The case involves alleged illegal searches, seizures, arrests, detentions, and violations of constitutional rights by the Task Force against Aberca et al. Aberca et al. allege that elements of the Task Force, following orders from General Fabian Ver, raided several places using defective search warrants, confiscated personal items, arrested them without proper warrants, denied them visits and interrogated them in violation of their rights. Respondents claim state immunity as public officers performing official duties. The court finds state immunity does not apply, as the constitution is the supreme law that all officials must obey. Article 75 holds public officers and those indirectly responsible for violations of constitutional rights liable for damages. The suspension of habeas corpus does not invalidate otherwise illegal arrests
Original Description:
Aberca v. Fabian-Ver, GR L-69866, 15 April 1988
Original Title
Aberca v. Fabian-Ver, GR L-69866, 15 April 1988, En Banc, Yap [J]
The case involves alleged illegal searches, seizures, arrests, detentions, and violations of constitutional rights by the Task Force against Aberca et al. Aberca et al. allege that elements of the Task Force, following orders from General Fabian Ver, raided several places using defective search warrants, confiscated personal items, arrested them without proper warrants, denied them visits and interrogated them in violation of their rights. Respondents claim state immunity as public officers performing official duties. The court finds state immunity does not apply, as the constitution is the supreme law that all officials must obey. Article 75 holds public officers and those indirectly responsible for violations of constitutional rights liable for damages. The suspension of habeas corpus does not invalidate otherwise illegal arrests
The case involves alleged illegal searches, seizures, arrests, detentions, and violations of constitutional rights by the Task Force against Aberca et al. Aberca et al. allege that elements of the Task Force, following orders from General Fabian Ver, raided several places using defective search warrants, confiscated personal items, arrested them without proper warrants, denied them visits and interrogated them in violation of their rights. Respondents claim state immunity as public officers performing official duties. The court finds state immunity does not apply, as the constitution is the supreme law that all officials must obey. Article 75 holds public officers and those indirectly responsible for violations of constitutional rights liable for damages. The suspension of habeas corpus does not invalidate otherwise illegal arrests
Facts: The case stems from alleged illegal searches and seizures and other violations of the rights and liberties of Rogelio Aberca, Rodolfo Benosa, Nestor Bodino, Noel Etabag, Danilo De La Fuente, Belen DiazFlores, anuel ario !uzman, Alan "azminez, Ed#in Lo$ez, Alfredo ansos, Ale% arcelino, Elizabeth &rotacio' arcelino, "ose$h (la)er, *arlos &alma, arco &alo, Rolando +alutin, Ben,amin +esgundo, Arturo Tabara, Ed#in Tulalian and Rebecca Tulalian b) various intelligence suits of the Armed Forces of the &hili$$ines, -no#n as Tas- Force a-abansa .TF/, ordered b) !eneral Fabian 0er 1to conduct $re'em$tive stri-es against -no#n communist'terrorist .*T/ underground houses in vie# of increasing re$orts about *T $lans to so# disturbances in etro anila21 Aberca, et2 al2 alleged that com$l)ing #ith said order, elements of the TF raided several $laces, 32 em$lo)ing in most cases defectivel) issued ,udicial search #arrants4 52 that during these raids, certain members of the raiding $art) con6scated a number of $urel) $ersonal items belonging to Aberca, et2 al24 72 that Aberca, et2 al2 #ere arrested #ithout $ro$er #arrants issued b) the courts4 82 that for some $eriod after their arrest, the) #ere denied visits of relatives and la#)ers4 that Aberca, et2 al2#ere interrogated in violation of their rights to silence and counsel4 92 that militar) men #ho interrogated them em$lo)ed threats, tortures and other forms of violence on them in order to obtain incriminator) information or confessions and in order to $unish them4 :2 that all violations of Aberca, et2 al2;s constitutional rights #ere $art of a concerted and deliberate $lan to forcibl) e%tract information and incriminator) statements from Aberca, et2al2 and to terrorize, harass and $unish them, said $lans being $reviousl) -no#n to and sanctioned b) a,2 Res$ondents $ostulate the vie# that as $ublic o<cers the) are covered b) the mantle of state immunit) from suit for acts done in the $erformance of o<cial duties or function2 =ssue: >hether 0er, et2 al2, ma) be held civill) liable for underta-ing invalid search and seizures, or violation