Uploaded by lisamarie216

SND v Manalo digest CLEMENTE

advertisement
Lisa Marie J. Clemente
April 12, 2018
ATTY. IRENE D. VALONES
Human Rights Law, Sun., 10-12nn
Secretary of National Defense, Armed Forces of the Philippines’ Chief of Staff
(Petitioners)
Vs.
Raymond Manalo and Reynaldo Manalo (Respondents)
G.R. No. 180906
October 7, 2008
Puno, C. J.:
FACTS:
On February 14, 2006, brothers Raymond and Reynaldo Manalo, farmers from San Ildefonso,
Bulacan were abducted by members of the Citizens Armed Forces Geographical Unit (CAFGU)
on suspicion that the brothers were members or supporters of the New Peoples’ Army (NPA).
The Manalo brothers were detained in various locations: in Fort Magsaysay, Nueva Ecija; in
Camp Tecson, San Miguel, Bulacan; in Camp Luna, Limay Bataan; in a house somewhere in
Zambales; in a farm in Pangasinan. They were also subjected to various forms of torture such
as chained and blind folded, beaten black and blue in different parts of the body, hit in the
stomach with a hard wood, slapped in the forehead by .45 pistol, punched in the mouth, burned
some parts of their bodies with a burning wood, made to witness the killings of fellow captives;
forced to take the pill “alive” which caused them headaches, and threatened to be executed.
After having been detained and tortured for 18 months, the brothers were able to escape from
their captors and torturers on August 13, 2007.
On August 23, 2007, the Manalo brothers filed a Petition for Prohibition, Injunction, and
Temporary Restraining Order to stop the military (herein petitioners) from depriving them of their
right to liberty and other basic rights. While the petition was pending, the Rule on the Writ of
Amparo took effect on October 24, 2007. On the same day, the Manalo brothers filed a
Manifestation and Omnibus Motion to Treat Existing Petition as Amparo Petition. The next day,
October 25, 2017, the Supreme Court (SC) favorably granted their petition which was treated as
an Amparo Petition. The SC remanded the Amparo petition to the Court of Appeals (CA) and
ordered the latter to conduct a summary hearing thereon on November 8, 2007.
CA RULING:
On December 26, 2007, the CA granted the privilege of the Writ of Amparo to the Manalo
brothers relying on the brothers’ affidavits and testimonies and the medical reports and
testimony of Dr. Molino, a forensic expert, on the scars left by the injuries inflicted on the
brothers. The CA ordered the Secretary of National Defense and the AFP Chief of Staff
(petitioners) to furnish the Manalo brothers and the CA within 5 days with all the official and
unofficial reports of the investigation undertaken, confirm in writing the present places of Hilario
and Caigas – the military personnel identified by the Manalo brothers; to produce all medical
reports, records and charts, reports of any treatment given or recommended and medicines
prescribed while in detention; and to submit a list of medical personnel who attended to the
brothers while under military custody. In their Return of the Writ, the military disputed the
brothers’ accounts but undertook to exert efforts in providing results of the investigations
conducted or to be conducted relative to the circumstances of the alleged abduction of the
Manalo brothers.
The petitioners went to the Supreme Court seeking the reversal of the CA decision extending
the privilege of the Writ of Amparo to the Manalo brothers.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the CA erred in believing ang giving full faith and credit to the
affidavit/testimony of the Manalo brothers.
2. Whether or not the CA erred in granting the reliefs requested in the Amparo Petition –
requiring the petitioners to furnish the Manalo brothers and the CA with all the official
and unofficial reports of the investigation undertaken, confirm in writing the present
places of Hilario and Caigas, to produce all medical reports, records and charts, reports
Lisa Marie J. Clemente
April 12, 2018
ATTY. IRENE D. VALONES
Human Rights Law, Sun., 10-12nn
of any treatment given or recommended and medicines prescribed while in detention
and to submit a list of medical personnel who attended to the brothers while under
military custody.
HELD:
1. Whether or not the CA erred in believing ang giving full faith and credit to the
affidavit/testimony of the Manalo brothers?
No. Section 1 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo provides:
Section 1. Petition. - The petition for a writ of Amparo is a remedy available to any person
whose right to life, liberty and security is violated or threatened with violation by an
unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity.
The writ shall cover extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or threats thereof.
(emphasis supplied)
Meanwhile Sections 17 and 18 provide that the quantum of evidence required in petitions for
Writ of Amparo is substantial evidence, to wit:
Sec. 17. Burden of Proof and Standard of Diligence Required. - The parties shall establish
their claims by substantial evidence.
In affirming the the factual findings of the CA, the Supreme Court ruled that Raymond Manalo’s
affidavit and testimony which was corraborated by his brother Reynaldo’s affidavit and
testimony as well as the medical reports and testimony of forensic expert, Dr. Molino, constitute
substantial evidence which is defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to support a conclusion.
The SC was convinced by the CA findings that indeed the Manalo brothers were abducted and
detained by the military for 18 months in various locations on suspicion that they were either
members or sympathizers of the NPA. The participation of identified abductors Hilario, Arman,
Ganata, Cabalse, Caigas and the named CAFGU auxillaries was established. General
Palparan’s participation in the abduction was also established when he failed to controvert
Raymond Manalo’s claim. The SC also pointed out that the results of the investigation of the
Provost Marshall focused on the one-sided version of the CAFGU auxillaries involved.
The SC ruled that there is a continuing violation of the Manalo brothers’ right to security. Since
the brothers’ escape, they have been under concealment and protection from the military by
private citizens because of the threat to their life, liberty and security. The circumstances of the
brothers’ abduction, detention, torture and escape reasonably support a conclusion that there is
an apparent threat that they will again be abducted, tortured, and even executed. These
constitute threats to their liberty, security, and life, actionable through a petition for a Writ of
Amparo.
2. Whether or not the CA erred in granting the particular reliefs requested in the Amparo
Petition?
No.
The petitioners argue that the production order of the CA partakes the nature of a search
warrant that necessitates compliance with the Constitutional requisites for the protection of the
right against unreasonable searches. They are wrong. The amparo production order pertained
to a procedure that cannot be identified or confused with unreasonable searches prohibited by
the Constitution. Moreover in his affidavit, AFP Chief of Staff himself undertook to provide
results of the investigations conducted or to be conducted by the concerned unit relative to the
circumstances of the alleged abduction of the Manalo brothers.
Lisa Marie J. Clemente
April 12, 2018
ATTY. IRENE D. VALONES
Human Rights Law, Sun., 10-12nn
Also the disclosure of the present places of assignment of Hilario and Caigas whom the
brothers positively identified as their abductors, is relevant in ensuring the safety of the brothers
and ensuring that Hilario and Caigas will be served with notices and court processes.
The medical reports, on the other hand, will provide the medical history of the brothers while in
detention.
The SC then concluded:
In blatant violation of our hard-won guarantees to life, liberty and security, these rights are
snuffed out from victims of extralegal killings and enforced disappearances. The writ
of Amparo is a tool that gives voice to preys of silent guns and prisoners behind secret
walls.