XVI.
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND WRIT OF pertinent portions of his passport, boarding passes and
AMPARO
A. WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
1. IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR
HABEAS CORPUS OF DATUKAN MALANG
SALIBO, DATUKAN MALANG
SALIBO, Petitioner,
vs.
WARDEN, QUEZON CITY JAIL ANNEX,
BJMP BUILDING, CAMP BAGONG DIWA,
TAGUIG CITY and all other persons acting on
his behalf and/or having custody of DATUKAN
MALANG SALIBO, Respondents.
FACTS
Habeas corpus is the proper remedy for a person
deprived of liberty due to mistaken identity. In such
cases, the person is not under any lawful process and is
continuously being illegally detained.
1
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari of the Court
of Appeals Decision2 reversing the Decision3 of the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 153, Pasig City (Taguig
Hall of Justice) granting Datukan Malang Salibos
Petition for Habeas Corpus.
From November 7, 2009 to December 19, 2009,
Datukan Malang Salibo (Salibo) and other Filipinos
were allegedly in Saudi Arabia for the Hajj
Pilgrimage.4 "While in Saudi Arabia, . . . Salibo visited
and prayed in the cities of Medina, Mecca, Arpa, Mina
and Jeddah."5 He returned to the Philippines on
December 20, 2009.6
On August 3, 2010, Salibo learned that police officers of
Datu Hofer Police Station in Maguindanao suspected
him to be Butukan S. Malang.7
Butukan S. Malang was one of the 197 accused of 57
counts of murder for allegedly participating in the
November 23, 2009 Maguindanao Massacre. He had a
pending warrant of arrest issued by the trial court in
People of the Philippines v. Datu Andal Ampatuan, Jr., et
al.
When Datukan Malang Salibo learned that the police
officers of Datu Hofer Police Station in Maguindanao
suspected him to be Butukan S. Malang, he presented
himself to clear his name. Salibo presented to the police
other documents tending to prove that a certain Datukan
Malang Salibo was in Saudi Arabia when the massacre
happened. The authorities, however, apprehended and
detained him. He questioned the legality of his detention
via Urgent Petition for Habeas Corpus before the CA,
maintaining that he is not the accused Batukan S.
Malang. The CA issued the writ, making it returnable to
the judge of RTC Taguig. After hearing of the Return,
the trial court granted Salibos petition and ordered his
immediate release from detention.
On appeal by the Warden, the CA reversed the RTC
ruling. The CA held that even assuming Salibo was not
the Batukan S. Malang named in the Alias Warrant of
Arrest, orderly course of trial must be pursued and the
usual remedies exhausted before the writ of habeas
corpus may be invoked. Salibos proper remedy,
according to the CA, should have been a motion to
quash information and/or warrant of arrest.
On the other hand, Salibo believes that the Warden erred
in appealing the RTC decision before the CA. Salibo
argued that although the CA delegated to the RTC the
authority to hear the Wardens Return, the RTCs ruling
should be deemed as the CA ruling, and hence, it should
have been appealed directly before the SC.
ISSUE AND RULING
Issue 1: W/N Salibo properly availed the remedy of a
petition for writ of habeas corpus
HELD: Yes. Habeas corpus is the remedy for a person
deprived of liberty due to mistaken identity. In such
cases, the person is not under any lawful process and is
continuously being illegally detained.
First, it was Butukan S. Malang, not Salibo, who was
charged and accused in the Information and Alias
Warrant of Arrest issued in the case of People vs
Ampatuan. Based on the evidences presented, Salibo
sufficiently established that he could not have been
Butukan S. Malang. Therefore, Salibo was not arrested
by virtue of any warrant charging him of an offense, nor
restrained under a lawful process or an order of a
court. Second, Salibo was not validly arrested without a
warrant. When he was in the presence of authorities, he
was neither committing nor attempting to commit an
offense, and the police officers had no personal
1
knowledge of any offense that he might have committed.
Salibo was also not an escape prisoner.
The police officers have deprived him of his liberty
without due process of law. Therefore, Salibo correctly
availed himself of a Petition for Habeas Corpus.
Issue 2: W/N a motion to quash information and/or
warrant of arrest is the proper remedy in cases where a
person with a mistaken identity is detained
HELD. No, the CAs contention is not correct. Salibos
proper remedy is not a Motion to Quash Information
and/or Warrant of Arrest. None of the grounds for filing
a Motion to Quash Information apply to him. Even if
petitioner Salibo filed a Motion to Quash, the defect he
alleged could not have been cured by mere amendment
of the Information and/or Warrant of Arrest. Changing
the name of the accused appearing in the Information
and/or Warrant of Arrest from Butukan S. Malang to
Datukan Malang Salibo will not cure the lack of
preliminary investigation in this case. Likewise, a
motion for reinvestigation will not cure the defect of
lack of preliminary investigation.
Issue 3: W/N the Warden correctly appealed the RTC
ruling on the Return before the CA
ADDITIONAL:
Distinction between the Writ vs the Final Decision
on Petition for the Issuance of the Writ
The writ of habeas corpus is different from the final
decision on the petition for the issuance of the writ.
It is the writ that commands the production of the
body of the person allegedly restrained of his or her
liberty. On the other hand, it is in the final decision
where a court determines the legality of the
restraint.
Between the issuance of the writ and the final
decision on the petition for its issuance, it is the
issuance of the writ that is essential. The issuance
of the writ sets in motion the speedy judicial inquiry
on the legality of any deprivation of liberty. Courts
shall liberally issue writs of habeas corpus even if
the petition for its issuance on its face is devoid of
merit. Although the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus may be suspended in cases of invasion,
rebellion, or when the public safety requires it, the
writ itself may not be suspended.

HELD: Yes. An application for a writ of habeas corpus

may be made through a petition filed before CA or any
of its members, the CA or any of its members in
instances authorized by law, or the RTC or any of its
presiding judges. The court or judge grants the writ and
requires the officer or person having custody of the
person allegedly restrained of liberty to file a return of
the writ. A hearing on the return of the writ is then
conducted.

