Writ of amparo denied for being moot and academic. - G.R. Nos.

184379-80
G.R. Nos. 184379-80
"x x x.
Third issue: Grant of the privilege of the writ ofamparo
A. Alleged violation of or threat to the right to life, liberty and security of Lozada
Sections 17 and 18 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo reuires the !arties to
esta"lish their clai#s "$ su"stantial e%idence&
'7()
or such rele%ant e%idence as a
reasona"le #ind #i*ht acce!t as adeuate to su!!ort a conclusion.
'7+)
,he use of
this e%identiar$ threshold re%eals the clear intent of the fra#ers of the Rule on the
Writ ofAmparo to ha%e the eui%alent of an ad#inistrati%e !roceedin*& al"eit
-udiciall$ conducted& in addressin* amparo situations.
'77)
.n cases /here the %iolation of the ri*ht to life& li"ert$ or securit$ has alread$
ceased& it is necessar$ for the !etitioner in an amparo action to !ro%e the existence
of a continuin* threat.
'78)
,hus& this 0ourt held in its Resolution in Razon v. Tagitis1
'79)
Manalo is different fro# Tagitis in ter#s of their factual settin*s& as enforced
disappearance was no longer a problem in tat case. !e enforced disappearance of te
broters Ra"mond and Re"naldo #analo effecti$el" ended wen te" escaped from
capti$it" and s%rfaced& /hile ,a*itis is still no/here to "e found and re#ains #issin* #ore
than t/o $ears after his re!orted disa!!earance. &n Amparo sit%ation s%bsisted in Manalo'
owe$er' beca%se of te contin%ing treat to te broters( rigt to sec%rit"2 the "rothers
clai#ed that since the !ersons res!onsi"le for their enforced disa!!earance /ere still at lar*e and
had not "een held accounta"le& the for#er /ere still under the threat of "ein* once a*ain
a"ducted& 3e!t ca!ti%e or e%en 3illed& /hich threat constituted a direct %iolation of their ri*ht to
securit$ of !erson.
'80)
45#!hasis su!!lied.6
.n the !resent case& the totalit$ of the e%idence adduced "$ !etitioners failed
to #eet the threshold of su"stantial e%idence. Siftin* throu*h all the e%idence and
alle*ations !resented& the crux of the case "oils do/n to assessin* the %eracit$ and
credi"ilit$ of the !arties7 di%er*in* clai#s as to /hat actuall$ trans!ired on (-+
8e"ruar$ 9008. .n this re*ard& this 0ourt is in a*ree#ent /ith the factual findin*s
of the 0: to the extent that ;o<ada /as not ille*all$ de!ri%ed of his li"ert$ fro#
the !oint /hen he dise#"ar3ed fro# the aircraft u! to the ti#e he /as led to the
de!arture area of the air!ort&
'81)
as he %oluntaril$ su"#itted hi#self to the custod$
of res!ondents1
';o<ada) /as one of the first fe/ !assen*ers to *et off the !lane "ecause he /as
instructed "$ Secretar$ :tien<a& th'r)ou*h a !hone call on the ni*ht of 04 8e"ruar$ 9008& /hile
he /as still in =on* >on*& to proceed directl" to te )%rea% of *mmigration so tat few
people wo%ld notice im and e co%ld be facilitated in going o%t of te airport /ithout an$
hassle fro# the !eo!le of the Senate Ser*eant-at-:r#s. :*ain& ';o<ada) stated that he /anted to
*et a/a$ fro# the Senate !eo!le. ';o<ada) e%en /ent to the #en7s roo# of the air!ort& after he
/as alle*edl$ ?*ra""ed@& /here he #ade a call to his "rother :rturo& usin* his Glo"e !hone& and
he /as not !re%ented fro# #a3in* said call& and /as si#!l$ ad%ised "$ the !erson /ho #et hi#
at the tu"e to 4sic6 ?sir, bilisan mo na@. When the$ !roceeded out of the tu"e and /hile /al3in*&
';o<ada) heard fro# the radio trac3 do/n& ?wag kayo dyan, sir, nandyan yong mga taga
Senado@& so the$ too3 a detour and /ent u! to the de!arture area& did not *o out of the nor#al
arri%al area& and !roceeded to/ards the ele%ator near the Aut$ 8ree Sho! and then do/n to/ards
the tar#ac. +ince ,-o.ada/ was a$oiding te people from te 0ffice of te +enate +ergeant-
at-&rms' said deto%r appears to e1plain w" te" did not get o%t at te arri$al area& /here
';o<ada) could ha%e !assed throu*h i##i*ration so that his !ass!ort could "e !ro!erl$ sta#!ed.
