Writ of Habeas Data Case

7/27/2019 Writ of Habeas Data Case

1/25

WRIT OF HABEAS DATA

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 189155 September 7, 2010

IN THE MATTER O THE PETITION OR THE !RIT O AMPAROAN" THE !RIT

OHABEAS DATAIN A#OR O ME$ISSA C. RO%AS, ME$ISSA C. RO%AS,

Petitioner,vs.

G$ORIA MACAPAGA$&ARRO'O, GI$(ERT TEO"ORO, GEN. #ICTOR S. I(RA"O,

P)"IR. GEN. *ESUS AME #ER+OSA, $T. GEN. "E$IN N. (ANGIT, PC)SUPT. $EON

NI$O A. "E$A CRU+, MA*. GEN. RA$PH #I$$ANUE#A, PS)SUPT. RU"' GAMI"O$ACA"IN, AN" CERTAIN PERSONS !HO GO (' THE NAMES- "E%, RC AN"

ROSE,Respondents.

D E C I S I N

PERE+,J.:

At bench is a Petition !or Revie" on Certiorari#assailin$ the Decision%dated %& Au$ust %''( of

the Court of Appeals in CA)*.R. SP No. '''+&)RA - a petition that "as coenced /ointl0

under the Rules on the rit of Aparo 1Aparo Rule2 and 3abeas Data 13abeas Data Rule2. In

its decision, the Court of Appeals e4tended to the petitioner, Melissa C. Ro4as, the privile$e ofthe "rits of aparo and habeas data but denied the latter5s pra0ers for an inspection order,

production order and return of specified personal belon$in$s. 6he fallo of the decision reads7

3ERE!RE, the Petition is PAR6IA889 MERI6RI:S. 6his Court hereb0 $rantsPetitioner the privile$e of the rit of Aparo and 3abeas Data.

Accordin$l0, Respondents are en/oined to refrain fro distributin$ or causin$ the distribution to

the public of an0 records in "hatever for, reports, docuents or siilar papers relative to

Petitioner5s Melissa C. Ro4as, and;or Melissa Ro4as< alle$ed ties to the CPP)NPA or pertinentl0related to the coplained incident. Petitioner5s pra0ers for an inspection order, production order

and for the return of the specified personal belon$in$s are denied for lac= of erit. Althou$hthere is no evidence that Respondents are responsible for the abduction, detention or torture ofthe Petitioner, said Respondents pursuant to their le$all0 andated duties are, nonetheless,

ordered to continue;coplete the investi$ation of this incident "ith the end in vie" of

prosecutin$ those "ho are responsible. Respondents are also ordered to provide protection to the

Petitioner and her fail0 "hile in the Philippines a$ainst an0 and all fors of harassent,intiidation and coercion as a0 be relevant to the $rant of these reliefs.+
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt1


2/25

e be$in "ith the petitioner5s alle$ations.

Petitioner is an Aerican citi>en of !ilipino descent.?hile in the :nited States, petitioner

enrolled in an e4posure pro$ra to the Philippines "ith the $roup Ba$on$ Al0ansan$Ma=aba0an):nited States of Aerica 1BAYAN):SA2 of "hich she is a eber.@Durin$ the

course of her iersion, petitioner toured various provinces and to"ns of Central 8u>on and, inApril of %''(, she volunteered to /oin ebers of BAYAN)6arlac&in conductin$ an initial health

surve0 in 8a Pa>, 6arlac for a future edical ission.

In pursuit of her volunteer "or=, petitioner brou$ht her passport, "allet "ith !ifteen 6housand

Pesos 1P#@,'''.''2 in cash, /ournal, di$ital caera "ith eor0 card, laptop coputer, e4ternal

hard dis=,IPOD,"rist"atch, sph0$oanoeter, stethoscope and edicines.(

After doin$ surve0 "or= on #( Ma0 %''(, petitioner and her copanions, uanito Carabeo1Carabeo2 and ohn Ed"ard andoc 1andoc2, decided to rest in the house of one Mr. esus Paolo

1Mr. Paolo2 in SitioBa$on$Si=at,Barangayapani=ian, 8a Pa>, 6arlac.#'At around #7+' in the

afternoon, ho"ever, petitioner, her copanions and Mr. Paolo "ere startled b0 the loud soundsof soeone ban$in$ at the front door and a voice deandin$ that the0 open up.##

Suddenl0, fifteen 1#@2 heavil0 ared en forcibl0 opened the door, bar$ed inside and ordered

petitioner and her copanions to lie on the $round face do"n.#%6he ared en "ere all in

civilian clothes and, "ith the e4ception of their leader, "ere also "earin$ bonnets to concealtheir faces.#+

Petitioner tried to protest the intrusion, but five 1@2 of the ared en $an$ed up on her and tied

her hands.#?At this /uncture, petitioner sa" the other ared en herdin$ Carabeo and andoc,

alread0 blindfolded and taped at their ouths, to a nearb0 blue van. Petitioner started to shout

her nae.

