Human Rights Law 1-18-25 Secretary of National Defense vs. Manalo to Canlas vs. Napico.pdf

8/10/2019 Human Rights Law 1-18-25 Secretary of National Defense vs. Manalo to Canlas vs. Napico.pdf

1/240


2/240


3/240

provided by law and containing the specific matter required by law; (3) they begranted the interim reliefs allowed by theAmparoRule and all other reliefs prayedfor in the petition but not covered by theAmparo Rule; (4) the Court, after hearing,render judgment as required in Sec. 18[7]of theAmparoRule; and (5) all other just

and equitable reliefs.

[8]

On October 25, 2007, the Court resolved to treat the August 23, 2007

Petition as a petition under theAmparoRule and further resolved, viz:

WHEREFORE, let a WRIT OF AMPARO be issued torespondents requiring them to file with the CA (Court of Appeals) averified written return within five (5) working days from service of thewrit. We REMAND the petition to the CA and designate the Division ofAssociate Justice Lucas P. Bersamin to conduct the summary hearing onthe petition on November 8, 2007 at 2:00 p.m. and decide the petition in

accordance with the Rule on the Writ of Amparo.[9]

On December 26, 2007, the Court of Appeals rendered a decision in favor oftherein petitioners (herein respondents), the dispositive portion of which reads, viz:

ACCORDINGLY, the PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OFAMPAROis GRANTED.

The respondents SECRETARY OF NATIONALDEFENSEand AFP CHIEF OF STAFFare hereby REQUIRED:

1. To furnish to the petitioners and to this Court within five days fromnotice of this decision all official and unofficial reports of theinvestigation undertaken in connection with their case, except thosealready on file herein;

2. To confirm in writing the present places of official assignment ofM/Sgt Hilario akaRollie Castillo and Donald Caigas within five daysfrom notice of this decision.

3. To cause to be produced to this Court all medical reports, records and

charts, reports of any treatment given or recommended and medicinesprescribed, if any, to the petitioners, to include a list of medical and(sic) personnel (military and civilian) who attended to them fromFebruary 14, 2006 until August 12, 2007 within five days from noticeof this decision.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn7


4/240

The compliance with this decision shall be made under thesignature and oath of respondent AFP Chief of Staff or his dulyauthorized deputy, the latters authority to be express and made apparent

on the face of the sworn compliance with this directive.

SO ORDERED.[10]

Hence, this appeal. In resolving this appeal, we first unfurl the facts asalleged by herein respondents:

Respondent Raymond Manalo recounted that about one or two weeks beforeFebruary 14, 2006, several uniformed and armed soldiers and members of theCAFGU summoned to a meeting all the residents of theirbarangay in SanIdelfonso, Bulacan. Respondents were not able to attend as they were notinformed of the gathering, but Raymond saw some of the soldiers when he passed

by the barangayhall.[11]

On February 14, 2006, Raymond was sleeping in their house in Buhol naMangga, San Ildefonso, Bulacan. At past noon, several armed soldiers wearingwhite shirts, fatigue pants and army boots, entered their house and rousedhim. They asked him if he was Bestre, but his mother, Ester Manalo, replied thathe was Raymond, not Bestre. The armed soldier slapped him on both cheeks andnudged him in the stomach. He was then handcuffed, brought to the rear of hishouse, and forced to the ground face down. He was kicked on the hip, ordered to

stand and face up to the light, then forcibly brought near the road. He told hismother to follow him, but three soldiers stopped her and told her to stay.[12]

Among the men who came to take him, Raymond recognized brothersMichael de la Cruz, Madning de la Cruz, Puti de la Cruz, and Pula de la Cruz,

who all acted as lookout. They were all members of the CAFGU and residing inManuzon, San Ildefonso, Bulacan. He also recognized brothers Randy Mendozaand Rudy Mendoza, also members of the CAFGU. While he was being forciblytaken, he also saw outside of his house two barangaycouncilors, Pablo Cunananand Bernardo Lingasa, with some soldiers and armed men.[13]

The men forced Raymond into a white L300 van. Once inside, he wasblindfolded. Before being blindfolded, he saw the faces of the soldiers who tookhim. Later, in his 18 months of captivity, he learned their names. The one whodrove the van was Rizal Hilario alias Rollie Castillo, whom he estimated was about40 years of age or older. The leader of the team who entered his house andabducted him was Ganata. He was tall, thin, curly-haired and a bit old. Another
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn10


5/240

one of his abductors was George who was tall, thin, white -skinned and about 30years old.[14]

The van drove off, then came to a stop. A person was brought inside the vanand made to sit beside Raymond. Both of them were beaten up. On the road, he

recognized the voice of the person beside him as his brother Reynaldos. The vanstopped several times until they finally arrived at a house. Raymond and Reynaldowere each brought to a different room. With the doors of their rooms left open,Raymond saw several soldiers continuously hitting his brother Reynaldo on thehead and other parts of his body with the butt of their guns for about 15minutes. After which, Reynaldo was brought to his (Raymonds) room and it washis (Raymonds) turn to be beaten up in the other room. The soldiers asked him ifhe was a member of the New Peoples Army.Each time he said he was not, hewas hit with the butt of their guns. He was questioned where his comrades were,

how many soldiers he had killed, and how many NPA members he hadhelped. Each time he answered none, they hit him.[15]

In the next days, Raymonds interrogators appeared to be high officials as

the soldiers who beat him up would salute them, call them sir, and treat themwith respect. He was in blindfolds when interrogated by the high officials, but hesaw their faces when they arrived and before the blindfold was put on. He noticedthat the uniform of the high officials was different from those of the othersoldiers. One of those officials was tall and thin, wore white pants, tie, and leathershoes, instead of combat boots. He spoke in Tagalog and knew much about his

parents and family, and a habeas corpuscase filed in connection with therespondents abduction.[16] While these officials interrogated him, Raymond wasnot manhandled. But once they had left, the soldier guards beat him up. When theguards got drunk, they also manhandled respondents. During this time, Raymondwas fed only at night, usually with left-over and rotten food.[17]

On the third week of respondents detention, two men arrived while

Raymond was sleeping and beat him up. They doused him with urine and hotwater, hit his stomach with a piece of wood, slapped his forehead twice with a .45

pistol, punched him on the mouth, and burnt some parts of his body with a burningwood. When he could no longer endure the torture and could hardly breathe, theystopped. They then subjected Reynaldo to the same ordeal in anotherroom. Before their torturers left, they warned Raymond that they would come

back the next day and kill him.[18]
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn14