!is 2o%rt does not find an" e$idence on record tat ,-o.ada/ str%ggled or made an
o%tcr" for elp wen e was allegedl" 3grabbed4 or 3abd%cted4 at te airport. ,-o.ada/
e$en testified tat nobod" eld im' and te" were not ostile to im nor so%ted at
im. With noon da$ clarit$& this 0ourt finds that the reason /h$ ';o<ada) /as fetched at the
air!ort /as to hel! hi# a%oid the Senate contin*ent& /ho /ould arrest and detain hi# at the
Bffice of the Senate Ser*eant-at-:r#s& until such ti#e that he /ould a!!ear and *i%e his
testi#on$& !ursuant to the Brder of the Senate on the NCN-D,5 Ero-ect. ,-o.ada/ clearl" 5new
tis beca%se at tat time' it was still is decision not to testif" before te +enate. 6e agreed
wit tat plan.
'89)
45#!hases su!!lied.6
,he fore*oin* state#ents sho/ that ;o<ada !ersonall$ sou*ht the hel! of
Sec. :tien<a to a%oid the Senate !ersonnel& and thus 3ne/ that the #en /ho #et
hi# at the air!ort /ere there to aid hi# in such o"-ecti%e. Surel$& the actions of
;o<ada e%inced 3no/led*e and %oluntariness& uncharacteristic of so#eone /ho
clai#s to ha%e "een forci"l$ a"ducted.
=o/e%er& these #en7s su"seuent acts of directin* ;o<ada to "oard the
%ehicle and dri%in* hi# around& /ithout disclosin* the exact !ur!ose thereof&
a!!ear to "e "e$ond /hat he had consented to and reuested fro# Sec. :tien<a.
,hese #en neither infor#ed hi# of /here he /as "ein* trans!orted nor !ro%ided
hi# co#!lete li"ert$ to contact his fa#il$ #e#"ers to assure the# of his safet$.
,hese acts de#onstrated that he lac3ed a"solute control o%er the situation& as /ell
as an effecti%e ca!acit$ to challen*e their instructions.
Ne%ertheless& it #ust "e e#!hasi<ed that if ;o<ada had in fact "een ille*all$
restrained& so #uch so that his ri*ht to li"ert$ and securit$ had "een %iolated& the
acts that #anifested tis restraint ad alread" ceased and has conseuentl$
rendered the *rant of the !ri%ile*e of the /rit of amparo moot. Whether or not
;o<ada /as de!ri%ed of his li"ert$ fro# the !oint /hen he /as led inside the
%ehicle /aitin* for hi# at the air!ort u! to the ti#e he /as ta3en to ;a Salle Green
=ills& !etitioners7 assertions that ;o<ada and his fa#il$ continue to suffer %arious
threats fro# res!ondents re#ain un!ro%en. ,he 0: correctl$ found as follo/s1
!e s%pposed anno%ncement of General Ra.on o$er te radio tat ,-o.ada/ was in
te c%stod" of te 7N7 can neither "e construed as a threat to ';o<ada7s) life& li"ert$ and
securit$. 0ertainl$& no person in is rigt mind wo%ld ma5e tat 5ind of media
anno%ncement if is intent was indeed to treaten somebod"(s life' libert" and sec%rit".
xxx xxx xxx
=e clai#s that he is threatened "$ the alle*ed presence of armed men riding in
motorc"cle !assin* outside the Ae ;a Salle !re#ises /here he and his fa#il$ are sta$in* and "$
alle*ed threats of ar#ed #en around hi# at !laces /here he /ent to. :*ain& these alle*ed threats
/ere not pro$en b" an" e$idence at all' as a$ing originated from an" of te respondents.
';o<ada) also considers the installation of te s%r$eillance camera at te 8e -a +alle
and at +t. +colastica as indirect threat to his ri*ht to life& li"ert$ and securit$. =e clai#s that
these are s!$ ca#eras. =o/e%er& sa%e for ';o<ada7s) self-ser%in* clai#& he si#!l$ failed to
pro$e tat te" were installed or ordered installed b" te respondentsfor the !ur!ose of
threatenin* his ri*ht to life& li"ert$ and securit$.
';o<ada) further #aintains that there is an alle*ed trend& i.e.& /here%er he *oes& there is
a bomb treat. ,here /ere "o#" threats in the !laces /here he /ent to li3e in 'the Eol$technic
Fni%ersit$ of the Ehili!!ines)& Aa*u!an& 0e"u and Cohol. =o/e%er& ';o<ada) hi#self testified
that he did not tr$ to ascertain /here the "o#" threats e#anated. Elainl$& there is no e$idence on
record tat te bomb treats were made b" te respondents or done %pon teir instigation.