The return of the writ may be heard by a court apart

from that which issued the writ. Should the court issuing
the writ designate a lower court to which the writ is
made returnable, the lower court shall proceed to decide
the petition of habeas corpus. By virtue of the
designation, the lower court acquires the power and
authority to determine the merits of the petition for
habeas corpus. Therefore, the decision on the petition is
a decision appealable to the court that has appellate
jurisdiction over decisions of the lower court.

2

B. WRIT OF AMPARO
2. SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE VS
MANALO
The writ of amparo is a tool that gives voice to preys of
silent guns and prisoners behind secret walls.
Facts:
Brothers Raymond and Reynaldo Manalo were abducted
by military men belonging to the CAFGU on the
suspicion that they were members and supporters of the
NPA. After 18 months of detention and torture, the
brothers escaped. Ten days after their escape, they filed a
Petition for Prohibition, Injunction, and Temporary
Restraining Order to stop the military officers and agents
from depriving them of their right to liberty and other
basic rights. While the said case was pending, the Rule
on the Writ of Amparo took effect on October 24, 2007.
The Manalos subsequently filed a manifestation and
omnibus motion to treat their existing petition as amparo
petition.
The Court of Appeals granted the privilege of the Writ of
Amparo. The CA ordered the Secretary of National
Defense and the Chief of Staff of the AFP to furnish the
Manalos and the court with all official and unofficial
investigation reports as to the Manalos custody, confirm
the present places of official assignment of two military
officials involved, and produce all medical reports and
records of the Manalo brothers while under military
custody. The Secretary of National Defense and the
Chief of Staff of the AFP appealed to the SC seeking to
reverse and set aside the decision promulgated by the
CA.
Issue:
Whether the respondents should be granted the privilege
of the Writ of Amparo.
Ruling:
YES. The possibility of respondents being executed
stared them in the eye while they were in detention. With
their escape, this continuing threat to their life is
apparent, more so now that they have surfaced and
implicated specific officers in the military not only in
their own abduction and torture, but also in those of
other persons known to have disappeared.
Understandably, since their escape, respondents have
been under concealment and protection by private
citizens because of the threat to their life, liberty and
security. The threat vitiates their free will as they are
forced to limit their movements or activities. Precisely
because respondents are being shielded from the
perpetrators of their abduction, they cannot be expected
to show evidence of overt acts of threat such as face-to-
face intimidation or written threats to their life, liberty
and security. Nonetheless, the circumstances of
respondents abduction, detention, torture and escape
reasonably support a conclusion that there is an apparent
threat that they will again be abducted, tortured, and this
time, even executed. These constitute threats to their
liberty, security, and life, actionable through a petition
for a writ of amparo. Hence, the respondents right to
security as freedom from threat is violated by the
apparent threat to their life, liberty and security of
person. Their right to security as a guarantee of
protection by the government is likewise violated by the
ineffective investigation and protection on the part of the
military.
In blatant violation of our hard-won guarantees to life,
liberty and security, these rights are snuffed out from
victims of extralegal killings and enforced
disappearances. The writ of amparo is a tool that gives
voice to preys of silent guns and prisoners behind secret
walls
3. GEN. AVELINO I. RAZON, JR., et al. v.
MARY JEAN B. TAGITIS
The purpose of Writ of Amparo is to address
uncertainity. The framers of the Amparo Rule never
intended Section 5(c) to be complete in every detail in
stating the threatened or actual violation of a victims
rights
Facts:
Engineer Morced N. Tagitis, a consultant for the World
Bank and the Senior Honorary Counselor for the Islamic
Development Bank (IDB) Scholarship Programme, was
3
last seen in Jolo, Sulu. Kunnong and Muhammad
Abdulnazeir N. Matli, a UP professor of Muslim studies
and Tagitis fellow student counselor at the IDB,
reported Tagitis disappearance to the Jolo Police
Station.
More than a month later, Mary Jean B. Tagitis, the wife
of Morced, filed a Petition for the Writ of Amparo with
the CA through her Attorney-in-Fact, Atty. Felipe P.
Arcilla. The petition was directed against the petitioners.
In the petition, Tagitis alleged her husband was forcibly
taken by men believed to be police intelligence
operatives and despite efforts to locate the whereabouts
of Engr. Tagitis, he was nowhere to be found. According
to reliable information she received, subject Engr. Tagitis
is in the custody of police intelligence operatives,
specifically with the CIDG, PNP Zamboanga City, being
held against his will in an earnest attempt of the police to
involve and connect Engr. Tagitis with the different
terrorist groups particularly the Jemaah Islamiyah or JI.
She further averred that she has exhausted all
administrative avenues and remedies but to no avail, and
under the circumstances, she has no other plain, speedy
and adequate remedy to protect and get the release of her
husband, Engr. Morced Tagitis, from the illegal clutches
of his captors, their intelligence operatives and the like
which are in total violation of the subjects human and
constitutional rights, except the issuance of a Writ of
Amparo.
In their verified Return, the petitioners denied any
involvement in or knowledge of Tagitis alleged
abduction. They argued that the allegations of the
petition were incomplete and did not constitute a cause
of action against them; were baseless, or at best
speculative; and were merely based on hearsay evidence.
In addition, they all claimed that they exhausted all
means, particularly taking pro-active measures to
investigate, search and locate Tagitis and to apprehend
the persons responsible for his disappearance.
Issue:
Whether the privilege of the Writ of Amparo should be
extended to Engr. Morced Tagitis.
Ruling:
YES. The disappearance of Engr. Morced Tagitis is
classified as an enforced disappearance, thus the
privilege of the Writ of Amparo applies. There was no
direct evidence indicating how the victim actually
disappeared. The direct evidence at hand only shows that
Tagitis went out of the ASY Pension House after
depositing his room key with the hotel desk and was
never seen nor heard of again. The undisputed
conclusion, however, from all concerned the petitioner,
Tagitis colleagues and even the police authorities is
that Tagistis disappeared under mysterious
circumstances and was never seen again.