6/240

The following night, Raymond attempted to escape. He waited for theguards to get drunk, then made noise with the chains put on him to see if they werestill awake. When none of them came to check on him, he managed to free hishand from the chains and jumped through the window. He passed through a

helipad and firing range and stopped near a fishpond where he used stones to breakhis chains. After walking through a forested area, he came near a river and anIglesia ni Kristo church. He talked to some women who were doing the laundry,asked where he was and the road to Gapan. He was told that he wasin Fort Magsaysay.[19] He reached the highway, but some soldiers spotted him,forcing him to run away. The soldiers chased him and caught up with him. They

brought him to another place near the entrance of what he sawwas Fort Magsaysay. He was boxed repeatedly, kicked, and hit with chains untilhis back bled. They poured gasoline on him. Then a so-called Mam orMadam suddenly called, saying that she wanted to see Raymond before he was

killed. The soldiers ceased the torture and he was returnedinside Fort Magsaysay where Reynaldo was detained.[20]

For some weeks, the respondents had a respite from all the torture. Theirwounds were treated. When the wounds were almost healed, the torture resumed,

particularly when respondents guards got drunk.[21]

Raymond recalled that sometime in April until May 2006, he was detained ina room enclosed by steel bars. He stayed all the time in that small room measuring1 x 2 meters, and did everything there, including urinating, removing his bowels,

bathing, eating and sleeping. He counted that eighteen people[22]had been detainedin that bartolina, including his brother Reynaldo and himself.[23]

For about three and a half months, the respondents were detainedin Fort Magsaysay. They were kept in a small house with two rooms and akitchen. One room was made into the bartolina. The house was near the firingrange, helipad and mango trees. At dawn, soldiers marched by their house. Theywere also sometimes detained in what he only knew as the DTU.[24]

At the DTU, a male doctor came to examine respondents. He checked theirbody and eyes, took their urine samples and marked them. When asked how theywere feeling, they replied that they had a hard time urinating, their stomachs wereaching, and they felt other pains in their body. The next day, two ladies in whitearrived. They also examined respondents and gave them medicines, includingorasol, amoxicillin and mefenamic acid. They brought with them the results ofrespondents urine test and advised them to drink plenty of water and take their
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn19


7/240

medicine. The two ladies returned a few more times. Thereafter, medicines weresent through the master of the DTU, Master Del Rosario alias Carinyoso at

Puti. Respondents were kept in the DTU for about two weeks. While there, hemet a soldier named Efren who said that Gen. Palparan ordered him to monitor and

take care of them.

[25]

One day, Rizal Hilario fetched respondents in a Revo vehicle. They, along

with Efren and several other armed men wearing fatigue suits, went to adetachment in Pinaud, San Ildefonso, Bulacan. Respondents were detained for oneor two weeks in a big two-storey house. Hilario and Efren stayed withthem. While there, Raymond was beaten up by Hilarios men.[26]

From Pinaud, Hilario and Efren brought respondents to Sapang, San Miguel,Bulacan on board the Revo. They were detained in a big unfinished house inside

the compound of Kapitan for about three months.When they arrived in Sapang,Gen. Palparan talked to them. They were brought out of the house to a basketballcourt in the center of the compound and made to sit. Gen. Palparan was alreadywaiting, seated. He was about two arms length away from respondents. He began

by asking if respondents felt well already, to which Raymond replied in theaffirmative. He asked Raymond if he knew him. Raymond lied that he didnot. He then asked Raymond if he would be scared if he were made to face Gen.Palparan. Raymond responded that he would not be because he did not believethat Gen. Palparan was an evil man.[27]

Raymond narrated his conversation with Gen. Palparan in his affidavit, viz:Tinanong ako ni Gen. Palparan, Ngayon na kaharap mo na ako,

di ka ba natatakot sa akin?

Sumagot akong, Siyempre po, natatakot din

Sabi ni Gen. Palparan: Sige, bibigyan ko kayo ng isang

pagkakataon na mabuhay, bastat sundin nyo ang lahat ng sasabihinko sabihin mo sa magulang mo huwag pumunta sa mga rali, sahearing, sa Karapatan at sa Human Right dahil niloloko lang

kayo. Sabihin sa magulang at lahat sa bahay na huwag palokodoon. Tulungan kami na kausapin si Bestre na sumuko na sagobyerno.[28]

Respondents agreed to do as Gen. Palparan told them as they felt they couldnot do otherwise. At about 3:00 in the morning, Hilario, Efren and the formersmen - the same group that abducted them - brought them to their parents
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn25


8/240

house. Raymond was shown to his parents while Reynaldo stayed in the Revobecause he still could not walk. In the presence of Hilario and other soldiers,Raymond relayed to his parents what Gen. Palparan told him. As they were afraid,Raymonds parents acceded. Hilario threatened Raymonds parents that if they

continued to join human rights rallies, they would never see their childrenagain. The respondents were then brought back to Sapang.[29]

When respondents arrived back in Sapang, Gen. Palparan was about toleave. He was talking with the four masters who were there: Arman, Ganata,Hilario and Cabalse.[30] When Gen. Palparan saw Raymond, he called for him. Hewas in a big white vehicle. Raymond stood outside the vehicle as Gen. Palparantold him to gain back his strength and be healthy and to take the medicine he leftfor him and Reynaldo. He said the medicine was expensive at Php35.00 each, andwould make them strong. He also said that they should prove that they are on the

side of the military and warned that they would not be given anotherchance.[31] During his testimony, Raymond identified Gen. Palparan by his

picture.[32]

One of the soldiers named Arman made Raymond take the medicine left byGen. Palparan. The medicine, named Alive, was green and yellow. Raymondand Reynaldo were each given a box of this medicine and instructed to take onecapsule a day. Arman checked if they were getting their dose of themedicine. The Alive made them sleep each time they took it, and they felt heavyupon waking up.[33]

After a few days, Hilario arrived again. He took Reynaldo and left Raymondat Sapang. Arman instructed Raymond that while in Sapang, he should introducehimself as Oscar, a military trainee from Sariaya, Quezon, assigned in

Bulacan. While there, he saw again Ganata, one of the men who abducted himfrom his house, and got acquainted with other military men and civilians.[34]

After about three months in Sapang, Raymond was broughtto Camp Tecson under the 24thInfantry Battalion. He was fetched by threeunidentified men in a big white vehicle. Efren went with them. Raymond wasthen blindfolded. After a 30-minute ride, his blindfold was removed. Chains were

put on him and he was kept in the barracks.[35]

The next day, Raymonds chains were removed and he was ordered to clean

outside the barracks. It was then he learned that he was in a detachment of theRangers. There were many soldiers, hundreds of them were training. He was alsoordered to clean inside the barracks. In one of the rooms therein, he met Sherlyn
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn29


9/240

Cadapan from Laguna. She told him that she was a student of the University ofthe Philippines and was abducted in Hagonoy, Bulacan. She confided that she had

been subjected to severe torture and raped. She was crying and longing to gohome and be with her parents. During the day, her chains were removed and she

was made to do the laundry.

