specpro set1&2 digests

8/10/2019 Specpro Set1&2 Digests

1/24

Tapuz Vs Del Rosario

FACTS:

1. The private respondents spouses Sanson fled with the

Aklan MCTC a complaint or orcible entr and dama!es with a

praer or the issuance o a writ o preliminar mandator

in"unction a!ainst the petitioners and other #ohn $oesnumberin! about 1%&.

%. The private respondents alle!ed in their complaint that:

'1( the are the re!istered owners o the disputed land) '%(

the were the disputed land*s prior possessors when the

petitioners + armed with bolos and carrin! suspected frearms

and to!ether with unidentifed persons + entered the disputed

land b orce and intimidation, without the private

respondents* permission and a!ainst the ob"ections o the

private respondents* securit men, and built thereon a nipa

and bamboo structure.-. n their Answer, the petitioners denied the material

alle!ations and essentiall claimed that: '1( the are the actual

and prior possessors o the disputed land)'%( on the contrar, the private respondents are the intruders)

and '-( the private respondents* certifcate o title to the

disputed propert is spurious. The asked or the dismissal o

the complaint and interposed a counterclaim or dama!es.

/. The MCTC, ater due proceedin!s, rendered a decision inthe private respondents* avor, fndin! prior possession throu!h

the construction o perimeter ence in 100-.

. The petitioners appealed the MCTC decision to 2TC.

3. 4n appeal, #ud!e Marin !ranted the private respondents*

motion or the issuance o a writ o preliminar mandator

in"unction upon postin! o a bond. The writ + authori5in! the

immediate implementation o the MCTC decision + was actuall

issued b respondent #ud!e del 2osario ater the privaterespondents had complied with the imposed condition. The

petitioners moved to reconsider the issuance o the writ) the

private respondents, on the other hand, fled a motion or

demolition.

6. The respondent #ud!e subse7uentl denied the

petitioners* M2 and to $eer 8norcement o 9reliminarMandator n"unction.

. Meanwhile, the petitioners opposed the motion or

demolition. The respondent #ud!e nevertheless issued via a

Special 4rder a writ o demolition to be implemented fteen

'1( das ater the Sheri;*s written notice to the petitioners to

voluntaril demolish their house


2/24

this Court and, at the ver least, o orum shoppin!. n sum, the

petition or certiorari should be dismissed or the cited ormal

defciencies, or violation o the nonD orum shoppin! rule, or

havin! been fled out o time, and or substantive defciencies.

To start o; with the basics, the writ o amparo was ori!inall

conceived as a response to the eEtraordinar rise in the

number o killin!s and enorced disappearances, and to theperceived lack o available and e;ective remedies to address

these eEtraordinar concerns. t is intended to address

violations o or threats to the ri!hts to lie, libert or securit,

as an eEtraordinar and independent remed beond those

available under the prevailin! 2ules, or as a remed

supplemental to these 2ules. hat it is not, is a writ to protect

concerns that are purel propert or commercial. =either is it a

writ that we shall issue on amorphous and uncertain !rounds.

Conse7uentl, the 2ule on the rit o Amparo + in line with the

eEtraordinar character o the writ and the reasonablecertaint that its issuance demands + re7uires that ever

petition or the issuance o therit must be supported b "ustiin! alle!ations o act.

4n the whole, what is clear rom these statements + both

sworn and unsworn + is the overridin! involvement o propert

issues as the petition traces its roots to 7uestions o phsical

possession o the propert disputed b the private parties. at

all, issues relatin! to the ri!ht to lie or to libert can hardl be

discerned eEcept to the eEtent that the occurrence o past

violence has been alle!ed. The ri!ht to securit, on the other

hand, is alle!ed onl to the eEtent o the threats and

harassments implied rom the presence o armed men bare to

the waistG and the alle!ed pointin! and frin! o weapons.

=otabl, none o the supportin! aHdavits compellin!l show

that the threat to the ri!hts to lie, libert and securit o the

petitioners is imminent or is continuin!.

These alle!ations obviousl lack what the 2ule on rit o

?abeas $ata re7uires as a minimum, thus renderin! the

petition atall defcient. Specifcall, we see no concrete

alle!ations o un"ustifed or unlawul violation o the ri!ht to

privac related to the ri!ht to lie, libert or securit. The

petition likewise has not alle!ed, much less demonstrated, an

need or inormation under the control o police authorities

other than those it has alread set orth as inte!ral anneEes.