The framers of the Amparo Rule never intended Section
5(c) to be complete in every detail in stating the
threatened or actual violation of a victims rights. As in
any other initiatory pleading, the pleader must of course
state the ultimate facts constituting the cause of action,
omitting the evidentiary details. In an Amparo petition,
however, this requirement must be read in light of the
nature and purpose of the proceeding, which addresses a
situation of uncertainty; the petitioner may not be able to
describe with certainty how the victim exactly
disappeared, or who actually acted to kidnap, abduct or
arrest him or her, or where the victim is detained,
because these information may purposely be hidden or
covered up by those who caused the disappearance. In
this type of situation, to require the level of specificity,
detail and precision that the petitioners apparently want
to read into the Amparo Rule is to make this Rule a
token gesture of judicial concern for violations of the
constitutional rights to life, liberty and security.
The petition should likewise be read in its totality, rather
than in terms of its isolated component parts, to
determine if the required elements namely, of the
disappearance, the State or private action, and the actual
or threatened violations of the rights to life, liberty or
security are present.
Owing to the summary nature of the proceedings for the
writ and to facilitate the resolution of the petition, the
Amparo Rule incorporated the requirement for
supporting affidavits, with the annotation that these can
be used as the affiants direct testimony. This
requirement, however, should not be read as an absolute
one that necessarily leads to the dismissal of the petition
if not strictly followed. Where, as in this case, the
petitioner has substantially complied with the
requirement by submitting a verified petition sufficiently
detailing the facts relied upon, the strict need for the
sworn statement that an affidavit represents is essentially
fulfilled. The failure to attach the required affidavits was
fully cured when the respondent and her witness (Mrs.
Talbin) personally testified in the CA hearings held to
swear to and flesh out the allegations of the petition.
Thus, even on this point, the petition cannot be faulted
4
 4. BURGOS VS MACAPAGAL-ARROYO
621 scra 481 (2010)
around one oclock in the afternoon of April 28, 2007,
Jonas Joseph T. Burgos a farmer advocate and a member
of Kilusang Magbubukid sa Bulacan (a chapter of the
militant peasant organization Kilusang Magbubukid ng
Pilipinas) was forcibly taken and abducted by a group of
four (4) men and a woman from the extension portion of
Hapag Kainan Restaurant, located at the ground floor of
Ever Gotesco Mall. On his way out of the restaurant,
Jonas told the manager, Maam aktibista lang po
ako! When a security guard tried to intervene, after he
noticed that the group was forcibly dragging a male
person out of the restaurant, he was told, Pare, pulis! The
guard then backed off but was able to see that Jonas was
forced into the rear portion of a plain maroon colored
Toyota Revo. The guard then noted the plate number and
reported the incident to his superiors as well as to the
police on duty in the said mall.
On April 30, 2007, the petitioner held a press conference
and announced that her son Jonas was missing. That
same day, the petitioner sought confirmation from the
guard if the person abducted was her son Jonas. Upon
subsequent police investigation and LTO verification, it
was discovered that plate number was registered to a
1991 Isuzu XLT vehicle owned by a certain Mauro B.
Mudlong. It was also later confirmed by employees of
the Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(DENR) that Mudlong was arrested and his 1991 Isuzu
XLT vehicle was seized on June 24, 2006 by Cpl. Castro
Bugalan and Pfc. Jose Villea of the 56 thInfantry Battalion
(IB) of the Philippine Army for transporting timber
without permit. As agreed upon by the DENR
employees and officers of the 56 th IB, the vehicle with
the license plate no. TAB 194 was impounded in the
56th IB headquarters whose commanding officer at that
time was Lt. Col. Noel Clement.
The established facts also show that Lt. Col. Clement
and the soldiers of the 56th IB went on retraining at the
Headquarters of the First Scout Rangers Regiment
(Camp Tecson) in Brgy. Tartaro, San Miguel, Bulacan
starting November 28, 2006. A left-behind force or a
squad remained in the camp of the 56 th IB to secure the
premises and equipment as it awaited the arrival of the
69th IB, headed by Lt. Col. Edison Caga, which took
over the 56th IBs area of responsibility for the duration of
the retraining. The 69th IB arrived at Camp Tecson on
December 1, 2006, and remained there until March 7,
2007, when the 56th IB returned. There was no formal
turnover or inventory of equipment and vehicles when
the 69th IB arrived on December 1, 2006.
Meanwhile, on January 17, 2007, Lt. Col. Melquiades
Feliciano took command of the 56th IB from Lt. Col.
Clement. The actual turnover of command took place
at Camp Tecson where the 56th IB was retraining. At the
time Jonas was abducted on April 28, 2007, Lt. Col.
Feliciano was the 56th IBs commanding officer. Earlier,
on March 23, 2007, 2nd Lt. Dick A. Abletes, a member of
the 56th IB, was caught on video talking to two persons,
a male and a female, at McDonalds Bocaue. In the video,
he was seen handing a document to the two persons. On
March 26, 2007, 2nd Lt. Abletes was arrested and charges
were soon filed against him with the Judge Advocate
General for violations of Articles 82, 96 and 97 of the
Articles of War.
Prior to Jonas abduction, Mudlongs 1991 Isuzu XLT
vehicle remained impounded at the 56th IBs
Headquarters. In May 2007, right after Jonas abduction
was made public, it was discovered that plate number
TAB 194 of this 1991 Isuzu XLT vehicle was missing,
and the engine and other spare parts were cannibalized.
