‘SUPREME. COURT OF THE PHUFEWES Plog mr osvorion orice Republic of the Philippines Supreme Court Manila EN BANC IN THE MATTER OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF AMPARO OF VIVIAN A. SANCHEZ. VIVIAN A. SANCHEZ, Petitioner, > versus ~ PSUPT. MARC ANTHONY D. DARROCA, Chief of Police, San Jose Municipal Police Station; PSSUPT. LEO IRWIN D. AGPANGAN, Provincial Director, PNP-Antique; PCSUPT. JOHN C. BULALACAO, Regional Director, PNP-Region VI, and MEMBERS OF THE PNP UNDER THEIR AUTHORITY, Respondents. x GR. No, 242257 Present: BERSAMIN, C.J, CARPIO PERALTA, PERLAS-BERNABE, LEONEN, CAGUIOA, REYES, A.,JR., GESMUNDO, REYES, J., JR." HERNANDO, CARANDANG, LAZARO-JAVIER, INTING, and ZALAMEDA, WU. Promulgated: October 15. 8 ae DECISION LEONEN, J.: On Leave,2) G.R. No. 242257 + In determining whether a petition for a writ of amparo should be granted, judges, as impartial inquisitors, must assure themselves that there is no actual or future threat to the petitioner’s life, security, or liberty. Indeed, pursuing rebels is a legitimate law enforcement objective, but the zeal with which our law enforcement officers clamp down on persons of interest or their loved ones must be bound by the fundamental rights of persons. This Court resolves a Petition for Review on Certiorari! filed by Vivian ‘A. Sanchez (Sanchez), assailing the Decision’ of the Regional Trial Court, which denied her Petition for a writ of amparo. On August 16, 2018, Sanchez learned that her estranged husband, Eldie Labinghisa (Labinghisa), was among the seven (7) alleged members of the New People’s Atmy who were gunned down by the Philippine National Police in Barangay Atabay, San Jose, Antique.* Upon discovering that the corpses were sent to St. Peter's Funeral Home, Sanchez went there to verify the news of her husband’s death, At the funeral home, however, the police officers stationed there took photos of her without her permission. Fearing what the officers had done, she left without being able to see or identify her husband’s body.* A few hours after Sanchez had returned from the funeral home, Police Officer 2 Nerissa A. De la Cruz (PO2 De la Cruz), a close friend of hers, informed her that her photo was being circulated at the police station. The officer urged her to tell the investigating officers her husband’s name, otherwise, they would go after her.’ PO2 De la Cruz also warned her to voluntarily cooperate with the investigating officers, or they might suspect her and put her under surveillance. ‘The following day, Sanchez went back to the funeral home, where she was confronted by three (3) police officers who threatened to apprehend and charge her with obstruction of justice if she refused to answer their questions. ‘Again fearing for her safety, Sanchez hurried home without confirming the identity of her husband’ s body.’ Rollo, pp. 10-34 2 Id, at 169-187, The Decision, in Spl. Pro. No. 2018-08-1070 and pronmulgsied on September ‘was penned hy Executive Judge Francisco 8. Guzman Id. at 36. ia Ia. at 36, 86, and 89. Id, at 90 ane 155-156 Ie. at 36-37 2018,Decision 3 GR. No, 242257 Later that day, two (2) police officers went to Sanchez’s house and showed her a photo of a cadaver. She confirmed the dead body as Labinghisa® In the following days, Sanchez noticed the frequent drive-bys of a police car in front of her house and a vehicle that tailed her and her family when they went to Iloilo to attend her husband’s wake.? She also noticed someone shadowing her when she was outside her house, causing her to fear for her and her children’s safety." This fear was shared by her 15-year-old daughter, Scarlet Labinghisa, who attested that the constant police presence caused her anxiety as she worried for her mother’s security: . «« (On that same night, after dinner and while we were watching TV, I saw a pairol car pass by our house twice that me and my younger sister was puzzled and I began to feel nervous. We hurriedly closed our gate and doors. Starting that night, I already had trouble sleeping); (On August 17, 2018, around 3:00 o’clock (sic) in the moming, I woke up feeling tired and nervous, but I continued preparing for school ‘when I saw a vehicle passing our house several times but I just did not mind it, Around 6:00 o’clock (sic) in the morning, while were (sic) waiting for ‘our ride to school, a patrol car passed in front of us, we hurriedly went inside our house and observed what they will do); (While we were on our way to Dalipe, I saw a vehicle following our ride but we continuedon (sic), then when we were already on our way to Iloilo, the same vehicle was still following us); . (From that time, I always’ feel anxious for our security particularly that of my mother because what will happen to me and my sister if she will be gone, so my mother decided to seek help to ensure our security)[.]