factual antecedents

7/25/2019 Factual Antecedents

1/15

Factual Antecedents

On March 31, 2008, at around 8:30 p.m., a vehicle of Asian Land trate!ies

"orporation8 #Asian Land$ arrived at the house of Lolita M. Lapore #Lolita$ located at %A

Lot &, 'loc( )*, +rand o-ale udivision, 'aran!a- Lu!am, Malolos "it-. /he arrival

of the vehicle aa(ened Lolitas son, nriue Lapore #'on!$, and 'enhur 4ardico

#'en$, ho ere then oth sta-in! in her house. 5hen Lolita ent out to investi!ate,

she sa to uniformed !uards disemar(in! from the vehicle. One of them immediatel-

as(ed Lolita here the- could find her son 'on!. 'efore Lolita could anser, the !uard

sa 'on! and told him that he and 'en should !o ith them to the securit- office of

Asian Land ecause a complaint as lod!ed a!ainst them for theft of electric ires and

lamps in the sudivision.

hortl- thereafter, 'on!, Lolita and 'en ere in the office of the securit-

department of Asian Land also located in +rand o-ale udivision.10 /he supervisor

of the securit- !uards, petitioner d!ardo 6avia #6avia$, also arrived thereat.

As to hat transpired ne7t, the parties respective versions diver!e.

Version of the Petitioners

4etitioners alle!ed that the- invited 'on! and 'en to their office ecause the-

received a report from a certain Mrs. mphasis, a resident of +rand o-ale udivision,

that she sa 'on! and 'en removin! a lamp from a post in said sudivision./he

reported unauthoried ta(in! of the lamp as rela-ed thru radio to petitioners uen

9io #9io$ and Andre 'uisin! #'uisin!$, ho oth or( as securit- !uards at the Asian

Land securit- department. Folloin! their departments standard operatin! procedure,

9io and 'uisin! entered the report in their lo!oo( and proceeded to the house of Mrs.

mphasis. t as there here 9io and 'uisin! ere ale to confirm ho the suspects

ere. /he- thus repaired to the house of Lolita here 'on! and 'en ere sta-in! to

invite the to suspects to their office. 'on! and 'en voluntaril- ent ith them.

At the securit- office, 9io and 'uisin! intervieed 'on! and 'en. /he suspects

admitted that the- too( the lamp ut clarified that the- ere onl- transferrin! it to a post


2/15

nearer to the house of Lolita. oon, 6avia arrived and 'uisin! informed him that the

complainant as not (een in participatin! in the investi!ation. ince there as no

complainant, 6avia ordered the release of 'on! and 'en. 'on! then si!ned a

statement to the effect that the !uards released him ithout inflictin! an- harm or in;ur-

to him.13


3/15

Version of the Respondent

Accordin! to respondent, 'on! and 'en ere not merel- invited. /he- ere

unlafull- arrested, shoved into the Asian Land vehicle and rou!ht to the securit-

office for investi!ation. =pon seein! 'en at the securit- office, 6avia lividl- !rumled

@(a na namanB and slapped him hile he as still seated. 'en e!!ed for merc-, ut

his pleas ere met ith a flurr- of punches comin! from 6avia hittin! him on different

parts of his od-.20 6avia then too( hold of his !un, loo(ed at 'on!, and said, @5ala

(an! na(ita at ala (an! narini!, papata-in (o na si 'en.B

'on! admitted that he and 'en attempted to ta(e the lamp.


4/15

has poor e-esi!ht, Lolita too( 'uisin!s ord and si!ned the lo!oo( ithout, a!ain,

readin! hat as ritten in it.

/he folloin! mornin!, >ir!inia ent to the Asian Land securit- office to visit her

husand 'en, ut onl- to e told that petitioners had alread- released him to!ether ith

'on! the ni!ht efore. he then loo(ed for 'en, as(ed around, and ent to the

aran!a-. ince she could not still find her husand, >ir!inia reported the matter to the

police.

n the course of the investi!ation on 'ens disappearance, it daned upon Lolita

that petitioners too( advanta!e of her poor e-esi!ht and naivetC. /he- made her si!n

the lo!oo( as a itness that the- alread- released 'en hen in truth and in fact she

never itnessed his actual release. /he last time she sa 'en as hen she left him in

petitioners custod- at the securit- office.

