In Re Writ of Amparo v. GMA

8/12/2019 In Re Writ of Amparo v. GMA

1/23

G.R. No. 189155 September 7, 2010

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR THE WRIT OF AMPARO AN THE WRIT OF HABEAS DATA IN FA!OR OFME"ISSA #. RO$AS, ME"ISSA #. RO$AS, Petitioner,vs.G"ORIA MA#APAGA"%ARRO&O, GI"'ERT TEO ORO, GEN.!I#TOR S. I'RA O, P( IR. GEN. )ES*S AME !ER+OSA, "T.GEN. E"FIN N. 'ANGIT, P#(S*PT. "EON NI"O A. E"A #R*+,MA). GEN. RA"PH !I""AN*E!A, PS(S*PT. R* & GAMI O"A#A IN, AN #ERTAIN PERSONS WHO GO '& THE NAME S-

E$, R# AN ROSE, Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

PERE+, J.:

At bench is a Petition For Review on Certiorari 1 assailin the Decision ! dated !" A# #st !$$% o& the Co#rt o& Appeals in CA'(.R. SP No. $$$)"'*RA + a petition that was co enced -ointl #nder the R#les on the *rito& A paro /A paro R#le0 and abeas Data / abeas Data R#le0. In itsdecision, the Co#rt o& Appeals e2tended to the petitioner, 3elissa C. Ro2as,the privile e o& the writs o& a paro and habeas data b#t denied the latter4s

pra ers &or an inspection order, prod#ction order and ret#rn o& speci&ied

personal belon in s. 5he &allo o& the decision reads6

* EREFORE, the Petition is PAR5IA778 3ERI5ORIO9S. 5his Co#rthereb rants Petitioner the privile e o& the *rit o& A paro and abeasData.

Accordin l , Respondents are en-oined to re&rain &ro distrib#tin orca#sin the distrib#tion to the p#blic o& an records in whatever &or ,reports, doc# ents or si ilar papers relative to Petitioner4s 3elissa C.Ro2as, and:or 3elissa Ro2as; alle ed ties to the CPP'NPA or pertinentlrelated to the co plained incident. Petitioner4s pra ers &or an inspectionorder, prod#ction order and &or the ret#rn o& the speci&ied personal

belon in s are denied &or lac< o& erit. Altho# h there is no evidence thatRespondents are responsible &or the abd#ction, detention or tort#re o& thePetitioner, said Respondents p#rs#ant to their le all andated d#ties are,nonetheless, ordered to contin#e:co plete the investi ation o& this incidentwith the end in view o& prosec#tin those who are responsible. Respondents
http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt1http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt2http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt1http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt2


2/23

are also ordered to provide protection to the Petitioner and her &a il whilein the Philippines a ainst an and all &or s o& harass ent, inti idation andcoercion as a be relevant to the rant o& these relie&s. )

*e be in with the petitioner4s alle ations.

Petitioner is an A erican citi=en o& Filipino descent. > *hile in the 9nitedStates, petitioner enrolled in an e2pos#re pro ra to the Philippines with the

ro#p ?a on Al ansan 3a


3/23

A&ter abo#t an ho#r o& travelin , the van stopped. 1B Petitioner, Carabeo andandoc were ordered to ali ht. 1% A&ter she was in&or ed that she is bein

detained &or bein a e ber o& the Co #nist Part o& the Philippines' New People4s Ar /CPP'NPA0, petitioner was separated &ro herco panions and was escorted to a roo that she believed was a -ail cell&ro the so#nd o& its etal doors. !$ Fro there, she co#ld hear the so#nds o&

#n&ire, the noise o& planes ta


4/23

See!

On 1B #ne !$$%, the O&&ice o& the Solicitor (eneral /OS(0, &iled a Ret#rno& the *rits >) on behal& o& the p#blic o&&icials i pleaded as respondents.

*e now t#rn to the de&enses interposed b the p#blic respondents.

5he p#blic respondents label petitioner4s alle ed abd#ction and tort#re assta e ana ed. >> In s#pport o& their acc#sation, the p#blic respondents

principall rel on the state ent o& 3r. Paolo, as contained in the SpecialReport >@ o& the 7a Pa= Police Station. In the Special Report, 3r. Paolodisclosed that, prior to the p#rported abd#ction, petitioner and herco panions instr#cted hi and his two sons to avoid leavin the ho#se. >"
http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt38http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt39http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt40http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt41http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt42http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt43http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt44http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt45http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt46http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt38http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt39http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt40http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt41http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt42http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt43http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt44http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt45http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt46