The necessit or "ustifcation or the

issuance o the writ, based on the insuHcienc o previous

e;orts made to secure inormation, has not also been shown.

n sum, the praer or the issuance o a writ o habeas data is

nothin! more than the fshin! eEpeditionG that this Court + in

the course o dratin! the 2ule on habeas data + had in mind in

defnin! what the purpose o a writ o habeas data is not. n

these li!hts, the outri!ht denial o the petition or the issuance

o the writ o habeas data is ull in order. 98TT4= $8=8$.

Castillo vs Cruz

Facts:

2espondent Amanda Cru5 'Amanda( who, alon! with her

husband Francisco I. Cru5 'Spouses Cru5(, leased a parcel o

land situated at arrio Iuinhawa, Malolos 'the propert(,

reused to vacate the propert, despite demands b the lessor

9rovincial Iovernment o ulacan 'the 9rovince( which

intended to utili5e it or local pro"ects.

Several cases were fled b both parties to enorce their ri!hts

over the propert. The pertinent case amon! the fled cases

was the issuance b the MTC an alias rit o $emolition in

avor o the 9rovince. 2espondents fled a motion or T24 in the

2TC, which was !ranted. ?owever, the demolition was alread

implemented beore the T24 issuance.

4n Februar %1, %&&, petitioners 9olice Superintendent

FeliEberto Castillo et al., who were deploed b the Cit Maorin compliance with a memorandum issued b Iovernor #oselito


3/24

2. Mendo5a instructin! him to protect, secure and maintain

the possession o the propert,G entered the propert.

Amanda and her coDrespondents reused to turn over the

propert, however. nsistin! that the 2TC 4rder o 9ermanent

n"unction en"oined the 9rovince rom repossessin! it, the

shoved petitioners, orcin! the latter to arrest them and cause

their indictment or direct assault, trespassin! and other ormso li!ht threats.

Thus, respondents fled a Motion or rit o Amparo and

?abeas $ata.

ssue:

4= Amparo and ?abeas $ata is proper to propert ri!hts)

and,4= Amparo and ?abeas $ata is proper when there is a

criminal case alread fled.

?eld:

4n the 1st issue:

Section 1 o the 2ules o rit o Amparo and ?abeas $ata

provides that the covera!e o the writs is limited to the

protection o ri!hts to lie, libert and securit, and the writs

cover not onl actual but also threats o unlawul acts or

omissions.

Secretar o =ational $eense v. Manalo teaches: As the

Amparo 2ule was intended to address the intractable problem

o eEtrale!al killin!sG and enorced disappearances.G Tapu5 v.

$el 2osario also teaches: hat it is not is a writ to protect

concerns that are purel propert or commercial. =either is it a

writ that we shall issue on amorphous and uncertain !rounds.G

To thus be covered b the privile!e o the writs, respondents

must meet the threshold re7uirement that their ri!ht to lie,

libert and securit is violated or threatened with an unlawul

act or omission. 8videntl, the present controvers arose out o

a propert dispute between the 9rovincial Iovernment and

respondents. Absent an considerable neEus between the acts

complained o and its e;ect on respondents* ri!ht to lie,

libert and securit, the Court will not delve on the propriet o

petitioners* entr into the propert.

t bears emphasis that respondents* petition did not show anactual violation, imminent or continuin! threat to their lie,

libert and securit. are alle!ations o petitioners will not

suHce to prove entitlement to the remed o the writ o

amparo. =o undue confnement or detention was present. n

act, respondents were even able to post bail or the o;enses a

da ater their arrest.

4n the %nd issue:

2espondents* flin! o the petitions or writs o amparo and

habeas data should have been barred, or criminal proceedin!s

a!ainst them had commenced ater the were arrested in

Ja!rante delicto and proceeded a!ainst in accordance with

Section 3, 2ule 11% o the 2ules o Court. >alidit o the arrest

or the proceedin!s conducted thereater is a deense that ma

be set up b respondents durin! trial and not beore a petition

or writs o amparo and habeas data.

Roxas v. Macapagal-ArroyoI.2. =o. 101 &6 September %&1&

924C8$@2AB ACKI24@=$:

Supreme Court: 9etition or the issuance o rits o Amparo

and ?abeas $ata

Court o Appeals: @pon order o the Supreme Court, the Court

o Appeals summaril heard the 4ri!inalAction or 9etition o Amparo. Thereater, the Court o Appeals

issued a "ud!ment which is the sub"ect o the present 9etition

or 2eview on Certiorari.