On direct examination, the petitioner testified before the
CA that the police was able to generate cartographic
sketches of two (one male and one female) of the
abductors of Jonas based on its interview of
eyewitnesses.[7]The petitioner narrated further that these
cartographic sketches were identified by State
Prosecutor Emmanuel Velasco of the Department of
Justice (DOJ); that when she went to see State
Prosecutor Velasco personally, he gave her five names
who were allegedly involved in the abduction of Jonas
(namely T/Sgt. Jason Roxas, Cpl. Joana Francisco,
M/Sgt. Aron Arroyo, and 1st Lt. Jaime Mendaros);[8] and
that the information from State Prosecutor Velascos
sources corroborated the same information she received
earlier from her own sources.[9] The petitioner also
testified that nothing came out of the information given
by State Prosecutor Velasco because he was pulled out
from the investigation by the DOJ Secretary,[10] and that
the police, particularly P/Supt. Jonnel C. Estomo, failed
to investigate and act upon these leads.[11]
On August 30, 2007, P/Supt. Estomo (the lead
investigator in the investigation conducted by the
Philippine National Police-Criminal Investigation and
Detection Group [PNP-CIDG]) testified before the CA
that he did not investigate or look into the identities of
the cartographic sketches of the two abductors provided
by the PNP Criminal Investigation Unit, Quezon City.
5
[12]
P/Supt. Estomo testified further that he showed the
photos of Cpl. Bugalan and Pfc.Villea to witness Larry
Marquez for identification but failed to show any photos
of the other officers and men of the 56 th IB.[13] Finally,
P/Supt. Estomo also testified that he did not propound
any clarificatory questions regarding the disappearance
of Jonas Burgos to Lt. Cols. Feliciano, Clement, and
Caga of the 56th IB who merely voluntarily submitted
their statements.[14]
On August 29, 2007, the PNP-CIDG presented Emerito
Lipio @ KA TIBO/KA CRIS, Marlon D. Manuel @ KA
CARLO, and Melissa Concepcion Reyes @ KA
LISA/RAMIL to support the theory that elements of the
New Peoples Army (NPA) perpetrated the abduction of
Jonas.[15] In his Sworn Statement, Lipio admitted that he
is a member of the Communist Party of the Philippines
(CPP)/NPA and that the NPA was behind the abduction
of Jonas. Lipio revealed that Jonas is known as @KA
RAMON in the communist movement. He claimed
further that he and @KA RAMON belonged to the
Bulacan Party Committee, assigned to the White Area
Committee doing intelligence work for the movement
under the leadership of Delfin de Guzman @ KA
BASTE, and that @KA RAMON was their political
instructor and head of the intelligence unit in the
province.[16]
Sometime early April of 2007, Lipio was present in a
meeting between @KA BASTE and @KA RAMON. At
this meeting, the two had a heated argument. For this
reason, @KA BASTE instructed Lipio to place @KA
RAMON under surveillance as they suspected him of
pilfering funds from the party and of acting as a military
agent.[17]
Lipio further averred that upon instruction of @KA
BASTE, he and a certain @KA CARLO proceeded to
Ever Gotesco Mall on April 28, 2007 to monitor the
reported meeting between @KA RAMON and other
party members. At one oclock in the afternoon, Lipio
and @KA CARLO (who stationed themselves near the
entrance/exit of the mall) saw a man, who they
recognized as @KA RAMON, forcibly taken by four
men, brought outside of the mall, and shoved inside a
Toyota Revo. Lipio further alleged that he recognized
two of the abductors as @KA DANTE and @KA ENSO
who he claims to be members of the CPP/NPAs guerilla
unit (RYG).[18]
In his Sworn Statement, Manuel affirmed and
substantiated Lipios statement that @KA RAMON and
Jonas are one and the same person and that he is a
member of the communist movement in
Bulacan. Manuel also corroborated Lipios statement
regarding the circumstances of the abduction of @KA
RAMON at Ever Gotesco Mall on April 28, 2007; he
confirmed that he and @ KA TIBO witnessed the
abduction.[19]
Reyes, a rebel-returnee, provided in her Sworn
Statement additional material information regarding the
disappearance of Jonas. Reyes alleged that she was
supposed to meet with @KA RAMON and another
comrade in the movement (whom she identified as @KA
JO) to discuss the possibility of arranging a meeting with
a contact in the military. She averred that she met @KA
JO at about 11:30 a.m. at the Baliaug Transit Terminal,
Cubao enroute to Ever Gotesco mall where they would
meet with a certain @KA RAMON. Reyes further
narrated that they arrived about noon at Ever Gotesco
mall; @KA JO left her at McDonalds and told her to
wait while he went to look for @KA RAMON. After an
hour, @KA JO arrived without @KA RAMON and told
Reyes to go home and just keep in touch through text
messaging. Reyes alleged further that she has not heard
from @KA JO since
RULING
Considering the findings of the CA and our review of the
records of the present case, we conclude that the PNP
and the AFP have so far failed to conduct an exhaustive
and meaningful investigation into the disappearance of
Jonas Burgos, and to exercise the extraordinary diligence
(in the performance of their duties) that the Rule on the
Writ of Amparo requires. Because of these investigative
shortcomings, we cannot rule on the case until a more
meaningful investigation, using extraordinary diligence,
is undertaken.
From the records, we note that there are very
significant lapses in the handling of the investigation -
among them the PNP-CIDGs failure to identify the
cartographic sketches of two (one male and one female)
of the five abductors of Jonas based on their interview of
eyewitnesses to the abduction. This lapse is based on the
information provided to the petitioner by no less than
State Prosecutor Emmanuel Velasco of the DOJ who
identified the persons who were possibly involved in the
abduction, namely: T/Sgt. Jason Roxas (Philippine
Army), Cpl. Maria Joana Francisco (Philippine Air
Force), M/Sgt. Aron Arroyo (Philippine Air Force), and
an alias T.L., all reportedly assigned with Military
Intelligence Group 15 of Intelligence Service of the AFP.