5/23

Fro this state ent, the p#blic respondents drew the distinct possibilit that,e2cept &or those alread inside 3r. Paolo4s ho#se, nobod else has an wao& 5his can onl ean, the p#blic respondentsconcl#ded, that i& ever there was an abd#ction it #st necessaril have

been planned b , or done with the consent o&, the petitioner and herco panions the selves. >B

P#blic respondents also cited the 3edical Certi&icate >% o& the petitioner, asact#all bel in her clai s that she was s#b-ected to serio#s tort#re &or &ive/@0 da s. 5he p#blic respondents noted that while the petitioner alle es thatshe was cho6)$o4cloc< in the a&ternoon o& 1% 3a !$$%, when Barangay Captain 3ichael3. 3an#el ca e to the 7a Pa= 3#nicipal Police Station to report the
http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt47http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt48http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt49http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt50http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt51http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt52http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt53http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt54http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt47http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt48http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt49http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt50http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt51http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt52http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt53http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt54


6/23

presence o& heavil ar ed en so ewhere in Barangay apani


7/23

5he pro ress o& the investi ations cond#cted b 5as< (ro#p CARO AN had been detailed in the reports "B that it s#b itted to p#blic respondent (eneral

es#s A e er=osa, the Chie& o& the Philippine National Police. owever,as o& their latest report dated !% #ne !$$%, 5as< (ro#p CARO AN is still#nable to a


8/23

In its Decision, % the Co#rt o& Appeals ave d#e wei ht and consideration tothe petitioner4s version that she was indeed abd#cted and then s#b-ected totort#re &or &ive /@0 strai ht da s. 5he appellate co#rt noted the sincerit andresolve b which the petitioner a&&ir ed the contents o& her a&&idavits inopen co#rt, and was thereb convinced that the latter was tellin the tr#th. B$

On the other hand, the Co#rt o& Appeals disre arded the ar # ent o& the p#blic respondents that the abd#ction o& the petitioner was sta e ana ed,as it is erel based on an #n&o#nded spec#lation that onl the latter and herco panions


9/23

andatin the p#blic respondents to re&rain &ro distrib#tin to the p#blican records, in whatever &or , relative to petitioner4s alle ed ties with theCPP'NPA or pertinentl related to her abd#ction and tort#re. BB

5he &ore oin notwithstandin , however, the Co#rt o& Appeals was notconvinced that the ilitar or an other person actin #nder theac #iescence o& the overn ent, were responsible &or the abd#ction andtort#re o& the petitioner. B% 5he appellate co#rt stressed that, -#d in b herown state ents, the petitioner erel believed that the ilitar was

behind her abd#ction. %$ 5h#s, the Co#rt o& Appeals absolved the p#blicrespondents &ro an co plicit in the abd#ction and tort#re o& petitioner. %1 5he petition was li


10/23

Co and Responsibilit in A paro Proceedin s

It #st be stated at the o#tset that the #se b the petitioner o& the doctrine o&co and responsibilit as the -#sti&ication in i pleadin the p#blicrespondents in her a paro petition, is le all inacc#rate, i& not incorrect.5he doctrine o& co and responsibilit is a r#le o& s#bstantive law thatestablishes liabilit and, b this acco#nt, cannot be a proper le al basis toi plead a part 'respondent in an a paro petition. 1$$

5he case o& R#brico v. Arro o, 1$1 which was the &irst to e2a ine co andresponsibilit in the conte2t o& an a paro proceedin , observed that thedoctrine is #sed to pinpoint liabilit . R#brico notes that6 1$!

5he evol#tion o& the co and responsibilit doctrine &inds its conte2t in the

develop ent o& laws o& war and ar ed co bats. Accordin to Fr. ?ernas,co and responsibilit , in its si plest ter s, eans the responsibilit o&co anders &or cri es co itted b s#bordinate e bers o& the ar ed&orces or other persons s#b-ect to their control in international wars ordo estic con&lict. 1$) In this sense, co and responsibilit is properl a&or o& cri inal co plicit . 5he a #e Conventions o& 1%$ adopted thedoctrine o& co and responsibilit , 1$> &oreshadowin the present'da

precept o& holdin a s#perior acco#ntable &or the atrocities co itted b hiss#bordinates sho#ld he be re iss in his d#t o& control over the . As then&or #lated, co and responsibilit is / om o/ mo e o3 / 4 6

r m / 6 6 b 6 t , whereb the s#perior is ade responsible &or r meomm tte b his s#bordinates &or &ailin to prevent or p#nish the

perpetrators 1$@ /as opposed to cri es he ordered0. /E phasis in the or inal,#nderscorin s#pplied0