!" On August 24, 2018, Sanchez filed before the Regional Trial Court of San Jose, Antique a Petition for Writ of Amparo!? against Police Superintendent Mare Anthony D, Darroca (Police Superintendent Darroca), Police Senior Superintendent Leo Irwin D. Agpangan, Police Chief 8 Id at 37. > Id ata2. "© Id. at 37 and 42, 8 dat 45-46, "2 Id. at 35-40. Irwin was sometimes spelled as Erwin,Decision 4 G.R. No, 242257 + Superintendent John C. Bulalacao, and the police officers under their authority. Sanchez alleged that the police officers’ constant surveillance of her and her family made them fear for their safety and prevented them from going out of their house.'? She pointed out that if the conduct of surveillance and monitoring was for her and her family’s safety, then the police should have informed them of it beforehand."* In an August 28, 2018 Order," the Regional Trial Court issued a writ of amparo and a temporary protection order. It also directed members of the Philippine National Police to file a verified written return, The dispositive portion of the Regional Trial Court Order read: WHEREFORE, in consonance with Section 6 of A.M. No. 07-9-12- SC, also known as The Rule on the Writ of Amparo, let a WRIT OF AMPARO be issued, as follows: 1) ORDERING the RESPONDENTS to file their verified written RETURN within seventy-two (72) hours after the service of this writ, together with supporting affidavits, which shall, among other things, contain the following: a) 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; b) The steps or action taken by the respondents to determine the fate or whereabouts of the aggrieved party and the person or persons responsible for the threat, act or omission: ©) All relevant information in the possession of the respondents pertaining to the threat, act or omission against the aggrieved party; 2) ORDERING the holding of a SUMMARY HEARING of the petition on September 04, 2018 [Tuesday] at 2:00 o’clock in. the afternoon in the Session Hall of RTC Branch 12, Office of the Executive Judge, Hall of Justice, San Jose, Antique, and DIRECTING the parties to personally appear thereat; and 3) GRANTING a TEMPORARY PROTECTION ORDER prohibiting the respondents from going within a radius of one kilometer from the petitioner and her children, and to REFRAIN 4.0037. “od "Sd. at $2-S5. The Regional Trial Court Order was penned by Executive Judge Francisco S. Guzman.Decision 5 G.R. No. 242257 the respondents from the conduct of surveillance to the petitioner and her children. RELATIVE TO THE FOREGOING, Mr. ELMER B. ESCANO, Branch Sheriff, under the supervision of ATTY. MA. B.G. CANDIDA D. RIVERO, Clerk of Court and Ex-Officio Provincial Sheriff of this Court, is hereby directed to PERSONALLY SERVE with DISPATCH this WRIT to the respondents herein mentioned, together with a copy of the Petition and its annexes. Let copies of this WRIT be forthwith furnished to Branch Sheriff Elmer B. Escaiio, Atty. Ma, BG Rivero, Atty. LV Jo T. Escartin and Atty. Antonio A. Alcantara and petitioner Vivian A. Sanchez, and let a separate copy hereof together with a copy of the verified petition be served personally upon all the respondents. $O ORDERED." (Emphasis in the original) In their Verified Return,"’ the police officers denied violating or threatening to violate Sanchez and her family’s right to life, liberty, and security.” They stressed that Sanchez’s allegations were grounded on “baseless assumptions, hearsay, mistaken belief, speculations, impressions[,] and feelings[.]”"” On September 4, 2018, a summary hearing was conducted.2° Ina September 13, 2018 Decision,”! the Regional Trial Court dismissed the Petition for a writ of amparo. The Regional Trial Court held that Sanchez, failed to substantiate her assertion that she became a person of interest to the police after she had identified her husband’s dead body. This was because she was unable to specifically allege the police officers’ acts or the acts they sanctioned