Writs Digest

BALLESTEROS-BATUGAN-CABANIT-CARLOS-MAGUDDATU
RULE 102 HABEAS CORPUS indemnity, moral damages, costs of the suit, and support for Leahlyn
Corales Mendoza, the putative child born of the rape. Petitioner is currently
NATURE, SCOPE AND FUNCTION – SECTION 1 serving his sentence at the New Bilibid Prison, Muntinlupa City.
G.R. No. L-43195 August 23, 1935 Petitioner-relator in this case, June de Villa, is the son of Reynaldo. He
sought the conduct of a blood type test and DNA test in order to determine
FELIPE GONZALES, petitioner-appellant, vs. FLORENTINO C. the paternity of the child allegedly conceived as a result of the rape. The
VIOLA and VALENTIN MANIQUIS, respondents-appellees. DNA result showed that Reynaldo de Villa could not have sired Leahlyn,
due to the absence of a match between the pertinent genetic markers in
FACTS: On January 18, 1935, Gonzales was placed under arrest by order
petitioner's sample and those of any of the Leahlyn's samples. Hence, this
of the appellees and detained in the municipal jail of San Miguel, Province
petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.
of Bulacan; a few hours later a criminal complaint was filed by the appellee
Maniquis against the appellant in the justice of the peace court of the ISSUE: WON the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus is proper. NO.
aforesaid municipality; and on the same day, he was released on bail.
Petition for a writ of habeas corpus was filed by Gonzales. When the RULING: The extraordinary writ of habeas corpus has long been a haven
hearing on the petition for a writ of habeas corpus was had in the court of relief for those seeking liberty from any unwarranted denial of freedom
below, Gonzales was already out on bail. of movement. Very broadly, the writ applies "to all cases of illegal
confinement or detention by which a person has been deprived of his
ISSUE: WON petition for a writ of habeas corpus should be granted. NO. liberty, or by which the rightful custody of any person has been withheld
from the person entitled thereto". Issuance of the writ necessitates that a
RULING: In passing upon a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, a court of
person be illegally deprived of his liberty. In the celebrated case of
judge must first inquire whether the petitioner is restrained of his liberty. If
Villavicencio v. Lukban, we stated that "[a]ny restraint which will preclude
he is not, the writ will be refused. Only where such restraint obtains is the
court required to inquire into the cause of the detention, and if the alleged freedom of action is sufficient."
cause is found to be unlawful then the writ should be granted and the The most basic criterion for the issuance of the writ, therefore, is that the
petitioner discharged. individual seeking such relief be illegally deprived of his freedom of
movement or placed under some form of illegal restraint. If an individual's
The law is well settled that a person out on bail is not so restrained of
liberty is restrained via some legal process, the writ of habeas corpus is
his liberty as to be entitled to a writ of habeas corpus. The restraint of
unavailing. Concomitant to this principle, the writ of habeas corpus cannot
liberty which would justify the issuance of the writ must be more than a
be used to directly assail a judgment rendered by a competent court or
mere moral restraint; it must be actual or physical.
tribunal which, having duly acquired jurisdiction, was not deprived or
G.R. No. 158802 November 17, 2004 ousted of this jurisdiction through some anomaly in the conduct of the
proceedings.
IN RE: THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS FOR REYNALDO DE
VILLA (detained at the New Bilibid Prisons, Muntinlupa City) Thus, notwithstanding its historic function as the great writ of liberty, the
writ of habeas corpus has very limited availability as a post-conviction
JUNE DE VILLA, petitioner-relator, vs. THE DIRECTOR, NEW remedy. In the recent case of Feria v. Court of Appeals, we ruled that
BILIBID PRISONS, respondent. review of a judgment of conviction is allowed in a petition for the issuance
FACTS: By final judgment dated February 1, 2001, in People of the of the writ of habeas corpus only in very specific instances, such as when,
Philippines v. Reynaldo de Villa, we found petitioner guilty of the rape of as a consequence of a judicial proceeding, (a) there has been a deprivation
Aileen Mendoza, his niece by affinity; sentenced him to suffer the penalty of a constitutional right resulting in the restraint of a person; (b) the court
of reclusión perpetua; and ordered him to pay the offended party civil
had no jurisdiction to impose the sentence; or (c) an excessive penalty has maximum. Rolando Angeles y Bombita then filed this petition for habeas
been imposed, as such sentence is void as to such excess. corpus.
In this instance, petitioner invokes the writ of habeas corpus to assail a final ISSUE: WON Angeles' petition for habeas corpus should be granted. NO.
judgment of conviction, without, however, providing a legal ground on
which to anchor his petition. In fine, petitioner alleges neither the RULING: Petitioner has only served the minimum of his sentence
deprivation of a constitutional right, the absence of jurisdiction of the court hence the instant petition for habeas corpus, being still premature, is
imposing the sentence, or that an excessive penalty has been imposed upon DISMISSED; however, he may, if qualified, be released on parole pursuant
him. to Section 5 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law.
Clearly, mere errors of fact or law, which did not have the effect of All courts of competent jurisdiction may entertain petitions for habeas
depriving the trial court of its jurisdiction over the case and the person of corpus to consider the release of prisoners convicted for violation of the
the defendant, are not correctible in a petition for the issuance of the writ of Dangerous Drugs Act who have served the maximum of the applicable
habeas corpus; if at all, these errors must be corrected on certiorari or on penalties newly prescribed by Republic Act No. 7659. In this regard, the
appeal, in the form and manner prescribed by law. formalities required for petitions for habeas corpus shall be construed
liberally, and such petitions, although deficient in form (e.g. in letter-
In fine, we find that petitioner invokes the remedy of the petition for a writ petition forms), may be entertained so long as they are sufficient in
of habeas corpus to seek a re-examination of the records of People v. de substance. In the negative, the courts to which the petitions are filed may
Villa, without asserting any legal grounds therefor. For all intents and refer the matter to the Commission on Human Rights or to the Public
purposes, petitioner seeks a reevaluation of the evidentiary basis for his Attorney's Office for possible assistance to the prisoners concerned.
conviction. We are being asked to reexamine the weight and sufficiency
of the evidence in this case, not on its own, but in light of the new DNA WHEN PROPER – SECTIONS 5, 15
evidence that the petitioner seeks to present to this Court. This relief is G.R. No. 125901 March 8, 2001
outside the scope of a habeas corpus petition. The petition for habeas
corpus must, therefore, fail. EDGARDO A. TIJING and BIENVENIDA R TIJING, petitioners, vs.
COURT OF APPEALS (Seventh Division) and ANGELITA
JURISDICTION – SECTION 2 DIAMANTE, respondents.
G.R. No. 117568 January 4, 1995 FACTS: Bienvenida served as the laundrywoman of Angelita. According to
ROLANDO ANGELES y BOMBITA, petitioner, vs. DIRECTOR OF Bienvenida in August 1989, Angelita went to her house to fetch her for an
NEW BILIBID PRISON, respondent. urgent laundry job. Since Bienvenida was on her way to do some marketing,
she asked Angelita to wait until she returned. She also left her four-month
FACTS: Rolando Angeles y Bombita was charged with, and convicted of, old son, Edgardo, Jr., under the care of Angelita. When Bienvenida returned
selling and delivering 0.13 grams of shabu. He was sentenced to suffer the from the market, Angelita and Edgardo, Jr., were gone. Bienvenida and her
penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P20,000.00 under the old husband looked for their missing son but they saw no traces of his
law (R.A. No. 6425). whereabouts.
The old law was amended hence the newly prescribed penalty for his Four years later, Bienvenida read in a tabloid about the death of Tomas
offense would now only be prison correccional (R.A. No. 7659). Applying Lopez, allegedly the common-law husband of Angelita, and whose remains
the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the range of indeterminate penalty on were lying in state in Hagonoy, Bulacan. Bienvenida lost no time in going
petitioner, modified accordingly, should thereby be from six (6) months of to Hagonoy, Bulacan, where she allegedly saw her son Edgardo, Jr., for the
arresto mayor as minimum to six (6) years of prision correccional as first time after four years who was already named John Thomas Lopez. She
avers that Angelita refused to return to her the boy despite her demand to do PNP-IG Director Arturo C. Lomibao requested the Chief state
so. Bienvenida and Edgardo filed their petition for habeas corpus in order to prosecutor to transfer venue from Isabela City to Pasig, due to
recover their son. reported utmost effort of Abu Sayaf Group to recover custody of
Gunting and inadequate security facility of the municipal jail.
ISSUE: WON habeas corpus is the proper remedy. YES.
On February 11, 2005, the RTC issued an Order denying Kuntings Motion
RULING: The writ of habeas corpus extends to all cases of illegal to Set Case for Preliminary Investigation since the PNP-IG has not turned
confinement or detention by which any person is deprived of his liberty, or over Kunting. Trial court reiterated its Order dated September 15,
by which the rightful custody of any person is withheld from the person 2003, directing the Police Superintendent and Chief, Legal Affairs
entitled thereto. Thus, it is the proper legal remedy to enable parents to Division, PNP-IG, to turn over Kunting to the court. PNP replied In a
regain the custody of a minor child even if the latter be in the custody of a reiterating the request to Chief State Prosecutor Jovencito R. Zuo to
third person of his own free will. It may even be said that in custody cases facilitate the transfer of the venue of the trial of Kuntings case, citing
involving minors, the question of illegal and involuntary restraint of liberty the same grounds in the previous letter. He added that if Kunting had
is not the underlying rationale for the availability of the writ as a remedy. been transferred to Isabela City, Basilan, he could have been one of the
Rather, it is prosecuted for the purpose of determining the right of custody escapees in a jail break that occurred on April 10, 2004 as suspected
over a child. It must be stressed too that in habeas corpus proceedings, the ASG members were able to go scot-free. On March 15, 2005, Police
question of identity is relevant and material, subject to the usual Inspector Amado L. Barbasa, Jr., OIC, Legal Affairs Division, PNP-IG,
presumptions including those as to identity of the person. filed with the RTC a Motion to Defer Implementation of the Order dated
In this case, the minor's identity is crucial in determining the propriety of February 11, 2005, citing, among other grounds, the existence of a pending
the writ sought. Thus, it must be resolved first whether the Edgardo Tijing, motion for the transfer of the venue of the trial of Criminal Case No. 3537-
Jr., claimed by Bienvenida to be her son, is the same minor named John 1129 against Kunting, which was allegedly filed by the DOJ before this
Thomas Lopez, whom Angelita insists to be her offspring. We must first Court. Police Inspector Barbasa prayed that the Order of the RTC
determine who between Bienvenida and Angelita is the minor's biological dated February 11, 2005, directing the turnover of Kunting to the
mother. court, be suspended until the motion for the transfer of venue is
resolved.