4/24

FACTS:

Melissa 2oEas, an American citi5en o Filipino descent, while in

the @nited States, enrolled in an eEposure pro!ram to the

9hilippines with the !roup a!on! Alansan! MakabaanD

@nited States o America 'ALA=D @SA( o which she is a

member.

4n 10 Ma %&&0, ater doin! surve work in Tarlac, 2oEas and

her companions rested in the house o Mr. #esus 9aolo in Sitio

a!on! Sikat. hile 2oEas and her companions were restin!,

1 heavil armed men in civilian clothes orcibl entered the

house and dra!!ed them inside a van. hen the ali!hted

rom the van, she was inormed that she is bein! detained or

bein! a member o Communist 9art o the 9hilippinesD=ew

9eople*s Arm 'C99D=9A(. She was then separated rom her

companions and was brou!ht to a room, rom where she could

hear sounds o !unfre, noise o planes takin! o; and landin!,

and some construction bustle.

She was interro!ated and tortured or strai!ht das to

convince her to abandon her communist belies. She was

inormed b a person named 2CG that those who tortured her

came rom the Special 4perations IroupG and that she was

abducted because her name is included in the 4rder o

attle.G

4n % Ma %&&0, 2oEas was fnall released and was !iven acellular phone with a sim card. She wassternl warned not to report the incident to the !roup

Karapatan or somethin! untoward will happen to her and her

amil. Ater her release, 2oEas continued to receive calls rom

2C thru the cell phone !iven to her. 4ut o apprehension, she

threw the phone and the sim card.

?ence, on &1 #une %&&0, 2oEas fled a petition or the issuance

o rits o Amparo and ?abeas $ata beore the Supreme Court,impleadin! the hi!hD rankin! oHcials o militar and 9hilippine

=ational 9olice '9=9(, on the belie that it was the !overnment

a!ents who were behind her abduction and torture.

4n &0 #une %&&0, the Supreme Court issued the writs and

reerred the case to the Court o Appeals or hearin!, reception

o evidence and appropriate action. The Court o Appeals

!ranted the privile!e o writs o amparo and habeas data.

?owever, the court a 7uo absolved the respondents because itwas not convinced that the respondents were responsible or

the abduction and torture o 2oEas.

A!!rieved, 2oEas fled an appeal with the Supreme Court.

982T=8=T SS@8S:

hether or not the doctrine o command responsibilit is

applicable in an amparo petition.

hether or not circumstantial evidence with re!ard to theidentit and aHliation o the perpetrators is enou!h !round or

the issuance o the privile!e o the writ o amparo.

hether or not substantial evidence to prove actual or

threatened violation o the ri!ht to privac in lie, libert or

securit o the victim is necessar beore the privile!e o the

writ ma be eEtended.

A=S82S:

=o.

t depends. $irect evidence o identit, when obtainable must

be preerred over mere circumstantial evidence.

Les.

S@928M8 C4@2T 2@B=IS:

1. $4CT2=8 4F C4MMA=$ 28S94=SBTL A=$ T?8 2T4F AM9A24


5/24

Command responsibilit as "ustifcation in impleadin!

respondents is le!all inaccurate + The use o the doctrine o

command responsibilit as "ustifcation in impleadin! the

respondents in her amparo petition, is le!all inaccurate, i not

incorrect. Such doctrine is a rule o substantive law that

establishes liabilit and, b this account, cannot be a proper

le!al basis to implead a partDrespondent in an amparopetition.

The rit o Amparo as a protective remed + As held in the

case o 2ubrico v. Arroo, the writ o amparo is a protective

remed aimed at providin! "udicial relie consistin! o the

appropriate remedial measures and directives that ma be

crated b the court, in order to address specifc violations or

threats o violation o the constitutional ri!hts to lie, libert or

securit. t does not fE liabilit or such

disappearance, killin! or threats, whether that ma be criminal,

civil or administrative under the applicable substantive law.

Since the application o command responsibilit presupposes

an imputation o individual liabilit, it is more aptl invoked in a

ullD blown criminal or administrative case rather than in a

summar amparo proceedin!. ?owever, the inapplicabilit o

the doctrine o command responsibilit does not preclude

impleadin! militar or police commanders on the !round that

the complained acts in the petition were committed with their

direct or indirect ac7uiescence. n which case, commanders

ma be impleaded not actuall on the basis o command

responsibilitbut rather on the !round o their responsibilit,

or at least accountabilit.

