XVI.
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND WRIT OF Malang Salibo was in Saudi Arabia when the massacre
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.
This is a Petition for Review1 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
pertinent portions of his passport, boarding passes and
other documents tending to prove that a certain Datukan
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 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.
1
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.
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.

Issue 3: W/N the Warden correctly appealed the RTC

ruling on the Return before the CA

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.

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
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
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
3
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. 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
4
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 56thInfantry Battalion
(IB) of the Philippine Army for transporting timber
without permit. As agreed upon by the DENR employees
and officers of the 56th 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 56th 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.[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 56th 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
5
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
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
6
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 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
7
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
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.
8
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.
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
9
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:
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,
10
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 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
11
a party seeks to establish a status, a right or particular fact. Ruling:
It is not a civil nor a criminal action, hence, the application
of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure is seriously NO. Section 1 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo provides
misplaced. for the coverage of the Writ and when it should be availed.
The writ shall cover extralegal killings and enforced
3. NO. Without a Return, the issues could not disappearances or threats thereof. In the case of Lozada,
have been properly joined. The procedural irregularities Jr. v. Macapagal-Arroyo, the Supreme Court explicitly
in the RTC affected the mode of appeal that petitioners declared that the Writ of Amparo is confined only to cases
used in elevating the matter to this Court. The Petition for of extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances, or
Review is not the proper remedy to assail the interlocutory to threats thereof.
order denominated as "Decision" dated 20 March 2012
Christina's directly accusing the respondents of forcibly
separating her from her child and placing the latter up for
7. CARAM VS SEGUI adoption, supposedly without complying with the
The writ of amparo is confined only to cases of necessary legal requisites to qualify the child for
extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances, or to adoption, clearly indicates that she is not searching for a
threats thereof. lost child but asserting her parental authority over the
child and contesting custody over him. Since it is extant
Facts: from the pleadings filed that what is involved is the issue
of child custody and the exercise of parental rights over a
Ma. Christina Yusay Caram had a child with Marcelino
child, who, for all intents and purposes, has been legally
Gicano Constantino III as a result of their amorous
considered a ward of the State, the Amparo rule cannot be
relationship. Later, the child was given up for adoption
properly applied
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 8. SANTIAGO VS TULFO
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.

12