Cuevillas, Shaira Mae

Daep, April Dawn

WRIT OF AMPARO

- Governing rule: AM NO. 07-09-12-SC (Approval date: September 25, 2007 ; effectivity date: October 24, 2007)
Amendments: SC EN banc October 16, 2007 – Amended Sec 9 and 11
- “amparo” means protection
- Definition and coverage:
- 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 violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or
of a private individual or entity.

The writ shall cover extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or threats thereof.
- Nature:
 Independent and summary remedy that provides rapid judicial relief to protect right to life, liberty, and
security
 Preventive – breaks the expectation of freedom in the commission of these offenses
 Curative – subsequent punishment of perpetrators through subsequent investigation and action
 It cannot be issued on amorphous and uncertain grounds, or that the alleged threat is no longer imminent
or continuing
- Kinds of writ of Amparo (According to subject matter) –

AMPARO AMPARO AMPARO AMPARO AMPARO

HABEAS CORPUS CONTRA LEYES ADMINISTRATIVO AGRARIO CASACION
(Amparo against (Amparo against (Administrative (Agrarian Amparo) (Judicial Amparo)
arbitrary detention) Laws) Amparo)

A request that a A private individual or Judicial review of Protects rural Challenge court-
person arrested be legal entity can administrative actions residents who have issued procedural
brought into a court contest any legal rights over common ruling, an
or before a judge to instrument issued by Verify the legality of lands. interlocutory, or final
determine if the the federal legislature decisions issued by decision
imprisonment is that they believe the public
lawful violates their administration
fundamental rights
under the constitution

Can contest
constitutionality of
laws

- How it is different from Habeas corpus:

 It is broader in scope and application than writ of habeas corpus in that it protects a person against illegal
arrest and violation of human rights
 It is covers violations of constitutional and civil rights other than the right to unlawful deprivation of liberty
(enforced disappearances and extralegal killings
- How it is different from Search warrant

Writ of Amparo Search Warrant

remedy available to any person whose right to life,
liberty and security is violated or threatened with
violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public
official or employee, or of a private individual or entity.
(AM No 07-9-12)
Applies to extra legal/extrajudicial killings and enforced
disappearances or threats thereof
May be filed with the SC, CA, Sandiganbayan, and RTC
In case of judgment, the remedy is to file a petition for
review on certiorari to the SC within 5 working days
from notice of the judgment or denial of the motion for
reconsideration
Order in writing issued in the name of the People of the
Philippines, signed by the judge and directed ti a peace
officer, commanding him to search for personal
property described therein and bring it before the
court
(Criminal Procedure)
Intended to seize personal property subject of the
offense, stolen or embezzled and other proceeds of the
fruit of the offense, or used or intended to be used in
the commission of the crime
(Sec. 3, Rule 126)
May be issued by any court
(Sec. 1 Rule 126)
In case of issuance, the remedy is motion to quash the
search warrant, and in case of denial file an appeal of
the denial was made by the issuing court, or petition
for certiorari if the motion was filed before the court
where the criminal case is pending being merely
incidental and interlocutory order

- ENFORCED DISAPPERANCES
Cuevillas, Shaira Mae
Daep, April Dawn
 RA 10353 AN ACT DEFINING AND PENALIZING ENFORCED OR INVOLUNTARY DISAPPEARANCE
 Definition:
Sec 3 (b):  Enforced or involuntary disappearance  refers to the arrest, detention, abduction or any other
form of deprivation of liberty committed by agents of the State or by persons or groups of persons acting
with the authorization, support or acquiescence of the State, followed by a refusal to acknowledge the
deprivation of liberty or by concealment of the fate or whereabouts of the disappeared person, which
places such person outside the protection of the law.
- EXTRALEGAL KILLINGS
 “Extra-legal killings” include killings done without due process
 AO 35 s. 2012, issued during the administration of Benigno Aquino III, defines EJKs as:
committed by "state and non-state forces" to silence, "through violence and intimidation,
legitimate dissent and opposition raised by members of the civil society, cause-oriented groups, political
movements, people’s and non-governmental organizations, and by ordinary citizens."

AO 35 appears to limit EJKs to those perpetrated against people who express dissent or opposition against
government. The older definition also states that both government and non-government forces can commit
EJKs.