Since the application o& co and responsibilit pres#pposes an i p#tationo& individ#al liabilit , it is ore aptl invo


11/23

transpired+the writ does not, b so doin , &i2 liabilit &or s#chdisappearance,


12/23

At an rate, it is clear &ro the records o& the case that the intent o& the petitioner in i pleadin the p#blic respondents is to ascribe so e &or o&responsibilit on their part, based on her ass# ption that the , in one wa orthe other, had condoned her abd#ction and tort#re. 111

5o establish s#ch ass# ption, petitioner atte pted to show that it wasovern ent a ents who were behind her ordeal. 5h#s, the petitioner calls

attention to the circ# stances s#rro#ndin her abd#ction and tort#re+i.e.,the &orcible ta


13/23

In the case at bench, petitioner was, in &act, able to incl#de in her O&&er o&E2hibits, 11> the carto raphic s


14/23

respondents were involved in her abd#ction and tort#re. 11 *e a ree with theconcl#sion o& the Co#rt o& Appeals, b#t not entirel with the reason #sed tos#pport it. 5o the ind o& this Co#rt, the pra er o& the petitioner &or theret#rn o& her belon in s is doo ed to &ail re ardless o& whether there iss#&&icient evidence to hold p#blic respondents responsible &or the abd#ctiono& the petitioner.

In the &irst place, an order directin the p#blic respondents to ret#rn the personal belon in s o& the petitioner is alread e #ivalent to a concl#sive prono#nce ent o& liabilit . 5he order itsel& is a s#bstantial relie& that canonl be ranted once the liabilit o& the p#blic respondents has been &i2ed ina ll and e2ha#stive proceedin . As alread disc#ssed above, atters o&liabilit are not deter inable in a ere s# ar a paro proceedin . 11B

?#t perhaps the ore nda ental reason in den in the pra er o& the petitioner, lies with the &act that a person4s ri ht to be restit#ted o& his propert is alread s#bs# ed #nder the eneral r#bric o& propert ri hts+ which are no lon er protected b the writ o& a paro. 11% Section 1 o& theA paro R#le, 1!$ which de&ines the scope and e2tent o& the writ, clearle2cl#des the protection o& propert ri hts.

?.

5he ne2t error raised b the petitioner is the denial b the Co#rt o& Appeals

o& her pra er &or an inspection o& the detention areas o& Fort 3a sa sa . 1!1

Considerin the dearth o& evidence concretel pointin to an ilitarinvolve ent in petitioner4s ordeal, this Co#rt &inds no error on the part o& theCo#rt o& Appeals in den in an inspection o& the ilitar ca p at Fort3a sa sa . *e a ree with the appellate co#rt that a contrar stance wo#ld

be e #ivalent to sanctionin a &ishin e2pedition, which was neverintended b the A paro R#le in providin &or the interi relie& o& inspectionorder. 1!! Contrar to the e2plicit position 1!) espo#sed b the petitioner, theA paro R#le does not allow a &ishin e2pedition &or evidence.

An inspection order is an interi relie& desi ned to ive s#pport orstren then the clai o& a petitioner in an a paro petition, in order to aid theco#rt be&ore a A basic re #ire ent be&ore an a paroco#rt a rant an inspection order is that the place to be inspected isreasonabl deter inable &ro the alle ations o& the part see


15/23

identi&ied with clarit and precision, it is, nevertheless, a ini # &or theiss#ance o& an inspection order that the s#pportin alle ations o& a part bes#&&icient in itsel&, so as to a


16/23

letter with photo o& Petitioner holdin &irear s at an NPA trainin ca p anda video CD o& the trainin e2ercises.

Clearl , and notwithstandin Petitioner4s denial that she was the person insaid video, there were records o& other investi ations on 3elissa C. Ro2as or3elissa Ro2as which violate her ri ht to privac . *itho#t a do#bt, reports o&s#ch nat#re have reasonable connections, one wa or another, to petitioner4sabd#ction where she clai ed she had been s#b-ected to cr#elties anddeh# ani=in acts which nearl ca#sed her li&e precisel d#e to alle ation o&her alle ed e bership in the CPP'NPA. And i& said report or si ilarreports are to be contin#o#sl ade available to the p#blic, Petitioner4ssec#rit and privac will certainl be in dan er o& bein violated ortrans ressed b persons who have stron senti ents or aversion a ainst

e bers o& this ro#p. 5he #nre #lated disse ination o& said #nveri&ied

video CD or reports o& Petitioner4s alle ed ties with the CPP'NPAindiscri inatel ade available &or p#blic cons# ption witho#t evidence o&its a#thenticit or veracit certainl violates Petitioner4s ri ht to privacwhich #st be protected b this Co#rt. *e, th#s, dee it necessar to rantPetitioner the privile e o& the *rit o& abeas Data. /E phasis s#pplied0.