A close scrutiny of the records of this case reveals that the evidence
presented by Bienvenida is sufficient to establish that John Thomas Lopez On March 14, 2005, Kunting, by counsel, filed this petition for the issuance
is actually her missing son, Edgardo Tijing, Jr. (e.g., Angelita could no of a writ of habeas corpus. Kunting stated that he has been restrained of his
longer bear children; Tomas Lopez is no longer capable of siring a son; the liberty since June 12, 2003 by the PNP-IG led by Police Chief
child and Bienvenida had strong similarities in their faces, eyes, eyebrows Superintendent Ismael Rafanan and assisted by PNP Intelligence Chief,
and head shapes). The minor is indeed the son of petitioners. The writ of General Robert Delfin. He alleged that he was never informed of the
habeas corpus is proper to regain custody of said child. charges filed against him until he requested his family to research
in Zamboanga City. It was discovered in the RTC
In re Ashraf Gunting of Isabela City, Basilan that his name appeared in the list of accused who
allegedly participated in the kidnapping incident which occurred on June 2,
Facts: On October 19, 2001, petitioner Kunting was arrested
2001 in Lamitan, Basilan.
in Malaysia for violation of the Malaysian Internal Security Act. On June
12, 2003, the Royal Malaysian Police in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, turned Issue: Whether the writ of habeas corpus should be granted.
over Kunting to the PNP-IG and Task Force Salinglahi pursuant to
warrants for his arrest issued by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Held: No. Under Section 1, Rule 102 of the Rules of Court, the writ
of Isabela City, Basilan. Kunting was charged with four counts of of habeas corpus extends to all case of illegal confinement or detention by
Kidnapping for Ransom and Serious Illegal Detention with the RTC. which any person is deprived of his liberty, or by which the rightful custody
of any person is withheld from the person entitled thereto. The remedy Facts: A warrant of arrest was issued by Judge Padolina of RTC Pasig,
of habeas corpus has one objective: to inquire into the cause of against accused Lawrence Larkins for violations of B.P. Blg. 22. But on 20
detention of a person, and if found illegal, the court orders the release November 1994, a certain Desiree Alinea executed and filed before the NBI
of the detainee. If, however, the detention is proven lawful, then a complaint-affidavit accusing Larkins of the crime of rape allegedly
the habeas corpus proceedings terminate. committed against her on 19 November 1994. Acting on the basis of the
complaint of Alinea, petitioners Special Investigators Resurreccion and
Section 4, Rule 102 of the Rules of Court provides when the writ is not Erum, Jr. proceeded to the office of Larkins in Makati and arrested
allowed: him. Larkins was then detained at the Detention Cell of the NBI, Taft
SEC. 4. When writ not allowed or discharge authorized. If it appears that Avenue, Manila. Two days later, Larkins posted a bail for the BP 22
the person alleged to be restrained of his liberty is in the custody of an charged by which Judge Padolina issued an order directing the release of
officer under process issued by a court or judge or by virtue of a judgment Larkins from confinement unless otherwise detained for some other cause.
or order of a court of record, and that the court or judge had jurisdiction to However, Resurreccion and Erum refused to release Larkins because he was
issue the process, render the judgment, or make the order, the writ shall not still detained for another cause (rape), for which he would be held for
be allowed; or if the jurisdiction appears after the writ is allowed, the inquest. On 23 November 1994, a complaint against Larkins for rape was
person shall not be discharged by reason of any informality or defect in the executed by Alinea before the RTC of Antipolo. On 2 December 1994,
process, judgment, or order. Nor shall anything in this rule be held to Larkins, through his counsel Mauricio C. Ulep, filed an Urgent Motion for
authorize the discharge of a person charged with or convicted of an Bail and on 6 December 1994, Larkins, through his new counsel, Atty.
offense in the Philippines, or of a person suffering imprisonment under Theodore O. Te, filed another Urgent Omnibus Motion for the Dismissal of
lawful judgment. the Complaint and for Immediate Release, based on the alleged illegality of
his warrantless arrest. These two motions was however denied. Unable to
In this case, Kuntings detention by the PNP-IG was under process issued by accept the ruling, Larkins' common-law wife, Cuyag, filed before the CA a
the RTC. He was arrested by the PNP by virtue of the alias order of arrest petition for habeas corpus with certiorari. After hearing the arguments of
issued by Judge Danilo M. Bucoy, RTC, Branch the parties, the CA held for Larkin’s immediately release.
2, Isabela City, Basilan. His temporary detention at PNP-
IG, Camp Crame, Quezon City, was thus authorized by the trial court. In the petition petitioners insist that the respondent court erred in
granting the petition for habeas corpus because Larkins had already been
Moreover, Kunting was charged with four counts of Kidnapping for charged with the crime of rape and the trial court had denied his application
Ransom and Serious Illegal Detention in Criminal Case Nos. 3608-1164, for bail. They further claim that the warrantless arrest in this case is valid
3537-1129, 3674-1187, and 3611-1165. In accordance with the last for it was made under Section 5(b), Rule 113 of the Rules of Court. On the
sentence of Section 4 above, the writ cannot be issued other hand, the private respondent contends that habeas corpus is rendered
and Kunting cannot be discharged since he has been charged with a unavailing not by the mere filing of an information, but by the issuance of a
criminal offense. Bernarte v. Court of Appeals holds that once the person warrant of arrest or warrant of commitment, which are the only two
detained is duly charged in court, he may no longer question his detention processes recognized by law to justify deprivation of liberty, and the order
by a petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. of Judge Caballes of 5 January 1995 denying the petition for bail does not
qualify as such. She asserts that the petitioners have
WHEN IMPROPER – SECTIONS 4, 14 miscomprehended Paredes vs. Sandiganbayan 17 because that case did not
Velasco v. CA rule that the writ is no longer available after an information is filed against
the person detained; what it stated is that the writ of habeas corpus will not
G.R. No. 118644 July 7, 1995 issue when the person alleged to be restrained of his liberty is in the custody
of an officer under a process issued by the court which has jurisdiction to do
so. She submits that the controlling doctrine is that enunciated in Ilagan
vs. Ponce Enrile, 18 adverted to in Sanchez vs. Demetriou, 19 that "[t]he filing could institute a petition for certiorari to set aside order the denying his
of charges, and the issuance of the corresponding warrant of arrest, against a motions for bail and for the dismissal of the complaint against him.
person invalidly detained will cure the defect of that detention or at least
deny him the right to be released because of such defect." Caballes v. CA
G.R. No. 163108. February 23, 2005
Issue: 1. Whether Writ of Habeas Corpus is proper. Facts: Glenn Caballes was charged with rape of a minor in the RTC of
Malabon City. Because the petitioner was charged with a non-bailable
2. Whether Cuyag has personality to institute the action. offense, he was detained. He was arraigned on February 7, 2002 and
Held: 1. NO. Even if the arrest of a person is illegal, supervening events pleaded not guilty to the offense charged. Trial ensued. On April 28, 2003,
may bar his release or discharge from custody. What is to be inquired into is the petitioner filed a petition for bail. The trial was marred with many
the legality of his detention as of, at the earliest, the filing of the application postponements for various reasons, most prominently the continued failure
for a writ of habeas corpus, for even if the detention is at its inception of Dr. Jose Arnel Marquez to appear as a witness.
illegal, it may, by reason of some supervening events, such as the instances Caballes then filed a motion seeking an earlier trial date, invoking his right
mentioned in Section 4 of Rule 102, be no longer illegal at the time of the to speedy trial under the Speedy Trial Act of 1998, as well as a motion for
filing of the application. Among such supervening events is the issuance of the urgent resolution of his petition for bail. The court issued an Order
a judicial process preventing the discharge of the detained person. declaring that the petition for bail was submitted for its resolution and
Another is the filing of a complaint or information for the offense for which denying the motion for an earlier trial date. It then issued another
the accused is detained, as in the instant case. By then, the restraint of order denying the petition for bail, on its finding that the evidence of guilt
liberty is already by virtue of the complaint or information and, therefore, against the petitioner was strong. MR denied. Caballes then filed an Motion
the writ of habeas corpus is no longer available. to Dismiss invoking his right to speedy trial, claiming that the trial now
lasted close to 400 days, far longer than the 180 day reglementary period. It
It is to be noted that, criminal charges have been filed in the proper courts was Denied. The judge then inhibited himself.
against the petitioners. The rule is, that if a person alleged to be restrained
of his liberty is in the custody of an officer under process issued by a court Caballes thus filed a “Petition for Habeas Corpus and/or Certiorari and
of judge, and that the court or judge had jurisdiction to issue the process or Prohibition.” The CA required him to inform the court of his choice of
make the order, or if such person is charged before any court, the writ remedy. In compliance therewith, he filed a manifestation that he had
of habeas corpus will not be allowed. Section 4, Rule 102, Rules of Court, chosen his petition to be treated as a petition for habeas corpus without
as amended is quite explicit in providing that: prejudice “to the concomitant application of certiorari if the court
considered the same necessary or appropriate to give effect to the writ
Sec. 4. . . . Nor shall anything in this rule be held to authorize the of habeas corpus.” CA dismissed the petition for habeas corpus for being
discharge of a person charged with or convicted of an offense in the the wrong remedy.
Philippines or of a person suffering from imprisonment under lawful Issues: 1. Whether a petition for habeas corpus is the proper remedy. (No)
judgment.
2. Whether the writ should issue. (No)
2. YES. Cuyag has personality to institute on behalf of her common-law
spouse Larkins, on the habeas corpus aspect of the petition, as she falls 3. Whether the decision had already become final and executory (Yes)
within the purview of the term "some person" under Section 3, Rule 102 of
the Rules of Court, which means any person who has a legally justified Held: 1. No. A writ of habeas corpus is not the proper remedy to assail the
interest in the freedom of the person whose liberty is restrained or who trial court’s denial of the Motion to Dismiss, the denial of the petition for
shows some authorization to make the application. She is not, however, the bail, as well as the voluntary inhibition of Judge Laurea.
real party in interest in the certiorari aspect of the petition. Only Larkins
A petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus is a special exceptional circumstances warranting the issuance of a writ of habeas
proceeding governed by Rule 102 of the Rules of Court, as amended. In Ex corpus.
Parte Billings, it was held that habeas corpus is that of a civil proceeding in
character. It seeks the enforcement of civil rights. Resorting to the writ is A petition for habeas corpus is not the proper remedy to assail the
not to inquire into the criminal act of which the complaint is made, but into denial of bail; a petition for certiorari is. That is also the correct remedy
the right of liberty, even if the act and the immediate purpose to be served is from the voluntary inhibition of a judge.
relief from illegal restraint. The rule applies even when instituted to arrest a Finally, as to a violation of the right of the accused to a speedy trial is
criminal prosecution and secure freedom. violated by the prosecution, the remedy lies in the procedure provided for
Habeas corpus is not in the nature of a writ of error; nor intended under Republic Act No. 8493, as implemented by Rule 119. Section 8 of
as substitute for the trial court’s function. It cannot take the place of the said Rule provides that a private counsel, the public attorney, or a
appeal, certiorari or writ of error. The writ cannot be used to prosecutor, who allows the case to be set for trial without disclosing that a
investigate and consider questions of error that might be raised relating necessary witness would be unavailable for trial, files a motion solely for
to procedure or on the merits. Moreover, habeas corpus should not be delay which he knows is totally frivolous and without merit, makes a
granted in advance of trial. The orderly course of trial must be pursued statement for the purpose of obtaining continuance which he knows to be
and the usual remedies exhausted before resorting to the writ where false and which is material to the granting of a continuance; or willfully
exceptional circumstances are extant. fails to proceed to trial without justification is to be punished with a fine not
exceeding P20,000, and denying him the right to practice before the court
Habeas corpus is a summary remedy. It is analogous to a trying the case for a period not exceeding 30 days. Thus, habeas corpus is
proceeding in rem when instituted for the sole purpose of having the not the proper remedy. Once more, certiorari is.
person of restraint presented before the judge in order that the cause of
his detention may be inquired into and his statements final. The only While a petition for habeas corpus may be filed if one is deprived of his
parties before the court are the petitioner (prisoner) and the person right to a speedy disposition of the case under Article IV, Section 16 of the
holding the petitioner in custody, and the only question to be resolved is 1987 Constitution and of his right to due process, first of all, the delays in
whether the custodian has authority to deprive the petitioner of his this case were not the fault of the prosecution, and secondly, Caballes only
liberty. The writ may be denied if the petitioner fails to show facts that invoked this right in his petition for habeas corpus before the CA.
he is entitled theretoex merito justicias. 3. YES. Section 39 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 provides that the period for
A writ of certiorari reaches only jurisdictional errors. It has no appeal from the judgment of any court in habeas corpus cases shall be 48
other use, except to bring before the court a record material to be considered hours from notice of the judgment appealed from. While that provision was
in exercising jurisdiction. A writ of certiorari reaches the record. On the not incorporated in the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, Administrative
other hand, a writ of habeas corpus reaches the body but not the record; it Matter No. 01-1-03-SC amending Section 3, Rule 41of the said Rules,
also reaches jurisdictional matters but does not reach the record. However, provides that appeal in habeas corpus cases shall be taken within forty-
when jurisdiction is obtained by the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, to eight (48) hours from notice of the judgment or final order appealed
bring the body of the person whose liberty is involved into court, and if it is from.
necessary, to provide the record upon which the detention is based, that may Thus, Caballes should have appealed from the CA’s denial of his
be accomplished by using a writ of certiorari as an ancillary proceeding. petition rather than filing a petition for certiorari. Certiorari cannot co-exist
2. No. Caballes failed to establish his right to the writ of habeas with an appeal or any other adequate remedy. The existence and
corpus. He was charged with rape punishable by reclusion perpetua and availability of the right to appeal are antithetical to the availment of the
was detained based on the said charge. He failed to establish that his special civil action for certiorari. These two remedies are mutually
incarceration pendente lite was illegal, and likewise failed to establish exclusive. An appeal in this case would still have been a speedy and
adequate remedy. Consequently, when the petitioner filed his petition in this right of choice, he may not be the subject of visitation rights against his
Court, the decision of the CA was already final and executory. free choice. Otherwise, he will be deprived of his right to privacy. The case
at bar does not involve the right of a parent to visit a minor child but the
Ilusorio vs. Bildner right of a wife to visit a husband. In any event, that the husband refuses to
GR No. 139789, May 12, 2000 see his wife for private reasons, he is at liberty to do so without threat or
Facts: Potenciano Ilusorio, a lawyer, 86 year old of age, possessed any penalty attached to the exercise of his right. Coverture, is a matter
extensive property valued at millions of pesos. For many year, he was the beyond judicial authority and cannot be enforced by compulsion of a writ of
Chairman of the Board and President of Baguio Country Club. He was habeas corpus carried out by the sheriffs or by any other process.
married with Erlinda Ilusorio, herein petitioner, for 30 years and begotten 6 Feria vs CA
children namely Ramon, Lin Illusorio-Bildner (defendant), Maximo, Sylvia, GR No. 122954, February 15, 2000
Marietta and Shereen. They separated from bed and board in Facts: Norberto Feria y Pacquing has been under detention since May 21,
1972. Potenciano lived at Makati every time he was in Manila and at 1981 by reason of his conviction of the crime of Robbery with
Illusorio Penthouse, Baguio Country Club when he was in Baguio City. On Homicide. After discovering that his entire criminal records, including the
the other hand, the petitioner lived in Antipolo City. copy of the judgment, was lost or destroyed, petitioner filed a Petition for
In 1997, upon Potenciano’s arrival from US, he stayed with her wife for the Issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus with the SC against the Jail
about 5 months in Antipolo city. The children, Sylvia and Lin, alleged that Warden of the Manila City Jail, the Presiding Judge of Branch 2, Regional
during this time their mother overdose Potenciano which caused the latter’s Trial Court of Manila, and the City Prosecutor of Manila, praying for his
health to deteriorate. In February 1998, Erlinda filed with RTC petition for discharge from confinement on the ground that his continued detention
guardianship over the person and property of Potenciano due to the latter’s without any valid judgment is illegal and violative of his constitutional right
advanced age, frail health, poor eyesight and impaired judgment. In May to due process.