 A new law presents a new definition for extrajudicial killings (EJKs), especially when it comes to children in
armed conflict situations. EJKs now include any violation of the right to life, based on international
definitions like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
 Section 5 of Republic Act No 11188 (Special Protection of Children in Situations of Armed Conflict) defines
EJKs as follows:

"Extrajudicial killings refer to all acts and omissions of State actors that constitute violation of the
general recognition of the right to life embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the United
Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the UNCRC and similar other human rights treaties to which
the Philippines is a state party."
- Who may file the petition: (Order of preference is exclusive and mandatory)

Sec. 2. Who May File. - The petition may be filed by the aggrieved party or by any qualified person or entity in the
following order:

1. Any member of the immediate family, namely: the spouse, children and parents of the aggrieved party;
2. Any ascendant, descendant or collateral relative of the aggrieved party within the fourth civil degree of
consanguinity or affinity, in default of those mentioned in the preceding paragraph; or
3. Any concerned citizen, organization, association or institution, if there is no known member of the immediate
family or relative of the aggrieved party.

The filing of a petition by the aggrieved party suspends the right of all other authorized parties to file similar
petitions. Likewise, the filing of the petition by an authorized party on behalf of the aggrieved party suspends the
right of all others, observing the order established herein.

 Effect of the filing of the petition by the aggrieved – suspends the rights of all other authorized parties
to file similar petitions. (same application as to filing by other authorized)

- When may be filed; Where to be filed; Extent of Enforceability; where return is to be filed

Sec. 3. Where to File. - The petition may be filed on any day and at any time with the Regional Trial Court of the place
where the threat, act or omission was committed or any of its elements occurred, or with the Sandiganbayan, the
Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court, or any justice of such courts. The writ shall be enforceable anywhere in the
Philippines.

When issued by a Regional Trial Court or any judge thereof, the writ shall be returnable before such court or judge.

When issued by the Sandiganbayan or the Court of Appeals or any of their justices, it may be returnable before such
court or any justice thereof, or to any Regional Trial Court of the place where the threat, act or omission was
committed or any of its elements occurred.

When issued by the Supreme Court or any of its justices, it may be returnable before such Court or any justice
thereof, or before the Sandiganbayan or the Court of Appeals or any of their justices, or to any Regional Trial Court of
the place where the threat, act or omission was committed or any of its elements occurred.

- Petition for writ of amparo; Contents:

- Sec. 5. Contents of Petition. - The petition shall be signed and verified and shall allege the following:
1. The personal circumstances of the petitioner;
2. The name and personal circumstances of the respondent responsible for the threat, act or omission, or, if
the name is unknown or uncertain, the respondent may be described by an assumed appellation
Cuevillas, Shaira Mae
Daep, April Dawn
3. The right to life, liberty and security of the aggrieved party violated or threatened with violation by an
unlawful act or omission of the respondent, and how such threat or violation is committed with the
attendant circumstances detailed in supporting affidavits;
4. The investigation conducted, if any, specifying the names, personal circumstances, and addresses of the
investigating authority or individuals, as well as the manner and conduct of the investigation, together
with any report;
5. The actions and recourses taken by the petitioner to determine the fate or whereabouts of the aggrieved
party and the identity of the person responsible for the threat, act or omission; and
6. The relief prayed for.

The petition may include a general prayer for other just and equitable reliefs.

- Issuance of the writ; Nature of writ

Sec. 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. 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 hand, and may deputize
any officer or person to serve it.

The writ shall also set the date and time for summary hearing of the petition which shall not be later than seven (7)
days from the date of its issuance.
 The decision pertaining to the issuance of the writ under sec 6 is not the judgment under sec. 18, but
merely interlocutory order.

- Service of writ if amparo

Sec. 8. How the Writ is Served. - The writ shall be served upon the respondent by a judicial officer or by a person
deputized by the court, justice or judge who shall retain a copy on which to make a return of service. In case the writ
cannot be served personally on the respondent, the rules on substituted service shall apply.