[36]

After a week, Reynaldo was also brought to Camp Tecson. Two days from

his arrival, two other captives, Karen Empeo and Manuel Merino, arrived. Karenand Manuel were put in the room with Allan whose name they later came to

know as Donald Caigas, called master or commander by his men in the

24thInfantry Battalion. Raymond and Reynaldo were put in the adjoiningroom. At times, Raymond and Reynaldo were threatened, and Reynaldo was

beaten up. In the daytime, their chains were removed, but were put back on atnight. They were threatened that if they escaped, their families would all be

killed.[37]

On or about October 6, 2006, Hilario arrived in Camp Tecson. He told thedetainees that they should be thankful they were still alive and should continuealong their renewed life. Before the hearing of November 6 or 8, 2006,respondents were brought to their parents to instruct them not to attend thehearing. However, their parents had already left for Manila. Respondents were

brought back to Camp Tecson. They stayed in that camp from September 2006 toNovember 2006, and Raymond was instructed to continue using the name Oscar

and holding himself out as a military trainee. He got acquainted with soldiers of

the 24thInfantry Battalion whose names and descriptions he stated in hisaffidavit.[38]

On November 22, 2006, respondents, along with Sherlyn, Karen, andManuel, were transferred to a camp of the 24thInfantry Battalion inLimay, Bataan. There were many huts in the camp. They stayed in that campuntil May 8, 2007. Some soldiers of the battalion stayed with them. While there,battalion soldiers whom Raymond knew as Mar and Billy beat him up and hithim in the stomach with their guns. Sherlyn and Karen also suffered enormous

torture in the camp. They were all made to clean, cook, and help in raisinglivestock.[39]

Raymond recalled that when Operation Lubog was launched, Caigas and

some other soldiers brought him and Manuel with them to take and kill allsympathizers of the NPA. They were brought to Barangay Bayan-

bayanan, Bataan where he witnessed the killing of an old man doing kaingin. The
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn36


10/240

soldiers said he was killed because he had a son who was a member of the NPAand he coddled NPA members in his house.[40]Another time, in another OperationLubog, Raymond was brought to Barangay Orion in a house where NPA men

stayed. When they arrived, only the old man of the house who was sick was

there. They spared him and killed only his son right before Raymondseyes.[41]

From Limay, Raymond, Reynaldo, Sherlyn, Karen, and Manuel weretransferred to Zambales, in a safehouse near the sea. Caigas and some of his menstayed with them. A retired army soldier was in charge of the house. Like inLimay, the five detainees were made to do errands and chores. They stayed inZambales from May 8 or 9, 2007 until June 2007.[42]

In June 2007, Caigas brought the five back to the camp in Limay. Raymond,

Reynaldo, and Manuel were tasked to bring food to detainees brought to thecamp. Raymond narrated what he witnessed and experienced in the camp, viz:

Isang gabi, sinabihan kami ni Donald (Caigas) na matulog nakami. Nakita ko si Donald na inaayos ang kanyang baril, at nilagyan ngsilenser. Sabi ni Donald na kung mayroon man kaming makita o marinig,walang nangyari. Kinaumagahan, nakita naming ang bangkay ng isa samga bihag na dinala sa kampo. Mayroong binuhos sa kanyang katawanat itoy sinunog. Masansang ang amoy.

Makaraan ang isang lingo, dalawang bangkay and ibinaba ng mga

unipormadong sundalo mula sa 6 x 6 na trak at dinala sa loob ngkampo. May naiwang mga bakas ng dugo habang hinihila nila ang mgabangkay. Naamoy ko iyon nang nililinis ang bakas.

Makalipas ang isa o dalawang lingo, may dinukot sila nadalawang Ita. Itinali sila sa labas ng kubo, piniringan, ikinadena at labisna binugbog. Nakita kong nakatakas ang isa sa kanila at binaril siya ngsundalo ngunit hindi siya tinamaan. Iyong gabi nakita kong pinatay nilaiyong isang Ita malapit sa Post 3; sinilaban ang bangkay at ibinaon ito.

Pagkalipas ng halos 1 buwan, 2 pang bangkay ang dinala sakampo. Ibinaba ang mga bangkay mula sa pick up trak, dinala ang mgabangkay sa labas ng bakod. Kinaumagahan nakita kong mayroongsinilaban, at napakamasangsang ang amoy.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn40http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn40http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn40http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn42http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn42http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn42http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn42http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn40


11/240

May nakilala rin akong 1 retiradong koronel at 1 kasamaniya. Pinakain ko sila. Sabi nila sa akin na dinukot sila sa Bataan. Iyonggabi, inilabas sila at hindi ko na sila nakita.

xxx xxx xxx

Ikinadena kami ng 3 araw. Sa ikatlong araw, nilabas ni Lat siManuel dahil kakausapin daw siya ni Gen. Palparan. Nakapiring siManuel, wala siyang suot pang-itaas, pinosasan. Nilakasan ng mgasundalo ang tunog na galing sa istiryo ng sasakyan. Di nagtagal, narinigko ang hiyaw o ungol ni Manuel. Sumilip ako sa isang haligi ng kamaligat nakita kong sinisilaban si Manuel.

Kinaumagahan, naka-kadena pa kami. Tinanggal ang mgakadena mga 3 o 4 na araw pagkalipas. Sinabi sa amin na kaya kami

nakakadena ay dahil pinagdedesisyunan pa ng mga sundalo kungpapatayin kami o hindi.

Tinanggal ang aming kadena. Kinausap kami niDonald. Tinanong kami kung ano ang sabi ni Manuel sa amin. Sabi niDonald huwag na raw naming hanapin ang dalawang babae at si Manuel,dahil magkakasama na yung tatlo. Sabi pa ni Donald na kami niReynaldo ay magbagong buhay at ituloy namin ni Reynaldo angtrabaho. Sa gabi, hindi na kami kinakadena.[43]

On or about June 13, 2007, Raymond and Reynaldo were brought toPangasinan, ostensibly to raise poultry for Donald (Caigas). Caigas toldrespondents to also farm his land, in exchange for which, he would take care of thefood of their family. They were also told that they could farm a small plotadjoining his land and sell their produce. They were no longer put in chains andwere instructed to use the names Rommel (for Raymond) and Rod (for Reynaldo)and represent themselves as cousins from Rizal, Laguna.[44]

Respondents started to plan their escape. They could see the highway fromwhere they stayed. They helped farm adjoining lands for which they were paid

Php200.00 or Php400.00 and they saved their earnings. When they had savedPhp1,000.00 each, Raymond asked a neighbor how he could get a cellular phone ashe wanted to exchange text messages with a girl who lived nearby. A phone was

pawned to him, but he kept it first and did not use it. They earned some more untilthey had saved Php1,400.00 between them.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn43http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn43http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn43http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn44http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn44http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn44http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn44http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn43