7asperated ith the m-sterious disappearance of her husand, >ir!inia filed a

4etition for 5rit of Amparo efore the RTC of Malolos City. Findin! the petition

sufficient in form and sustance, the amparo court issued an Order2& dated Dune 2?,

2008 directin!, amon! others, the issuance of a rit of amparo and the production of

the od- of 'en efore it on Dune 30, 2008. /hus:

@5


5/15

#3$ "OMMA696+ Epetitioners d!ardo 6avia, uen 9io and Andre

'uisin! to file, ithin a nonGe7tendile period of sevent-Gto #%2$ hours from service of

the rit, a verified ritten return ith supportin! affidavits hich shall, amon! other

thin!s, contain the folloin!:

a$ /he laful defenses to sho that the Epetitioners did not violate or threaten

ith violation the ri!ht to life, liert- and securit- of the a!!rieved part-, throu!h an- act

or omissionH

$ /he steps or actions ta(en - the Epetitioners to determine the fate or

hereaouts of the a!!rieved part- and the person or persons responsile for the

threat, act or omissionH and

c$ All relevant information in the possession of the Epetitioners pertainin! to the

threat, act or omission a!ainst the a!!rieved part-.

#*$ +A6/6+, motu proprio, a /emporar- 4rotection Order prohiitin! the

Epetitioners, or an- persons actin! for and in their ehalf, under pain of contempt, from

threatenin!, harassin! or inflictin! an- harm to Erespondent, his immediate famil- and

an- Ememer of his household.

/he 'ranch heriff is directed to immediatel- serve personall- on the

Epetitioners, at their address indicated in the petition, copies of the rit as ell as this

order, to!ether ith copies of the petition and its anne7es.B

A 5rit of Amparo as accordin!l- issued and served on the petitioners on Dune

2%, 2008.32 On Dune 30, 2008, petitioners filed their "ompliance pra-in! for the denial

of the petition for lac( of merit.

A summar- hearin! as thereafter conducted. 4etitioners presented the

testimon- of 'uisin!, hile >ir!inia sumitted the sorn statements3* of Lolita and

nriue hich the to affirmed on the itness stand.


6/15

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

On Dul- 2*, 2008, the trial court issued the challen!ed 9ecision !rantin! the

petition. t disposed as follos:

@5


7/15

*.1. 5


8/15

Our Ruling

>ir!inias 4etition for 5rit of Amparo is fatall- defective and must perforce e

dismissed, ut not for the reasons adverted to - the petitioners.

A.M. 6o. 0%G&G12G" or /he ule on the 5rit of Amparo as promul!ated to

arrest the rampant e7traGle!al (illin!s and enforced disappearances in the countr-. ts

purpose is to provide an e7peditious and effective relief @to an- person hose ri!ht to

life, liert- and securit- is violated or threatened ith violation - an unlaful act or

omission of a pulic official or emplo-ee, or of a private individual or entit-.B


9/15

/he rit shall cover e7traNle!al (illin!s and enforced disappearances or threats

thereof.B #mphasis ours.$

5hile ection 1 provides A.M. 6o. 0%G&G12G"s covera!e, said ules does not,

hoever, define e7traGle!al (illin!s and enforced disappearances. /his omission as

intentional as the "ommittee on evision of the ules of "ourt hich drafted A.M. 6o.

0%G&G12G" chose to allo it to evolve throu!h time and ;urisprudence and throu!h

sustantive las as ma- e promul!ated - "on!ress. /hen, the uddin! ;urisprudence

on amparo lossomed in aon, Dr. v. /a!itis, hen this "ourt defined enforced

disappearances. /he "ourt in that case applied the !enerall- accepted principles of

international la and adopted the nternational "onvention for the 4rotection of All

4ersons from nforced 9isappearances definition of enforced disappearances, as @the

arrest, detention, aduction or another form of deprivation of liert- - a!ents of the

tate or - persons or !roups of persons actin! ith the authoriation, support or

acuiescence of the tate, folloed - a refusal to ac(noled!e the deprivation of

liert- or - concealment of the fate or hereaouts of the disappeared person, hich

place such a person outside the protection of the la.B*%

6ot lon! thereafter, another si!nificant development affectin! A.M. 6o. 0%G&G12G

" came aout after "on!ress enacted epulic Act #A$ 6o. &8)1*8 on 9ecemer11, 200&. ection 3#!$ thereof defines enforced or involuntar- disappearances as

follos:

#!$ @nforced or involuntar- disappearance of personsB means the arrest,

detention, or aduction of persons -, or ith the authoriation, support or

acuiescence of, a tate or a political or!aniation folloed - a refusal to ac(noled!e

that deprivation of freedom or to !ive information on the fate or hereaouts of those

persons, ith the intention of removin! from the protection of the la for a prolon!ed

period of time.