- Return by the Respondent; contents; failure to file a return

Sec. 9. Return; Contents. - Within seventy-two (72) hours after service of the writ, the respondent shall file a verified
written return together with supporting affidavits which shall, among other things, contain the following:
1) The lawful defenses to show that the respondent did not violate or threaten with violation the right to life,
liberty and security of the aggrieved party, through any act or omission;
2) The steps or actions taken by the respondent to determine the fate or whereabouts of the aggrieved party and
the person or persons responsible for the threat, act or omission;
3) All relevant information in the possession of the respondent pertaining to the threat, act or omission against
the aggrieved party; and
4) If the respondent is a public official or employee, the return shall further state the actions that have been or will
still be taken:

1. to verify the identity of the aggrieved party;

2. to recover and preserve evidence related to the death or disappearance of the person identified in the
petition which may aid in the prosecution of the person or persons responsible;
3. to identify witnesses and obtain statements from them concerning the death or disappearance;
4. to determine the cause, manner, location and time of death or disappearance as well as any pattern or
practice that may have brought about the death or disappearance;
5. to identify and apprehend the person or persons involved in the death or disappearance; and
6. to bring the suspected offenders before a competent court.

The return shall also state other matters relevant to the investigation, its resolution and the prosecution of the case.
A general denial of the allegations in the petition shall not be allowed.

 As amended by SC en banc Session on October 16, 2007 : Section 9 The return must be filed withing 5
working days after the service of writ
 A return is a responsive pleading for petitions of writ of Amparo

Sec. 12. Effect of Failure to File Return. - In case the respondent fails to file a return, the court, justice or judge shall
proceed to hear the petition ex parte.

- Omnibus waiver rule

Sec. 10. Defenses not Pleaded Deemed Waived. ‐ All defenses shall be raised in the return, otherwise, they shall be
deemed waived.

-
- Interim Reliefs that may be granted
 To protect the witnesses and the rights of the parties, and preserve all relevant evidence
Sec. 14
a. Temporary protection order
b. Inspection order
c. Production order
d. Witness protection order
 Cuevillas, Shaira Mae
Daep, April Dawn

- SUMMARY HEARING

Sec. 13. Summary Hearing. ‐ The hearing on the petition shall be summary. However, the court, justice or judge may
call for a preliminary conference to simplify the issues and determine the possibility of obtaining stipulations and
admissions from the parties.

The hearing shall be from day to day until completed and given the same priority as petitions for habeas corpus.

- Quantum of Evidence
 Only substantial evidence – that which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion
 Private individual – prove ordinary diligence required by law
 Public official/employee- extraordinary diligence; presumption of regularity in the performance of their duty
is not applicable

Sec. 17. Burden of Proof and Standard of Diligence Required. - The parties shall establish their claims by substantial
evidence.

The respondent who is a private individual or entity must prove that ordinary diligence as required by applicable laws,
rules and regulations was observed in the performance of duty.

The respondent who is a public official or employee must prove that extraordinary diligence as required by applicable
laws, rules and regulations was observed in the performance of duty.

The respondent public official or employee cannot invoke the presumption that official duty has been regularly
performed to evade responsibility or liability.

- GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT an indispensable element

 The writ may lie against a private individual or entity. But even if the person is sough to be held accountable or
responsible in Amparo petition is a private individual or entity, still, government involvement in the disappearance
remains an indispensable element
 This element differentiates an enforced disappearances case from an ordinary case of a missing person
 Navarro vs Pardico (GR NO. 184467 June 19,2012)

- Separate Action; Criminal Action

Sec. 21. Institution of Separate Actions. - This Rule shall not preclude the filing of separate criminal, civil or administrative
actions.

Sec. 22. Effect of Filing of a Criminal Action. - When a criminal action has been commenced, no separate petition for the writ
shall be filed. The reliefs under the writ shall be available by motion in the criminal case.

The procedure under this Rule shall govern the disposition of the reliefs available under the writ of amparo.

- Consolidation.
- Sec. 23. Consolidation. - When a criminal action is filed subsequent to the filing of a petition for the writ, the latter shall be
consolidated with the criminal action.

When a criminal action and a separate civil action are filed subsequent to a petition for a writ of amparo, the latter shall be
consolidated with the criminal action.

After consolidation, the procedure under this Rule shall continue to apply to the disposition of the reliefs in the petition.

 Prior criminal action – the petition must be consolidated with the action
 Prior criminal and civil action – the petition must be consolidated with the criminal action
 Subsequent criminal action – consolidated

- Archiving and revival

Sec. 20. Archiving and Revival of Cases. - The court shall not dismiss the petition, but shall archive it, if upon its
determination it cannot proceed for a valid cause such as the failure of petitioner or witnesses to appear due to threats on
their lives.

