Case Digest: Secretary of National Defense v. Manalo (G.R. No. 180906)

Secretary of National Defense v. Manalo | G.R. No. 180906 | October 7, 2008 | Puno. C.J.

Doctrine and Concepts:

• The Writ of Amparo offers a better remedy to extralegal killings and enforced disappearances and threats thereof due to the nature of swiftness required to resolve these cases
• The remedy provides rapid judicial relief as it partakes of a summary that requires only substantial 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 administrative responsibility requiring full and exhaustive proceedings.

Facts

• The case at bar is an appeal via Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court in relation to Section 19 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo, seeking to reverse and set aside, the Decision promulgated by Court of Appeals in C.A. G.R. AMPARO No. 00001.
• The original case was filed by herein respondents Raymond and Reynaldo Manalo (therein petitioners) to stop herein petitioners (therein respondents), the Secretary of National Defense, from depriving them of their right to liberty and other basic rights.
• Raymond and Reynaldo Manalo, herein respondents, were victims of enforced disappearances and torture within an 18-month period alleging herein petitioners as abducting them.
• In preparation for the current case at bar, Lt. Col. Jimenez, the Commanding General of the herein petitioners, who were in his territorial jurisdiction, conducted a separate investigation was and asked sworn statements from each of the implicated persons.
• Findings of said investigation found that alleged charges of abduction lacked merit and Lt. Col. Jimenez recommends that the accused be exonerated from the case.

Issues and Holding 

Whether or not the Court of Appeals (C.A.) erred in believing and giving full faith to “incredible, uncorroborated, and scripted” affidavit of herein respondent Raymond Manalo. [No]

• Sec. 1 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo states: “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 by a public official or employee or of a private individual or entity, covering extralegal killings and enforced disappearances.
• Herein respondents stated that they are no longer in detention and are physically free but assert that they are not free as their movements continue to be restricted for fear for they have named their alleged abductors
• Their cause of action consists in the threat to their right to life and liberty and a violation of their right to security.
• It should be stressed that the herein respondents are now free from captivity not because they were released by virtue of a lawful order or voluntarily freed by their abductors.
• With their escape, the continuing threat to their life is apparent; this threat vitiates their free will as they are limited in their movement.
• In the context of Sec. 1 of the Amparo Rule, freedom from fear is the right and any threat to the rights is the actionable wrong.
• Art. 2, Sec 2 of the 1987 Constitution guarantees a person of bodily and psychological integrity or security and one cannot be searched or invaded without a warrant. Physical injuries in this context constitute more than an invasion of security; it is a danger to life itself and a crime against persons.
• Art. 3 Sec. 12 of the 1987 Constitution points out that physical torture and violence are a severe invasion of bodily integrity as it vitiates the free will to be used against him
• As pointed out by Article 3, Section 2, the State shall guarantee the right of security of a person with full respect for human rights under Article 2, Sec. 1 of the 1987 Constitution. The Government is the chief guarantor, and the constitutional guarantee shall be ineffective if the government does not afford protection to these rights, especially when under threat.
• This has been violated as the military failed to conduct an effective investigation.
• Section 17 and 18 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo states that “proof is required to reach a certain degree and to be established by substantial evidence.” If the allegations in the petition are proven by substantial evidence, the court shall grant the privilege of the writ.
• Court finds compelling reason for the abduction of the Manalo brothers as the accused were looking for Ka Bestre, a known NPA affiliate, who turned out to be Rolando, the brother of the petitioners.
• General Palparan’s participation to the abduction was also established and at the very least he was aware of the captivity at the hands of men under his command. In fact, he did not deny the firm claim of Raymond that he met them in person in a safehouse in Bulacan.
• Raymond’s affidavit and testimony were corroborated by:
• The affidavit of herein respondent Renaldo Manalo
• Medical reports prepared by forensic specialist Dr. Molino, done in accordance of the standards set by the Istanbul Protocol
• Dr. Molino’s forensic examination and photos of the sustained injuries and bodily damages support the report.
• Herein respondent Raymond’s familiarity with the facilities in Fort Magsaysay such as the Division Training Unit, confirmed by Lt. Col. Jimenez, firms up the respondent’s testimony that they were detained in said facility.

Whether or not the C.A. erred in requiring herein petitioners to: (a) furnish all official and unofficial reports of investigation in connection in case; (b) confirm in writing the places of assignment of M/Sgt. Hilario; and (c) produce to the C.A. all medical reports and related documents for treatment given or recommended to the Manalo brothers, including list of medical personnel who attended them from 2/14/2006 to 8/12/2007. [No]

• The efforts exerted by of Lt. Col Jimenez in the investigation were merely superficial and focused on the one-sided version of those involved. He merely relied on sworn statements and did not propound a single question to ascertain the veracity of their statements or their credibility.
• Herein petitioner Secretary of National Defense issued a directive dated 10/31/2007 that the AFP shall adopt rules of action in event the writ of amparo is issued against any members of the AFP by the Court. Herein petitioner AFP Chief of Staff also attested of receiving above directive and acting on said directive. Up until the case at bar, respondents, the Manalo brothers, have not been furnished of the results of investigation, which they now seek through instant petition for a writ of amparo.
• Under these circumstances, there is substantial evidence to warrant the violation of respondent’s right to security as a guarantee of protection by the government.
• Argument of herein petitioners that production order of reports for (a) and (b) partakes a search warrant does not hold water as such order can be likened to the production of documents or things under Sec.1, Rule 27 of the Rules of Civil Procedures. It provides that upon motion of any party showing good cause, the court may order any party to produce any designated documents, not privileged or produced yet by the courts, which constitute or contain evidence material in the possession of said party
• With respect to (b), disclosure of present places of assignment of M/Sgt. Hilario is relevant in ensuring the safety and rights of herein respondents provided by the Writ.
•  With respect to (c), the list of medical personnel is also relevant in securing information to create the medical history of herein respondents and make appropriate medical interventions, when applicable and necessary.

Petition dismissed.