12/240

There were four houses in the compound. Raymond and Reynaldo werehoused in one of them while their guards lived in the other three. Caigas entrustedrespondents to Nonong, the head of the guards. Respondents house did not haveelectricity. They used a lamp. There was no television, but they had a radio. In

the evening of August 13, 2007, Nonong and his cohorts had a drinkingsession. At about 1:00 a.m., Raymond turned up the volume of the radio. Whennone of the guards awoke and took notice, Raymond and Reynaldo proceededtowards the highway, leaving behind their sleeping guards and barking dogs. They

boarded a bus bound for Manila and were thus freed from captivity.[45]

Reynaldo also executed an affidavit affirming the contents of Raymonds

affidavit insofar as they related to matters they witnessed together. Reynaldoadded that when they were taken from their house onFebruary 14, 2006, he saw thefaces of his abductors before he was blindfolded with his shirt. He also named the

soldiers he got acquainted with in the 18 months he was detained. When Raymondattempted to escape from Fort Magsaysay, Reynaldo was severely beaten up andtold that they were indeed members of the NPA because Raymond escaped. Witha .45 caliber pistol, Reynaldo was hit on the back and punched in the face until hecould no longer bear the pain.

At one point during their detention, when Raymond and Reynaldo were inSapang, Reynaldo was separated from Raymond and brought to Pinaud by RizalHilario. He was kept in the house of Kapitan, a friend of Hilario, in a mountainousarea. He was instructed to use the name Rodel and to represent himself as a

military trainee from Meycauayan, Bulacan. Sometimes, Hilario brought alongReynaldo in his trips. One time, he was brought to a market in San Jose, delMonte, Bulacan and made to wait in the vehicle while Hilario was buying. He wasalso brought to Tondo, Manila where Hilario delivered boxes of Alive indifferent houses. In these trips, Hilario drove a black and red vehicle. Reynaldowas blindfolded while still in Bulacan, but allowed to remove the blindfold onceoutside the province. In one of their trips, they passed

by Fort Magsaysay andCamp Tecson where Reynaldo saw the sign board,Welcome toCamp Tecson.[46]

Dr. Benito Molino, M.D., corroborated the accounts of respondentsRaymond and Reynaldo Manalo. Dr. Molino specialized in forensic medicine andwas connected with the Medical Action Group, an organization handling cases ofhuman rights violations, particularly cases where torture was involved. He wasrequested by an NGO to conduct medical examinations on the respondents aftertheir escape. He first asked them about their ordeal, then proceeded with the
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn45http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn45http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn45http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn46http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn46http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn46http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn45


13/240


14/240

7. The Secretary of National Defense does not engage in actual militarydirectional operations, neither does he undertake command directionsof the AFP units in the field, nor in any way micromanage the AFPoperations. The principal responsibility of the Secretary of NationalDefense is focused in providing strategic policy direction to theDepartment (bureaus and agencies) including the Armed Forces ofthe Philippines;

8. In connection with the Writ ofAmparo issued by the HonorableSupreme Court in this case, I have directed the Chief of Staff, AFP toinstitute immediate action in compliance with Section 9(d) oftheAmparoRule and to submit report of such complianceLikewise, in a Memorandum Directive also dated October 31, 2007, Ihave issued a policy directive addressed to the Chief of Staff, AFPthat the AFP should adopt the following rules of action in the eventthe Writ ofAmparois issued by a competent court against anymembers of the AFP:

(1) to verify the identity of the aggrieved party;

(2) to recover and preserve evidence related to the death ordisappearance of the person identified in the petition which mayaid 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 ordisappearance as well as any pattern or practice that may havebrought about the death or disappearance;

(5) to identify and apprehend the person or persons involved in thedeath or disappearance; and

(6) to bring the suspected offenders before a competent court.[49]

Therein respondent AFP Chief of Staff also submitted his own affidavit,attached to the Return of the Writ, attesting that he received the above directive oftherein respondent Secretary of National Defense and that acting on this directive,he did the following:

3.1. As currently designated Chief of Staff, Armed Forces of thePhilippines (AFP), I have caused to be issued directive to the units of the
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn49http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn49http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn49http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn49


15/240

AFP for the purpose of establishing the circumstances of the allegeddisappearance and the recent reappearance of the petitioners.

3.2. I have caused the immediate investigation and submission ofthe result thereof to Higher headquarters and/or direct the immediate

conduct of the investigation on the matter by the concerned unit/s,dispatching Radio Message on November 05, 2007, addressed to theCommanding General, Philippine Army (Info: COMNOLCOM, CG,71D PA and CO 24 IB PA). A Copy of the Radio Message is attached asANNEX 3 of this Affidavit.

3.3. We undertake to provide result of the investigationsconducted or to be conducted by the concerned unit relative to thecircumstances of the alleged disappearance of the persons in whose favorthe Writ of Amparo has been sought for as soon as the same has been

furnished Higher headquarters.

3.4. A parallel investigation has been directed to the same unitsrelative to another Petition for the Writ of Amparo (G.R. No. 179994)filed at the instance of relatives of a certain Cadapan and Empeopending before the Supreme Court.

3.5. On the part of the Armed Forces, this respondent will exertearnest efforts to establish the surrounding circumstances of thedisappearances of the petitioners and to bring those responsible,

including any military personnel if shown to have participated or hadcomplicity in the commission of the complained acts, to the bar ofjustice, when warranted by the findings and the competent evidence thatmay be gathered in the process.[50]

Also attached to the Return of the Writ was the affidavit of Lt. Col. FelipeAnontado, INF (GSC) PA, earlier filed in G.R. No. 179994, another amparocasein this Court, involving Cadapan, Empeo and Merino, which averred amongothers, viz:

10) Upon reading the allegations in the Petition implicating the24thInfantry Batallion detachment as detention area, I immediately wentto the 24thIB detachment in Limay, Bataan and found no untowardincidents in the area nor any detainees by the name of Sherlyn Cadapan,Karen Empeo and Manuel Merino being held captive;


16/240

11) There was neither any reports of any death of Manuel Merinoin the 24thIB in Limay, Bataan;

12) After going to the 24thIB in Limay, Bataan, we made furtherinquiries with the Philippine National Police, Limay, Bataan regarding

the alleged detentions or deaths and were informed that none wasreported to their good office;

13) I also directed Company Commander 1stLt. Romeo Publicoto inquire into the alleged beachhouse in Iba, Zambales also alleged tobe a detention place where Sherlyn Cadapan, Karen Empeo and ManuelMerino were detained. As per the inquiry, however, no such beachhousewas used as a detention place found to have been used by armed men todetain Cadapan, Empeo and Merino.[51]

It was explained in the Return of the Writ that for lack of sufficient time, theaffidavits of Maj. Gen Jovito S. Palparan (Ret.), M/Sgt. Rizal Hilario aka RollieCastillo, and other persons implicated by therein petitioners could not be securedin time for the submission of the Return and would be subsequently submitted.[52]