A periodic review of the archived cases shall be made by the amparo court that shall, motu proprio or upon motion by any
party, order their revival when ready for further proceedings. The petition shall be dismissed with prejudice upon failure to
prosecute the case after the lapse of two (2) years from notice to the petitioner of the order archiving the case.
Cuevillas, Shaira Mae
Daep, April Dawn
The clerks of court shall submit to the Office of the Court Administrator a consolidated list of archived cases under this
Rule not later than the first week of January of every year.

- Judgment and Appeal

Sec. 18. Judgment. - The court shall render judgment within ten (10) days from the time the petition is submitted for
decision. If the allegations in the petition are proven by substantial evidence, the court shall grant the privilege of the writ
and such reliefs as may be proper and appropriate; otherwise, the privilege shall be denied.

Sec. 19. Appeal. - Any party may appeal from the final judgment or order to the Supreme Court under Rule 45. The appeal
may raise questions of fact or law or both.

The period of appeal shall be five (5) working days from the date of notice of the adverse judgment.

The appeal shall be given the same priority as in habeas corpus cases

- CASES
1. NAVIA vs PARDICO

Facts:

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

Exasperated with the mysterious disappearance of her husband, Virginia filed a Petition for Writ of Amparo before the RTC of
Malolos City. A Writ of Amparo was accordingly issued and served on the petitioners. The trial court issued the challenged
Decision granting the petition. Hence this petition.

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

HELD: RTCs decision is reversed and set aside.

▣ State participation is an indispensable element of the issuance of a writ of amparo. Proof of disappearance alone is
not enough.
▣ It is likewise essential to establish such disappearance was carried out with DIRECT or INDIRECT AUTHORIZATION,
SUPPORT or ACQUIESCENCE of the government.
▣ If a private individual is being held responsible, still, government involvement is still indispensable requirement
▣ This element differentiates an enforced disappearance case from an ordinary case of a missing person

Here, petitioners are mere security guards at Grand Royale Subdivision in Brgy. Lugam, Malolos City and their principal,
the Asian Land, is a private entity. They do not work for the government and nothing has been presented that would link or
connect them to some covert police, military or governmental operation. As discussed above, to fall within the ambit of A.M.
No. 07-9-12-SC in relation to RA No. 9851, the disappearance must be attended by some governmental involvement. This
hallmark of State participation differentiates an enforced disappearance case from an ordinary case of a missing person.

2. RUBRICO vs MACAPAGAL-ARROYO

Facts:

The Rubricos seek to set aside the Decision of the CA on their petition for writ of amparo. They prayed that a Writ of amparo be
issued, ordering the individual respondents to desist from performing any threatening acts against the security of the
petitioners and for the office of the ombudsman to immediately file an information for qualified kidnapping. General Esperon,
P/Dir. General Razon, P/Supt. Roqueoro, and P/Insp. Gomez were included as respondents not because they were implicated
as being connected to, let alone as being behind, the alleged abduction and harassment of petitioners. They were included on
the theory that they, as COMMANDERS, were responsible for the unlawful acts allegedly committed by their subordinates
against the petitioner.

Issue:

Whether or not the principle of Command Responsibility applies to General Esperon and P/Dir. General razon in the amparo
proceedings

Held:
Cuevillas, Shaira Mae
Daep, April Dawn
 - RESPONSIBILITY of commanders for crimes committed by subordinate members of the armed forces or other
persons subject to their control in international wars or domestic conflict
 Form of CRIMINAL COMPLICITY
 An omission mode of individual criminal liability
 Amparo suit is not an action to determine criminal guilt requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt or administrative
liability requiring substantial evidence that will require full and exhaustive proceedings
 Writ of Amparo does not determine guilt nor pinpoint criminal culpability for the disappearance, threats thereof, or
extrajudicial killings;
 It determines responsibility, at least accountability, for enforced disappearance, threats, or extrajudicial killings, for
purposes of imposing the appropriate remedies to address such.
 If command responsibility is to be invoked and applied to amparo proceedings, it should, at most, be only to
determine the author who, at the first instance, is ACCOUNTABLE for, and has the DUTY TO ADDRESS, the
disappearance and harassment complained of, so as to enable the court to devise remedial measures that may be
appropriate under the premises to protect the rights covered by the Writ of Amparo
 The determination should not be pursued to fix criminal liability on respondents preparatory to criminal prosecution,
or as a prelude to administrative disciplinary proceedings, if any.

