 19, 2007) before the present petition was filed on October 25, 2007. Under Section 22, no petition for the Writ ofAmparocan technically be filed because of the previous commencement of criminal action before the Ombudsman. In the regular course, the present petition should have been dismissed outright at the first instance. Yet, as the case developed, the Court issued the Writ ofAmparoand the CA denied the petition on other grounds. As things now stand, it appears late in the day to dismiss the petition on the basis of Section 22. We should consider, too, that the present petition came under a unique non-repeatable circumstance the Ombudsman complaint was filed before the Amparo Rule took effect; thus, the petitioners did not really have a choice of remedies when they filed the criminal complaint before the Ombudsman. There is likewise the consideration that the Ombudsman complaint was only against the perceived perpetrators of the kidnapping, whereas the present petition impleaded even those who had the duty to investigate or could effectively direct investigation of the case. The kidnapping and the threats that resulted, too, are inextricably linked and should not separately and independently be considered under prevailing procedural rules. Under the circumstances, I believe that the best approach is to simply avail of the possibilities that the combined applicationof the above-quoted provisions offer, appropriatelymodified to fit the current situation. Thus, this Court can simply consolidate the investigative and fact-finding aspects of the present petition with the investigation of the criminal complaint before the Ombudsman, directing in the process that the threats to the right to security aired in the present petition be incorporated in the Ombudsman complaint. Necessarily, all the records and evidence so far adduced before the CA should likewise be turned over and be made available to the Ombudsman in its investigation, in accordance with the dispositions made in this Decision. For purposes of its delegated investigative and fact-finding authority, the Ombudsman should be granted the complete investigative power available under the Amparo Rule. The petitioners should be allowed, as they see fit, to amend their Ombudsman complaint to give full effect to this consolidation. In the above manner, the Court continues to exercise jurisdiction over the Amparo petition and any interim relief issue that may arise, taking into account the Ombudsmans investigative and fact-finding recommendations. The Ombudsman, for its part, shall rule on the complaint before it in accordance with its authority under Republic Act 6770 and its implementing rules and regulations, and report to the Court its investigative and fact-finding recommendations on the Amparo petition within one year from the promulgation of this Decision. The incumbent Chiefs of the AFP and the PNP and their successors shall remain parties to the Ombudsman case and to the present petition in light of and under the terms of the consolidation, and can be directed to act, as the ponencia does direct them to act. Now that the case has been remanded for further investigation and monitoring to the Court of Appeals, the investigation using the standards of extraordinary diligence now rests with that court to enforce, using all the powers and authority that this Court can grant under the Rule on the Writ ofAmparo.

Rev. Fr. Reyes v. CA | MabelRevered Father Robert Reyes, Petitioner vsRaul Gonzales, in his capacity as the secretary of the CA, secretary Department of Justice, and Commissioner Marcelino Libanan, in his capacity as the Commissioner of the Bureau of Immigration, respondentsDecember 3, 2009Leonardo-De Castro, J.

Nature: Rule 45 petitionSummary: Fr. Reyes was arrested in the Manila Peninsula Seige. A criminal case for rebellion was filed against him. Pursuant to this criminal case, a Hold Departure Order was issued by the DOJ. However, even after the criminal case has been dismissed, the Hold Departure Order subsisted. Fr. Reyes then filed before the SC a Writ of Amparo alleging that the Hold Departure Order violates his right to liberty. The SC denied his request on the ground that the direct recourse to the SC is inappropriate, and that the request to lift the order should have been filed before the RTC. Also, the constitutionality of the circulars granting DOJ the power to issue HDO cannot be raised.

Doctrine: That the Amparo Rule in its present form is confined to the two instances of extralegal killings and enforces disappearances, or to threats thereof. When a criminal action has been commenced, no separate petition for the writ shall be filed. The reliefs under the writ shall be available by motion in the criminal case.1avFacts: Petitioner Father Reyes was among those arrested in the Manila Peninsula Hotel siege. Together with 50 others, Father Reyes was brought to Camp Crame to await inquest proceesings. In the evening of the same day, the DOJ Panel of Prosecutors conducted inquest proceedings to ascertin whether or not there was probable cause to hold Father Reyes and the others for trial on charges of Rebellion and/or Inciting to Rebellion. Subsequently, upon the request of the DILG, respondent DOJ Secretary Gonzales issued Hold Departure Order (HDO) ordering respondent Commissioner of Immigration to include in the Hold Departure List of the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation (BID) the name of Father Reyes and 49 others relative to the Rebellion cases in the interest of national security and public safety. After finding probable cause against Father Reyes and 36 others for the crime of Rebellion under Art. 134 RPC, the DOJ Panel of Prosecutors filed an Information before the RTC. Father Reyes filed a Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause and Release of the Accused Fr. Reyes Upon Recognizance He asserted that the DOJ panel failed to produce any evidence indicating his specific participation in the crime charged; and that under the Constitution, the determination of probable cause must be made personally by a judge RTC then issued an Order dismissing the charge for Rebellion against Fr. Reyes and 17 others for lack of probable cause. RTC explained that the evidence submitted by the DOJ Panel of Investigating Prosecutors failed to show that Fr. Reyes and the other accused-civilians consipired and confederated with the accused-soldiers in taking arms against the government; that Fr. Reyes and other accused-civilians were arrested because they ignored the call of the police despite the deadline given to them to come out from the hotel; and that the mere presence at the scene of the crime and expressing ones sentiments on electora and political reforms did not make then conspirators absent cncrete evidence that the accused-civilians knew beforehand the intent of the accused-soldiers to commit rebellion; and that the cooperation which the law penalizes must be one that is knowingly and intentionally rendered. Fr. Reyes counsel, Atty. Francisco Chavez, then wrote the DOJ Secretay requesting the lifting of the HDO in view of the dismissal of the Criminal Case. On the same date, Sec. Gonzales relied to the letter stating that the DOJ could not act on the request until Atty. Chavezs right to represent Fr. Reyes is settled in view of the fact that a certain Atty. Bautista representing himself as counsel of Fr. Reyes had also written a letter to the DOJ. Fr. Reyes then filed before the CA a petition claiming that despite the dismissal of the rebellion case against him, the HDO still subsists and that every time he would present himself at the NAIA for his flights abroad, he stands to be detained and interrogated by BOD officers because of the continued inclusion of his name in the Hold Departure List. On the other hand, the Solicitor argued the following in favor of the respondent: That the Secretary of Justice is authorized to issue Hold Departure Orders That HDO was issued by Sec. Gonzales in the course of the preliminary investigation of the case against Fr. Reyes upon the request of the DILG That the lifting of HDO is premature in view of a pending MR That Fr. Reyes failed to exhaust administrative remedies by filing a motion to lift HDO before the DOJ And that the constitutionality of the Circulars giving DOJ the power to issue HDO cannot be attacked collaterally in an amparo proceeding CA dismised the petition and denied the privilege of the writ of amparo. Hence, this petition. Fr. Reyes additional arguments (arguments in addition to those raised before the CA) That the writ of amparo does not only exclusively apply to situations of extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances but encompasses the whole gamut of liverties protected by the Constitution That liberty includes the right to exist and the right to be free from arbitrary personal restraint or servitude and includes the right of the citizens to be free to use his faculties in all lawful ways. Part of the right to liberty guaranteed by the Constitution is the right of a person to travel.Issue # 1: WON Fr. Reyes right