1998, after attending a corporate meeting in Baguio, Potenciano did not The RTC dismissed the case on the ground that the mere loss of the records
return to Antipolo instead lived at Cleveland Condominium in Makati. In of the case does not invalidate the judgment or commitment nor authorize
March 1999, petitioner filed with CA petition for habeas corpus to have the the release of the petitioner, and that the proper remedy would be
custody of his husband alleging that the respondents refused her demands to reconstitution of the records of the case which should be filed with the court
see and visit her husband and prohibited Potenciano from returning to which rendered the decision.
Antipolo.
Petitioner argues that his detention is illegal because there exists no copy of
Issue: Whether the petitioned writ of habeas corpus should be issued. a valid judgment as required by Sections 1 and 2 of Rule 120 of the Rules
Held: No. A writ of habeas corpus extends to all cases of illegal of Court, and that the evidence considered by the trial court and Court of
confinement or detention, or by which the rightful custody of a person is Appeals in the habeas corpus proceedings did not establish the contents of
withheld from the one entitled thereto. To justify the grant for such such judgment.
petition, the restraint of liberty must an illegal and involuntary deprivation In a comment, OSG maintains that public respondents have more than
of freedom of action. The illegal restraint of liberty must be actual and sufficiently shown the existence of a legal ground for petitioner’s continued
effective not merely nominal or moral. incarceration, viz., his conviction by final judgment, and under Section 4 of
Evidence showed that there was no actual and effective detention or Rule 102 of the Rules of Court, the discharge of a person suffering
deprivation of Potenciano’s liberty that would justify issuance of the imprisonment under lawful judgment is not authorized.
writ. The fact that the latter was 86 years of age and under medication Issue: Whther the writ of habeas corpus should be granted.
does not necessarily render him mentally incapacitated. He still has the
capacity to discern his actions. With his full mental capacity having the
Held: No. Based on the records and the hearing conducted by the trial AM NO. 7-9-12-SC RULES ON THE WRIT OF
court, there is sufficient evidence on record to establish the fact of
conviction of petitioner which serves as the legal basis for his detention. AMPARO
Petitioner made judicial admissions, both verbal and written, that he
was charged with and convicted of the crime of Robbery with NATURE, SCOPE AND FUNCTION – SECTION 1
Homicide, and sentenced to suffer imprisonment. The OSG maintains G.R. No. 180906 October 7, 2008
that public respondents have more than sufficiently shown the existence
of a legal ground for petitioners continued incarceration, viz., his Secretary of National Defense and Chief of Staff of Armed Forces of the
conviction by final judgment, and under Section 4 of Rule 102 of the Philippines; Petitioners Vs. RAYMOND MANALO and REYNALDO
Rules of Court, the discharge of a person suffering imprisonment under MANALO; Respondents
lawful judgment is not authorized. Petitioners remedy, therefore, is not
FACTS: The brothers Raymond and Reynald Manalo, farmers from
a petition for habeas corpus but a proceeding for the reconstitution of
Bulacan were abducted, detained in various locations, tortured by Citizen
judicial records.
Armed Forces Geographical Unit (CAFGU) on the suspicion that they were
The writ of habeas corpus, was devised and exists as a speedy and members and supporters of the New People’s Army (NPA). After eighteen
effectual remedy to relieve persons from unlawful restraint, and as the best (18) months of restrained liberty, torture, and other dehumanizing acts, were
and only sufficient defense of personal freedom. It secures to a prisoner the able to escape. Ten days after their escape, they filed a Petition for
right to have the cause of his detention examined and determined by a court Prohibition, Injunction, and Temporary Restraining Order before the
of justice, and to have the issue ascertained as to whether he is held under Supreme Court to prevent military officers and agents from depriving them
lawful authority. Consequently, the writ may also be availed of where, as a of their right to liberty and other basic rights. Existing petition was treated
consequence of a judicial proceeding, (a) there has been a deprivation of a as Amparo petition. The Supreme Court granted the Writ of Amparo and
constitutional right resulting in the restraint of a person, (b) the court had no ordered the Court of Appeals to conduct the summary hearing and decide
jurisdiction to impose the sentence, or (c) an excessive penalty has been the petition.
imposed, as such sentence is void as to such excess. Petitioner’s claim is
ISSUES: 1. Whether or not statements from the victims is sufficient for
anchored on the first ground considering, as he claims, that his continued
amparo petitions.
detention, notwithstanding the lack of a copy of a valid judgment of
conviction, is violative of his constitutional right to due process. As a 2. Whether or not actual deprivation of liberty is necessary to invoke the
general rule, the burden of proving illegal restraint by the respondent rests right to security of a person
on the petitioner who attacks such restraint. In other words, where the return
is not subject to exception, that is, where it sets forth process which on its RULING:
face shows good ground for the detention of the prisoner, it is incumbent on
1. Yes. Much of the information and evidence of the ordeal will come
petitioner to allege and prove new matter that tends to invalidate the
from the victims themselves, and the veracity of their account will
apparent effect of such process. If the detention of the prisoner is by reason
depend on their credibility and candidness in their written and oral
of lawful public authority, the return is considered prima facie evidence of
statements. Their statements are corroborated by other evidence
the validity of the restraint and the petitioner has the burden of proof to
such as physical evidence left by the torture they suffered or
show that the restraint is illegal.
landmarks they can identify in the places where they were detained.
When a court has jurisdiction of the offense charged and of the party who is In the case at bar, respondents initially filed an action for Prohibition,
so charged, its judgment, order, or decree is not subject to collateral attack Injunction, and Temporary Restraining Order to stop petitioners and/or their
by habeas corpus. officers and agents from depriving the respondents of their right to liberty
and other basic rights prior to the promulgation of the Amparo Rule.
When the Amparo Rule came into effect on October 24, 2007, they moved prepared by forensic specialist Dr. Molino, and the pictures of the scars
to have their petition treated as an amparo petition as it would be more left by the physical injuries inflicted on respondents, also corroborate
effective and suitable to the circumstances of the Manalo brothers enforced respondents accounts of the torture they endured while in detention.
disappearance. The Court granted their motion. Respondent Raymond Manalos familiarity with the facilities in Fort
Magsaysay such as the DTU, as shown in his testimony and confirmed
by Lt. Col. Jimenez to be the Division Training Unit, firms up
to determine whether the evidence presented is metal-strong to satisfy respondents story that they were detained for some time in said military
the degree of proof required. facility.
Section 1 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo provides for the following 2. Yes. Covered by the privilege of the writ, respondents must meet
causes of action, viz: the threshold requirement that their right to life, liberty and security is
Section 1. Petition. The petition for a writ of amparo is a remedy violated or threatened with an unlawful act or omission. The right to
available to any person whose right to life, liberty and security is security of person is “freedom from fear.” In The Universal Declaration
violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a of Human Rights (UDHR) states that “a world in which human beings
public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity. shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and
want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common
The writ shall cover extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or people.” Moreover, the right to security of person is a guarantee of
threats thereof. (emphasis supplied) protection of one’s rights by the government. As the government is the
Sections 17 and 18, on the other hand, provide for the degree of proof chief guarantor of order and security, the Constitutional guarantee of the
required, viz: rights to life, liberty and security of person is rendered ineffective if
Sec. 17. Burden of Proof and Standard of Diligence Required. The government does not afford protection to these rights especially when
parties shall establish their claims by substantial evidence. they are under threat.
xxx xxx xxx In the context of Section 1 of the Amparo Rule, freedom from fear is the
Sec. 18. Judgment. If the allegations in the petition are proven by right and any threat to the rights to life, liberty or security is the
substantial evidence, the court shall grant the privilege of the writ and actionable wrong. Fear is a state of mind, a reaction; threat is a stimulus,
such reliefs as may be proper and appropriate; otherwise, the privilege a cause of action. Fear caused by the same stimulus can range from
shall be denied. (emphases supplied) being baseless to well-founded as people react differently. The degree of
Substantial evidence has been defined as such relevant evidence as a fear can vary from one person to another with the variation of the
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. prolificacy of their imagination, strength of character or past experience
with the stimulus. Thus, in the amparo context, it is more correct to say
After careful perusal of the evidence presented, we affirm the findings of that the right to security is actually the freedom from threat. Viewed in
the Court of Appeals that respondents were abducted from their houses this light, the threatened with violation Clause in the latter part of
in Sito Muzon, Brgy. Buhol na Mangga, San Ildefonso, Bulacan on Section 1 of the Amparo Rule is a form of violation of the right to
February 14, 2006 and were continuously detained until they escaped on security mentioned in the earlier part of the provision.
August 13, 2007. The abduction, detention, torture, and escape of the
respondents were narrated by respondent Raymond Manalo in a clear
and convincing manner. His account is dotted with countless candid
details of respondents harrowing experience and tenacious will to
escape, captured through his different senses and etched in his memory.
Raymonds affidavit and testimony were corroborated by the affidavit of
respondent Reynaldo Manalo. The testimony and medical reports
STANDING – SECTION 2 Section 6. Issuance of the Writ. – Upon the filing of the petition, the court, justice or
judge shall immediately order the issuance of the writ if on its face it ought to issue.
G.R. No. 182795 June 05, 2008 The clerk of court shall issue the writ under the seal of the court; or in case of
urgent necessity, the justice or the judge may issue the writ under his or her own
Armando Q. Canlas, Miguel D. Canlas, Marrieta Pia; Petitioners Vs. hand, and may deputize any officer or person to serve it.
Napico Homeowners Association I-XIII, INC., Et al.; Respondents
The writ shall also set the date and time for summary hearing of the petition which
FACTS: Petitioners are settlers in a certain parcel of land situated in shall not be later than seven (7) days from the date of its issuance.
Barangay Manggahan, Pasig City. Their dwellings or houses have either
been demolished as of the time of filing of the petition, or is about to be Considering that there is no legal basis for its issuance, as in this case, the
demolished pursuant to a court judgment. They claimed that they were writ will not be issued and the petition will be dismissed outright.
deprived of their liberty, freedom and rights to shelter enshrined and This new remedy of writ of amparo which is made available by this Court is
embodied in our Constitution. intended for the protection of the highest possible rights of any person,
ISSUE: Whether or not there was a breach of life, liberty and security. which is his or her right to life, liberty and security. The Court will not
spare any time or effort on its part in order to give priority to petitions of
RULING: No. The Rule on the Writ of Amparo provides: this nature. However, the Court will also not waste its precious time and
effort on matters not covered by the writ.