3. TAPUZ VS DEL ROSARIO

Facts:

Gregorio Sanson and Ma. Lourdes sanson filed with the MTCTC an action for forcible entry against TAPUZ alleging that they are
the registered owners of the land and that they were the disputed land’s prior possessors when Tapuz at al entered the land
with force and intimidation without their permission. The MTCTC held in favor of the Sansons. The RTC affirmed the decision of
the MTCTC and even issued a writ of demolition hence, Tapuz filed an appealed. Petitioners prayed for three remedies:
Certiorari under rule 65; writ of habeas data, and writ of amparo on the ground that the tapuz reported acts of terrorism
committed against them by armed men ho executed the demolition. It is alleged that the armed men torched two houses of the
tapuz reducing them to ashes.

Issue:

w/n the issuance of writ of amparo is proper

Held:

No. The Court sees no point in separately and directly intervening through a writ of amparo, in the absence of any clear prima
facie showing that the right to life, liberty or security – the personal concern that the writ intended to protect – is immediately
in danger or threatened, or that the danger or threat is continuing

4. CARAM VS SEGUI

Facts:

Christina had an amorous relationship with Marcelino and eventually became pregnant with the latter’s child without the
benefit of marriage. Christina mislead Marcelino into believing that she had an abortion. she intended to have the child
adopted through Sun and Moon Home for Children in Parañaque City. Christina gave birth to Baby Julian and voluntarily
surrendered Baby Julian by way of a Deed of Voluntary Commitment to the DSWD. The DSWD, a certificate was issued declaring
Baby Julian as “Legally Available for Adoption.” Baby Julian was “matched” with Spouses Medina and supervised trial custody
was then commenced.

Christina who had changed her mind about the adoption, wrote a letter to the DSWD asking for the suspension of Baby
Julian’s adoption proceedings. The DSWD, through respondent Atty. Segui, sent a Memorandum to DSWD Assistant Secretary
Cabrera informing her that the certificate declaring Baby Julian legally available for adoption had attained finality. Christina filed
a petition for the issuance of a writ of amparo before the RTC seeking to obtain custody of Baby Julian from DSWD.

Issue: W/N The writ of amparo may issue

Held : No

In this case, Cristina allege;

- Respondent DSWD officers caused her “enforced separation” from Baby Julian and that their action amounted to
“enforced disappearance” within the context of the Amparo rule.
Supreme Court:
- Respondent DSWD never concealed Baby Julian’s whereabouts. Infect, Cristina obtained a copy of the DSWD’s
Memorandum explicitly stating that Baby Julian was in the custody of the Medina Spouses when she filed her petition
before the RTC. Baby Julian was also presented by the DSWD during the hearing before RTC.
- Therefore no enforced disappearance as used in the context of the Amparo rule as the 3 rd and 4th requisites are
missing
Cuevillas, Shaira Mae
Daep, April Dawn
- The privilege of Writ of Amparo is a remedy available to victims of extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances
or threats of a similar nature regardless of who the perpetrator is. What is involved here is an issue of child custody
and the exercise of parental authority over the child.

5. DE LIMA vs. Gatdula

GR No. 204528
February 19, 2013

FACTS:
Gatdula filed a Petition for the issuance of a Writ of Amparo in the RTC. The said writ was directed to Justice Secretary Leila 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 Murder against Gatdula in relation to the alleged ambush incident.”

Instead of deciding on whether to issue a Writ of Amparo, the judge issued summons and ordered the Respondents to file an
Answer and set a hearing in order to determine whether a temporary restraining order may be issued.

The respondents during the said hearing manifested that a Return, not an Answer, is appropriate for Amparo cases. However,
the Judge insisted that since no writ has been issued, return is not the required pleading but an answer. The presiding Judge
then proceeded to conduct a hearing on the main case. The RTC rendered a “decision” granting the issuance of the Writ of
Amparo and the interim reliefs prayed for by the Petitioner.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Return is same as an Answer

HELD:

The Supreme Court held that the Return serves as the responsive pleading to the petition. Unlike an Answer, the return has
other purposes aside from identifying the issues in the case. Respondents are also required to detail the actions they had taken
to determine the fate or whereabouts of the aggrieved party.