Herein petitioners presented a lone witness in the summary hearings, Lt. Col.Ruben U. Jimenez, Provost Marshall, 7thInfantry Division, Philippine Army, basedin Fort Magsaysay, Palayan City, Nueva Ecija. The territorial jurisdiction of thisDivision covers Nueva Ecija, Aurora, Bataan, Bulacan, Pampanga, Tarlac and a

portion of Pangasinan.[53] The 24th Infantry Battalion is part of the 7thInfantryDivision.[54]

On May 26, 2006, Lt. Col. Jimenez was directed by the CommandingGeneral of the 7thInfantry Division, Maj. Gen. Jovito Palaran,[55]through hisAssistant Chief of Staff,[56]to investigate the alleged abduction of the respondents

by CAFGU auxiliaries under his unit, namely: CAA Michael de la Cruz; CAARoman de la Cruz, aka Puti; CAA Maximo de la Cruz, aka Pula; CAA RandyMendoza; ex-CAA Marcelo de la Cruz aka Madning; and a civilian named RudyMendoza. He was directed to determine: (1) the veracity of the abduction of

Raymond and Reynaldo Manalo by the alleged elements of the CAFGUauxiliaries; and (2) the administrative liability of said auxiliaries, ifany.[57] Jimenez testified that this particular investigation was initiated not by acomplaint as was the usual procedure, but because the Commanding General sawnews about the abduction of the Manalo brothers on the television, and he wasconcerned about what was happening within his territorial jurisdiction.[58]
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn51http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn51http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn51http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn52http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn52http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn52http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn53http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn53http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn53http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn54http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn54http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn54http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn55http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn55http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn55http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn56http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn56http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn56http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn57http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn57http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn57http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn58http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn58http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn58http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn58http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn57http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn56http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn55http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn54http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn53http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn52http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn51


17/240

Jimenez summoned all six implicated persons for the purpose of havingthem execute sworn statements and conducting an investigation on May 29,2006.[59] The investigation started at 8:00 in the morning and finished at 10:00 inthe evening.[60] The investigating officer, Technical Sgt. Eduardo Lingad, took the

individual sworn statements of all six persons on that day. There were no othersworn statements taken, not even of the Manalo family, nor were there otherwitnesses summoned and investigated[61]as according to Jimenez, the directive tohim was only to investigate the six persons.[62]

Jimenez was beside Lingad when the latter took the statements.[63] The sixpersons were not known to Jimenez as it was in fact his first time to meetthem.[64] During the entire time that he was beside Lingad, a subordinate of his inthe Office of the Provost Marshall, Jimenez did not propound a single question tothe six persons.[65]

Jimenez testified that all six statements were taken on May 29, 2006, butMarcelo Mendoza and Rudy Mendoza had to come back the next day to sign theirstatements as the printing of their statements was interrupted by a powerfailure. Jimenez testified that the two signed on May 30, 2006, but the jurats oftheir statements indicated that they were signed on May 29, 2006.[66] When theSworn Statements were turned over to Jimenez, he personally wrote hisinvestigation report. He began writing it in the afternoon of May 30, 2006 andfinished it on June 1, 2006.[67] He then gave his report to the Office of the Chief ofPersonnel.[68]

As petitioners largely rely on Jimenezs Investigation Report dated June 1,2006 for their evidence, the report is herein substantially quoted:

III. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

4. This pertains to the abduction of RAYMOND MANALO andREYNALDO MANALO who were forcibly taken from their respectivehomes in Brgy. Buhol na Mangga, San Ildefonso, Bulacan on 14February 2006 by unidentified armed men and thereafter were forciblydisappeared. After the said incident, relatives of the victims filed a casefor Abduction in the civil court against the herein suspects: Michael delaCruz, Madning dela Cruz, Puti Dela Cruz, Pula Dela Cruz, RandyMendoza and Rudy Mendoza as alleged members of the Citizen ArmedForces Geographical Unit (CAFGU).

a) Sworn statement of CAA Maximo F. dela Cruz,aka Pula dated 29 May 2006 in (Exhibit B) states that he was at Sitio
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn59http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn59http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn59http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn60http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn60http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn60http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn61http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn61http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn62http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn62http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn62http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn63http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn63http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn63http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn64http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn64http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn64http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn65http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn65http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn65http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn66http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn66http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn66http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn67http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn67http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn67http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn68http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn68http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn68http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn68http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn67http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn66http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn65http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn64http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn63http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn62http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn61http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn60http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn59


18/240

Mozon, Brgy. Bohol na Mangga, San Ildefonso, Bulacan doing theconcrete building of a church located nearby his residence, together withsome neighbor thereat. He claims that on 15 February 2006, he wasbeing informed by Brgy. Kagawad Pablo Umayan about the abduction ofthe brothers Raymond and Reynaldo Manalo. As to the allegation thathe was one of the suspects, he claims that they only implicated himbecause he was a CAFGU and that they claimed that those who abductedthe Manalo brothers are members of the Military and CAFGU. Subjectvehemently denied any participation or involvement on the abduction ofsaid victims.

b) Sworn statement of CAA Roman dela Cruz y Faustino AkaPuti dtd 29 May 2006 in (Exhibit C) states that he is a resident of SitioMuzon, Brgy. Buhol na Mangga, San Ildefonso, Bulacan and a CAAmember based at Biak na Bato Detachment, San Miguel, Bulacan. He

claims that Raymond and Reynaldo Manalo being his neighbors areactive members/sympathizers of the CPP/NPA and he also knows theirelder Rolando Manalo @ KA BESTRE of being an NPA Leaderoperating in their province. That at the time of the alleged abduction ofthe two (2) brothers and for accusing him to be one of the suspects, heclaims that on February 14, 2006, he was one of those working at theconcrete chapel being constructed nearby his residence. He claimsfurther that he just came only to know about the incident on other day(15 Feb 06) when he was being informed by Kagawad PabloKunanan. That subject CAA vehemently denied any participation aboutthe incident and claimed that they only implicated him because he is amember of the CAFGU.

c) Sworn Statement of CAA Randy Mendoza y Lingas dated 29May 2006 in (Exhibit O) states that he is aresident of Brgy. Buhol naMangga, San Ildefonso, Bulacan and a member of CAFGU basedat Biak na Bato Detachment. That being a neighbor, he was very muchaware about the background of the two (2) brothers Raymond andReynaldo as active supporters of the CPP NPA in their Brgy. and he alsoknew their elder brother KUMANDER BESTRE TN: Rolando

Manalo. Being one of the accused, he claims that on 14 February 2006,he was at Brgy. Magmarate, San Miguel, Bulacan in the house of hisaunt and he learned only about the incident when he arrived home intheir place. He claims further that the only reason why they implicatedhim was due to the fact that his mother has filed a criminal chargeagainst their brother Rolando Manalo @ KA BESTRE who is an NPACommander who killed his father and for that reason they implicated


19/240


20/240

active supporters or sympathizers of the CPP/NPA and whose elderbrother Rolando Manalo @ KA BESTRE is an NPA leader operatingwithin the area. Being one of the accused, he claims that on 14 Feb 2006he was helping in the construction of their concrete chapel in their placeand he learned only about the incident which is the abduction ofRaymond and Reynaldo Manalo when one of the Brgy. Kagawad in theperson of Pablo Cunanan informed him about the matter. He claimsfurther that he is truly innocent of the allegation against him as being oneof the abductors and he considers everything fabricated in order todestroy his name that remains loyal to his service to the government as aCAA member.