[24]
No search and certification were ever made on
6
whether these persons were AFP personnel or in other
branches of the service, such as the Philippine Air
Force. As testified to by the petitioner, no significant
follow through was also made by the PNP-CIDG in
ascertaining the identities of the cartographic sketches
of two of the abductors despite the evidentiary leads
provided by State Prosecutor Velasco of the
DOJ. Notably, the PNP-CIDG, as the lead investigating
agency in the present case, did not appear to have lifted a
finger to pursue these aspects of the case.
We note, too, that no independent investigation
appeared to have been made by the PNP-CIDG to
inquire into the veracity of Lipios and Manuels claims
that Jonas was abducted by a certain @KA DANTE and
a certain @KA ENSO of the CPP/NPA guerilla unit
RYG. The records do not indicate whether the PNP-
CIDG conducted a follow-up investigation to determine
the identities and whereabouts of @KA Dante and @KA
ENSO. These omissions were aggravated by the CA
finding that the PNP has yet to refer any case for
preliminary investigation to the DOJ despite its
representation before the CA that it had forwarded all
pertinent and relevant documents to the DOJ for the
filing of appropriate charges against @KA DANTE and
@KA ENSO.
Based on these considerations, we conclude that
further investigation and monitoring should be
undertaken. While significant leads have been provided
to investigators, the investigations by the PNP-CIDG,
the AFP Provost Marshal, and even the Commission on
Human Rights (CHR) have been less than complete. The
PNP-CIDGs investigation particularly leaves much to be
desired in terms of the extraordinary diligence that the
Rule on the Writ of Amparo requires. For this reason, we
resolve to refer the present case to the CHR as the
Courts directly commissioned agency tasked with the
continuation of the investigation of
the Burgos abduction and the gathering of evidence,
with the obligation to report its factual findings and
recommendations to this Court. We take into
consideration in this regard that the CHR is a specialized
and independent agency created and empowered by the
Constitution to investigate all forms of human rights
violations involving civil and political rights and to
provide appropriate legal measures for the protection of
human rights of all persons within the Philippines.[25]
Under this mandate, the CHR is tasked to conduct
appropriate investigative proceedings, including field
investigations acting as the Courts directly
commissioned agency for purposes of the Rule on the
Writ of Amparowith the tasks of: (a) ascertaining the
identities of the persons appearing in the cartographic
sketches of the two alleged abductors as well as their
whereabouts; (b) determining based on records, past and
present, the identities and locations of the persons
identified by State Prosecutor Velasco alleged to be
involved in the abduction of Jonas, namely: T/Sgt. Jason
Roxas (Philippine Army); Cpl. Maria Joana Francisco
(Philippine Air Force), M/Sgt. Aron Arroyo (Philippine
Air Force), and an alias T.L., all reportedly assigned with
Military Intelligence Group 15 of Intelligence Service of
the AFP; further proceedings and investigations, as may
be necessary, should be made to pursue the lead
allegedly provided by State Prosecutor Velasco on the
identities of the possible abductors; (c) inquiring into the
veracity of Lipios and Manuels claims that Jonas was
abducted by a certain @KA DANTE and @KA ENSO
of the CPP/NPA guerilla unit RYG; (d) determining
based on records, past and present, as well as further
investigation, the identities and whereabouts of @KA
DANTE and @KA ENSO; and (e) undertaking all
measures, in the investigation of the Burgos abduction
that may be necessary to live up to the extraordinary
measures we require in addressing an enforced
disappearance under the Rule on the Writ of Amparo.
WHEREFORE, in the interest of justice and for the
foregoing reasons, the Court RESOLVES to:
(1) DIRECT the Commission on Human Rights to
conduct appropriate investigative proceedings, including
field investigations acting as the Courts directly
commissioned agency for purposes of the Rule on the
Writ of Amparo - with the tasks of: (a) ascertaining the
identities of the cartographic sketches of two of the
abductors as well as their whereabouts; (b) determining
based on records, past and present, the identities and
locations of the persons identified by State Prosecutor
Velasco alleged to be involved in the abduction of Jonas
namely: T/Sgt. Jason Roxas (Philippine Army), Cpl.
Maria Joana Francisco (Philippine Air Force), M/Sgt.
Aron Arroyo (Philippine Air Force), and an alias T.L., all
reportedly assigned with Military Intelligence Group 15
of Intelligence Service of the Armed Forces of the
Philippines; further proceedings and investigations, as
may be necessary, should be made to pursue the lead
allegedly provided by State Prosecutor Velasco on the
identities of the possible abductors; (c) inquiring into the
veracity of Lipios and Manuels claims that Jonas was
abducted by a certain @KA DANTE and @KA ENSO
of the CPP/NPA guerilla unit RYG; (d) determining
7
based on records, past and present, as well as further
investigation, the identities and whereabouts of @KA
DANTE and @KA ENSO; and (e) undertaking all
measures, in the investigation of the Burgos abduction,
that may be necessary to live up to the extraordinary
measures we require in addressing an enforced
disappearance under the Rule on the Writ of Amparo;
(2) REQUIRE the incumbent Chiefs of the Armed
Forces of the Philippines and the Philippine National
Police to make available and to provide copies, to the
Commission on Human Rights, of all documents and
records in their possession and as the Commission on
Human Rights may require, relevant to the case of Jonas
Joseph T. Burgos, subject to reasonable regulations
consistent with the Constitution and existing laws;
(3) DIRECT the PNP-CIDG and its incumbent Chief to
submit to the Commission on Human Rights the records
and results of the investigation the PNP-CIDG claimed
to have forwarded to the Department of Justice, which
were not included in their previous submissions to the
Commission on Human Rights, including such records
as the Commission on Human Rights may require,
pursuant to the authority granted under this Resolution;
(4) Further DIRECT the PNP-CIDG to provide direct
investigative assistance to the Commission on Human
Rights as it may require, pursuant to the authority
granted under this Resolution;
(5) AUTHORIZE the Commission on Human Rights to
conduct a comprehensive and exhaustive investigation
that extends to all aspects of the case (not limited to the
specific directives as outlined above), as the
extraordinary measures the case may require under the
Rule on the Writ of Amparo; and
(6) REQUIRE the Commission on Human Rights to
submit to this Court a Report with its recommendations,
copy furnished the petitioner, the incumbent Chiefs of
the AFP, the PNP and the PNP-CIDG, and all the
respondents, within ninety (90) days from receipt of this
Resolution.