The Return in Amparo cases allows the respondents to frame the issues subject to a hearing.

6. SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE VS. MANALO

GR. No. 180906

FACTS:

Brothers Raymond and Reynaldo Manalo were abducted by military men belonging to the CAFGU on the suspicion that they
were members and supporters of the NPA. After 18 months of detention and torture, the brothers escaped on August 13, 2007.

Ten days after their escape, they filed a Petition for Prohibition, Injunction, and Temporary Restraining Order to stop the
military officers and agents from depriving them of their right to liberty and other basic rights. While the said case was pending,
the Rule on the Writ of Amparo took effect on October 24, 2007. The Manalos subsequently filed a manifestation and omnibus
motion to treat their existing petition as amparo petition.

On December 26, 2007, the Court of Appeals granted the privilege of the writ of amparo. The CA ordered the Secretary of
National Defense and the Chief of Staff of the AFP to furnish the Manalos and the court with all official and unofficial
investigation reports as to the Manalos’ custody, confirm the present places of official assignment of two military officials
involved, and produce all medical reports and records of the Manalo brothers while under military custody. The Secretary of
National Defense and the Chief of Staff of the AFP appealed to the SC seeking to reverse and set aside the decision promulgated
by the CA with the contention that the decision made by the CA was solely based in the uncorroborated, contradicted, and
obviously scripted, rehearsed and self-serving affidavit/ testimony of the respondent.

ISSUE: W/N the uncorroborated, contradicted, and obviously scripted, rehearsed and self-serving affidavit/testimony of the
respondent is enough to the required proof of evidence.

HELD:

Substantial evidence has been defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion.

The SC held that with the secret nature of an enforced disappearance and the torture perpetrated in the victim during
detention, it logically holds that much of the information and evidence of the ordeal will come from the victims themselves, and
the veracity of their account will depend on their credibility and candidness in their written and/or oral statements. Their
Cuevillas, Shaira Mae
Daep, April Dawn
statements can be corroborated by other evidence such as physical evidence left by the torture they suffered or landmarks they
can identify in the places where they were detained. Where powerful military officers are implicated, the hesitation of
witnesses to surface and testify against them comes as no surprise.

Thus, the SC affirmed to the factual findings of the appellate court which was largely based on respondent Raymond Manalo’s
affidavit and testimony.

7. Republic vs. Cayanan

GR No. 181796

FACTS:

Pablo Cayanan, a used car dealer, and Ronaldo F. Perez, a fixer, were forcibly taken by a group of armed men led by SPO2
Rolando Pascua. Perez was later released but Cayanan has not been seen nor heard from since then.

A petition for habeas corpus was filed in behalf of Cayanan but later converted to amparo proceedings. Perez executed a sworn
affidavit describing the abduction but later recanted his statement. SPO2 Pascua submitted a counter-affidavit in which he
denied the allegations and claimed that he was also abducted in the same incident by unknown men.

The RTC issued the writ of amparo, ordering the CIDG Director to conduct further investigations and for SPO2 Pascua to appear
before the proper forum. The CIDG however appeals the RTC’s judgment, arguing that the applicant for the writ failed to prove
by substantial evidence the involvement of CIDG in the disappearance of Cayanan because Perez recanted his affidavit; that the
CIDG is only required to exercise ordinary diligence and that it has already discharged its duty under the Rules when it
submitted its return with certifications that CIDG was not detaining Cayanan.

ISSUE: W/N only ordinary diligence is required from the CIDG.

HELD:

No, extraordinary diligence is required from the CIDG. The SC held that the State and its agencies, not just public officials and
employees, are covered by the Rule and may be impleaded.

In the case at bar, the CIDG did not execute the required diligence. In their return, the CIDG only attached passive certificates
issued by its operating division, in which it was inadequate. Under the rules of Amparo, in order for the extraordinary diligence
to be observed, it requires the verified written return of the CIDG to be accompanied by supporting affidavits. Such affidavits,
which could be those of the persons tasked by the CIDG and other agencies like the NBI and probably the Land Transportation
Office (LTO) to collaborate in the investigation of the abduction of Pablo, would have specified and described the efforts
expended in the search for Pablo, if such search was really conducted, and would have reported the progress of the
investigation of the definite leads given in the Perez's sinumpaang salaysay on the abduction itself.