%. 8>$8=C8 28N@28$ = AM9A24 924C88$=IS

n amparo proceedin!s, direct evidence o identit must be

preerred over mere circumstantial evidence + n amparo

proceedin!s, the wei!ht that ma be accorded to parallel

circumstances as evidence o militar involvement depends

lar!el on the availabilit or nonDavailabilit o other pieces o

evidence that has the potential o directl provin! the identit

and aHliation o the perpetrators. $irect evidence o identit,

when obtainable, must be preerred over mere circumstantial

evidence based on patterns and similarit, because the ormer

indubitabl o;ers !reater certaint as to the true identit and

aHliation o the perpetrators.

-. 8>$8=C8 28N@28$ = ?A8AS $ATA 924C88$=ISSubstantial evidence o an actual or threatened violation o the

ri!ht to privac in lie, libert or securit o the victim is an

indispensable re7uirement beore the privile!e o the writ ma

be eEtended + An indispensable re7uirement beore the

privile!e o the writ ma be eEtended is the showin!, at least

b substantial evidence, o an actual or threatened violation o

the ri!ht to privac in lie, libert or securit o the victim. n

the case at bar, 2oEas ailed to show that there is an actual or

threatened violation o such ri!ht. ?ence, until such time thatan o the respondents were ound to be actuall responsible

or the abduction and torture o 2oEas, an inerence re!ardin!

the eEistence o reports bein! kept in violation o the

petitioner*s ri!ht to privac becomes aretched, and

premature. The Court must, at least in the meantime, strike

down the !rant o the privile!e o the writ o habeas data.

$S94ST>8:

The Supreme Court aHrmed the decision o the Court o

Appeals. ?owever, it modifed the directive o the Court o theAppeals or urther investi!ation, as ollows:

Appointin! the C?2 as the lead a!enc tasked with conductin!

urther investi!ation re!ardin! the abduction and torture o the

petitioner. Accordin!l, the C?2 shall, under the norm o

eEtraordinar dili!ence, take or continue to take the necessar

steps: 'a( to identi the persons described in the carto!raphic

sketches submitted b the petitioner, as well as their

whereabouts) and 'b( to pursue an other leads relevant to

petitioner*s abduction and torture.


6/24

$irectin! the incumbent Chie o the 9hilippine =ational 9olice

'9=9(, or his successor, and the incumbent Chie o Sta; o

the AF9, or his successor, to eEtend assistance to the on!oin!

investi!ation o the C?2, includin! but not limited to urnishin!

the latter a cop o its personnel records circa the time o the

petitioner*s abduction and torture, sub"ect to reasonablere!ulations consistent with the Constitution and eEistin! laws.

Further directin! the incumbent Chie o the 9=9, or his

successor, to urnish to this Court, the Court o Appeals, and

the petitioner or her representative, a cop o the reports o its

investi!ations and their recommendations, other than those

that are alread part o the records o this case, within ninet

'0&( das rom receipt o this decision.

Further directin! the C?2 to 'a( urnish to the Court o Appeals

within ninet '0&( das rom receipt o this decision, a cop o

the reports on its investi!ation and its correspondin!

recommendations) and to 'b( provide or continue to provide

protection to the petitioner durin! her sta or visit to the

9hilippines, until such time as ma hereinater be determined

b this Court.

The Supreme Court likewise reerred the case back to the Court

o Appeals, or the purposes o monitorin! compliance with the

above directives and determinin! whether, in li!ht o an

recent reports or recommendations, there would alread besuHcient evidence to hold an o the public respondents

responsible or, at least, accountable. Ater makin! such

determination, the Court o Appeals shall submit its own report

with recommendation to theSupreme Court or its consideration. t was declared that the

Court o Appeals will continue to have "urisdiction over this

case in order to accomplish its tasks under this decision.

IN THE MATTER O THE !ETITION OR THE "RIT O

AM!ARO AND HA#EA$ DATA IN AVOR O NORIE%

RODRI&'E() NORIE% RODRI&'E() !etitio*er)vs.&%ORIA MACA!A&A%-ARRO+O) &EN. VICTOR $. I#RADO)

!D& ,E$'$ AME VER$O(A) %T. &EN. DE%IN #AN&IT) MA,.

&EN. NE$TOR (. OCHOA) !C$'!T. AMETO &.