Goreo%er& ';o<ada) %ie/s the !ronounce#ent of the Secretar$ of Hustice that he /as put
on the watch list of the ureau of !mmigration as a threat to his life& li"ert$ and securit$. ,his
alle*ed threat is a*ain unsu!!orted "$ e%idence& as in fact& ';o<ada) testified that e did not
ascertain from te )%rea% of *mmigration weter is name was act%all" in te official
watc list of te )%rea%. :t an$ rate& the Secretar$ of Hustice is not one of the res!ondents in
the amparo !etition& and there is no sho/in* in the record that it /as the res!ondents /ho
ordered the sa#e for the !ur!ose of threatenin* hi#.
';o<ada) har!s on the filin* of alle*ed fri$olo%s cases against im and is famil"as
threat to his life& li"ert$ and securit$. xxx =o/e%er& ,-o.ada/ imself testified tat e does not
5now weter te respondents or an" of te respondents ordered te filing of tese cases
against im. *n an" e$ent' said p%rported cases are to be determined based on teir own
merits and are clearl" be"ond te realm of te instant amparopetition filed against te
respondents.
'83)
45#!hasis su!!lied.6
8inall$& !etitioners insist that /hile the$ /ere a"le to sufficientl$ esta"lish
their case "$ the reuired e%identiar$ standard& res!ondents failed to dischar*e
their "urden to !ro%e their defenses "$ su"stantial e%idence and to sho/ that
res!ondents exercised extraordinar$ dili*ence as reuired "$ the Rule on the Writ
of Amparo.
'84)
,his 0ourt has suarel$ !assed u!on this contention in "ano v.
Sanchez&
'8()
to /it1
,he failure to esta"lish that the !u"lic official o"ser%ed extraordinar$ dili*ence in the
!erfor#ance of dut$ does not result in the auto#atic *rant of the !ri%ile*e of the amparo /rit. .t
does not relie%e the !etitioner fro# esta"lishin* his or her clai# "$ su"stantial e%idence.
,hus& in amparo actions& !etitioners #ust esta"lish their clai#s "$
su"stantial e%idence& and the$ cannot #erel$ rel$ on the su!!osed failure of
res!ondents to !ro%e either their defenses or their exercise of extraordinar$
dili*ence. .n this case& the totalit$ of the e%idence !resented "$ !etitioners fails to
#eet the reuisite e%identiar$ threshold& and the !ri%ile*e of the /rit
of amparo has alread$ "een rendered #oot and acade#ic "$ the cessation of the
restraint to ;o<ada7s li"ert$.
. !ropriety of the privilege of the writ ofamparo and its interim reliefs
:s !re%iousl$ discussed& there is no "asis to *rant ;o<ada the !ri%ile*e of
the /rit ofamparo& considerin* that the ille*al restraint alle*ed in this case had
alread$ ceased and there is no i##inent or continuin* restriction on his
li"ert$. .n #astillo v. #ruz,
'8+)
this 0ourt held as follo/s1
:lthou*h res!ondents7 release fro# confine#ent does not necessaril$ hinder su!!lication
for the /rit of amparo& absent an" e$idence or e$en an allegation in te petition tat tere is
%nd%e and contin%ing restraint on teir libert"& andIor that there exists threat or inti#idation
that destro$s the efficac$ of their ri*ht to "e secure in their !ersons& the issuance of the /rit
cannot "e -ustified. 45#!hasis su!!lied.6
8urther& it a!!ears that ;o<ada had alread$ filed "efore the Ae!art#ent of
Hustice 4ABH6 a 0o#!laint char*in* res!ondents /ith 3idna!!in* and atte#!ted
#urder& doc3eted as ..S. No. 9008-4+7.
'87)
.n this re*ard& this 0ourt7s rulin*
in Rubrico v. Arroyo
'88)
is /orth considerin*1
8irst& a criminal complaint for 5idnapping and' alternati$el"' for arbitrar" detention
rooted in te same acts and incidents leading to te filing of te s%b9ectamparo petition as
been instit%ted wit te 0#)' doc5eted as 0#)-7-2-07-0:0;-<. ,he usual initial ste!s to
deter#ine the existence of a prima facie case a*ainst the fi%e 4(6 i#!leaded indi%iduals
sus!ected to "e actuall$ in%ol%ed in the detention of ;ourdes ha%e "een set in #otion. .t #ust "e
!ointed out& thou*h& that the filin* of the BGC co#!laint ca#e "efore the effecti%it$ of
the Amparo Rule on Bcto"er 94& 9007.