/hen came urico v. Macapa!alGArro-o here Dustice Arturo 9. 'rion rote in

his eparate Opinion that ith the enactment of A 6o. &8)1, @the ule on the 5rit of

Amparo is no a procedural la anchored, not onl- on the constitutional ri!hts to the


10/15

ri!hts to life, liert- and securit-, ut on a concrete statutor- definition as ell of hat an

enforced or involuntar- disappearance is.B)0 /herefore, A.M. 6o. 0%G&G12G"s

reference to enforced disappearances should e construed to mean the enforced or

involuntar- disappearance of persons contemplated in ection 3#!$ of A 6o. &8)1.

Meanin!, in proin! enforced disappearance cases, courts should read A.M. 6o. 0%G&G

12G" in relation to A 6o. &8)1.

From the statutor- definition of enforced disappearance, thus, e can derive the

folloin! elements that constitute it:

#a$ that there e an arrest, detention, aduction or an- form of deprivation of

liert-H

#$ that it e carried out -, or ith the authoriation, support or acuiescence

of, the tate or a political or!aniationH

#c$ that it e folloed - the tate or political or!aniations refusal to

ac(noled!e or !ive information on the fate or hereaouts of the person su;ect of the

amparo petitionH and,

#d$ that the intention for such refusal is to remove su;ect person from the

protection of the la for a prolon!ed period of time.

As thus dissected, it is no clear that for the protective rit of amparo to issue,

alle!ation and proof that the persons su;ect thereof are missin! are not enou!h . It

must also be shown and proved by substantial evidence that the disappearance

was carried out by, or with the authorization, support or acquiescence of, the

State or a political oranization, followed by a refusal to ac!nowlede the same or

ive information on the fate or whereabouts of said missin persons, with theintention of removin them from the protection of the law for a proloned period

of time. Simply put, the petitioner in an amparo case has the burden of provin by

substantial evidence the indispensable element of overnment participation.


11/15

n the present case, e do not dout 'on!s testimon- that 6avia had a

menacin! attitude toards 'en and that he slapped and inflicted fistic los upon him.

+iven the circumstances and the pu!nacious character of 6avia at that time, his

threatenin! statement, @5ala (an! na(ita at ala (an! narini!, papata-in (o na si 'en,B

cannot e ta(en li!htl-. t unami!uousl- shoed his predisposition at that time. n

addition, there is nothin! on record hich ould support petitioners assertion that the-

released 'en on the ni!ht of March 31, 2008 unscathed from their rath. Lolita

sufficientl- e7plained ho she as prodded into affi7in! her si!natures in the lo!oo(

ithout readin! the entries therein. And so far, the information petitioners volunteered

are s(etch- at est, li(e the alle!ed complaint of Mrs. mphasis ho as never

identified or presented in court and hose complaint as never reduced in ritin!.

'ut lest it e overloo(ed, in an amparo petition, proof of disappearance alone is

not enou!h. It is li!ewise essential to establish that such disappearance was

carried out with the direct or indirect authorization, support or acquiescence of

the overnment. This indispensable element of State participation is not present

in this case. /he petition does not contain an- alle!ation of tate complicit-, and none

of the evidence presented tend to sho that the !overnment or an- of its a!ents

orchestrated 'ens disappearance. n fact, none of its a!ents, officials, or emplo-ees

ere impleaded or countale persons. /hus, in the asence of an alle!ation or proof

that the !overnment or its a!ents had a hand in 'ens disappearance or that the- failed

to e7ercise e7traordinar- dili!ence in investi!atin! his case, the "ourt ill definitel- not

hold the !overnment or its a!ents either as responsile or accountale persons.

5e are aare that under ection 1 of A.M. 6o. 0%G&G12G" a rit of amparo ma-

lie a!ainst a private individual or entit-. 'ut even if the person sou!ht to e held

accountale or responsile in an amparo petition is a private individual or entit-, still,

!overnment involvement in the disappearance remains an indispensale element.


12/15

ithin the amit of A.M. 6o. 0%G&G12G" in relation to A 6o. &8)1, the disappearance

must e attended - some !overnmental involvement. /his hallmar( of tate

participation differentiates an enforced disappearance case from an ordinar- case of a

missin! person.

59 and / A9. /he 4etition for 5rit of Amparo filed

- >ir!inia 4ardico is here- 9M9.

O O99.