TO%ENTINO) !$$'!T. ,'DE ". $ANTO$) CO%. REMI&IOM. DE VERA) a* ocer *a/e0 MAT'TINA) %T. CO%. MINA)

CA%O&) &EOR&E !A%AC!AC u*0er t1e *a/e 2HARR+)2

ANTONIO CR'() A%D"IN 2#ON&2 !A$ICO%AN a*0

VINCENT CA%%A&AN) Respo*0e*ts.

E D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D E

IN THE MATTER O THE !ETITION OR THE "RIT O

AM!ARO AND HA#EA$ DATA IN AVOR O NORIE%

RODRI&'E() !O%ICE DIR. &EN. ,E$'$ A. VER$O(A)

!$$'!T. ,'DE ". $ANTO$) #&EN. REME&IO M. DE VERA)

3$T %T. R+AN $. MAT'TINA) %T. CO%. %A'RENCE E. MINA)

ANTONIO C. CR'() A%D"IN C. !A$ICO%AN a*0 VICENTE

A. CA%%A&AN) !etitio*ers)vs.NORIE% H. RODRI&'E() Respo*0e*t.

4n 1 =ovember %&11, the Court promul!ated its $ecision in

the present case, the dispositive portion o which reads:

?828F428, we resolve to I2A=T the 9etition or 9artial2eview in I.2. =o. 101& and $8=L the 9etition or 2eview in

I.2. =o. 10-13&. The $ecision o the Court o Appeals is hereb

AFF2M8$ T? M4$FCAT4=.

The case is dismissed with respect to respondents ormer

9resident Iloria Macapa!alDArroo, 9


7/24

This Court directs the 4Hce o the 4mbudsman '4mbudsman(

and the $epartment o #ustice '$4#( to take the appropriate

action with respect to an possible liabilit or liabilities, within

their respective le!al competence, that ma have been

incurred b respondents Ien. >ictor lbrado, 9$I. #esus

>er5osa, Bt. Ien. $elfn an!it, Ma". Ien. =estor 4choa, ri!.

Ien. 2eme!io $e >era, 1st Bt. 2an Matutina, and Bt. Col.

Baurence Mina. The 4mbudsman and the $4# are ordered tosubmit to this Court the results o their action within a period o

siE months rom receipt o this $ecision.

n the event that herein respondents no lon!er occup their

respective posts, the directives mandated in this $ecision and

in the Court o Appeals are enorceable a!ainst the incumbent

oHcials holdin! the relevant positions. Failure to compl with

the ore!oin! shall constitute contempt o court.

S4 42$828$.

Ater a careul eEamination o the records, the Court was

convinced that the Court o Appeals correctl ound suHcient

evidence provin! that the soldiers o the 16th nantr

attalion, th nantr $ivision o the militar abducted

petitioner 2odri!ue5 on 3 September %&&0, and detained and

tortured him until 16 September %&&0.

9ursuant to the $ecision orderin! the 4Hce o the 4mbudsman

to take urther action, 4mbudsman Conchita Carpio Morales

sent this Court a letter dated %- Ma %&1%, re7uestin! anadditional twoDmonth period, or until %/ #ul %&1%, within which

to submit a report. The 4mbudsman stated that =oriel

2odri!ue5 '2odri!ue5( and his amil reused to cooperate with

the investi!ation or securit reasons.

4n 3 #anuar %&1%, respondents fled their Motion or

2econsideration,1 ar!uin! that the soldiers belon!in! to the

16th nantr attalion, th nantr $ivision o the militar

cannot be held accountable or authorin! the abduction and

torture o petitioner. Their ar!uments revolve solel on the

claim that respondents were never specifcall mentioned b

name as havin! perormed, permitted, condoned, authori5ed,

or allowed the commission o an act or incurrence omission

which would violate or threaten with violation the ri!hts to lie,

libert, and securit o petitionerDrespondent and his amil.%

4n 1 #anuar %&1-, the 4mbudsman submitted the

nvesti!ation 2eport, as compliance with the Court*s directiveto take appropriate action with respect to possible liabilities

respondents ma have incurred. The eEhaustive report detailed

the steps taken b the Field nvesti!ation 4Hce 'F4( o the

4Hce o the 4mbudsman, concludin! that no criminal, civil, or

administrative liabilities ma be imputed to the respondents. t

was reJected therein that the lawers or the 2odri!ue5es had

maniested to the F4 that the latter are hesitant to appear

beore them or securit reasons, vi5:

Karapatan 'a nonD!overnmental or!ani5ation that providesle!al assistance to victims o human ri!hts violations and their

amilies( could not locate =oriel and 2odel. As o this writin!,

the 2odri!ue5es reused to participate in the present actD

fndin! investi!ation Oor securit reasons.* Att. Lambot

disclosed 'throu!h a Maniestation dated March -&, %&1% that

despite e;orts to convince =oriel to participate in the present

proceedin!s, the latter Oremains unconvinced and unwillin! to

this date.*

2ecent inormation, however, revealed that =oriel and his

amil are no lon!er interested in participatin! in the present

case.

nstead o appearin! beore this 4Hce or a conerence under

oath, S941 2obert . Molina submitted an AHdavit dated #une

1-, %&1% statin! that on September 1, %&&0, at around 11:&&

o*clock in the mornin!, ilma ?. 2odri!ue5 appeared beore

the Ion5a!a 9olice Station and re7uested to enter into the

blotter that her son, =oriel, was alle!edl missin! in Sitio

Comunal, Ion5a!a, Ca!aan. Thereupon, he !athered


8/24

inormation relative to ilma*s report Pbut the communit

residence ailed to reveal anthin!P.-

The other accounts + specifcall that o respondent Antonino

C. Cru5, Special nvesti!ator o the Commission on ?uman

2i!hts 'C?2(, as well as the claims o respondents Mina and $e

>era that the had disclosed to the C?2 that =oriel had

become an a!ent 'PassetP( o the 16th nantr attalion + havebeen thorou!hl evaluated and ruled upon in our $ecision. The

4M urther laments, P onl he '=oriel( could be asked to

veri the circumstances under which he eEecuted these

subse7uent aHdavits, his inconsistent claims will fnall be

settled,P and that P'( there is one person who can attest on

whether detention and torture were indeed committed b an

o the Sub"ects herein, it is =oriel 2odri!ue5 himsel, the

supposed victim.P/

The purported unwillin!ness o the petitioner to appear or

participate at this sta!e o the proceedin!s due to securit

reasons does not a;ect the rationale o the writ !ranted b the

CA, as aHrmed b this Court. n an case, the issue o the

eEistence o criminal, civil, or administrative liabilit which ma

be imputed to the respondents is not the province o amparo

proceedin!s DD rather, the writ serves both preventive and

curative roles in addressin! the problem o eEtra"udicial killin!s

and enorced disappearances. t is preventive in that it breaks

the eEpectation o impunit in the commission o these

o;enses, and it is curative in that it acilitates the subse7uent

punishment o perpetrators b inevitabl leadin! to subse7uent

investi!ation and action. n this case then, the thrust o

ensurin! that investi!ations are conducted and the ri!hts to

lie, libert, and securit o the petitioner, remains.

e den the motion or reconsideration.

The writ o amparo partakes o a summar proceedin! that

re7uires onl substantial evidence to make the appropriate

interim and permanent relies available to the petitioner. As

eEplained in the $ecision, it is not an action to determine

criminal !uilt re7uirin! proo beond reasonable doubt, or

liabilit or dama!es re7uirin! preponderance o evidence, or

even administrative responsibilit re7uirin! substantial

evidence. The totalit o evidence as a standard or the !rant

o the writ was correctl applied b this Court, as frst laid down

in 2a5on v. Ta!itis:

The air and proper rule, to our mind, is to consider all thepieces o evidence adduced in their totalit, and to consider

an evidence otherwise inadmissible under our usual rules to

be admissible i it is consistent with the admissible evidence

adduced. n other words, we reduce our rules to the most basic

test o reason + i.e., to the relevance o the evidence to the

issue at hand and its consistenc with all other pieces o

adduced evidence. Thus, even hearsa evidence can be

admitted i it satisfes this basic minimum test.3 '8mphasis

supplied.(

=o reversible error ma be attributed to the !rant o the

privile!e o the writ b the CA, and the present motion or

reconsideration raises no new issues that would convince us

otherwise.

2espondents* claim that the were not competentl identifed

as the soldiers who abducted and detained the petitioner, or

that there was no mention o their names in the documentar

evidence, is baseless. The CA ri!htl considered 2odri!ue5*s

Sinumpaan! Salasa6 as a meticulous and strai!htorward

account o his horrifc ordeal with the militar, detailin! the

manner in which he was captured and maltreated on account

o his suspected membership in the =9A.