which threatened her security and liberty.” The Regional Trial Court stated: Furthermore, there was scarcity of any specific allegations that the public respondents had participated, authorized or at least sanctioned the perceived threat to the petitioner's right to life, liberty and security, and the evidence adduced thus far, does not inspire a sensible and judicious conclusion that a privilege of the Writ of Amparo is justified. The petition consists merely of the petitioner and her daughter’s bare allegation of monitoring and surveillance made by the police, sans any corroborative evidence to support that she was purposely singled out with the intention to © Id, at 54-55, 7 Td, at 56-78, 8 Id, at 60-61 Id, at60, 2 Jd, at 170, RTC Decision, 2 Jd at 169-187, 2 Id. at 185-186. fDecision 6 G.R. No. 242257 inflict harm, injury or damage, which thereby threatened her security or a possible allusion to or insinuation of extra-legal Killing or enforced disappearance. The court, at this point, cannot make an enlightened deduction that it was really the respondents who are responsible for the alleged monitoring and surveillance, as no tangible evidence was presented to prove such fact. Assuming arguendo, that she and her daughters were indeed tailed and monitored by the PNP, the petitioner failed to offer any justification for the said act, except her relationship with the deceased Eldie Labinghisa and the latter’s involvement with the New People’s Army, which rationale, at the very least, is likely a mistaken belief.”> ‘The dispositive portion of the Regional Trial Court Decision read: DISPOSING THEREBY, the petitioner has not sufficiently proven. her instant Petition by substantial evidence, WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Privilege of the Writ of ‘Amparo is hereby DENIED. Necessarily, the Temporary Protection Order previously issued is LIFTED. Let copies of this Decision be separately furnished to Atty. Antonio A. Alcantara, Atty. LV Jo. T. Escartin, Atty. Connie T. Alian, Atty. Troy Warren A. Cayanan, petitioner Vivian A. Sanchez, and respondents PSupt. Mark Anthony D. Darroca, PSSupt. Leo Irwin D. Agpangan and PCSupt. John C. Bulatacao. SO ORDERED. (Emphasis in the original) ‘Thus, Sanchez filed her Petition for Review on Certiorari.”> Before this Court, petitioner contends that she was able to prove with substantial evidence that she and her children were under constant police surveillance and monitoring, which constitutes a clear violation of their right to life, liberty, and security. She also insists that the police officers’ unauthorized taking and distribution of her photo was likewise a violation of her right to privacy, which has caused her great fear and anxiety. Respondents were directed to comment” on the Petition. In their Comment,* respondents reiterate that petitioner failed to prove that she was entitled to the grant of the privilege of a writ of amparo, as her allegations against them were unsubstantiated and merely speculative” They insist that as the wife of a member of the National People’s Army, she was a 3 dat 186-187. 2 Id at 187, 2 Ya, at 10-34. % I. at 23-24. 2 Ud at 191 # Jd. at 199-212, Id. at 208-206,Decision 7 G.R. No. 242257 proper interview subject. They also claim that taking her photo was merely part of the regular investigation process.” Nonetheless, respondents denied that petitioner and her children were under surveillance, or that they were tailed by members of the police force! Petitioner was directed to reply to respondents’ Comment. However, she manifested®? that she would not file a reply, as respondents merely refuted the arguments she raised in her Petition and did not raise any new issues.** The sole issue for this Court’s resolution is whether or not petitioner Vivian A. Sanchez was able to prove with substantial evidence her entitlement to the privilege of a writ of amparo. The Petition is meritorious. ‘The Rule on the Writ of Amparo was issued by this Court as an exercise of its power to “promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights[.]”"* Section 1 defines a petition for a writ of amparo as “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 of amparo is, thus, an equitable and extraordinary remedy primarily meant to address concerns such as, but not limited to, extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances, or threats thereof.