IV. DISCUSSION

5. Based on the foregoing statements of respondents in this

particular case, the proof of linking them to the alleged abduction anddisappearance of Raymond and Reynaldo Manalo that transpired on 14February 2006 at Sitio Muzon, Brgy. Buhol na Mangga, San Ildefonso,Bulacan, is unsubstantiated. Their alleged involvement theretofore tothat incident is considered doubtful, hence, no basis to indict them ascharged in this investigation.

Though there are previous grudges between each families (sic) inthe past to quote: the killing of the father of Randy and Rudy Mendozaby @ KA BESTRE TN: Rolando Manalo, this will not suffice to

establish a fact that they were the ones who did the abduction as a formof revenge. As it was also stated in the testimony of other accusedclaiming that the Manalos are active sympathizers/supporters of theCPP/NPA, this would not also mean, however, that in the first place,they were in connivance with the abductors. Being their neighbors andas members of CAFGUs, they ought to be vigilant in protecting their

village from any intervention by the leftist group, hence inside theirvillage, they were fully aware of the activities of Raymond and ReynaldoManalo in so far as their connection with the CPP/NPA is concerned.

V. CONCLUSION

6. Premises considered surrounding this case shows that thealleged charges of abduction committed by the above named respondentshas not been established in this investigation. Hence, it lacks merit toindict them for any administrative punishment and/or criminalliability. It is therefore concluded that they are innocent of the charge.


21/240

VI. RECOMMENDATIONS

7. That CAAs Michael F. dela Cruz, Maximo F. Dela Cruz,Roman dela Cruz, Randy Mendoza, and two (2) civilians Maximo F.Dela Cruz and Rudy L. Mendoza be exonerated from the case.

8. Upon approval, this case can be dropped and closed.[69]

In this appeal under Rule 45, petitioners question the appellate courts

assessment of the foregoing evidence and assail the December 26, 2007 Decisionon the following grounds, viz:

I.

THE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY AND GRIEVOUSLY

ERRED IN BELIEVING AND GIVING FULL FAITH AND CREDITTO THE INCREDIBLE, UNCORROBORATED, CONTRADICTED,AND OBVIOUSLY SCRIPTED, REHEARSED AND SELF-SERVINGAFFIDAVIT/TESTIMONY OF HEREIN RESPONDENT RAYMONDMANALO.

II.

THE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY AND GRIEVOUSLY

ERRED IN REQUIRING RESPONDENTS (HEREIN PETITIONERS)TO: (A) FURNISH TO THE MANALO BROTHER(S) AND TO THECOURT OF APPEALS ALL OFFICIAL AND UNOFFICIALREPORTS OF THE INVESTIGATION UNDERTAKEN INCONNECTION WITH THEIR CASE, EXCEPT THOSE ALREADYIN FILE WITH THE COURT; (B) CONFIRM IN WRITING THEPRESENT PLACES OF OFFICIAL ASSIGNMENT OF M/SGT.HILARIO aka ROLLIE CASTILLO AND DONALD CAIGAS; AND(C) CAUSE TO BE PRODUCED TO THE COURT OF APPEALSALL MEDICAL REPORTS, RECORDS AND CHARTS, AND

REPORTS OF ANY TREATMENT GIVEN OR RECOMMENDEDAND MEDICINES PRESCRIBED, IF ANY, TO THE MANALOBROTHERS, TO INCLUDE A LIST OF MEDICAL PERSONNEL(MILITARY AND CIVILIAN) WHO ATTENDED TO THEM FROMFEBRUARY 14, 2006 UNTIL AUGUST 12, 2007.[70]
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn69http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn69http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn69http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn70http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn70http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn70http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn70http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn69


22/240

The case at bar is the first decision on the application of the Rule on the WritofAmparo (AmparoRule). Let us hearken to its beginning.

The adoption of theAmparoRule surfaced as a recurring proposition in therecommendations that resulted from a two-day National Consultative Summit on

Extrajudicial Killings and Enforced Disappearances sponsored by the Courton July 16-17, 2007. The Summit was envisioned to provide a broad and fact-

based perspective on the issue of extrajudicial killings and enforceddisappearances,[71]hence representatives from all sides of the political and socialspectrum, as well as all the stakeholders in the justice system [72]participated inmapping out ways to resolve the crisis.

On October 24, 2007, the Court promulgated theAmparoRule in light ofthe prevalence of extralegal killing and enforced disappearances.[73] It was an

exercise for the first time of the Courts expanded power to promulgate rules toprotect ourpeoples constitutional rights, which made its maiden appearance in the1987 Constitution in response to the Filipino experience of the martial lawregime.[74] As theAmparoRule was intended to address the intractable problem ofextralegal killings and enforced disappearances, its coverage, in its present

form, is confined to these two instances or to threats thereof. Extralegal killingsare killings committed without due process of law, i.e., without legal safeguardsor judicial proceedings.[75]On the other hand, enforced disappearances areattended by the following characteristics: an arrest, detention or abduction of a

person by a government official or organized groups or private individuals acting

with the direct or indirect acquiescence of the government; the refusal of the Stateto disclose the fate or whereabouts of the person concerned or a refusal toacknowledge the deprivation of liberty which places such persons outside theprotection of law.[76]

The writ of amparooriginated in Mexico. Amparo literally meansprotection in Spanish.[77] In 1837, de TocquevillesDemocracy inAmericabecame available in Mexico and stirred great interest. Its description ofthe practice of judicial review in the U.S. appealed to many Mexican

jurists.