#@

A$ainst her vi$orous resistance, the ared en dra$$ed petitioner to"ards the van-bruisin$ her ars, le$s and =nees.#&nce inside the van, but before she can be blindfolded,

petitioner "as able to see the face of one of the ared en sittin$ beside her.#6he van thensped a"a0.

After about an hour of travelin$, the van stopped.#Petitioner, Carabeo and andoc "ere ordered

to ali$ht.#(After she "as infored that she is bein$ detained for bein$ a eber of the

Counist Part0 of the Philippines)Ne" People5s Ar0 1CPP)NPA2, petitioner "as separatedfro her copanions and "as escorted to a roo that she believed "as a /ail cell fro the sound

of its etal doors.%'!ro there, she could hear the sounds of $unfire, the noise of planes ta=in$

off and landin$ and soe construction bustle.%#She inferred that she "as ta=en to the ilitar0

cap of !ort Ma$sa0sa0 in 8aur, Nueva Eci/a.

%%

hat follo"ed "as five 1@2 strai$ht da0s of interro$ation coupled "ith torture.%+6he thrust of the

interro$ations "as to convince petitioner to abandon her counist beliefs in favor of returnin$

to the fold.%?6he torture, on the other hand, consisted of tauntin$, cho=in$, bo4in$ andsuffocatin$ the petitioner.%@
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt25


3/25

6hrou$hout the entiret0 of her ordeal, petitioner "as ade to suffer in blindfolds even in her

sleep.%&Petitioner "as onl0 relieved of her blindfolds "hen she "as allo"ed to ta=e a bath,

durin$ "hich she becae acFuainted "ith a "oan naed Rose "ho bathed her.%6here "erealso a fe" ties "hen she cheated her blindfold and "as able to pee= at her surroundin$s.%

Despite bein$ deprived of si$ht, ho"ever, petitioner "as still able to learn the naes of three ofher interro$ators "ho introduced theselves to her as De4, aes and RC. %(RC even

told petitioner that those "ho tortured her cae fro the Special perations *roup, and thatshe "as abducted because her nae is included in the rder of Battle.+'

n %@ Ma0 %''(, petitioner "as finall0 released and returned to her uncle5s house in Gue>on

Cit0.+#Before bein$ released, ho"ever, the abductors $ave petitioner a cellular phone "ith aSIM+%card, a slip of paper containin$ an e)ail address "ith pass"ord,++a plastic ba$ containin$

biscuits and boo=s,+?the handcuffs used on her, a blouse and a pair of shoes.+@Petitioner "as also

sternl0 "arned not to report the incident to the $roup arapatan or soethin$ unto"ard "ill

happen to her and her fail0.+&

Soetie after her release, petitioner continued to receive calls fro RC via the cellular phone

$iven to her.+ut of apprehension that she "as bein$ onitored and also fearin$ for the safet0

of her fail0, petitioner thre" a"a0 the cellular phone "ith a SIM card.

See=in$ sanctuar0 a$ainst the threat of future har as "ell as the suppression of an0 e4istin$$overnent files or records lin=in$ her to the counist oveent, petitioner filed a Petition

for the rits of Aparo and 3abeas Data before this Court on # une %''(.+Petitioner

ipleaded public officials occup0in$ the upperost echelons of the ilitar0 and police hierarch0as respondents, on the belief that it "as $overnent a$ents "ho "ere behind her abduction and

torture. Petitioner li=e"ise included in her suit Rose, De4 and RC.+(

6he Aparo and 3abeas Data petition pra0s that7 1#2 respondents be en/oined fro harin$ or

even approachin$ petitioner and her fail0< 1%2 an order be issued allo"in$ the inspection ofdetention areas in the th Infantr0 Division, !ort Ma$sa0sa0, 8aur, Nueva Eci/a< 1+2 respondents

be ordered to produce docuents relatin$ to an0 report on the case of petitioner includin$, but

not liited to, intelli$ence report and operation reports of the th Infantr0 Division, the Special

perations *roup of the Ared !orces of the Philippines 1A!P2 and its subsidiaries or branch;esprior to, durin$ and subseFuent to #( Ma0 %''(< 1?2 respondents be ordered to e4pun$e fro the

records of the respondents an0 docuent pertinent or connected to Melissa C. Ro4as, Melissa

Ro4as or an0 nae "hich sounds the sae< and 1@2 respondents be ordered to return to petitionerher /ournal, di$ital caera "ith eor0 card, laptop coputer, e4ternal hard dis=, IPD,

"rist"atch, sph0$oanoeter, stethoscope, edicines and her P#@,'''.'' cash.?'

