G.R. Nos.

184461-62 
LT. COL. ROGELIO BOAC, LT. COL. FELIPE ANOTADO AND LT. FRANCIS
MIRABELLE SAMSON,
Petitioners.
- vs-
ERLINDA T. CADAPAN AND CONCEPCION E. EMPEO,
Respondents.
 
Facts:
On June 26, 2006, armed men allegedly abducted Sherlyn Cadapan,
Karen Empeño and Manuel Merino from a house in San Miguel, Hagonoy,
Bulacan. The three were loaded onto a jeep that sped towards an
undisclosed location. Spouses Cadapan and Concepcion Empeño filed a
petition for habeas corpus before the Court, impleading then Generals
Romeo Tolentino and Jovito Palparan, Lt. Col. Rogelio Boac, Arnel Enriquez
and Lt. Francis Mirabelle Samson as respondents. The CA issued a writ of
habeas corpus. Respondents in the habeas corpus petition denied that
abductees are in the custody of the military and that they do not know the
abductees.
The CA dismissed the habeas corpus petition. The Court, however,
further resolves to refer the case to the Commission on Human Rights, the
National Bureau of Investigation and the Philippine National Police for
separate investigations and appropriate actions as may be warranted by
their findings and to furnish the Court with their separate reports on the
outcome of their investigations and the actions taken thereon. Petitioners
moved for a reconsideration of the appellate court’s decision. During the
pendency of the M.R., Erlinda Cadapan and Concepcion Empeño filed before
the Supreme Court a Petition for Writ of Amparo with Prayers for Inspection
of Place and Production of Documents. The Court issued a writ of amparo
returnable to the Special Former Eleventh Division of the appellate court,
and ordered the consolidation of the amparo petition with the pending
habeas corpus petition.
CA granted the Motion for Reconsideration and ordered the immediate
release of Sherlyn, Karen and Merino.

Issue:
Whether or not there is a need to file a motion for execution to cause
the release of the aggrieved parties.
Ruling:
 No. there is no need to file a motion for execution in order to execute
an amparo or habeas corpus decision. Since the right to life, liberty and
security of a person is at stake, the proceedings should not be delayed and
execution of any decision thereon must be expedited as soon as possible
since any form of delay, even for a day, may jeopardize the very rights that
these writs seek to immediately protect. As it is, the Rule dispenses with
dilatory motions in view of the urgency in securing the life, liberty or security
of the aggrieved party. Suffice it to state that a motion for execution is
inconsistent with the extraordinary and expeditious remedy being offered by
an amparo proceeding. Summary proceedings, it bears emphasis, are
immediately executory without prejudice to further appeals that may be
taken therefrom.