Second& Sec. 99 of the Amparo Rule !roscri"es the filin* of an amparo !etition should a
cri#inal action ha%e& in the #ean/hile& "een co##enced. ,he succeedin* Sec. 93& on the other
hand& !ro%ides that /hen the cri#inal suit is filed su"seuent to a !etition for amparo& the
!etition shall "e consolidated /ith the cri#inal action /here the AmparoRule shall nonetheless
*o%ern the dis!osition of the relief under the Rule. Fnder the ter#s of said Sec. 99& the !resent
!etition ou*ht to ha%e "een dis#issed at the outset. Cut as thin*s stand& the outri*ht dis#issal of
the !etition "$ force of that section is no lon*er technicall$ feasi"le in li*ht of the inter!la$ of the
follo/in* factual #ix1 416 the 0ourt has& !ursuant to Sec. + of the Rule& alread$ issued ex !arte
the /rit of amparo2 496 the 0:& after a su##ar$ hearin*& has dis#issed the !etition& "ut not on
the "asis of Sec. 992 and 436 the co#!laint in BGC-E-0-B7-0+09-5 na#ed as res!ondents onl$
those "elie%ed to "e the actual a"ductors of ;ourdes& /hile the instant !etition i#!leaded& in
addition& those tas3ed to in%esti*ate the 3idna!!in* and detention incidents and their su!eriors at
the to!. Jet& the acts andIor o#issions su"-ect of the cri#inal co#!laint and the amparo !etition
are so lin3ed as to call for the consolidation of "oth !roceedin*s to o"%iate the #ischief inherent
in a #ulti!licit$-of-suits situation.
Gi%en the a"o%e !ers!ecti%e and to full$ a!!l$ the "eneficial nature of the /rit
ofamparo as an inex!ensi%e and effecti%e tool to !rotect certain ri*hts %iolated or threatened to
"e %iolated& the 0ourt here"$ ad-usts to a de*ree the literal a!!lication of Secs. 99 and 93 of
the Amparo Rule to fittin*l$ address the situation o"tainin* under the !re#ises. ,o/ards this
end& t/o thin*s are at once indicated1 416 the consolidation of the !ro"e and fact-findin* as!ects
of the instant !etition /ith the in%esti*ation of the cri#inal co#!laint "efore the BGC2 and 496
the incor!oration in the sa#e cri#inal co#!laint of the alle*ations in this !etition "earin* on the
threats to the ri*ht to securit$. Withal& the BGC should "e furnished co!ies of the in%esti*ation
re!orts to aid that "od$ in its o/n in%esti*ation and e%entual resolution of BGC-E-0-B7-0+09-
5. ,hen& too& the BGC shall "e *i%en eas$ access to all !ertinent docu#ents and e%idence& if an$&
adduced "efore the 0:. Necessaril$& ;ourdes& as co#!lainant in BGC-E-0-B7-0+09-5& should
"e allo/ed& if so #inded& to a#end her "asic cri#inal co#!laint if the consolidation of cases is
to "e full$ effecti%e. 45#!hasis su!!lied.6
,hus& if the 0o#!laint filed "efore the ABH had alread$ !ro*ressed into a
cri#inal case& then the latter action can #ore adeuatel$ dis!ose of the alle*ations
#ade "$ !etitioners. :fter all& one of the ulti#ate o"-ecti%es of the /rit
of amparo as a curati%e re#ed$ is to facilitate the su"seuent !unish#ent of
!er!etrators.
'89)
Bn the other hand& if there is no actual cri#inal case lod*ed "efore
the courts& then the denial of the Eetition is /ithout !re-udice to the filin* of the
a!!ro!riate ad#inistrati%e& ci%il or cri#inal case& if a!!lica"le& a*ainst those
indi%iduals /ho# ;o<ada dee#s to ha%e undul$ restrained his li"ert$.
8inall$& /ith res!ect to the interi# reliefs sou*ht "$ !etitioners& this 0ourt&
in "ano v. Sanchez&
'90)
declined to *rant the !ra$er for the issuance of a ,EB& as
/ell as .ns!ection and Eroduction Brders& u!on a findin* that the i#!licated !u"lic
officials /ere not accounta"le for the disa!!earance su"-ect of that case.
:nalo*ousl$& it /ould "e incon*ruous to *rant herein !etitioners7 !ra$er for a ,EB
and .ns!ection and Eroduction Brders and at the sa#e ti#e rule that there no
lon*er exists an$ i##inent or continuin* threat to ;o<ada7s ri*ht to life& li"ert$
and securit$. ,hus& there is no "asis on /hich a !ra$er for the issuance of these
interi# reliefs can "e anchored.