[78]

One of them, Manuel Crescencio Rejn, drafted a constitutionalprovision for his native state, Yucatan,[79]which granted judges the power toprotect all persons in the enjoyment of their constitutional and legal rights. Thisidea was incorporated into the national constitution in 1847, viz:

The federal courts shall protect any inhabitant of the Republic inthe exercise and preservation of those rights granted to him by thisConstitution and by laws enacted pursuant hereto, against attacks by the
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn71http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn71http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn72http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn72http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn73http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn73http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn74http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn74http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn74http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn75http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn75http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn76http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn76http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn77http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn77http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn77http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn78http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn78http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn78http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn79http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn79http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn79http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn79http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn78http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn77http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn76http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn75http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn74http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn73http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn72http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn71


23/240


24/240

our charter. The second paragraph of Article VIII, Section 1 of the 1987Constitution, the Grave Abuse Clause, provides for the judicial power todetermine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting tolack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the

Government. The Clause accords a similar general protection to human rightsextended by the amparo contra leyes, amparo casacion, and amparoadministrativo. Amparo libertadis comparable to the remedy of habeascorpusfound in several provisions of the 1987 Constitution.[88] The Clause is anoffspring of the U.S. common law tradition of judicial review, which finds its rootsin the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison.[89]

While constitutional rights can be protected under the Grave Abuse Clausethrough remedies of injunction or prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Courtand a petition for habeas corpusunder Rule 102,[90]these remedies may not be

adequate to address the pestering problem of extralegal killings and enforceddisappearances. However, with the swiftness required to resolve a petition for awrit of amparo through summary proceedings and the availability of appropriateinterim and permanent reliefs under theAmparoRule, this hybrid writ of thecommon law and civil law traditions - borne out of the Latin American andPhilippine experience of human rights abuses - offers a better remedy to extralegalkillings and enforced disappearances and threats thereof. The remedy providesrapid judicial relief as it partakes of a summary proceeding that requires onlysubstantial evidence to make the appropriate reliefs available to the petitioner; it is

not an action to determine criminal guilt requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt,or liability for damages requiring preponderance of evidence, or administrativeresponsibility requiring substantial evidence that will require full and exhaustive

proceedings.[91]

The writ of amparoserves both preventive and curative roles in addressingthe problem of extralegal killings and enforced disappearances. It is preventive inthat it breaks the expectation of impunity in the commission of these offenses; it iscurative in that it facilitates the subsequent punishment of perpetrators as it willinevitably yield leads to subsequent investigation and action. In the long run, the

goal of both the preventive and curative roles is to deter the further commission ofextralegal killings and enforced disappearances.

In the case at bar, respondents initially filed an action for Prohibition,

Injunction, and Temporary Restraining Order[92]to stop petitioners and/or theirofficers and agents from depriving the respondents of their right to liberty andother basic rights on August 23, 2007,[93]prior to the promulgation of
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn88http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn88http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn88http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn89http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn89http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn89http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn90http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn90http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn90http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn91http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn91http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn91http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn92http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn92http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn93http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn93http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn93http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn93http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn92http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn91http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn90http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn89http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn88


25/240

theAmparo Rule. They also sought ancillary remedies including ProtectiveCustody Orders, Appointment of Commissioner, Inspection and Access Orders andother legal and equitable remedies under Article VIII, Section 5(5) of the 1987Constitution and Rule 135, Section 6 of the Rules of Court. When

theAmparoRule came into effect onOctober 24, 2007, they moved to have theirpetition treated as an amparopetition as it would be more effective and suitable tothe circumstances of the Manalo brothers enforced disappearance. The Courtgranted their motion.

With this backdrop, we now come to the arguments of thepetitioner. Petitioners first argument in disputing the Decision of the Court ofAppeals states, viz:

The Court of Appeals seriously and grievously erred in believingand giving full faith and credit to the incredible uncorroborated,

contradicted, and obviously scripted, rehearsed and self-servingaffidavit/testimony of herein respondent Raymond Manalo.[94]

In delving into the veracity of the evidence, we need to mine and refine theore of petitioners cause of action, to determine whether the evidence presented is

metal-strong to satisfy the degree of proof required.

Section 1 of the Rule on the Writ ofAmparo provides for the followingcauses of action, viz:

Section 1. Petition. The petition for a writ of amparois aremedy available to any person whose right to life, liberty and securityis violated or threatened with violationby an unlawful act or omissionof a public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity.

The writ shall cover extralegal killings and enforceddisappearances or threats thereof. (emphasis supplied)

Sections 17 and 18, on the other hand, provide for the degree of proof

required, viz:

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

xxx xxx xxx


26/240

Sec. 18. Judgment. If theallegations in the petition areproven by substantial evidence, the court shall grant the privilege ofthe writ and such reliefs as may be proper and appropriate; otherwise,the privilege shall be denied. (emphases supplied)

Substantial evidence has been defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonablemind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.[95]

After careful perusal of the evidence presented, we affirm the findings of theCourt of Appeals that respondents were abducted from their houses in Sito Muzon,Brgy. Buhol na Mangga, San Ildefonso, Bulacan onFebruary 14, 2006 and werecontinuously detained until they escaped on August 13, 2007. The abduction,detention, torture, and escape of the respondents were narrated by respondentRaymond Manalo in a clear and convincing manner. His account is dotted with

countless candid details of respondents harrowing experience and tenacious willto escape, captured through his different senses and etched in his memory. A fewexamples are the following: Sumilip ako sa isang haligi ng kamalig at nakita kong

sinisilaban si Manuel.[96](N)ilakasan ng mga sundalo ang tunog na galing saistiryo ng sasakyan. Di nagtagal, narinig ko ang hiyaw o ungol niManuel.[97]May naiwang mga bakas ng dugo habang hinihila nila ang mga

bangkay. Naamoy ko iyon nang nililinis ang bakas.[98]Tumigil ako sa maypalaisdaan kung saan ginamit ko ang bato para tanggalin ang mgakadena.[99]Tinanong ko sa isang kapit-bahay kung paano ako makakakuha ngcell phone; sabi ko gusto kong i-text ang isang babae na nakatira sa malapit nalugar.[100]

We affirm the factual findings of the appellate court, largely based onrespondent Raymond Manalos affidavit and testimony,viz:

the abduction was perpetrated by armed men who were sufficiently

identified by the petitioners (herein respondents) to be military personneland CAFGU auxiliaries. Raymond recalled that the six armed men whobarged into his house through the rear door were military men based ontheir attire of fatigue pants and army boots, and the CAFGU auxiliaries,

namely: Michael de la Cruz, Madning de la Cruz, Puti de la Cruz andPula de la Cruz, all members of the CAFGU and residents of Muzon, SanIldefonso, Bulacan, and the brothers Randy Mendoza and Rudy Mendoza,also CAFGU members, served as lookouts during theabduction. Raymond was sure that three of the six military men wereGanata, who headed the abducting team, Hilario, who drove the van, andGeorge. Subsequent incidents of their long captivity, as narrated by the
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn95http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn95http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn95http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn96http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn96http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn97http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn97http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn98http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn98http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn99http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn99http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn100http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn100http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn100http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn99http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn98http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn97http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn96http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn95


27/240

petitioners, validated their assertion of the participation of the elements ofthe 7thInfantry Division, Philippine Army, and their CAFGU auxiliaries.