"arpio, LeonardoG9e "astro, 'rion, 4eralta, 'ersamin, Aad, >illarama, Dr.,

4ere, ereno, e-es and 4erlasG'ernae, DD., concur.

>elasco, Dr., D., On Official Leave.

Mendoa, D., On Leave.

Dud!ment reversed and set aside, petition for rit of amparo dismissed.

2. C"STI##$ v. CR%&

5rit of AmparoH 5rit of


13/15

effect on respondents ri!ht to life, liert- and securit-, the "ourt ill not delve on the

propriet- of petitioners entr- into the propert-.

ameH ameH Asent an- evidence or even an alle!ation in the petition that there

is undue and continuin! restraint on their liert- andIor that there e7ists threat or

intimidation that destro-s the efficac- of their ri!ht to e secure in their persons, the

issuance of the rit cannot e ;ustified.Althou!h respondents release from

confinement does not necessaril- hinder supplication for the rit of amparo, asent an-

evidence or even an alle!ation in the petition

P 6 'A6".

?2&

>OL. ?0), 6O>M' 2), 200&

?2&

"astillo vs. "ru

that there is undue and continuin! restraint on their liert-, andIor that there

e7ists threat or intimidation that destro-s the efficac- of their ri!ht to e secure in their

persons, the issuance of the rit cannot e ;ustified.

ameH ameH 4etitions for rits of amparo and haeas data are e7traordinar-

remedies hich cannot e used as tools to stall the e7ecution of a final and e7ecutor-

decision in a propert- dispute.t need not e underlined that respondents petitions for

rits of amparo and haeas data are e7traordinar- remedies hich cannot e used as

tools to stall the e7ecution of a final and e7ecutor- decision in a propert- dispute.


14/15

ameH ameH >alidit- of the arrest or the proceedin!s conducted thereafter is a

defense that ma- e set up - respondents durin! trial and not efore a petition for rits

of amparo and haeas data.At all events, respondents filin! of the petitions for rits

of amparo and haeas data should have een arred, for criminal proceedin!s a!ainst

them had commenced after the- ere arrested in fla!rante delicto and proceeded

a!ainst in accordance ith ection ?, ule 112 of the ules of "ourt. >alidit- of the

arrest or the proceedin!s conducted thereafter is a defense that ma- e set up -

respondents durin! trial and not efore a petition for rits of amparo and haeas data.

/he reliefs afforded - the rits ma-, hoever, e made availale to the a!!rieved part-

- motion in the criminal proceedin!s. E"astillo vs. "ru, ?0) "A ?28#200&$

3. ec of 969 v. Manalo

ameH 4roduction OrdersH earches and eiuresH /he production order under the

Amparo ule should not e confused ith a search arrant for la enforcement under

Article , ection 2 of the 1&8% "onstitutionthis "onstitutional provision is a

protection of the people from the unreasonale intrusion of the !overnment, not a

protection of the !overnment from the demand of the people such as respondentsH /he

amparo production order ma- e li(ened to the production of documents or thin!s under

ection 1, ule 2% of the ules of "ivil 4rocedure.n the case at ar, hoever,

petitioners point out that other than the are, selfGservin! and va!ue alle!ations made

- respondent a-mond Manalo in his unverified declaration and affidavit, the

documents respondents see( to e produced are onl- mentioned !enerall- - name,

ith no other supportin! details. /he- also ar!ue that the relevanc- of the documents to

e produced must e apparent, ut this is not true in the present case as the

involvement of petitioners in the aduction has not een shon. 4etitioners ar!uments

do not hold ater. /he production order under the Amparo ule should not e confused

ith a search arrant for la enforcement under Article , ection 2 of the 1&8%

"onstitution. /his "onstitutional provision is a protection of the people from the

unreasonale intrusion of the !overnment, not a protection of the !overnment from the


15/15

demand of the people such as respondents. nstead, the Amparo production order ma-

e li(ened to the production of documents or thin!s under ection 1, ule 2% of the

ules of "ivil 4rocedure.

ameH /he rit of amparo is a tool that !ives voice to pre-s of silent !uns and

prisoners ehind secret alls.n latant violation of our hardGon !uarantees to life,

liert- and securit-, these ri!hts are snuffed out from victims of e7trale!al (illin!s and

enforced disappearances. /he rit of amparo is a tool that !ives voice to pre-s of silent

!uns and prisoners ehind secret alls. Eecretar- of 6ational 9efense vs. Manalo, )?8

"A 1#2008$

factual antecedents

Documents