Freedom from fear is the right and ay

threat to the rights of life, liberty or security

is the actionable wrong.

It is more correct to say that

the right to security
is actually the freedom from threat.

The right to security of person

is a guarantee of bodily and psychological integrity or security.

The right to security of person

is a guarantee of the protection of one’s right by the government.

The circumstances of
respondent’s abduction,
detention,
torture and
escape reasonably support a conclusion

that there is an apparent threat

that they will again be abducted, tortured, and this time, eve executed.

These constitute threats to heir liberty, security, and

life actionable through a petition for a writ of amparo.

The amparo production order

may be likened to the production of
documents or things under section 1, rule 27 of the rules of
civil procedure which provides in relevant part.

Under section 6 of the same rules,

the court shall issue the writ upon the
filing of the petition, only if on its face, the court ought to issue said writ.
SECTION 6. issuance of the writ.-
upon the filing of the petition, the court, justice or judge
This new remedy of writ of amparo
which is made available by this court
is intended for the protection of
the highest possible rights of any person,
which is his or her right to life, liberty and security.

To start off with the basics,

the writ of amparo was originally conceived a
s a response to the extraordinary rise
in the number of killings and enforced disappearances, and
to the perceived lack of available and
effective remedies
to address these extraordinary concerns.

It is intended to address
violations of or threats to the rights to life, liberty or security,
as an extraordinary and independent remedy
beyond those availabl
e under the prevailing rules, or
as a remedy supplemental to these rules.

What it is not,
is a writ to protect concerns
that are purely property or commercial.

Neither is it a writ that we shall issue

on amorphous and uncertain grounds.

Issuance of the writ must be supported

by justifying allegations of fact, to wit:
(a)
(b) The personal circumstances of the petitioner;
 (c) 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;
(d) 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;
(e) 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;

Support for the habeas data aspect of the present petition only alleges that:

Similarly, a petition for a WRIT OF HABEAS DATA

is prayed for so that
the PNP may release the report on
the burning of the homes of the petitioners and
the acts of violence employed against them
by the private respondents,
furnishing the court and the petitioners with copy of the same;

Petitioners apply for a WRIT of HABEAS DATA

commanding the Philippine National Police [PNP]
to produce the police report pertaining to the burning of the houses of the
petitioners in the land in dispute and
likewise the investigation report if an investigation was conducted by the PNP.”

These allegations obviously lack what the rule on writ of habeas data
requires as a minimum,
thus rendering the petition fatally deficient.
Specially, we see no concrete allegations of
unjustified or unlawful violation of
the right to privacy related to the right to life, liberty or security.

Section 4 and 6, rule 60 of the Rules of Court

are the pertinent provisions in the case at bar.

Sec. 4. Duty of the sheriff.-

upon receiving such order,

the sheriff must serve a copy thereof.

(2)id.;
property seized under
a writ of replevin is not to be delivered immediately to the plaintiff.

- first, the rules provide that property seized

under a writ of replevin is not to be delivered immediately to the plaintiff.
In accordance with the said rules,

Andres should have waited no less than five days

in order to give the complainant
an opportunity to object to the sufficiency of the bond or
of the surety or sureties thereon, or
require the return of the seized motor vehicles by filing a counter-bond.

This, he failed to do.

(3) the purpose of the five (5) days is

to give a chance to the defendant to object
to the sufficiency of the bond or the surety or sureties thereon or
require the return of the property by filing a counterbond.- in Pardo v. Velasco.
In Sebastian v. Valino (224 SCRA 256) this court reiterated that

Under the Revised Rules of Court,

the property seized under a writ of replevin
is not to be delivered immediately to the plaintiff.

The sheriff must retain it in his custody

for five days and he shall return it to the defendant,
its return and files a counterbond…. (emphasis supplied.)

The alleged lack of facility

y to store the seized vehicles
is unacceptable considering
that respondent sheriff
should have deposited the same
in a bonded warehouse.

From the moment an order of delivery in replevin

is executed by taking possession of the property specified therein,
such property is in custodia ledis.

- Second, it must be stressed

As legal custodian,
it is Andres’ duty to safekeep the seized motor vehicles.
Hence, when he passed his duty
to safeguard the motor vehicles to Silver,
he committed a clear neglect of duty.

Under Section 9, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court,

the procedure for the execution of writs ad
other processes are:
first, the sheriff must make an estimate of the expenses to be incurred by him;
Second,
 he must obtain court approval for such estimated expenses;
Third, the approved estimate expenses
shall be deposited by the interested party
with the Clerk of Court and ex officio sheriff;

Fourth, the Clerk of Court shall disburse the amount to the executing sheriff; and
Fifth, the executing sheriff shall liquidated his expenses
within the same period for rendering a return on the writ.

A denial crumbles in the light of positive declarations.