In light of the retirement of Lt. General Alexander Yano
and the reassignment of the other respondents who have
all been impleaded in their official capacities, all
subsequent resolutions and actions from this Court
shall also be served on, and be directly enforceable by,
the incumbents of the impleaded offices/units whose
official action is necessary. The present
respondents shall continue to be personally impleaded
for purposes of the responsibilities and accountabilities
they may have incurred during their incumbencies.
The dismissal of the petitions for Contempt and for the
Issuance of a Writ of Amparo with respect to President
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo is hereby AFFIRMED
653 scra 512 (2011)
Facts/ Issues:
In 2007, Jonas Burgos was abducted at about 1:30 pm by
4 armed men and a woman in civilian clothes while
having lunch at theHapagKainan Restaurant in Ever
Gotesco Mall, Quezon City.
On the same year, Jonass family files a complaint at
the Commission on Human Rights alleging military
involvement in the abductionof Jonas after tracing the
license plate number of the vehicle used in the abduction
to a vehicle impounded in the 56th InfantryBattalion of
the Armed Forces of the Philippines. The Burgos family
also filed a complaint with the Intelligence Service of
the ArmedForces of the Philippines, and Task Force-
USIG National Capital Region.
The Burgos family files a petition for writ of habeas
corpus in the Philippine Court of Appeals asking that the
government produceJonas to the court which was
denied, however, by the Armed Forces of the
Philippines.
Almost five years since the disappearance of Jonas
Burgos, the Burgos family concluded their presentation
of witnesses andevidences for the Habeas Corpus
Petition. The defense shall start presenting their
witnesses in May 2012.
In light of the latest developments on the abduction case
of Jonas Burgos, the Supreme Court reviews the Court
of Appeals decision on the consolidated petitions of
Edita Burgos for Habeas Corpus, Contempt and Writ of
Amparo.
The assailed CA decision dismissed the petition for the
issuance of the Writ of Habeas Corpus; denied the
petitioner's motion to declare the respondents in
8
Contempt; and partially granted the privilege of the
Writ of Amparo
Last 2010, the Supreme Court issued a resolution
ordering the Commission on Human Rights to continue
the investigation regardingthe abduction of Jonas
Burgos. The Court tasked the CHR to conduct further
investigations because of the lapses by the PNP-CIDG
In this same Resolution, we also affirmed the CA's
dismissal of the petitions for Contempt and for the
issuance of a Writ of Amparo with respect to President
Macapagal-Arroyo, as she is entitled as President to
immunity from suit.
March 15, 2011 The Commission on Human Rights
submits its report to the Supreme Court
The Commission Submitted the following findings:
a. Based on the facts developed by evidence obtaining in
this case, the CHR finds that the enforced disappearance
of Jonas Joseph T. Burgos had transpired; and that his
constitutional rights to life liberty and security were
violated by the Government havebeen fully determined.
b. In his SinumpaangSalaysay, Jeffrey had a clear
recollection of the face of HARRY AGAGEN
BALIAGA, JR. as one of the principal abductors, apart
from the faces of the two abductors in the cartographic
sketches that he described to the police, after he was
shown by the Team the pictures in the PMA Year Book
of Batch Sanghaya 2000 and group pictures of men
taken some yearsthereafter. The same group of pictures
were shown to detained former 56th IB Army trooper
Edmond M. Dag-uman (Dag-uman),who also positively
identified Lt. Harry Baliaga, Jr. Daguman's
SinumpaangSalaysay states that he came to know Lt.
Baliaga as aCompany Commander in the 56th IB while
he was still in the military service (with Serial No.
800693, from 1997 to 2002) also withthe 56th IB but
under 1Lt. UsmalikTayaban, the Commander of Bravo
Company
c. Most if not all the actual abductors would have been
identified had it not been for what is otherwise called as
evidentiary difficulties shamelessly put up by some
police and military elites. The deliberate refusal of TJAG
Roa to provide the CHRwith the requested documents
does not only defy the Supreme Court directive to the
AFP but ipso facto created a disputablepresumption that
AFP personnel were responsible for the abduction and
that their superiors would be found accountable, if
notresponsible, for the crime committed. This
observation finds support in the disputable presumption
" That evidence willfullysuppressed would be adverse if
produced." (Paragraph (e), Section 3, Rule 131 on
Burden of Proof and Presumptions, Revised Ruleson
Evidence of the Rules of Court of the Philippines).
d. As regards the PNP CIDG, the positive identification
of former 56th IB officer Lt. HARRY A. BALIAGA, JR.
as one of the principal abductors has effectively crushed
the theory of the CIDG witnesses that the NPAs
abducted Jonas. Baliaga's true identity and
affiliationwith the military have been established by
overwhelming evidence corroborated by detained former
Army trooper Dag-uman
e. Interview with VirgilioEustaquio, Chairman of the
Union Masses for Democracy and Justice (UMDJ),
revealed that the maleabductor of Jonas Burgos
appearing in the cartographic sketch was among the
raiders who abducted him and four others, identifiedas
Jim Cabauatan, Jose Curament, Ruben Dionisio and
Dennis Ibona otherwise known as ERAP FIVE.