We are convinced, too, that the reason for the abduction was thesuspicion that the petitioners were either members or sympathizers of the

NPA, considering that the abductors were looking for Ka Bestre, whoturned out to be Rolando, the brother of petitioners.

The efforts exerted by the Military Command to look into theabduction were, at best, merely superficial. The investigation of theProvost Marshall of the 7th Infantry Division focused on the one-sidedversion of the CAFGU auxiliaries involved. This one-sidedness might bedue to the fact that the Provost Marshall could delve only into theparticipation of military personnel, but even then the Provost Marshallshould have refrained from outrightly exculpating the CAFGU auxiliaries

he perfunctorily investigated

Gen. Palparans participation in the abduction was also

established. At the very least, he was aware of the petitioners captivityat the hands of men in uniform assigned to his command. In fact, he orany other officer tendered no controversion to the firm claim of Raymondthat he (Gen. Palparan) met them in person in a safehouse in Bulacan andtold them what he wanted them and their parents to do or not to bedoing. Gen. Palparans direct and personal role in the abduction mightnot have been shown but his knowledge of the dire situation of the

petitioners during their long captivity at the hands of military personnelunder his command bespoke of his indubitable command policy thatunavoidably encouraged and not merely tolerated the abduction ofcivilians without due process of law and without probable cause.

In the habeasproceedings, the Court, through the Former SpecialSixth Division (Justices Buzon, chairman; Santiago-Lagman, Sr.,member; and Romilla-Lontok, Jr., member/ponente.) found no clear andconvincing evidence to establish that M/Sgt. Rizal Hilario had anything todo with the abduction or the detention. Hilarios involvement could not,

indeed, be then established after Evangeline Francisco, who allegedly sawHilario drive the van in which the petitioners were boarded and ferriedfollowing the abduction, did not testify. (See the decision of the habeasproceedings at rollo, p. 52)

However, in this case, Raymond attested that Hilario drove thewhite L-300 van in which the petitioners were brought away from their


28/240


29/240

Training Unit,[104]firms up respondents story that they were detained for sometime in said military facility.

In Ortiz v. Guatemala,[105]a case decided by the Inter-AmericanCommission on Human Rights, the Commission considered similar evidence,

among others, in finding that complainant Sister Diana Ortiz was abducted andtortured by agents of the Guatemalan government. In this case, Sister Ortiz waskidnapped and tortured in early November 1989. The Commissions findings offact were mostly based on the consistent and credible statements, written and oral,made by Sister Ortiz regarding her ordeal.[106] These statements were supported byher recognition of portions of the route they took when she was being driven out ofthe military installation where she was detained.[107] She was also examined by amedical doctor whose findings showed that the 111 circular second degree burnson her back and abrasions on her cheek coincided with her account of cigarette

burning and torture she suffered while in detention.[108]

With the secret nature of an enforced disappearance and the tortureperpetrated on the victim during detention, it logically holds that much of theinformation and evidence of the ordeal will come from the victims themselves, andthe veracity of their account will depend on their credibility and candidness in theirwritten and/or oral statements. Their statements can be corroborated by otherevidence such as physical evidence left by the torture they suffered or landmarksthey can identify in the places where they were detained. Where powerful militaryofficers are implicated, the hesitation of witnesses to surface and testify against

them comes as no surprise.

We now come to the right of the respondents to the privilege of the writof amparo. There is no quarrel that the enforced disappearance of bothrespondents Raymond and Reynaldo Manalo has now passed as they have escapedfrom captivity and surfaced. But while respondents admit that they are no longerin detention and are physically free, they assert that they are not free in every

sense of the word[109]as their movements continue to be restricted for fear thatpeople they have named in their Judicial Affidavits and testified against (in the

case of Raymond) are still at large and have not been held accountable in anyway. These people are directly connected to the Armed Forces ofthe Philippines and are, thus, in a position to threaten respondents rights to life,liberty and security.[110](emphasis supplied) Respondents claim that they areunderthreat of being once again abducted, kept captive or even killed , whichconstitute a direct violation of their right to security of person.[111]
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn104http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn104http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn104http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn105http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn105http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn105http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn106http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn106http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn106http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn107http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn107http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn107http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn108http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn108http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn108http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn109http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn109http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn110http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn110http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn111http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn111http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn111http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn111http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn110http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn109http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn108http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn107http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn106http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn105http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn104


30/240


31/240

property and unlawful invasion of the security of the home by officers ofthe law acting under legislative or judicial sanction and to give remedyagainst such usurpation when attempted. (Adams v. New York,192 U.S. 858; Alvero v. Dizon, 76 Phil. 637 [1946]). The right to privacyis an essential condition to the dignity and happiness and to the peaceand security of every individual, whether it be of home or of personsand correspondence. (Taada and Carreon, Political Law of thePhilippines, Vol. 2, 139 [1962]). The constitutional inviolability of thisgreat fundamental right against unreasonable searches and seizures mustbe deemed absolute as nothing is closer to a mans soul than theserenity of his privacy and the assurance of his personalsecurity. Any interference allowable can only be for the best causes andreasons.[119](emphases supplied)

While the right to life under Article III, Section 1

[120]

guarantees essentiallythe right to be alive[121]- upon which the enjoyment of all other rights ispreconditioned - the right to security of person is a guarantee of the secure qualityof this life, viz: The life to which each person has a right is not a life lived in fearthat his person and property may be unreasonably violated by a powerfulruler. Rather, it is a life lived with the assurance that the government heestablished and consented to, will protect the security of his person and property.The ideal of security in life and property pervades the whole history of man. Ittouches every aspect of mans existence.[122] In a broad sense, the right tosecurity of person emanates in a persons legal and uninterrupted enjoyment of

his life, his limbs, his body, his health, and his reputation. It includes the right toexist, and the right to enjoyment of life while existing, and it is invaded not only

by a deprivation of life but also of those things which are necessary to theenjoyment of life according to the nature, temperament, and lawful desires of theindividual.[123]

A closer look at the right to security of person would yield variouspermutations of the exercise of this right.

First, the right to security of person is freedom from fear. In itswhereas clauses, theUniversal Declaration of Human Rights(UDHR)enunciates that a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and

belief and freedom from fearand want has been proclaimed as the highestaspiration of the common people. (emphasis supplied) Some scholars postulatethat freedom from fear is not only an aspirational principle, but essentially anindividual international human right.[124] It is the right to security of person as
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn119http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn119http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn119http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn120http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn120http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn121http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn121http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn122http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn122http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn123http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn123http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn124http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn124http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn124http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn124http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn123http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn122http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn121http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn120http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn119

8/10/2019 Human Rights Law 1-18-25 Secretary of National Defense vs. Manalo to Canlas vs. Napic

Documents

Human Rights Law 1-18-25 Secretary of National Defense vs. Manalo to Canlas vs. Napico.pdf