Section 1. Petition. – The petition for a writ of amparo is a remedy available to any
person whose right to life, liberty and security is violated or threatened with RELIEFS – SECTIONS 4, 10, 12, 14-16, 20
violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a
private individual or entity. G.R. No. 182498 December 3, 2009
The writ shall cover extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or threats GEN. AVELINO I. RAZON, JR., Chief, Philippine National Police
thereof. (Emphasis supplied.) (PNP); Police Chief Superintendent RAUL CASTAÑEDA, Chief,
The threatened demolition of a dwelling by virtue of a final judgment of the Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG); Police Senior
court, which in this case was affirmed with finality by this Court in G.R. Superintendent LEONARDO A. ESPINA, Chief, Police Anti-Crime
Nos. 177448, 180768, 177701, 177038, is not included among the and Emergency Response (PACER); and GEN. JOEL R. GOLTIAO,
enumeration of rights as stated in the above-quoted Section 1 for which the Regional Director of ARMM, PNP, Petitioners, vs. MARY JEAN B.
remedy of a writ of amparo is made available. Their claim to their dwelling, TAGITIS, herein represented by ATTY. FELIPE P. ARCILLA, JR.,
assuming they still have any despite the final and executory judgment Attorney-in-Fact, Respondent.
adverse to them, does not constitute right to life, liberty and security. There Facts: Tagitis, a consultant for the World Bank and the Senior Honorary
is, therefore, no legal basis for the issuance of the writ of amparo. Counselor for the Islamic Development Bank (IDB) Scholarship
Besides, the factual and legal basis for petitioners’ claim to the land in Programme, was last seen in Jolo, Sulu. More than a month after his
question is not alleged in the petition at all. The Court can only surmise that disappearance, the respondent filed a Petition for the Writ of Amparo
these rights and interest had already been threshed out and settled in the (petition) with the CA through her Attorney-in-Fact, Atty. Felipe P. Arcilla,
four cases cited above. No writ of amparo may be issued unless there is a directed against Lt. Gen. Alexander Yano, et. al. The petition stated that
clear allegation of the supposed factual and legal basis of the right sought to Engr. Tagitis went out of the pension house to take his early lunch but while
be protected. out on the street, a couple of burly men believed to be police intelligence
operatives, forcibly took him and boarded the latter on a motor vehicle then
Under Section 6 of the same rules, the court shall issue the writ upon the filing of sped away without the knowledge of his student and according to a reliable
the petition, only if on its face, the court ought to issue said writ. source; that he was in the custody of police intelligence operatives,
specifically with the CIDG, PNP Zamboanga City, being held against his State or private action, and the actual or threatened violations of the
will in an earnest attempt of the police to involve and connect Engr. Tagitis rights to life, liberty or security – are present.
with the different terrorist groups; That the respondent filed a complaint
with the PNP Police Station in the ARMM in Cotobato and in Jolo, but The properly pleaded ultimate facts within the pleader’s knowledge about
instead of helping her she was told of an intriguing tale by the police that Tagitis’ disappearance, the participation by agents of the State in this
her husband, subject of the petition, was not missing but was with another disappearance, the failure of the State to release Tagitis or to provide
woman having good time somewhere, which is a clear indication of the sufficient information about his whereabouts, as well as the actual violation
refusal to help and provide police assistance in locating her missing of his right to liberty. Thus, the petition cannot be faulted for any failure in
husband. The petitioners mainly dispute the sufficiency in form and its statement of a cause of action.
substance of the Amparo petition filed before the CA. Petitioners contend If a defect can at all be attributed to the petition, this defect is its lack of
that the petition violated Section 5(c), (d), and (e) of the Amparo Rule. supporting affidavit, as required by Section 5(c) of the Amparo Rule.
Issue: Does the Amparo Rule intended that the petition be complete in Owing to the summary nature of the proceedings for the writ and to
every detail in stating the threatened or actual violation of a victim’s rights facilitate the resolution of the petition, the Amparo Rule incorporated the
for it to be given due course by the court? requirement for supporting affidavits, with the annotation that these can be
used as the affiant’s direct testimony. This requirement, however, should
Ruling: The Court ruled in negative. The framers of the Amparo Rule not be read as an absolute one that necessarily leads to the dismissal of the
never intended Section 5(c) to be complete in every detail in stating the petition if not strictly followed. Where, as in this case, the petitioner has
threatened or actual violation of a victim’s rights. As in any other substantially complied with the requirement by submitting a verified
initiatory pleading, the pleader must of course state the ultimate facts petition sufficiently detailing the facts relied upon, the strict need for the
constituting the cause of action, omitting the evidentiary details. In an sworn statement that an affidavit represents is essentially fulfilled. We note
Amparo petition, however, this requirement must be read in light of the that the failure to attach the required affidavits was fully cured when the
nature and purpose of the proceeding, which addresses a situation of respondent and her witness (Mrs. Talbin) personally testified in the CA
uncertainty; the petitioner may not be able to describe with certainty hearings.
how the victim exactly disappeared, or who actually acted to kidnap,
abduct or arrest him or her, or where the victim is detained, because Note: (may or may not be included) baka lang magtanong sa background..
these information may purposely be hidden or covered up by those who The phenomenon of enforced disappearance arising from State action first
caused the disappearance. In this type of situation, to require the level of attracted notice in Adolf Hitler’s Nact und Nebel Erlass or Night and Fog Decree
specificity, detail and precision that the petitioners apparently want to read of December 7, 1941. The Third Reich’s Night and Fog Program, a State policy,
into the Amparo Rule is to make this Rule a token gesture of judicial was directed at persons in occupied territories "endangering German security";
concern for violations of the constitutional rights to life, liberty and they were transported secretly to Germany where they disappeared without a trace.
security. In order to maximize the desired intimidating effect, the policy prohibited
government officials from providing information about the fate of these targeted
To read the Rules of Court requirement on pleadings while addressing the persons.
unique Amparo situation, the test in reading the petition should be to
In the Philippines, enforced disappearances generally fall within the first two
determine whether it contains the details available to the petitioner categories, and 855 cases were recorded during the period of martial law from
under the circumstances, while presenting a cause of action showing a 1972 until 1986. Of this number, 595 remained missing, 132 surfaced alive and 127
violation of the victim’s rights to life, liberty and security through State were found dead. During former President Corazon C. Aquino’s term, 820 people
or private party action. The petition should likewise be read in its were reported to have disappeared and of these, 612 cases were documented. Of
totality, rather than in terms of its isolated component parts, to this number, 407 remain missing, 108 surfaced alive and 97 were found dead. The
determine if the required elements – namely, of the disappearance, the number of enforced disappearances dropped during former President Fidel V.
Ramos’ term when only 87 cases were reported, while the three-year term of former
President Joseph E. Estrada yielded 58 reported cases. KARAPATAN, a local non- her liberty and security, and, in the proper case, by the commencement of criminal
governmental organization, reports that as of March 31, 2008, the records show action against the guilty parties.
that there were a total of 193 victims of enforced disappearance under incumbent
President Gloria M. Arroyo’s administration. The Commission on Human Rights’ During the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from
records show a total of 636 verified cases of enforced disappearances from 1985 to Enforced Disappearance (in Paris, France on February 6, 2007, "enforced
1993. Of this number, 406 remained missing, 92 surfaced alive, 62 were found disappearance" is considered to be the arrest, detention, abduction or any other
dead, and 76 still have undetermined status. Currently, the United Nations Working form of deprivation of liberty by agents of the State or by persons or groups of
Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearance reports 619 outstanding cases of persons acting with the authorization, support or acquiescence of the State,
enforced or involuntary disappearances covering the period December 1, 2007 to followed by a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty or by concealment
November 30, 2008. of the fate or whereabouts of the disappeared person, which place such a person
outside the protection of the law.
Under Philippine Law The Amparo Rule expressly provides that the "writ shall
cover extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or threats thereof."We note In the recent case of Pharmaceutical and Health Care Association of the
that although the writ specifically covers "enforced disappearances," this concept Philippines v. Duque III, we held that:
is neither defined nor penalized in this jurisdiction. The records of the Supreme Under the 1987 Constitution, international law can become part of the sphere of
Court Committee on the Revision of Rules (Committee) reveal that the drafters of domestic law either by transformation or incorporation. The transformation
the Amparo Rule initially considered providing an elemental definition of the method requires that an international law be transformed into a domestic law
concept of enforced disappearance: through a constitutional mechanism such as local legislation. The incorporation
Justice Puno stated that, “as the law now stands, extra-judicial killings and method applies when, by mere constitutional declaration, international law is
enforced disappearances in this jurisdiction are not crimes penalized separately deemed to have the force of domestic law.
from the component criminal acts undertaken to carry out these killings and The right to security of person in this third sense is a corollary of the policy that the
enforced disappearances and are now penalized under the Revised Penal Code and State "guarantees full respect for human rights" under Article II, Section 11 of the
special laws.” 1987 Constitution. As the government is the chief guarantor of order and security,
Although the Court’s power is strictly procedural and as such does not diminish, the Constitutional guarantee of the rights to life, liberty and security of person is
increase or modify substantive rights, the legal protection that the Court can rendered ineffective if government does not afford protection to these rights
provide can be very meaningful through the procedures it sets in addressing especially when they are under threat.
extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances. The Court, through its Protection includes conducting effective investigations, organization of the
procedural rules, can set the procedural standards and thereby directly compel the government apparatus to extend protection to victims of extralegal killings or
public authorities to act on actual or threatened violations of constitutional rights. enforced disappearances (or threats thereof) and/or their families, and bringing
To state the obvious, judicial intervention can make a difference – even if only offenders to the bar of justice. The duty to investigate must be undertaken in a
procedurally – in a situation when the very same investigating public authorities serious manner and not as a mere formality preordained to be ineffective.
may have had a hand in the threatened or actual violations of constitutional rights.
Evidentiary Difficulties Posed by the Unique Nature of an Enforced Disappearance
The burden for the public authorities to discharge in these situations, under the
Rule on the Writ of Amparo, is two fold. The first is to ensure that all efforts at The unique evidentiary difficulties presented by enforced disappearance cases;
disclosure and investigation are undertaken under pain of indirect contempt from these difficulties form part of the setting that the implementation of the Amparo
this Court when governmental efforts are less than what the individual situations Rule shall encounter. These difficulties largely arise because the State itself – the
require. The second is to address the disappearance, so that the life of the victim is party whose involvement is alleged – investigates enforced disappearances. Past
preserved and his or her liberty and security restored. In these senses, our orders experiences in other jurisdictions show that the evidentiary difficulties are
and directives relative to the writ are continuing efforts that are not truly generally threefold.
terminated until the extrajudicial killing or enforced disappearance is fully
addressed by the complete determination of the fate and the whereabouts of the First, there may be a deliberate concealment of the identities of the direct
victim, by the production of the disappeared person and the restoration of his or perpetrators. In addition, there are usually no witnesses to the crime; if there are,
these witnesses are usually afraid to speak out publicly or to testify on the the group Bagong Alyansang Makabayan-United States of America
disappearance out of fear for their own lives. (BAYAN- USA) of which she is a member.
Second, deliberate concealment of pertinent evidence of the disappearance is a On 19 May 2009, after doing survey work in Tarlac, Roxas and her
distinct possibility; the central piece of evidence in an enforced disappearance companions rested in the house of Mr. Jesus Paolo in Sitio Bagong Sikat.
Third is the element of denial; in many cases, the State authorities deliberately deny While Roxas and her companions were resting, 15 heavily armed men in
that the enforced disappearance ever occurred. "Deniability" is central to the civilian clothes forcibly entered the house and dragged them inside a van.
policy of enforced disappearances, as the absence of any proven disappearance When they alighted from the van, she was informed that she is being
makes it easier to escape the application of legal standards ensuring the victim’s detained for being a member of Communist Party of the Philippines-New
human rights. People’s Army (CPP-NPA). She was then separated from her companions
Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence and was brought to a room, from where she could hear sounds of gunfire,
as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. noise of planes taking off and landing, and some construction bustle. She
was interrogated and tortured for 5 straight days to convince her to abandon
The remedy of the writ of amparo provides rapid judicial relief as it partakes of a her communist beliefs. She was informed by a person named “RC” that
summary proceeding that requires only substantial evidence to make the those who tortured her came from the “Special Operations Group” and that
appropriate reliefs available to the petitioner; it is not an action to determine she was abducted because her name is included in the “Order of Battle.” On
criminal guilt requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt, or liability for damages
25 May 2009, Roxas was finally released and was given a cellular phone
requiring preponderance of evidence, or administrative responsibility requiring
substantial evidence that will require full and exhaustive proceedings. with a sim card. She was sternly warned not to report the incident to the
group Karapatan or something untoward will happen to her and her family.