ISSUE
WON the CHR report on the disappearance of Jonas
Burgos is sufficient enough for the SC to issue a final
ruling and to:
1) Issue a writ of Habeas corpus YES
2) Declare respondents in contempt NO
3) Issue a writ of Amparo NO
RULING
Courts Ruling on the AMPARO
1. After reviewing the evidence in the present case, the
CA findings and our findings in our June 22, 2010
Resolution heretofore mentioned,including the recent
CHR findings that Lt. Harry A. Baliaga, Jr., (Lt. Baliaga)
of the 56th Infantry Battalion, 7th Infantry Division,
Philippine Armyis one of the abductors of Jonas, we
resolve to hold in abeyance our ruling on the merits in
the Amparo aspect of the present case and referthis case
back to the CA in order to allow Lt. Baliaga and the
present Amparo respondents to file their respective
Comments on the CHR Reportwithin a non-extendible
period of fifteen (15) days from receipt of this
Resolution.
9
2. The Court of Appeals shall continue hearing on
the Amparo petition.
3. On the non-compliance of the Office of the Judge
Advocate General (TJAG) to provide the CHR with
copies of documents relevant to thecase of Jonas, and
thereby disobeyed our June 22, 2010 Resolution.
4. Acting on the CHR's recommendation and based on
the above considerations, we resolve to require General
Roa of TJAG, AFP, and theDeputy Chief of Staff
for Personnel, JI, AFP, at the time of our June 22, 2010
Resolution, and then incumbent Chief of Staff, AFP,
to show causeand explain, within a non-extendible
period of fifteen (15) days from receipt of this
Resolution, why they should not be held in contempt
ofthis Court for defying our June 22, 2010 Resolution
Habeas Corpus
1. In light of the new evidence, the Court hereby
dismisses the Court of Appeals decision to dismiss the
habeas corpus petition.
2. For this purpose, we also order that Lt. Baliaga be
impleaded as a party to the habeas corpus petition and
require him - together with theincumbent Chief of Staff,
AFP; the incumbent Commanding General, Philippine
Army; and the Commanding Officer of the 56th IB at the
timeof the disappearance of Jonas, Lt. Col. Feliciano - to
produce the person of Jonas and to show cause why he
should not be released fromdetention
Petition of Contempt
1. Two types of Contempt: Criminal contempt is
"conduct directed against the authority and dignity of the
court or a judge acting judicially; it is an act obstructing
the administration of justice which tends to bring the
court into disrepute or disrespect." On the other hand,
civil contemptis the failure to do something ordered to
be done by a court or a judge for the benefit of the
opposing party therein and is therefore, anoffense
against the party in whose behalf the violated order was
made. If the purpose is to punish, then it is criminal in
nature; but if tocompensate, then it is civil.
2. In proceedings for criminal contempt, the defendant is
presumed innocent and the burden is on the prosecution
to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The
presumption of innocence can be overcome only by
proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, which
meansproof to the satisfaction of the court and keeping
in mind the presumption of innocence that precludes
everyreasonable hypothesis except that for which it is
given. It is not sufficient for the proof to establish a
probability, even though strong, that thefact charged is
more likely true than the contrary. It must establish the
truth of the fact to a reasonable certainty and moral
certainty- a certainty that convinces and satisfies the
reason and conscience of those who are to act upon it.
3. For the petitioner to succeed in her petition to declare
the respondents in contempt for filing false returns in the
habeas corpus proceedings before the CA, she has the
burden of proving beyond reasonable doubt that the
respondents had custody of Jonas.4. In light of
the dismissal of the petitions against President Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo who is no the longer the President of
the Republic of thePhilippines, she should now be
dropped as a party-respondent in these petitions
5. NAVIA VS PARDICO
In an Amparo petition, proof of disappearance
alone is not enough. It is likewise essential to establish
that such disappearance was carried out with the direct
or indirect authorization, support or acquiescence of the
government.
Facts:
Due to a report from a certain Mrs. Emphasis
that Enrique Lapore (Bong), and Benhur Pardico (Ben)
were involved in removing a lamp from a post in Grand
Royale Subdivision, they were invited to the office of
the security department of Asian Land by Ruben Dio and
Andrew Buising (petitioners), who both work as security
guards at the Asian Land security department. After such
investigation, Ben was never seen again. Petitioners
denied having custody of Ben. As a proof, they
presented their logbook stating that Ben was released the
night he was invited and such logbook was signed by
Ben, Bong and Lolita M. Lapore. Due to the continued
disappearance of Ben, Virginia filed a Petition for Writ
of Amparo before the RTC of Malolos City which issued
an Order directing, among others, the issuance of a Writ
of Amparo and the production of the body of Ben. Later,
the RTC granted the petition for Writ of Amparo.
Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration which
was denied. Hence, this petition.
Issue:
10
 Whether the issuance of the Writ of Amparo is
proper.
Ruling:
NO. For the protective Writ of Amparo to issue,
allegation and proof that the person subject thereof is
missing are not enough. The petitioner in an Amparo
case has the burden of proving by substantial evidence
the indispensable element of government participation. It
is essential to establish that such disappearance was
carried out with the direct or indirect authorization,
support or acquiescence of the government. This
indispensable element of State participation is not
present in this case. The petition does not contain any
allegation of State complicity, and none of the evidence
presented tend to show that the government or any of its
agents orchestrated Bens disappearance. In fact, none of
its agents, officials, or employees were impleaded or
implicated in Virginias amparo petition whether as
responsible or accountable persons.
Under Section 1 of A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC a Writ of
Amparo may lie against a private individual or entity.
But even if the person sought to be held accountable or
responsible in an Amparo petition is a private individual
or entity, still, government involvement in the
disappearance remains an indispensable element. Here,
petitioners are mere security guards at Grand Royale
Subdivision in Brgy. Lugam, Malolos City and their
principal, the Asian Land, is a private entity. They do not
work for the government and nothing has been presented
that would link or connect them to some covert police,
military or governmental operation. As discussed above,
to fall within the ambit of A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC in
relation to RA No. 9851, the disappearance must be
attended by some governmental involvement. This
hallmark of State participation differentiates an enforced
disappearance case from an ordinary case of a missing
person
6. DE LIMA VS GATDULA
The "Decision" under Section 19 of the Rule on Writ of
Amparo pertains to the issuance of the Writ of Amparo.
