11.

Republic vs Cayanan , 844 SCRA 183, November 7, 2017

Doctrine: The proceedings taken under the Rule on the Writ of Amparo are not akin or similar to those
in criminal prosecutions. In the former, the guilt or innocence of the respondents is not determined, and
no penal sanctions are meted. The proceedings only endeavor to give the aggrieved parties immediate
remedies against imminent or actual threats to life, liberty or security.

Ponente: BERSAMIN, J.:

Facts:

On July 9, 2007, 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. Lastly, the CIDG contends that the
issuance of the writ violated Pascua’s right to presumption of innocence.

RTC’s Ruling:
Court of Appeals Ruling:

ISSUE:

What is the nature of the writ and was there substantial evidence to issue the writ?

RULING:

Yes.

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.

In this case, the substantial evidence existed to warrant the issuance of the writ of amparo. In amparo
petitions, the Court allows for flexibility in considering the evidence presented, including hearsay
evidence which may be admitted as the circumstances of the case may require for the protection of the
precious rights to life, liberty, and security.The recantation has no evidentiary value for being general
and bereft of details of what really happened if the abduction did not occur. Other witnesses also
identified Pascua as the person leading the abductors.