We note in this regard that the use of flexibility in the consideration of evidence is After her release, Roxas continued to receive calls from RC thru the cell
not at all novel in the Philippine legal system. In child abuse cases, Section 28 of phone given to her. Out of apprehension, she threw the phone and the sim
the Rule on Examination of a Child Witness is expressly recognized as an exception card.
to the hearsay rule. This Rule allows the admission of the hearsay testimony of a
child describing any act or attempted act of sexual abuse in any criminal or non- Hence, on 01 June 2009, Roxas filed a petition for the issuance of Writs of
criminal proceeding, subject to certain prerequisites and the right of cross- Amparo and Habeas Data before the Supreme Court, impleading the high-
examination by the adverse party. ranking officials of military and Philippine National Police (PNP), on the
BURDEN OF PROOF – SECTION 17 belief that it was the government agents who were behind her abduction and
torture.
G.R. No. 189155 September 7, 2010
On 09 June 2009, the Supreme Court issued the writs and referred the case
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR THE WRIT OF to the Court of Appeals for hearing, reception of evidence and appropriate
AMPARO AND THE WRIT OF HABEAS DATA IN FAVOR OF action. The Court of Appeals granted the privilege of writs of amparo and
MELISSA C. ROXAS, MELISSA C. ROXAS, Petitioner, vs. GLORIA habeas data. However, the court a quo absolved the respondents because it
MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, GILBERT TEODORO, GEN. VICTOR S. was not convinced that the respondents were responsible for the abduction
IBRADO, P/DIR. GEN. JESUS AME VERZOSA, LT. GEN. DELFIN and torture of Roxas.
N. BANGIT, PC/SUPT. LEON NILO A. DELA CRUZ, MAJ. GEN.
Aggrieved, Roxas filed an appeal with the Supreme Court.
RALPH VILLANUEVA, PS/SUPT. RUDY GAMIDO LACADIN, AND
CERTAIN PERSONS WHO GO BY THE NAME[S] DEX, RC AND PERTINENT ISSUES: Whether or not the doctrine of command
ROSE, Respondents. responsibility is applicable in an amparo petition.
FACTS: Melissa Roxas, an American citizen of Filipino descent, while in
the United States, enrolled in an exposure program to the Philippines with
Whether or not circumstantial evidence with regard to the identity and In amparo proceedings, direct evidence of identity must be preferred over
affiliation of the perpetrators is enough ground for the issuance of the mere circumstantial evidence – In amparo proceedings, the weight that may
privilege of the writ of amparo. be accorded to parallel circumstances as evidence of military involvement
depends largely on the availability or nonavailability of other pieces of
Whether or not substantial evidence to prove actual or threatened violation evidence that has the potential of directly proving the identity and affiliation
of the right to privacy in life, liberty or security of the victim is necessary of the perpetrators. Direct evidence of identity, when obtainable, must be
before the privilege of the writ may be extended. preferred over mere circumstantial evidence based on patterns and
ANSWERS: No. similarity, because the former indubitably offers greater certainty as to the
true identity and affiliation of the perpetrators.
It depends. Direct evidence of identity, when obtainable must be preferred
over mere circumstantial evidence. 3. EVIDENCE REQURED IN HABEAS DATA PROCEEDINGS
Yes. Substantial evidence of an actual or threatened violation of the right to

privacy in life, liberty or security of the victim is an indispensable
SUPREME COURT RULINGS: 1. DOCTRINE OF COMMAND requirement before the privilege of the writ may be extended – An
RESPONSIBILITY AND THE WRIT OF AMPARO indispensable requirement before the privilege of the writ may be extended
is the showing, at least by substantial evidence, of an actual or threatened
Command responsibility as justification in impleading respondents is
violation of the right to privacy in life, liberty or security of the victim. In
legally inaccurate – The use of the doctrine of command responsibility as
the case at bar, Roxas failed to show that there is an actual or threatened
justification in impleading the respondents in her amparo petition, is legally
violation of such right. Hence, until such time that any of the respondents
inaccurate, if not incorrect. Such doctrine is a rule of substantive law that
were found to be actually responsible for the abduction and torture of
establishes liability and, by this account, cannot be a proper legal basis to
Roxas, any inference regarding the existence of reports being kept in
implead a party-respondent in an amparo petition. The Writ of Amparo as a
violation of the petitioner’s right to privacy becomes farfetched, and
protective remedy – As held in the case of Rubrico v. Arroyo, the writ of
premature. The Court must, at least in the meantime, strike down the grant
amparo is a protective remedy aimed at providing judicial relief consisting
of the privilege of the writ of habeas data.
of the appropriate remedial measures and directives that may be crafted by
the court, in order to address specific violations or threats of violation of the DISPOSITIVE:
constitutional rights to life, liberty or security. It does not fix liability for
such disappearance, killing or threats, whether that may be criminal, civil or The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals.
administrative under the applicable substantive law. Since the application of However, it modified the directive of the Court of the Appeals for further
command responsibility presupposes an imputation of individual liability, it investigation, as follows: Appointing the CHR as the lead agency tasked
is more aptly invoked in a full-blown criminal or administrative case rather with conducting further investigation regarding the abduction and torture of
than in a summary amparo proceeding. However, the inapplicability of the the petitioner.
doctrine of command responsibility does not preclude impleading military Accordingly, the CHR shall, under the norm of extraordinary diligence,
or police commanders on the ground that the complained acts in the petition take or continue to take the necessary steps: (a) to identify the persons
were committed with their direct or indirect acquiescence. In which case, described in the cartographic sketches submitted by the petitioner, as well as
commanders may be impleaded — not actually on the basis of command their whereabouts; and (b) to pursue any other leads relevant to petitioner’s
responsibility—but rather on the ground of their responsibility, or at least abduction and torture.
accountability.
Directing the incumbent Chief of the Philippine National Police (PNP), or
2. EVIDENCE REQUIRED IN AMPARO PROCEEDINGS his successor, and the incumbent Chief of Staff of the AFP, or his
successor, to extend assistance to the ongoing investigation of the CHR,
including but not limited to furnishing the latter a copy of its personnel Writ of Amparo impleading the same respondents. The SC issued a writ of
records circa the time of the petitioner’s abduction and torture, subject to amparo. Subsequently, the CA granted the MR in the habeas corpus case
reasonable regulations consistent with the and ordered the immediate release of the said missing persons. The CA
relied on the testimony of Manalo who saw the three missing persons with
Constitution and existing laws. his very own eyes as they were detained and tortured together. It deemed
Further directing the incumbent Chief of the PNP, or his successor, to the amparo case to be a superfluity to issue any inspection order or
furnish to this Court, the Court of Appeals, and the petitioner or her production order in light of the release order.
representative, a copy of the reports of its investigations and their
recommendations, other than those that are already part of the records of Cadapan and Empeo filed before the CA a motion to cite
this case, within ninety (90) days from receipt of this decision. respondents in contempt to comply with the orders but the CA denied it
stating that the decision is not ipso facto executory stating that it is still
Further directing the CHR to (a) furnish to the Court of Appeals within under resolution of the SC nor did they file a motion for execution pending
ninety (90) days from receipt of this decision, a copy of the reports on its appeal.
investigation and its corresponding recommendations; and to (b) provide or
continue to provide protection to the petitioner during her stay or visit to the 1st ISSUE: whether the testimony of Raymond Manalo is credible?
Philippines, until such time as may hereinafter be determined by this Court.
The Supreme Court likewise referred the case back to the Court of Appeals, HELD: YES. The court took judicial notice of its decision Iin Secretary of
for the purposes of monitoring compliance with the above directives and National Defense v. Manalo, the Court ruled on the truthfulness and
determining whether, in light of any recent reports or recommendations, veracity of the personal account of Manalo which included his encounter
there would already be sufficient evidence to hold any of the public with Sherlyn, Kara and Merino while on detention.
respondents responsible or, at least, accountable. After making such
determination, the Court of Appeals shall submit its own report with 2nd ISSUE: WON the parents of Sherlyn and Karen have the requisite
recommendation to the Supreme Court for its consideration. It was declared standing to file the amparo petition on behalf of Merino?
that the Court of Appeals will continue to have jurisdiction over this case in
order to accomplish its tasks under this decision. HELD: NO. Section 2 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo provides that the
petition may be filed by the aggrieved party or by any qualified person or
LT. COL. ROGELIO BOAC, LT. et al v ERLINDA T. CADAPAN entity in the following order: (a) Any member of the immediate family,
AND CONCEPCION E. EMPEO namely: the spouse, children and parents of the aggrieved party; (b) Any
FACTS: Armed men abducted Sherlyn Cadapan, Karen Empeo and Manuel ascendant, descendant or collateral relative of the aggrieved party within the
Merino from a house in Bulacan. Spouses Cadapan and Empeo filed a fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity, in default of those
petition for habeas corpus before the Court impleading then Generals mentioned in the preceding paragraph; or (c) Any concerned citizen,
Tolentino and Palparan, Lt. Col. Boac, Enriquez and Lt. Mirabelle as organization, association or institution, if there is no known member of
respondents. The Court issued a writ of habeas corpus, returnable to the the immediate family or relative of the aggrieved party.
Presiding Justice of the CA.By Return of the Writ, the respondents denied
that three persons are in military custody. Here, they failed to allege that there were no known members of the
immediate family or relatives of Merino. The exclusive and successive
The CA dismissed the habeas corpus petition stating that it is not order mandated by the provision must be followed. However, no objection
the appropriate remedy.The petitioners moved for reconsideration of the was raised in the habeas corpus petition. Thus, it is only with respect to the
said decision. Cadapan and Empeo then filed a petition before the SC for amparo petition that the parents of Sherlyn and Karen are precluded from
filing the application on Merinos behalf as they are not authorized parties applied in amparo cases in order to identify those accountable individuals
under the Rule. that have the power to effectively implement whatever processes
an amparo court would issue. In such application, the amparo court does
3rd ISSUE: Whether the chief of the AFP and President Arroyo had not impute criminal responsibility but merely pinpoint the superiors it
command responsibility over the abduction and detention of Sherlyn, Karen considers to be in the best position to protect the rights of the aggrieved
and Merino? party.
HELD: There is no showing that Generals Esperon, Razon and 4th ISSUE: WON there is a need to file a motion for execution for an
Tolentino were even remotely accountable and responsible for the amparo or habeas corpus decision?
abduction and continued detention of Sherlyn, Karen and Merino. Also, as HELD: No. Since the right to life, liberty and security of a person is at
to Pres. Arroyo, settled is the doctrine that the President, during his tenure stake, the proceedings should not be delayed and execution of any decision
of office or actual incumbency, may not be sued in any civil or criminal thereon must be expedited as soon as possible since any form of delay, even
case, and there is no need to provide for it in the Constitution or law. It will for a day, may jeopardize the very rights that these writs seek to
degrade the dignity of the high office of the President, the Head of State, if immediately protect.
he can be dragged into court litigations while serving as such.
Parenthetically, the petitions are bereft of any allegation that then President The Solicitor General’s argument that the Rules of Court
Arroyo permitted, condoned or performed any wrongdoing against the three supplement the Rule on the Writ of Amparo is misplaced. The Rules of
missing persons. Court only find suppletory application in an amparo proceeding if the Rules
strengthen, rather than weaken, the procedural efficacy of the writ. A
Further, Tagitis defines what constitutes responsibility and motion for execution is inconsistent with the extraordinary and expeditious
accountability: Responsibility refers to the extent the actors have been remedy being offered by an amparo proceeding. Hence, the CA in ruling
established by substantial evidence to have participated in whatever way, that its directive to immediately release Sherlyn, Karen and Merino was not
by action or omission, in an enforced disappearance, as a measure of the automatically executory. For that would defeat the very purpose of having
remedies this Court shall craft, among them, the directive to file the summary proceedings in amparo petitions. Summary proceedings, it bears
appropriate criminal and civil cases against the responsible parties in the emphasis, are immediately executory without prejudice to further appeals
proper courts. Accountability, on the other hand, refers to the measure of that may be taken therefrom.
remedies that should be addressed to those who exhibited involvement in
the enforced disappearance without bringing the level of their complicity to Parenthetically, the petitions are bereft of any allegation that then
the level of responsibility defined above; or who are imputed with President Arroyo permitted, condoned or performed any wrongdoing
knowledge relating to the enforced disappearance and who carry the against the three missing persons.
burden of disclosure; or those who carry, but have failed to discharge, the
burden of extraordinary diligence in the investigation of the enforced IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR THE WRIT OF
disappearance. AMPARO AND HABEAS DATA IN FAVOR OF NORIEL H.