5he writ o& habeas data was concept#ali=ed as a -#dicial re ed en&orcinthe ri ht to privac , ost especiall the ri ht to in&or ational privac o&individ#als. 1!" 5he writ operates to protect a person4s ri ht to controlin&or ation re ardin hi sel&, partic#larl in the instances where s#chin&or ation is bein collected thro# h #nlawl eans in order to achieve#nlawl ends.

Needless to state, an indispensable re #ire ent be&ore the privile e o& thewrit a be e2tended is the showin , at least b s#bstantial evidence, o& anact#al or threatened violation o& the ri ht to privac in li&e, libert orsec#rit o& the victi . 1! 5his, in the case at bench, the petitioner &ailed todo.

5he ain proble behind the r#lin o& the Co#rt o& Appeals is that there isact#all no evidence on record that shows that an o& the p#blic respondentshad violated or threatened the ri ht to privac o& the petitioner. 5he actascribed b the Co#rt o& Appeals to the p#blic respondents that wo#ld haveviolated or threatened the ri ht to privac o& the petitioner, i.e.,


17/23

records were virt#all #ne2plained and its e2istence, clearl , onl in&erred b the appellate co#rt &ro the video and photo raph released bRepresentatives Palparan and Alcover in their press con&erence. No evidenceon record even shows that an o& the p#blic respondents had access to s#chvideo or photo raph.

In view o& the above considerations, the directive b the Co#rt o& Appealsen-oinin the p#blic respondents &ro distrib#tin or ca#sin thedistrib#tion to the p#blic an records in whatever &or , reports, doc# entsor si ilar papers relative to the petitioner4s alle ed ties with the CPP'

NPA, appears to be devoid o& an le al basis. 5he p#blic respondentscannot be ordered to re&rain &ro distrib#tin so ethin that, in the &irst

place, it was not proven to have.

eril , #ntil s#ch ti e that an o& the p#blic respondents were &o#nd to beact#all responsible &or the abd#ction and tort#re o& the petitioner, anin&erence re ardin the e2istence o& reports bein


18/23

inco plete and one'sided investi ations cond#cted b the overn ent itsel&.5his aw


19/23

co plicit b the petitioner cannot, b the selves, hold #p as ade #ateevidence be&ore a co#rt o& law+the are, nonetheless, a vital so#rce o&val#able investi ative leads that #st be p#rs#ed and veri&ied, i& onl toco pl with the hi h standard o& dili ence re #ired b the A paro R#le inthe cond#ct o& investi ations.

Ass# in the non'cooperation o& the petitioner, 5as< (ro#p CARO AN4sreports still &ailed to e2plain wh it never considered see


20/23

perspective, *e also dee it -#st and appropriate to rele ate the tas< o&a&&ordin interi protection to the petitioner, also to the C R.

ence, *e odi& the directive o& the Co#rt o& the Appeals &or rtherinvesti ation, as &ollows+

1.0 Appointin the C R as the lead a enc tas


21/23

reco endation to this Co#rt &or &inal action. 5he Co#rt o& Appeals willcontin#e to have -#risdiction over this case in order to acco plish its tas


22/23

c. F#rther DIREC5IN( the inc# bent Chie& o& the Philippine National Police, or his s#ccessor, to rnish to this Co#rt, theCo#rt o& Appeals, and the petitioner or her representative, acop o& the reports o& its investi ations and theirreco endations, other than those that are alread part o& therecords o& this case, within ninet /%$0 da s &ro receipt o& thisdecision.

d. F#rther DIREC5IN( the Co ission on # an Ri hts /a0to rnish to the Co#rt o& Appeals within ninet /%$0 da s &roreceipt o& this decision, a cop o& the reports on its investi ationand its correspondin reco endations; and /b0 to provide orcontin#e to provide protection to the petitioner d#rin her staor visit to the Philippines, #ntil s#ch ti e as a hereina&ter be

deter ined b this Co#rt.

@.0 REFERRIN( ?AC the instant case to the Co#rt o& Appeals &orthe &ollowin p#rposes6

a. 5o 3ONI5OR the investi ations and actions ta


23/23

Other &indin s o& the Co#rt o& Appeals in its Decision dated !" A# #st !$$%in CA'(.R. SP No. $$$)"'*RA that are not contrar to this decision areAFFIR3ED.

SO ORDERED.

Documents

In Re Writ of Amparo v. GMA