You are on page 1of 4

Edgardo Navia vs Virginia Pardico

GR 184467 June 29, 2012


Malolos, Bulacan , Del Castillo J.

FACTS:

One night, vehicle of Asian Land arrived at the house of Lolita Lapore located in Malolos City.
The arrival of the vehicle awakened Lolita’s sons, Bong and Ben, who were then both staying in her
house. When Lolita went out to investigate, she saw two uniformed guards disembarking from the
vehicle. One of them immediately asked Lolita where they could find her son Bong. Before Lolita could
answer, the guard saw Bong and told him that he and Ben should go with them to the security office of
Asian Land because a complaint was lodged against them for theft of electric wires and lamps in the
subdivision.

Petitioners alleged that they invited Bong and Ben to their office because they received a report
from a resident of Grand Royale Subdivision, that she saw Bong and Ben removing a lamp from a post in
said subdivision. The suspects admitted that they took the lamp but clarified that they were only
transferring it to a post nearer to the house of Lolita. Soon, Navia arrived and Buising informed him that
the complainant was not keen in participating in the investigation. Since there was no complainant, Navia
ordered the release of Bong and Ben.

Subsequently, petitioners received an invitation from the Malolos City Police Station requesting
them to appear relative to the complaint of Virginia Pardico about her missing husband Ben. According to
respondent, Bong and Ben were not merely invited. Upon seeing Ben at the security office, Navia lividly
grumbled “Ikaw na naman?”and slapped him while he was still seated. Bong admitted that he and Ben
attempted to take the lamp since their house is located in a very dark area. Later on, Lolita was instructed
to sign an entry in the guard’s logbook where she undertook not to allow Ben to stay in her house
anymore. Thereafter, Navia again asked Lolita to sign the logbook. Upon Lolita’s inquiry as to why she
had to sign again, Navia explained that they needed proof that they released her son Bong unharmed but
that Ben had to stay as the latter’s case will be forwarded to the barangay. The RTC, upon filing of a
Petition for Writ of Amparo, ordered the same against the petitioners.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Virginia’s Petition for Writ of Amparo is fatally defective and must perforce be
dismissed

RULING:

As thus dissected, it is now clear that for the protective writ of amparo to issue, allegation and
proof that the persons subject thereof are missing are not enough. It must also be shown and proved by
substantial evidence that the disappearance was carried out by, or with the authorization, support or
acquiescence of, the State or a political organization, followed by a refusal to acknowledge the same or
give information on the fate or whereabouts of said missing persons, with the intention of removing them
from the protection of the law for a prolonged period of time. Simply put, the petitioner in an amparo
case has the burden of proving by substantial evidence the indispensable element of government
participation.
The court is are aware that 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.

Case Digest: Navia, et al. v. Pardico


G.R. No. 184467 : June 19, 2012

EDGARDO NAVIA,RUBEN DIO,and ANDREW BUISING, Petitioners, v. VIRGINIA PARDICO, for


and in behalf and in representation of BENHUR V. PARDICO, Respondent.

DEL CASTILLO, J.:

FACTS:

A vehicle of Asian Land Strategies Corporation (Asian Land) arrived at the house of Lolita M. Lapore.
The arrival of the vehicle awakened Lolitas son, Enrique Lapore (Bong), and Benhur Pardico (Ben),
who were then both staying in her house. When Lolita went out to investigate, she saw two uniformed
guards disembarking from the vehicle. One of them immediately asked Lolita where they could find
her son Bong. Before Lolita could answer, the guard saw Bong and told him that he and Ben should
go with them to the security office of Asian Land because a complaint was lodged against them for
theft of electric wires and lamps in the subdivision. Shortly thereafter, Bong, Lolita and Ben were in
the office of the security department of Asian Land also located in Grand Royale Subdivision.

Exasperated with the mysterious disappearance of her husband, Virginia filed a Petition for Writ of
Amparobefore the RTC of Malolos City. A Writ of Amparo was accordingly issued and served on the
petitioners. The trial court issued the challenged Decision granting the petition. Petitioners filed a
Motion for Reconsideration which was denied by the trial court.

Petitioners essentially assail the sufficiency of the amparo petition. They contend that the writ of
amparo is available only in cases where the factual and legal bases of the violation or threatened
violation of the aggrieved partys right to life, liberty and security are clear. Petitioners assert that in the
case at bench, Virginia miserably failed to establish all these. First, the petition is wanting on its face
as it failed to state with some degree of specificity the alleged unlawful act or omission of the
petitioners constituting a violation of or a threat to Bens right to life, liberty and security. And second,
it cannot be deduced from the evidence Virginia adduced that Ben is missing; or that petitioners had a
hand in his alleged disappearance. On the other hand, the entries in the logbook which bear the
signatures of Ben and Lolita are eloquent proof that petitioners released Ben on March 31, 2008 at
around 10:30 p.m. Petitioners thus posit that the trial court erred in issuing the writ and in holding
them responsible for Bens disappearance.

ISSUE: Whether or not the issuance of A Writ of Amparo is proper?

HELD: RTCs decision is reversed and set aside.


CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: writ of amparo

A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC or The Rule on the Writ of Amparo was promulgated to arrest the rampant
extralegal killings and enforced disappearances in the country. Its purpose is to provide an expeditious
and effective relief "to any person whose right to life, liberty and security is violated or threatened with
violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or
entity."

Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights recognizes every human beings
inherent right to life, while Article 9 thereof ordains that everyone has the right to liberty and security.
The right to life must be protected by law while the right to liberty and security cannot be impaired
except on grounds provided by and in accordance with law. This overarching command against
deprivation of life, liberty and security without due process of law is also embodied in our fundamental
law.

The budding jurisprudence on amparo blossomed in Razon, Jr. v. Tagitis when this Court defined
enforced disappearances. The Court in that case applied the generally accepted principles of
international law and adopted the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from
Enforced Disappearances definition of enforced disappearances, as "the arrest, detention, abduction
or any other form of deprivation of liberty by agents of the State or by persons or groups of persons
acting with the authorization, support or acquiescence of the State, followed by a refusal to
acknowledge the deprivation of liberty or by concealment of the fate or whereabouts of the disappeared
person, which place such a person outside the protection of the law."

From the statutory definition of enforced disappearance, thus, we can derive the following elements
that constitute it:
(a) that there be an arrest, detention, abduction or any form of deprivation of liberty;
(b) that it be carried out by, or with the authorization, support or acquiescence of, the State or a
political organization;
(c) that it be followed by the State or political organizations refusal to acknowledge or give information
on the fate or whereabouts of the person subject of the amparo petition; and,
(d) that the intention for such refusal is to remove subject person from the protection of the law for a
prolonged period of time.
As thus dissected, it is now clear that for the protective writ of amparo to issue, allegation and proof
that the persons subject thereof are missing are not enough. It must also be shown and proved by
substantial evidence that the disappearance was carried out by, or with the authorization, support or
acquiescence of, the State or a political organization, followed by a refusal to acknowledge the same or
give information on the fate or whereabouts of said missing persons, with the intention of removing
them from the protection of the law for a prolonged period of time. Simply put, the petitioner in an
amparo case has the burden of proving by substantial evidence the indispensable element of
government participation.

But lest it be overlooked, 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. 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 Virginia's amparo petition whether as responsible or accountable persons.51 Thus, in the
absence of an allegation or proof that the government or its agents had a hand in Bens disappearance
or that they failed to exercise extraordinary diligence in investigating his case, the Court will definitely
not hold the government or its agents either as responsible or accountable persons.

We are aware that 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.

DISMISSED

You might also like