RODRIGUEZ
An amparo proceeding is not criminal in nature nor does it
ascertain the criminal liability of individuals or entities involved. Neither FACTS: Rodriguez is a member of a peasant organization affiliated with
does it partake of a civil or administrative suit. Rather, it is a remedial KMP. In September 2009, he was abducted by men in civilan clothes and
measure designed to direct specified courses of action to government taken to the 17th Infantry Battalion of the Philippine Army camp. He was
agencies to safeguard the constitutional right to life, liberty and security of mauled several times and forced to confess that he was a member of the
aggrieved individuals. However, command responsibility may be loosely NPA. He was then forced to sign documents declaring that he surrendered
in an encounter and that he agreed to become a military asset. The soldiers would assess whether, within the context of amparo proceedings, she was
took photographs of him while he was signing. He was also forced to sign responsible or accountable for the abduction of Rodriguez.
an affidavit with the CHR that he was never tortured.
3RD ISSUE: WON the Doctrine of command responsibility may be applied in
Upon his return home, he filed a petition for the Writ of Amparo and amparo proceedings?
Petition for the Writ of Habeas Data with Prayers for Protection Orders,
Inspection of Place, and Production of Documents and Personal Properties HELD: Yes. The doctrine of command responsibility may be used to
against against former President Arroyo, Gen. Ibrado, and other determine whether respondents are accountable for and have the duty to
respondents. The CA granted the petition for writ of amparo and writ of address the abduction of Rodriguez in order to enable the courts to devise
habeas data but dismissed the same with regard to President Gloria remedial measures to protect his rights. Clearly, nothing precludes this
Macapagal-Arroyo on account of her presidential immunity from suit. Court from applying the doctrine of command responsibility in amparo
Petitioner’s prayer for issuance of a temporary protection order and proceedings to ascertain responsibility and accountability in extrajudicial
inspection order was also denied. killings and enforced disappearances
1ST ISSUE: WON the petitioner is entitled to the issuance of a TPO? As earlier pointed out, amparo proceedings determine (a)
responsibility, or the extent the actors have been established by substantial
HELD: No. Section 14 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo clearly provides
evidence to have participated in whatever way, by action or omission, in an
that interim relief is only available before final judgment. These provisional
enforced disappearance, and (b) accountability, or the measure of remedies
reliefs are intended to assist the court before it arrives at a judicious
that should be addressed to those (i) who exhibited involvement in the
determination of the amparo petition. Being interim reliefs, they can only be
enforced disappearance without bringing the level of their complicity to the
granted before a final adjudication of the case is made. In any case, it must be
level of responsibility defined above; or (ii) who are imputed with
underscored that the privilege of the writ of amparo, once granted,
knowledge relating to the enforced disappearance and who carry the burden
necessarily entails the protection of the aggrieved party. Thus, since we grant
of disclosure; or (iii) those who carry, but have failed to discharge, the
petitioner the privilege of the writ of amparo, there is no need to issue a
burden of extraordinary diligence in the investigation of the enforced
temporary protection order independently of the former. The order restricting
disappearance. Thus, although there is no determination of criminal, civil or
respondents from going near Rodriguez is subsumed under the privilege of
administrative liabilities, the doctrine of command responsibility may
the writ.
nevertheless be applied to ascertain responsibility and accountability within
these foregoing definitions.
2nd ISSUE: WON Pres. Arroyo is immune from suit with regard to this
particular case?
4th ISSUE: WON Rodriguez has proven through substantial evidence that
HELD: No. It must be clarified that the Court of Appeals rationale for former President Arroyo is responsible or accountable for his abduction
dropping her from the list of respondents no longer stands since her
presidential immunity is limited only to her incumbency. HELD: NO. Rodriguez anchors his argument on a general allegation that
on the basis of the Melo Commission and the Alston Report, respondents
A non-sitting President does not enjoy immunity from suit, even for
already had knowledge of and information on, and should have known that
acts committed during the latters tenure. The intent of the framers is clear
a climate of enforced disappearances had been perpetrated on members of
that the immunity of the president from suit is concurrent only with his tenure
the NPA. Without even attaching, or at the very least, quoting these reports,
and not his term. It is clear that former President Arroyo cannot use the
Rodriguez contends that the Melo Report points to rogue military men as
presidential immunity from suit to shield herself from judicial scrutiny that
the perpetrators. While the Alston Report states that there is a policy
allowing enforced disappearances and pins the blame on the President, we NOTE: The writ of amparo is an extraordinary and independent
do not automatically impute responsibility to former President Arroyo for remedy that provides rapid judicial relief, as it partakes of a summary
each and every count of forcible disappearance.1 Aside from Rodriguezs proceeding that requires only substantial evidence to make the appropriate
general averments, there is no piece of evidence that could establish her interim and permanent reliefs available to the petitioner. It is not an action
responsibility or accountability for his abduction. Neither was there even a to determine criminal guilt requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt, or
clear attempt to show that she should have known about the violation of his liability for damages requiring preponderance of evidence, or administrative
right to life, liberty or security, or that she had failed to investigate, punish responsibility requiring substantial evidence that will require full and
or prevent it. exhaustive proceedings.2 Rather, it serves both preventive and curative
roles in addressing the problem of extrajudicial killings and enforced
5TH ISSUE: WON Rodriguez was successful in proving through substantial disappearances. It is preventive in that it breaks the expectation of impunity
evidence that respondents were responsible and accountable for the in the commission of these offenses, and it is curative in that it facilitates
violation of his rights to life, liberty and security the subsequent punishment of perpetrators by inevitably leading to
subsequent investigation and action.
HELD: YES. The Rule on the Writ of Amparo explicitly states that the Meanwhile, the writ of habeas data provides a judicial remedy to
violation of or threat to the right to life, liberty and security may be caused protect a persons right to control information regarding oneself, particularly
by either an act or an omission of a public official. Moreover, in the context in instances where such information is being collected through unlawful
of amparo proceedings, responsibility may refer to the participation of the means in order to achieve unlawful ends. As an independent and summary
respondents, by action or omission, in enforced disappearance. remedy to protect the right to privacy especially the right to informational
Accountability, on the other hand, may attach to respondents who are privacy the proceedings for the issuance of the writ of habeas data does not
imputed with knowledge relating to the enforced disappearance and who entail any finding of criminal, civil or administrative culpability. If the
carry the burden of disclosure; or those who carry, but have failed to allegations in the petition are proven through substantial evidence, then the
discharge, the burden of extraordinary diligence in the investigation of the Court may (a) grant access to the database or information; (b) enjoin the act
enforced disappearance. complained of; or (c) in case the database or information contains erroneous
data or information, order its deletion, destruction or rectification.
Rodriguez was successful in proving through substantial evidence that
respondents Gen. Ibrado et al were responsible and accountable for the SECRETARY LEILA M. DE LIMA, DIRECTOR NONNATUS R.
violation of his rights to life, liberty and security on the basis of (a) his ROJAS and DEPUTY DIRECTOR REYNALDO 0. ESMERALDA,
abduction, detention and torture from and (b) the lack of any fair and Petitioners,
effective official investigation as to his allegations. Thus, the privilege of vs.
the writs of amparo and habeas data must be granted in his favor. As a MAGTANGGOL B. GATDULA, Respondent
result, there is no longer any need to issue a temporary protection order, as
the privilege of these writs already has the effect of enjoining respondents in FACTS: Gatdula filed a Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Amparo in
G.R. No. 191805 from violating his rights to life, liberty and security. the RTC Manila directed against petitioners Justice Secretary De Lima et al.
Gatdula wanted De Lima, et al. "to cease and desist from framing up
Gatdula for the fake ambush incident by filing bogus charges of Frustrated can only be availed for a final order such as a judgment under Section 18 of
Murder against Gatdula in relation to the alleged ambush incident." the Rule on Amparo.
Instead of deciding on whether to issue a Writ of Amparo, the judge issued 2nd ISSUE: WON there are procedural irregularities in issuing the Writ of
summons and ordered De Lima, et al. to file an Answer. He also set the case Amparo in the RTC?
for hearing. During that hearing, counsel for De Lima, et al. manifested that
a Return, not an Answer, is appropriate for Amparo cases. Judge Pampilo HELD: YES.
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 1. The insistence on filing of an Answer was inappropriate. It is
suppletorily in Amparo cases. He opined that the Revised Rules of the Return that serves as the responsive pleading for petitions for the
Summary Procedure applied and thus required an Answer. 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
Judge Pampilo proceeded to conduct a hearing on the main case even right to life, liberty and security are violated or are threatened to be violated.
without a Return nor an Answer. The RTC rendered a "Decision" granting
the issuance of the Writ of Amparo and also granted the interim reliefs Judge Pampilo's basis for requiring an Answer was Section 5 of the Revised
prayed for. It also denied the MR filed by De Lima et al. Hence, they filed a Rules of Summary Procedure since the the Rules of Court shall apply
Petition for Review on Certiorari (With Very Urgent Application for the suppletorily insofar as it is not inconsistent with the Rule on the Writ of
Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order/Writ of Preliminary Injunction) Amparo. But the Judge’s basis is misplaced since this type of summary
via Rule 45, as enunciated in Section 19 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo procedure only applies to MTC/MTCC/MCTCs. Aside from that, this Court
before the SC. 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
1st ISSUE: WON the petition for review under rule 45 is the proper party seeks to establish a status, a right or particular fact. It is not a civil nor
remedy? a criminal case.
Held: No. The "Decision" dated 20 March 2012 assailed by the petitioners 2. The holding of a hearing on the main case prior to the
could not be the judgment or final order that is appealable under Section 19 issuance of the writ and the filing of a Return. Without a Return, the
of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo. This is clear from the tenor of the issues could not have been properly joined.
dispositive portion of the "Decision", to wit: The Branch Clerk of Court of
Court [sic] is hereby DIRECTED to issue the Writ of Amparo. 3. It required a memorandum in lieu of a responsive pleading
(Answer) of De Lima, et al. The Return in Amparo cases allows the
The "Decision" dated 20 March 2012 is an interlocutory order since it respondents to frame the issues subject to a hearing. Hence, it should be
pertained to the issuance of the writ under Section 6 of the Rule on the Writ done prior to the hearing, not after. A memorandum, on the other hand, is a
of Amparo, not the judgment under Section 18. The "Decision" being an synthesis of the claims of the party litigants and is a final pleading usually
interlocutory order is suggested by the fact that temporary protection, required before the case is submitted for decision. One cannot substitute for
production and inspection orders were given together with the decision. The the other since these submissions have different functions in facilitating the
temporary protection, production and inspection orders are interim suit. More importantly, a memorandum is a prohibited pleading under the
reliefs that may be granted by the court upon filing of the petition Rule on the Writ of Amparo.
but before final judgment is rendered. Hence, a Petition for Review under
Rule 45 may not yet be the proper remedy at this time since such remedy
4. The "Decision" dated 20 March 2012 itself. In the body of its basis of the petition and its attached affidavits." A year after its filing and
decision, the RTC stated:"Accordingly this court GRANTS the privilege of over a week after SC nullified orders issued by Judge Pampilo, Jr., RTC
the writ and the interim reliefs prayed for by the petitioner." Manila dismissed Gatdula's petition for lack of merit.