In a Resolution dated ( une %''(, this Court issued the desired "rits and referred the case to the

Court of Appeals for hearin$, reception of evidence and appropriate action.?#6he Resolution alsodirected the respondents to file their verified "ritten return.?%

n # une %''(, the ffice of the Solicitor *eneral 1S*2, filed a Return of the rits ?+on

behalf of the public officials ipleaded as respondents.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt43


4/25

e no" turn to the defenses interposed b0 the public respondents.

6he public respondents label petitioner5s alle$ed abduction and torture as sta$e ana$ed.??In

support of their accusation, the public respondents principall0 rel0 on the stateent of Mr. Paolo,as contained in the Special Report?@of the 8a Pa> Police Station. In the Special Report, Mr.

Paolo disclosed that, prior to the purported abduction, petitioner and her copanions instructedhi and his t"o sons to avoid leavin$ the house.?&!ro this stateent, the public respondents

dre" the distinct possibilit0 that, e4cept for those alread0 inside Mr. Paolo5s house, nobod0 elsehas an0 "a0 of =no"in$ "here petitioner and her copanions "ere at the tie the0 "ere

supposedl0 abducted.?6his can onl0 ean, the public respondents concluded, that if ever there

"as an0 abduction it ust necessaril0 have been planned b0, or done "ith the consent of, thepetitioner and her copanions theselves.?

Public respondents also cited the Medical Certificate?(of the petitioner, as actuall0 bel0in$ her

clais that she "as sub/ected to serious torture for five 1@2 da0s. 6he public respondents noted

that "hile the petitioner alle$es that she "as cho=ed and bo4ed b0 her abductors-inflictions that

could have easil0 produced rear=able bruises-her Medical Certificate onl0 sho"s abrasions inher "rists and =nee caps.@'

!or the public respondents, the above anoalies put in Fuestion the ver0 authenticit0 of

petitioner5s alle$ed abduction and torture, ore so an0 ilitar0 or police involveent therein.3ence, public respondents conclude that the clais of abduction and torture "as no ore than a

charade fabricated b0 the petitioner to put the $overnent in bad li$ht, and at the sae tie,

brin$ $reat edia ilea$e to her and the $roup that she represents.@#

Nevertheless, even assuin$ the abduction and torture to be $enuine, the public respondents

insist on the disissal of the Aparo and 3abeas Data petition based on the follo"in$ $rounds7

1a2 as a$ainst respondent President *loria Macapa$al)Arro0o, in particular, because of heriunit0 fro suit,@%and 1b2 as a$ainst all of the public respondents, in $eneral, in vie" of theabsence of an0 specific alle$ation in the petition that the0 had participated in, or at least

authori>ed, the coission of such atrocities.@+

!inall0, the public respondents posit that the0 had not been reiss in their dut0 to ascertain the

truth behind the alle$ations of the petitioner.@?In both the police and ilitar0 ars of the$overnent achiner0, inFuiries "ere set)up in the follo"in$ anner7

Police Action

Police authorities first learned of the purported abduction around ?7+' o5cloc= in the afternoon of#( Ma0 %''(, "henBarangayCaptain Michael M. Manuel cae to the 8a Pa> Municipal PoliceStation to report the presence of heavil0 ared en soe"here inBarangay apani=ian.@@

Actin$ on the report, the police station launched an initial investi$ation.@&

6he initial investi$ation revolved around the stateent of Mr. Paolo, "ho infored the

investi$ators of an abduction incident involvin$ three 1+2 persons-later identified as petitionerMelissa Ro4as, uanito Carabeo and ohn Ed"ard andoc-"ho "ere all sta0in$ in his house.@
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt50http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt52http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt52http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt53http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt54http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt54http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt55http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt56http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt57http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt50http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt52http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt53http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt54http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt55http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt56http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt57


5/25

Mr. Paolo disclosed that the abduction occurred around #7+' o5cloc= in the afternoon, and "as

perpetrated b0 about ei$ht 12 heavil0 ared en "ho forced their "a0 inside his house.@ther

"itnesses to the abduction also confired that the ared en used a dar= blue van "ith anun=no"n plate nuber and t"o 1%2 3onda HRM otorc0cles "ith no plate nubers.@(

At @7'' o5cloc= in the afternoon of #( Ma0 %''(, the investi$ators sent a !lash Messa$e to thedifferent police stations surroundin$ 8a Pa>, 6arlac, in an effort to trac= and locate the van and

otorc0cles of the suspects. :nfortunatel0, the effort 0ielded ne$ative results.&'

n %' Ma0 %''(, the results of the initial investi$ation "ere included in a Special Reportthat

"as transitted to the 6arlac Police Provincial ffice, headed b0 public respondent P;S Supt.