9etitioner narrated that at dawn on 0 September %&&0, he

noticed a soldier with the name ta! PMatutina,P who appeared

to be an oHcial because the other soldiers addressed him as

Psir.P0 ?e saw Matutina a!ain at 11:&& p.m. on 1 September

%&&0, when his abductors took him to a militar operation in

the mountains. ?is narration o his su;erin! included an

eEhaustive description o his phsical surroundin!s, personal


9/24

circumstances, and perceived observations. ?e likewise

positivel identifed respondents 1st Bt. Matutina and Bt. Col.

Mina to be present durin! his abduction, detention and

torture.1& These acts were urther corroborated b ?ermie

Antonio Carlos in his Sinumpaan! Salasa dated 13

September %&&0,11 wherein he recounted in detail the

circumstances surroundin! the victim*s capture.

2espondents* main contention in their 2eturn o the rit was

correctl deemed illo!ical and contradictor b the CA. The

claim that 2odri!ue5 had complained o phsical ailments due

to activities in the C99D=9A, et nevertheless si!nifed his

desire to become a doubleDa!ent or the militar. The CA

stated:

n the 2eturn o the rit, respondent AF9 members alle!ed that

petitioner confded to his militar handler, Cpl. =avarro, that

petitioner could no lon!er stand the hardships he eEperienced

in the wilderness, and that he wanted to become an ordinar

citi5en a!ain because o the empt promises o the C99D=9A.

?owever, in the same 2eturn, respondents state that petitioner

a!reed to become a double a!ent or the militar and wanted

to reDenter the C99D=9A, so that he could !et inormation

re!ardin! the movement directl rom the source. petitioner

was tired o lie in the wilderness and desired to become an

ordinar citi5en a!ain, it defes lo!ic that he would a!ree to

become an undercover a!ent and work alon!side soldiers in

the mountains + or the wilderness he dreads + to locate the

hideout o his alle!ed =9A comrades.1% '8mphasis supplied.(

2espondents convenientl ne!lect to address the fndin!s o

both the CA and this Court that aside rom the abduction o

2odri!ue5, respondents, specifcall 1st Bt. Matutina, had

violated and threatened the ormer*s ri!ht to securit when

the made a visual recordin! o his house, as well as the

photos o his relatives. The CA ound that the soldiers even

went as ar as takin! videos o the photos o petitioner*s

relatives hun! on the wall o the house, and the innermost

portions o the house.1- There is no reasonable "ustifcation or

this violation o the ri!ht to privac and securit o petitioner*s

abode, which strikes at the ver heart and rationale o the 2ule

on the rit o Amparo. More importantl, respondents also

ne!lect to address our rulin! that the ailure to conduct a air

and e;ective investi!ation similarl amounted to a violation o,

or threat to 2odri!ue5*s ri!hts to lie, libert, and securit.1/

The writ*s curative role is an acknowled!ment that the violationo the ri!ht to lie, libert, and securit ma be caused not onl

b a public oHcial*s act, but also b his omission.

Accountabilit ma attach to respondents who are imputed

with knowled!e relatin! to the enorced disappearance and

who carr the burden o disclosure) or those who carr, but

have ailed to dischar!e, the burden o eEtraordinar dili!ence

in the investi!ation o the enorced disappearance.1 The dut

to investi!ate must be undertaken in a serious manner and not

as a mere ormalit preordained to be ine;ective.13

The CA ound that respondents Ien. brado, 9$I >er5osa, BT.

Ien. an!it, Ma". Ien. 4choa, Col. $e >era, and Bt. Col. Mina

conducted a perunctor investi!ation which relied solel on

the accounts o the militar. Thus, the CA correctl held that

the investi!ation was superfcial, oneDsided, and depended

entirel on the report prepared b 1st Bt. #ohnn Calub. =o

e;orts were undertaken to solicit petitioner*s version o the

incident, and no witnesses were 7uestioned re!ardin! it.16 The

CA also took into account the palpable lack o e;ort rom

respondent >erso5a, as the chie o the 9hilippine =ational

9olice.

?828F428, in view o the ore!oin!, the Motion or

2econsideration is hereb $8=8$ with F=ABTL. Bet a cop o

this 2esolution be urnished the 4mbudsman or whatever

appropriate action she ma still take under circumstances.

S4 42$828$.

Meralco v %i/ 456367 &R No 389:;

specpro set1&2 digests

Documents