This gives the impression that the decision was the judgment since the
NOTE: Procedure:
phraseology is similar to Section 18 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo. The
privilege of the Writ of Amparo should be distinguished from the actual 1) Initiated through a petition to be filed in a RTC, Sandiganbayan, the CA,
order called the Writ of Amparo. The privilege includes availment of the or the SC
entire procedure outlined in A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC, the Rule on the Writ of 2) The judge or justice then makes an “immediate” evaluation of the facts as
Amparo. After examining the petition and its attached affidavits, the Return alleged in the petition and the affidavits submitted “with the attendant
and the evidence presented in the summary hearing, the judgment should circumstances detailed”.
detail the required acts from the respondents that will mitigate, if not totally 3) After evaluation, the judge has the option to issue the Writ of Amparo or
eradicate, the violation of or the threat to the petitioner's life, liberty or immediately dismiss the case.
security. A judgment which simply grants "the privilege of the writ" cannot a) Dismissal = petition and the supporting affidavits do not show
be executed. It is tantamount to a failure of the judge to intervene and grant that the petitioner’s right to life, liberty or security is under threat
judicial succor to the petitioner. or the acts complained of are not unlawful.
b) Issuance = sets in motion presumptive judicial protection for
3RD ISSUE: WON the instant petition should be dismissed? the petitioner. The court compels the respondents to appear
before a court of law to show whether the grounds for more
HELD: No. The Petition for Review is not the proper remedy to assail the permanent protection and interim relies are necessary.
interlocutory order denominated as "Decision" dated 20 March 2012. A 4) The respondents are required to file a Return after the issuance of the
Petition for Certiorari, on the other hand, is prohibited. Simply dismissing writ through the clerk of court.
the present petition, however, will cause grave injustice to the parties - The Return serves as the responsive pleading to the petition.
involved. It undermines the salutary purposes for which the Rule on the Unlike an Answer, the Return has other purposes aside form identifying the
Writ of Amparo were promulgated. issues in the case, Respondents are also required to detail the actions they
In many instances, the Court adopted a policy of liberally construing its had taken to determine the fate or whereabouts of the aggrieved party.
rules in order to promote a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every - If the respondents are public officials or employees, they are also
action and proceeding. The rules can be suspended on the following required to state the actions they had taken to: (i) verify the identity of the
grounds: (1) matters of life, liberty, honor or property, (2) the existence of aggrieved party; (ii) recover and preserve evidence related to the death or
special or compelling circumstances, (3) the merits of the case, (4) a cause disappearance of the person identified in the petition; (iii) identify witnesses
not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by the and obtain statements concerning the death or disappearance; (iv) determine
suspension of the rules, (5) a lack of any showing that the review sought is the cause, manner, location, and time of death or disappearance as well as
merely frivolous and dilatory, and (6) the other party will not be unjustly any patter or practice that may have brought about the death or
prejudiced thereby. disappearance; and (v) bring the suspected offenders before a competent
court. Clearly these matters are important to the judge so that s/he can
Hence, the Supreme Court nullified the writ of amparo issued by Judge calibrate the means and methods that will be required to further the
Pampilo, Jr. in favor of former NBI director Magtanggol Gatdula. The high protections, if any, that will be due to the petitioner.
court found procedural irregularities committed by the trial court judge and 5) Summary hearing after the Return is filed to determine the merits of the
directed him "to determine within forty-eight (48) hours from his receipt of petition and whether interim reliefs are warranted. If the Return is not filed,
this Resolution whether the issuance of the Writ of Amparo is proper on the the hearing will be done ex parte.
6) After the hearing, the court will render the judgment within ten (10) Meanwhile, Sheriff dela Cruz issued the Notice to Vacate and for
days from the time the petition is submitted for decision. If the allegations Demolition.
are proven with substantial evidence, the court shall grant the privilege of
the writ and such reliefs as may be proper ans appropriate. The judgment Hence, petitioners filed the present petition. The petition contains and prays
should contain measures which the judge views as essential for the for three remedies, namely: a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the
continued protection of the petitioner in the Amparo case. These measures ROC; the issuance of a writ of habeas data under the Rule on the Writ of
must be detailed enough o that the judge may be able to verify and monitor Habeas Data; and finally, the issuance of the writ of amparo under the Rule
the actions taken by the respondents. on the Writ of Amparo.
- It is this judgment that could be subject to appeal to the Supreme
Court via Rule 45. After the measures have served their purpose, the ISSUE: WON the petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas data is fatally
judgment will be satisfied. defective?
- In Amparo cases, this is when the threats to the petitioner’s life,
liberty and security cease to exist as evaluated by the court that renders the HELD: YES. Section 6 of the Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data requires
judgment. Parenthetically, the case may also be terminated through the following material allegations of ultimate facts in a petition for the
consolidation should a subsequent case be filed – either criminal or civil. issuance of a writ of habeas data:
Until the full satisfaction of the judgment, the extraordinary remedy
of Amparo allows vigilant judicial monitoring to ensure the protection of
"(a) The personal circumstances of the petitioner and the
constitutional rights. respondent;
AM NO. 08-1-16-SC RULES ON THE WRIT
OF HABEAS DATA (b) The manner the right to privacy is violated or
threatened and how it affects the right to life, liberty or
NATURE AND SCOPE – SECTION 1 security of the aggrieved party;
Tapuz v Del Rosario (c) The actions and recourses taken by the petitioner to
secure the data or information;
FACTS: Spouses Sanson filed with the MCTC Aklan a complaint for
forcible entry and damages with a prayer for the issuance of a writ of (d) The location of the files, registers or databases, the
preliminary mandatory injunction against the petitioners and other John government office, and the person in charge, in
Does numbering about 120. The Spouses alleged in their complaint that possession or in control of the data or information, if
they are the registered owners of the disputed land and they were the known;
disputed land's prior possessors when the petitioners entered the disputed
land by force and intimidation, without the spouses’ permission and against
(e) The reliefs prayed for, which may include the updating,
the objections of their security men, and built thereon a nipa and bamboo
rectification, suppression or destruction of the database or
structure.
information or files kept by the respondent.
The MCTC ruled in the spouses Sanson’s favor. On appeal, the RTC
In case of threats, the relief may include a prayer for an
granted the spouses’ motion for the issuance of a writ of preliminary
order enjoining the act complained of; and
mandatory injunction. The petitioners moved to reconsider the issuance of
the writ; the spouses, on the other hand, filed a motion for demolition. The
respondent Judge issued via a Special Order a writ of demolition. (f) Such other relevant reliefs as are just and equitable."
Support for the habeas data aspect of the present petition only alleges that: related and focused on the disputed land. Thus, if the petitioners wish to
seek redress and hold the alleged perpetrators criminally accountable, the
"1. [ … ] Similarly, a petition for a WRIT OF HABEAS remedy may lie more in the realm of ordinary criminal prosecution rather
DATA is prayed for so that the PNP may release the report than on the use of the extraordinary remedy of the writ of amparo.
on the burning of the homes of the petitioners and the acts
G.R. No. 184769 October 5, 2010
of violence employed against them by the private
respondents, furnishing the Court and the petitioners with
MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, ALEXANDER S.
copy of the same;
DEYTO and RUBEN A. SAPITULA, Petitioners, vs. ROSARIO
GOPEZ LIM, Respondent.
66. Petitioners apply for a WRIT OF HABEAS DATA
commanding the Philippine National Police [PNP] to FACTS: An anonymous letter was posted at the door of the Metering
produce the police report pertaining to the burning of the Office of the Administration building of MERALCO Plaridel, Bulacan
houses of the petitioners in the land in dispute and likewise Sector, at which respondent, Rosario G. Lim (administrative clerk), is
the investigation report if an investigation was conducted assigned, denouncing respondent.
by the PNP."
Petitioner Alexander Deyto, Head of MERALCO’s Human Resource
These allegations obviously lack what the Rule on Writ of Habeas Data Staffing, directed the transfer of respondent to MERALCO’s Alabang
requires as a minimum, thus rendering the petition fatally deficient. Sector in Muntinlupa as A/F OTMS Clerk, in light of the receipt of reports
Specifically, we see no concrete allegations of unjustified or unlawful that there were accusations and threats directed against her from unknown
violation of the right to privacy related to the right to life, liberty or security. individuals and which could possibly compromise her safety and security.
The petition likewise has not alleged, much less demonstrated, any need for
information under the control of police authorities other than those it has Respondent appealed her transfer citing the grueling travel from her
already set forth as integral annexes. The necessity or justification for the residence in Pampanga to Alabang and back entails, and violation of the
issuance of the writ, based on the insufficiency of previous efforts made to provisions on job security of their Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA).
secure information, has not also been shown. In sum, the prayer for the Respondent thus requested for the deferment of her transfer pending
issuance of a writ of habeas data is nothing more than the "fishing resolution of the issues she raised. No response to her request having been
expedition" that this Court - in the course of drafting the Rule on habeas received, respondent filed a petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas data
data - had in mind in defining what the purpose of a writ of habeas data is against petitioners before the RTC commanding petitioners to file a written
not. In these lights, the outright denial of the petition for the issuance of the return containing the following:
writ of habeas data is fully in order.
a) a full disclosure of the data or information about respondent in relation to
Note: The petition for writ of amparo is also fatally defective. The writ shall the report purportedly received by petitioners on the alleged threat to her
issue if the Court is preliminarily satisfied with the prima facie existence of safety and security; the nature of such data and the purpose for its
the ultimate facts determinable from the supporting affidavits that detail the collection;
circumstances of how and to what extent a threat to or violation of the rights b) the measures taken by petitioners to ensure the confidentiality of such
to life, liberty and security of the aggrieved party was or is being data or information; and
committed. The court is far from satisfied with the prima facie existence of c) the currency and accuracy of such data or information obtained.
the ultimate facts that would justify the issuance of a writ of amparo. Rather
than acts of terrorism that pose a continuing threat to the persons of the RTC: granted the prayers of respondent including the issuance of a writ of
petitioners, the violent incidents alleged appear to be purely property- preliminary injunction directing petitioners to desist from implementing
respondent’s transfer until such time that petitioners comply with the
disclosures required. NOTE: It bears reiteration that like the writ of amparo, habeas data was
conceived as a response, given the lack of effective and available remedies,
ISSUE: WON Habeas Data the right remedy for Lim. NO to address the extraordinary rise in the number of killings and enforced
disappearances. Its intent is to address violations of or threats to the rights to
HELD: Respondent’s plea that she be spared from complying with life, liberty or security as a remedy independently from those provided
MERALCO’s Memorandum directing her reassignment to the Alabang under prevailing Rules.
Sector, under the guise of a quest for information or data allegedly in
possession of petitioners, does not fall within the province of a writ of
habeas data. Gamboa v. Chan, G.R. No. 193636, 24 July 2012
Section 1. Habeas Data. – The writ of habeas data is a remedy available to FACTS: Administrative Order No. 275 (A.O. 275) created the Zeñarosa
any person whose right to privacy in life, liberty or security is violated or Commission to investigate the existence of private army groups (PAGs) in
threatened by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee the country with a view to eliminating them and dismantling them
or of a private individual or entity engaged in the gathering, collecting or permanently.
storing of data or information regarding the person, family, home and
correspondence of the aggrieved party. Gamboa alleged that the Philippine National Police in Ilocos Norte (PNP–
Ilocos Norte) conducted a series of surveillance operations against her and
Castillo v. Cruz underscores the emphasis laid down in Tapuz v. del her aides, and classified her as someone who keeps a Private Army Group
Rosario that the writs of amparo and habeas data will NOT issue to protect (PAG). Purportedly without the benefit of data verification, PNP–Ilocos
purely property or commercial concerns nor when the grounds invoked in Norte forwarded the information gathered on her to the Zeñarosa
support of the petitions therefor are vague or doubtful. Employment Commission, thereby causing her inclusion in the Report’s enumeration of
constitutes a property right under the context of the due process clause of individuals maintaining PAGs. This report was leaked to the media, as a
the Constitution. It is evident that respondent’s reservations on the real result, she was publicly tagged as someone who maintains a PAG which
reasons for her transfer - a legitimate concern respecting the terms and made her, as well as her supporters and other people identified with her,
conditions of one’s employment - are what prompted her to adopt the susceptible to harassment and police surveillance operations.
extraordinary remedy of habeas data. Jurisdiction over such concerns is
inarguably lodged by law with the NLRC and the Labor Arbiters. Contending that her right to privacy was violated and her reputation
maligned and destroyed, Gamboa filed a Petition for the issuance of a writ
In another vein, there is no showing from the facts presented that petitioners of habeas data against respondents in their capacities as officials of the
committed any unjustifiable or unlawful violation of respondent’s right to PNP-Ilocos Norte.
privacy vis-a-vis the right to life, liberty or security. To argue that
petitioners’ refusal to disclose the contents of reports allegedly received on In her Petition, she prayed for the following reliefs: (a) destruction of the
the threats to respondent’s safety amounts to a violation of her right to unverified reports from the PNP-Ilocos Norte database; (b) withdrawal of
privacy is at best speculative. Respondent in fact trivializes these threats and all information forwarded to higher PNP officials; (c) rectification of the
accusations from unknown individuals in her earlier-quoted portion of her damage done to her honor; (d) ordering respondents to refrain from
July 10, 2008 letter as "highly suspicious, doubtful or are just mere jokes if forwarding unverified reports against her; and (e) restraining respondents
they existed at all." And she even suspects that her transfer to another place from making baseless reports.
of work "betray[s] the real intent of management]" and could be a "punitive
move." Her posture unwittingly concedes that the issue is labor-related. The trial court dismissed the petition.
explained that the investigations conducted against her were in relation to

ISSUE: Whether the writ of habeas data should be granted. NO the criminal cases in which she was implicated. As public officials, they
enjoy the presumption of regularity, which she failed to overcome.