*° Section 17°7 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo specifies substantial evidence as the degree of proof required of both parties to a petition. Section % 1d, at 207-208. 21d, at 208-208. 2 id. at 216. % Id. at 218-220. Mid. at 218. 8 CONST, art. VIIL, sec. 5 provides: SECTION 5, The Supreme Cour shall have the following powers (5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the Integrated Bar, and legal assistance to the underprivileged, Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts ofthe same grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court, % De Lima v. Gatdula, 704 Phil. 235, 243 (2013) {Per J. Leonen, En Banc}. * RULEON THE WRIT OF AMPARO, see. 17 provides: SECTION 17. Burden of Proof and Standard of Diligence Required. — The parties shall establish their claims by substantial evidence.Decision 8 G.R. No. 242257 « 18 further reinforces the requirement of substantial evidence for the petitioner to establish his or her allegations to warrant the issuance of a writ of amparo: SECTION 18. Judgment. — The court shall render judgment within ten (10) days from the time the petition is submitted for decision. /f 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. (Emphasis supplied) In Secretary of National Defense v. Manalo,* this Court explains that the remedy of a writ of amparo, being a summary proceeding, requires only substantial evidence to provide rapid judicial relief to the petitioner.” More than a mere scintilla, substantial evidence is such relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might determine as adequate to support a conclusion."® In Philippine Metal Foundries, Inc. v. Court of Industrial Relations,"! this Court further defines substantial evidence as “such evidence which affords a substantial basis from which the fact in issue can be reasonably inferred.”? ‘Additionally, hearsay evidence, which is generally considered inadmissible under the rules of evidence, may be considered in a writ of amparo proceeding if required by the unique circumstances of the case. This Court in Razon, Jr. v. Tagitis* concluded that the “totality of the obtaining, situation’ must be taken into consideration to determine if a petitioner is entitled to a writ of amparo: At this point, we need not go into another full discussion of the justifications supporting an evidentiary standard specific to the Writ of Amparo. Suffice it to say that we continue to adhere to the substantial evidence rule that the Rule on the Writ of Amparo requires, with some adjustments for flexibility in considering the evidence presented. When we ruled that hearsay evidence (usually considered inadmissible under the general rules of evidence) may be admitted as the circumstances of the case may require, we did not thereby dispense with the substantial evidence rule; we merely relaxed the evidentiary rule on the admissibility of evidence, maintaining all the time the standards of reason and relevance that underlie every evidentiary situation. This, we did, by considering the totality of the ‘The respondent who isa 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 cainot.invoke the presumption that official duty has ben regularly performed to evade responsibilty o liability 38 589 Phil, | 2008) {Per C.J, Puno, En Banc} Jd atal 4 Ang Tibay v. Court of Industrial Relations, 69 Phil. 635, 642. (1940) {Per J. Laurel, En Banc] 41179 Phil, 109 (1979) [Per J. Antonio, Second Division}. [dat 114. © Razon, Jr. v. Tagitis, 626 Phil. 581, 392 (2010) [Per J. Brios, En Bane! “626 Phil. $81 (2010) [Per J. Brion, En Banc] © 1a at 592, fDecision 9 G.R. No. 242257 obtaining situation and the consistency of the hearsay evidence with the other available evidence in the case.** (Emphasis in the original) The totality of petitioner's evidence undoubtedly showed that she became a person of interest after she had first visited the funeral home, where her photo was taken, PO2 De la Cruz tried to downplay the situation by claiming that petitioner’s photo was not “posted” in the police station, but she likewise did not deny telling petitioner that she saw petitioner’s photo at the police station."7 Whether petitioner's photo was actually posted and distributed at the police station or was just taken for future reference, the taking of the photo bolsters petitioner’s claims that she was being monitored by the police. Respondents try to paint petitioner’s