of *onstitutional rights or liberties of another in general2 ?eld: +*: We fnd respondents invocation o! t"e doctrine o! state i##$nit% !ro# s$it totall% #isplaced. The cases invo-ed b) res$ondents actuall) involved acts done b) o<cers in the $erformance of o<cial duties #ritten the ambit of their $o#ers2 =t ma) be that 0er, et2 al2, as members of the Armed Forces of the &hili$$ines, #ere merel) res$onding to their dut), as the) claim, 1to $revent or su$$ress la#less violence, insurrection, rebellion and subversion1 in accordance #ith &roclamation 5@98 of &resident arcos, des$ite the lifting of martial la# on 5A "anuar) 3BC3, and in $ursuance of such ob,ective, to launch $re'em$tive stri-es against alleged communist terrorist underground houses2 But this cannot be construed as a blanket license or a roving commission untramelled by any constitutional restraint, to disregard or transgress upon the rights and liberties of the individual citizen enshrined in and protected by the Constitution. The Constitution remains the supreme law of the land to which all ofcials, high or low, civilian or military, owe obedience and allegiance at all times. Article 75 of the *ivil *ode #hich renders an) $ublic o<cer or em$lo)ee or an) $rivate individual liable in damages for violating the *onstitutional rights and liberties of another, as enumerated therein, does not e%em$t 0er, et2 al2 from res$onsibilit)2 (nl) ,udges are e%cluded from liabilit) under the said article, $rovided their acts or omissions do not constitute a violation of the &enal *ode or other $enal statute2 This is not to sa) that militar) authorities are restrained from $ursuing their assigned tas- or carr)ing out their mission #ith vigor2 ?o#ever, in carr)ing out this tas- and mission, constitutional and legal safeguards must be observed, other#ise, the ver) fabric of our faith #ill start to unravel2 Article 75 clearl) s$ea-s of an o<cer or em$lo)ee or $erson 1directl)1 or 1indirectl)1 res$onsible for the violation of the constitutional rights and liberties of another2 Thus, it is not the actor alone .i2e2 the one directl) res$onsible/ #ho must ans#er for damages under Article 754 the $erson indirectl) res$onsible has also to ans#er for the damages or in,ur) caused to the aggrieved $art)2 B) this $rovision, the $rinci$le of accountabilit) of $ublic o<cials under the *onstitution acDuires added meaning and assumes a larger dimension2 No longer ma) a su$erior o<cial rela% his vigilance or abdicate his dut) to su$ervise his subordinates, secure in the thought that he does not have to ans#er for the transgressions committed b) the latter against the constitutionall) $rotected rights and liberties of the citizen2 &art of the factors that $ro$elled $eo$le $o#er in Februar) 3BC: #as the #idel) held $erce$tion that the government #as callous or indiEerent to, if not actuall) res$onsible for, the ram$ant violations of human rights2 >hile it #ould certainl) be too naive to e%$ect that violators of human rights #ould easil) be deterred b) the $ros$ect of facing damage suits, it should nonetheless be made clear in no uncertain terms that Article 75 of the *ivil *ode ma-es the $ersons #ho are directl), as #ell as indirectl), res$onsible for the transgression ,oint tortfeasors2 F$rt"er, t"e s$spension o! t"e privile&e o! t"e 'rit o! "abeas corp$s does not destro% Aberca, et. al.s ri&"t and ca$se o! action !or da#a&es !or ille&al arrest and detention and ot"er violations o! t"eir constit$tional ri&"ts. ("e s$spension does not render valid an ot"er'ise ille&al arrest or detention. W"at is s$spended is #erel% t"e ri&"t o! t"e individ$al to see) release !ro# detention t"ro$&" t"e 'rit o! "abeas corp$s as a speed% #eans o! obtainin& "is libert%. Furthermore, their right and cause of action for damages are e%$licitl) recognized in &2D2 No2 3A99 #hich amended Article 338: of the *ivil *ode b) adding the follo#ing to its te%t: 1?o#ever, #hen the action .for in,ur) to the rights of the $laintiE or for a Duasi'delict/ arises from or out of an) act, activit) or conduct of an) $ublic o<cer involving the e%ercise of $o#ers or authorit) arising from artial La# including the arrest, detention andFor trial of the $laintiE, the same must be brought #ithin one .3/ )ear21 Thus, even assuming that the sus$ension of the $rivilege of the #rit of habeas cor$us sus$ends Aberca, et2 al2;s right of action for damages for illegal arrest and detention, it does not and cannot sus$end their rights and causes of action for in,uries suEered because of 0er, et2 al2;s con6scation of their $rivate belongings, the violation of their right to remain silent and to counsel and their right to $rotection against unreasonable searches and seizures and against torture and other cruel and inhuman treatment2