HELD: The writ of habeas data is a remedy available to any person whose
right to privacy in life, liberty or security is violated or threatened by an It is clear from the foregoing discussion that the state interest of dismantling
unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private PAGs far outweighs the alleged intrusion on the private life of Gamboa,
individual or entity engaged in the gathering, collecting or storing of data especially when the collection and forwarding by the PNP of information
information regarding the person, family, home and correspondence of the against her was pursuant to a lawful mandate. Therefore, the privilege of the
aggrieved party. writ of habeas data must be denied.
The Constitution explicitly mandates the dismantling of private armies and G.R. No. 202666 September 29, 2014
other armed groups not recognized by the duly constituted authority. Taking
into account these constitutional fiats, it is clear that the issuance of A.O. RHONDA AVE S. VIVARES and SPS. MARGARITA and DAVID
275 articulates a legitimate state aim. This Court holds that Gamboa was SUZARA, Petitioners, vs. ST. THERESA'S COLLEGE, MYLENE
able to sufficiently establish that the data contained in the Report listing her RHEZA T. ESCUDERO, and JOHN DOES, Respondents.
as a PAG coddler came from the PNP. The PNP was rationally expected to
forward and share intelligence regarding PAGs with the body specifically FACTS: Using STC’s computers, students of computer teacher, Escudero,
created for the purpose of investigating the existence of these notorious logged in to their respective personal Facebook accounts and showed her
groups. Moreover, the Zeñarosa Commission was explicitly authorized to photos of Julia, Julienne, and Chloe Lourdes Taboada (Chloe), among
deputize the police force in the fulfillment of the former’s mandate, and others (graduating high school students of STC), which include: (a) Julia
thus had the power to request assistance from the latter. and Julienne drinking hard liquor and smoking cigarettes inside a bar; and
(b) Julia and Julienne along the streets of Cebu wearing articles of clothing
The fact that the PNP released information to the Zeñarosa Commission that show virtually the entirety of their black brassieres. What is more,
without prior communication to Gamboa and without affording her the Escudero’s students claimed that there were times when access to or the
opportunity to refute the same cannot be interpreted as a violation or threat availability of the identified students’ photos was not confined to the girls’
to her right to privacy since that act is an inherent and crucial component of Facebook friends, but were, in fact, viewable by any Facebook user. The
intelligence- gathering and investigation. photos were shown to Tigol, STC’s Discipline-in-Charge, for appropriate
action.
In this case, respondents admitted the existence of the Report, but
emphasized its confidential nature. That it was leaked to third parties and Following an investigation, STC found the identified students to have
the media was regrettable, even warranting reproach. But it must be stressed deported themselves in a manner proscribed by the school’s Student
that Gamboa failed to establish that respondents were responsible for this Handbook. As part of their penalty, they are barred from joining the
unintended disclosure. In any event, there are other reliefs available to her commencement exercises. RTC issued a temporary restraining order (TRO)
to address the purported damage to her reputation, making a resort to the allowing the students to attend the graduation ceremony, to which STC filed
extraordinary remedy of the writ of habeas data unnecessary and improper. a motion for reconsideration. Despite the issuance of the TRO, STC,
nevertheless, barred the sanctioned students from participating in the
Finally, this Court rules that Gamboa was unable to prove through graduation rites.
substantial evidence that her inclusion in the list of individuals maintaining
PAGs made her and her supporters susceptible to harassment and to Thereafter, petitioners filed before the RTC a Petition for the Issuance of a
increased police surveillance. In this regard, respondents sufficiently Writ of Habeas Data. The RTC dismissed the petition.
ISSUE: WON the petition for the writ should be granted. NO Before one can have an expectation of privacy in his or her OSN activity, it
is first necessary that said user, in this case the children of petitioners,
HELD: The writ of habeas data is a remedy available to any person whose manifest the intention to keep certain posts private, through the employment
right to privacy in life, liberty or security is violated or threatened by an of measures (utilization of the privacy tools) to prevent access thereto or to
unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private limit its visibility.
individual or entity engaged in the gathering, collecting or storing of data or
information regarding the person, family, home and correspondence of the Considering that the default setting for Facebook posts is"Public," it can be
aggrieved party. Such individual or entity need not be in the business of surmised that the photographs in question were viewable to everyone on
collecting or storing data. Facebook, absent any proof that petitioners’ children positively limited the
disclosure of the photograph. If suchwere the case, they cannot invoke the
To "engage" means "to do or take part in something." It does not necessarily protection attached to the right to informational privacy.
mean that the activity must be done in pursuit of a business. What matters is
that the person or entity must be gathering, collecting or storing said data or That the photos are viewable by "friends only" does not necessarily bolster
information about the aggrieved party or his or her family. the petitioners’ contention. In this regard, the cyber community is agreed
that the digital images under this setting still remain to be outside the
The writ, however, will not issue on the basis merely of an alleged confines of the zones of privacy. It is well to emphasize at this point that
unauthorized access to information about a person. Availment of the writ setting a post’s or profile detail’s privacy to "Friends" is no assurance that it
requires the existence of a nexus between the right to privacy on the one can no longer be viewed by another user who is not Facebook friends with
hand, and the right to life, liberty or security on the other. Thus, the the source of the content. The user’s own Facebook friend can share said
existence of a person’s right to informational privacy (defined as the right of content or tag his or her own Facebook friend thereto, regardless of whether
individuals to control information about themselves) and a showing, at least the user tagged by the latter is Facebook friends or not with the former.
by substantial evidence, of an actual or threatened violation of the right to Also, when the post is shared or when a person is tagged, the respective
privacy in life, liberty or security of the victim are indispensable before the Facebook friends of the person who shared the post or who was tagged can
privilege of the writ may be extended. view the post, the privacy setting of which was set at "Friends."
To address concerns about privacy, but without defeating its purpose, As applied, even assuming that the photos in issue are visible only to the
Facebook was armed with different privacy tools designed to regulate the sanctioned students’ Facebook friends, respondent STC can hardly be taken
accessibility of a user’s profile. Facebook user can regulate the visibility to task for the perceived privacy invasion since it was the minors’ Facebook
and accessibility of digital images(photos), posted on his or her personal friends who showed the pictures to Tigol. Respondents were mere recipients
bulletin or "wall," except for the user’sprofile picture and ID, by selecting of what were posted. They did not resort to any unlawful means of
his or her desired privacy setting: gathering the information as it was voluntarily given to them by persons
who had legitimate access to the said posts. Clearly, the fault, if any, lies
(a) Public - the default setting; every Facebook user can view the photo; with the friends of the minors. Curiously enough, however, neither the
(b) Friends of Friends - only the user’s Facebook friends and their friends minors nor their parents imputed any violation of privacy against the
can view the photo; students who showed the images to Escudero.
(b) Friends - only the user’s Facebook friends can view the photo;
(c) Custom - the photo is made visible only to particular friends and/or In sum, there can be no quibbling that the images in question, or to be more
networks of the Facebook user; and precise, the photos of minor students scantily clad, are personal in nature,
(d) Only Me - the digital image can be viewed only by the user. likely to affect, if indiscriminately circulated, the reputation of the minors
enrolled in a conservative institution. However, the records are bereft of any
evidence, other than bare assertions that they utilized Facebook’s privacy woman. Ilagan denied the video and demanded Lee to return the camera,
settings to make the photos visible only to them or to a select few. Without but to no avail. During the confrontation, Ilagan allegedly slammed Lee’s
proof that they placed the photographs subject of this case within the ambit head against a wall inside his office and walked away. Subsequently, Lee
of their protected zone of privacy, they cannot now insist that they have an utilized the said video as evidence in filing various complaints against
expectation of privacy with respect to the photographs in question. Ilagan, namely: (a) a criminal complaint for violation of Republic Act No.
9262; and (b) an administrative complaint for grave misconduct before the
Had it been proved that the access tothe pictures posted were limited to the National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM). Ilagan claimed that Lee’s acts
original uploader, through the "Me Only" privacy setting, or that the user’s of reproducing the subject video and threatening to distribute the same to
contact list has been screened to limit access to a select few, through the the upper echelons of the NAPOLCOM and uploading it to the internet
"Custom" setting, the result may have been different, for in such instances, violated not only his right to life, liberty, security, and privacy but also that
the intention to limit access to the particular post, instead of being of the other woman, and thus, the issuance of a writ of habeas data in his
broadcasted to the public at large or all the user’s friends en masse, becomes favor is warranted.
more manifest and palpable.
RTC granted the privilege of the writ of habeas data in Ilagan’s favor, and
NOTE: With the availability of numerous avenues for information accordingly, ordered the implementing officer to turn-over copies of the
gathering and data sharing nowadays, not to mention each system’s inherent subject video to him, and enjoined Lee from further reproducing the same.
vulnerability to attacks and intrusions, there is more reason that every
individual’s right to control said flow of information should be protected ISSUE: WON the RTC correctly extended the privilege of the writ
and that each individual should have at least a reasonable expectation of of habeas data in favor of Ilagan. NO
privacy in cyberspace. The Court saw the pressing need to provide for
judicial remedies that would allow a summary hearing of the unlawful use HELD: As defined in Section 1 of the Habeas Data Rule, the writ of habeas
of data or information and to remedy possible violations of the right to data now stands as “a remedy available to any person whose right to privacy
privacy. Consistent with this, the Court, by developing what may be viewed in life, liberty or security is violated or threatened by an unlawful act or
as the Philippine model of the writ of habeas data, in effect, recognized that, omission of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity
generally speaking, having an expectation of informational privacy is not engaged in the gathering, collecting or storing of data or information
necessarily incompatible with engaging in cyberspace activities, including regarding the person, family, home, and correspondence of the aggrieved
those that occur in OSNs. party.” Thus, in order to support a petition for the issuance of such writ,
Section 6 of the Habeas Data Rule essentially requires that the petition
sufficiently alleges, among others, “[t]he manner the right to privacy is
violated or threatened and how it affects the right to life, liberty or security
G.R. No. 203254, October 08, 2014 of the aggrieved party.” In other words, the petition must adequately show
that there exists a nexus between the right to privacy on the one hand, and
DR. JOY MARGATE LEE, Petitioner, v. P/SUPT. NERI A. the right to life, liberty or security on the other. Corollarily, the allegations
ILAGAN, Respondent. in the petition must be supported by substantial evidence showing an actual
or threatened violation of the right to privacy in life, liberty or security of
FACTS: In his Petition for Issuance of the Writ of Habeas Data, Ilagan the victim.
alleged that he and petitioner Dr. Joy Margate Lee (Lee) were former
common law partners. After his digital camera got missing, Lee confronted In this case, the Court finds that Ilagan was not able to sufficiently allege
Ilagan at the latter’s office regarding a purported sex video (subject video) that his right to privacy in life, liberty or security was or would be violated
she discovered from the aforesaid camera involving Ilagan and another through the supposed reproduction and threatened dissemination of the
subject sex video. While Ilagan purports a privacy interest in the

suppression of this video – which he fears would somehow find its way
to Quiapo or be uploaded in the internet for public consumption – he failed
to explain the connection between such interest and any violation of his
right to life, liberty or security. Indeed, courts cannot speculate or contrive
versions of possible transgressions. As the rules and existing jurisprudence
on the matter evoke, alleging and eventually proving the nexus between
one’s privacy right to the cogent rights to life, liberty or security are crucial
in habeas data cases, so much so that a failure on either account certainly
renders a habeas data petition dismissible, as in this case.
In fact, even discounting the insufficiency of the allegations, the petition

would equally be dismissible due to the inadequacy of the evidence
presented. As the records show, all that Ilagan submitted in support of his
petition was his self-serving testimony which hardly meets the substantial
evidence requirement as prescribed by the Habeas Data Rule. This is
because nothing therein would indicate that Lee actually proceeded to
commit any overt act towards the end of violating Ilagan’s right to privacy
in life, liberty or security. Nor would anything on record even lead a
reasonable mind to conclude that Lee was going to use the subject video in
order to achieve unlawful ends – say for instance, to spread it to the public
so as to ruin Ilagan’s reputation. Contrastingly, Lee even made it clear in
her testimony that the only reason why she reproduced the subject video
was to legitimately utilize the same as evidence in the criminal and
administrative cases that she filed against Ilagan. Hence, due to the
insufficiency of the allegations as well as the glaring absence of substantial
evidence, the Court finds it proper to reverse the RTC Decision and dismiss
the habeas data petition.

Writs Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Writs Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Writs Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BALLESTEROS-BATUGAN-CABANIT-CARLOS-MAGUDDATU

Yes. Substantial evidence of an actual or threatened violation of the right to

explained that the investigations conducted against her were in relation to

subject sex video. While Ilagan purports a privacy interest in the

In fact, even discounting the insufficiency of the allegations, the petition

You might also like