Facts:
Magtanggol B. Gatdula filed a Petition for the Issuance
of a Writ of Amparo in the Regional Trial Court of
Manila. This case raffled to the sala of Judge Silvino T.
Pampilo, Jr. The Amparo was directed against Justice
Secretary Leila M. De Lima, Director Nonnatus R. Rojas
and Deputy Director Reynaldo O. Esmeralda of the
National Bureau of Investigation. Instead of deciding on
whether to issue a Writ of Amparo, the judge issued
summons and ordered De Lima, et al. to file an Answer.
He also set the case for hearing. During that hearing,
counsel for De Lima, et al. manifested that a Return, not
an Answer, is appropriate for Amparo cases.
In an Order, Judge Pampilo insisted that "since no writ
has been issued, return is not the required pleading but
answer". The judge noted that the Rules of Court apply
suppletorily in Amparo cases. He opined that the
Revised Rules of Summary Procedure applied and thus
required an Answer. Judge Pampilo then proceeded to
conduct a hearing on the main case. Later, the RTC
rendered a "Decision" granting the issuance of the Writ
of Amparo. It further denied the motion for
reconsideration filed by De Lima, et al. De Lima then
filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari via Rule 45 as
enunciated in Section 19 of the Rule on the Writ of
Amparo.
Issues:
1. Whether the appeal is proper.
2. Whether the insistence of the judge to file an answer
is appropriate.
3. Whether the holding of a hearing on the main case
prior to the issuance of the writ and the filing of
Return is proper.
Ruling:
1. NO. It is the Courts view that the "Decision"
granting the writ of Amparo is not the judgment or final
order contemplated under Rule 45. Hence, a Petition for
Review under Rule 45 may not yet be the proper remedy
at this time.
The "Decision" assailed by the petitioners could not be
the judgment or final order that is appealable under
Section 19 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo. This is
clear from the tenor of the dispositive portion of the
"Decision. This "Decision" pertained to the issuance of
the writ under Section 6 of the Rule on the Writ of
Amparo, not the judgment under Section 18. The
"Decision" is thus an interlocutory order, as suggested
11
by the fact that temporary protection, production and
inspection orders were given together with the decision.
The temporary protection, production and inspection
orders are interim reliefs that may be granted by the
court upon filing of the petition but before final
judgment is rendered.
2. NO. It is the Return that serves as the
responsive pleading for petitions for the issuance of
Writs of Amparo. The requirement to file an Answer is
contrary to the intention of the Court to provide a speedy
remedy to those whose right to life, liberty and security
are violated or are threatened to be violated. In utter
disregard of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo, Judge
Pampilo insisted on issuing summons and requiring an
Answer.
It is clear from Section 1 of the 1991 Revised Rules of
Summary Procedure that summary procedure only
applies to MTC/MTCC/MCTCs. It is mind-boggling
how this rule could possibly apply to proceedings in an
RTC. Aside from that, this Court limited the application
of summary procedure to certain civil and criminal
cases. A writ of Amparo is a special proceeding. It is a
remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status, a
right or particular fact. It is not a civil nor a criminal
action, hence, the application of the Revised Rule on
Summary Procedure is seriously misplaced.
3. NO. Without a Return, the issues could not
have been properly joined. The procedural irregularities
in the RTC affected the mode of appeal that petitioners
used in elevating the matter to this Court. The Petition
for Review is not the proper remedy to assail the
interlocutory order denominated as "Decision" dated 20
March 2012
7. CARAM VS SEGUI
The writ of amparo is confined only to cases of
extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances, or to
threats thereof.
Facts:
Ma. Christina Yusay Caram had a child with Marcelino
Gicano Constantino III as a result of their amorous
relationship. Later, the child was given up for adoption
without the knowledge of Marcelino. Due to the death of
Marcelino, Christina disclosed to Marcelinos family
that she and the deceased had a son that she gave up for
adoption. Thereafter, the family vowed to help her
recover and raise the baby. In the meantime, the DSWD,
through Secretary Esperanza I. Cabral issued a
certificate declaring Baby Julian as "Legally Available
for Adoption." Baby Julian was "matched" with the
spouses Vergel and Filomina Medina.
Christina who had changed her mind about the adoption,
wrote a letter to the DSWD asking for the suspension of
Baby Julians adoption proceedings. The request was
denied due to prescription and Christina was advised that
should she wish to reacquire her parental authority over
Baby Julian or halt the adoption process, she may bring
the matter to the regular courts as the reglementary
period for her to regain her parental rights had already
lapsed under Section 7 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9523.
Due to this, Christina filed a petition for the issuance of
a Writ of Amparo before the RTC of Quezon City. The
RTC dismissed the petition for issuance of a Writ of
Amparo and held that Christina availed of the wrong
remedy to regain custody of her child Baby Julian.
Issue: Whether a Petition for a Writ of Amparo is the
proper recourse for obtaining parental authority and
custody of a minor child.
Ruling:
NO. Section 1 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo
provides for the coverage of the Writ and when it should
be availed. The writ shall cover extralegal killings and
enforced disappearances or threats thereof. In the case of
Lozada, Jr. v. Macapagal-Arroyo, the Supreme Court
explicitly declared that the Writ of Amparo is confined
only to cases of extrajudicial killings and enforced
disappearances, or to threats thereof.
Christina's directly accusing the respondents of forcibly
separating her from her child and placing the latter up
for adoption, supposedly without complying with the
necessary legal requisites to qualify the child for
adoption, clearly indicates that she is not searching for a
lost child but asserting her parental authority over the
child and contesting custody over him. Since it is extant
from the pleadings filed that what is involved is the issue
of child custody and the exercise of parental rights over
a child, who, for all intents and purposes, has been
legally considered a ward of the State, the Amparo rule
cannot be properly applied
12
8. SANTIAGO VS TULFO -

13