claims as the ramblings of a paranoid and overly suspicious person, but even her daughter confirmed the numerous times the police drove by their house and being tailed whenever they set foot outside their house. This shows that petitioner was not merely imagining the threats against her and her family. The totality of obtaining circumstances likewise shows that petitioner and her children were the subject of surveillance because of their relationship with a suspected member of the New People’s Army, creating a real threat to their life, liberty, or security. Being Labinghisa’s widow, despite being separated in fact from him for more than a decade, puts her at a precarious position in light of the current administration’s aggressive efforts to stamp out the communist struggle in the country, which is seen as the “scourge of society[.]”** Her apprehension at being targeted as a suspected member of the New People’s Army was, thus, palpable and understandable, causing her to “act suspiciously” as claimed by respondents, who subjected her to threats and accusations. Respondent Police Superintendent Darroca claims that petitioner was only placed under general investigation because they wanted to know the identity of the last unclaimed cadaver.” However, the drive-bys and tailings intensified after petitioner had identified her husband, belying his assertions that their investigation was innocuous. Further, petitioner’s relationship with her husband insulates her from any inquiries regarding Labinghisa’s purported membership in the New “a “Rollo, pp. 155-156 “* Chito Chavez, DILG: Revival of Anti-Subversion Law urgent, critical, inevitable, MANILA BULLETIN, August 15, 2019, _ (Emphasis in the original, citation omitted) The proceedings for the issuance of writs of amparo are extraordinary. They are significant not only in terms of final relief. In determining whether the petition must be granted, judges act as impartial inquisitors seeking to assure themselves that there is no actual or future threat to the life or liberty of petitioners. Ina way, courts hearing writs of amparo assist in ferreting out the truth by providing an antidote to the naturally intimidating atmosphere of police investigations, especially involving communist and other rebels against the government. The Rule on the Writ of Amparo was crafted in an era when extrajudicial killings and involuntary disappearances were on the rise allegedly due to the government’s efforts to defeat an insurgency. The Rule was, in part, this Court’s statement that the insurgents’ narrative that fundamental rights were not durable and universal at all times was false. It was an affirmation of the belief that, perhaps unlike the rebels, our Constitution protected civility and human rights, and that this protection was what differentiated the government from the insurgents. It was, and still is, a rule that underscores our humanity and our civility. While pursuing rebels is a legitimate law enforcement objective, the zeal of our police must be bound by the fundamental rights of persons, especially the loved ones of persons of interest. After all, the values we have in our Constitution are what differentiate us from lawless elements. WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. A PERMANENT PROTECTION ORDER is issued prohibiting members of the Philippine National Police from monitoring or surveilling petitioner Vivian A. Sanchez and her children, Scarlet Sanchez Labinghisa and Star Sanchez Labinghisa. The respondent police officers are reminded to uphold the rights of citizens as contained in the Constitution as well as conduct investigations in accordance with their promulgated manuals including the Ethical Doctrine Manual. SO ORDERED. MARVIC MLV.F. LEO! “ Associate Justice % Id, at 203-204.Decision 18 G.R. No. 242257 WE CONCUR: ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice Associate Justice 1 om THE DistENT OF J.B. HERALD [IN S. CAGUIOA ANDRESJB. REYES, JR. tice Assqiate Justice ‘Aksociate # hee es On leave 3. GESMUNDO JOSE C. REYES, JR. \gyocrate J aches Associate Justice Associate Justice _ AMY CSIEAZARO-JAVIER —-HENR B. INTING Askociate Justice Associate Justice 1 ptm QO Heronoles Anand RODI (ALAMEDA ‘tate JusticeDecision 19 G.R. No. 242257 CERTIFICATION I certify that the conclusions in the above Resolution had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the court.