Rud0 8acadin 1Supt. 8acadin2. Public respondent Supt. 8acadin, in turn, infored the Re$ionalPolice ffice of Re$ion + about the abduction.&%!ollo")up investi$ations "ere, at the sae tie,

pursued.&+

n %& Ma0 %''(, public respondent PC;Supt. 8eon Nilo Dela Cru>, as Director of the Re$ional

Police ffice for Re$ion +, caused the creation of Special Investi$ation 6as= *roup-CARAN 16as= *roup CARAN2 to conduct an in)depth investi$ation on the abduction of

the petitioner, Carabeo and andoc.&?

6as= *roup CARAN started its inFuir0 b0 a=in$ a series of bac=$round e4ainations on the

victis of the purported abduction, in order to reveal the otive behind the abduction and,ultiatel0, the identit0 of the perpetrators.&@6as= *roup CARAN also aintained liaisons

"ith arapatan and the Alliance for Advanceent of People5s Ri$hts-or$ani>ations trusted b0

petitioner-in the hopes of obtainin$ the latter5s participation in the on$oin$ investi$ations.&&:nfortunatel0, the letters sent b0 the investi$ators reFuestin$ for the availabilit0 of the petitioner

for inFuiries "ere left unheeded.&

6he pro$ress of the investi$ations conducted b0 6as= *roup CARAN had been detailed in the

reports&that it subitted to public respondent *eneral esus Ae er>osa, the Chief of thePhilippine National Police. 3o"ever, as of their latest report dated %( une %''(, 6as= *roup

CARAN is still unable to a=e a definitive findin$ as to the true identit0 and affiliation of the

abductors-a fact that tas= $roup CARAN attributes to the refusal of the petitioner, or an0 of

her fello" victis, to cooperate in their investi$ative efforts.&(

Militar0 Action

Public respondent *ilbert 6eodoro, the Secretar0 of National Defense, first cae to =no" about

the alle$ed abduction and torture of the petitioner upon receipt of the Resolution of this Courtdirectin$ hi and the other respondents to file their return.'Iediatel0 thereafter, he issued aMeorandu Directive#addressed to the Chief of Staff of the A!P, orderin$ the latter, aon$

others, to conduct an inFuir0 to deterine the validit0 of the accusation of ilitar0 involveent

in the abduction.%

Actin$ pursuant to the Meorandu Directive, public respondent *eneral ictor S. Ibrado, theA!P Chief of Staff, sent an A!P Radio Messa$e+addressed to public respondent 8ieutenant
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt58http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt59http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt60http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt61http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt62http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt63http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt64http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt64http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt65http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt66http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt67http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt68http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt68http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt69http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt70http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt70http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt71http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt72http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt73http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt73http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt58http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt59http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt60http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt61http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt62http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt63http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt64http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt65http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt66http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt67http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt68http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt69http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt70http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt71http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt72http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt73


6/25

*eneral Delfin N. Ban$it 18t. *en. Ban$it2, the Coandin$ *eneral of the Ar0, rela0in$ the

order to cause an investi$ation on the abduction of the petitioner.?

!or his part, and ta=in$ cue fro the alle$ations in the aparo petition, public respondent 8t.*en. Ban$it instructed public respondent Ma/or *eneral Ralph A. illanueva 1Ma/. *en.

illanueva2, the Coander of the th Infantr0 Division of the Ar0 based in !ort Ma$sa0sa0,to set in otion an investi$ation re$ardin$ the possible involveent of an0 personnel assi$ned at

the cap in the purported abduction of the petitioner.@In turn, public respondent Ma/. *en.illanueva tapped the ffice of the Provost Marshal 1P2 of the th Infantr0 Division, to

conduct the investi$ation.&

n %+ une %''(, the P of the th Infantr0 Division released an Investi$ation Report detailin$ the results of its inFuir0. In substance, the report described petitioner5s alle$ations as

opinionated and thereb0 cleared the ilitar0 fro an0 involveent in her alle$ed abduction

and torture.

6he Decision of the Court of Appeals

In its Decision,(the Court of Appeals $ave due "ei$ht and consideration to the petitioner5sversion that she "as indeed abducted and then sub/ected to torture for five 1@2 strai$ht da0s. 6he

appellate court noted the sincerit0 and resolve b0 "hich the petitioner affired the contents of

her affidavits in open court, and "as thereb0 convinced that the latter "as tellin$ the truth.'

n the other hand, the Court of Appeals disre$arded the ar$uent of the public respondents thatthe abduction of the petitioner "as sta$e ana$ed, as it is erel0 based on an unfounded

speculation that onl0 the latter and her copanions =ne" "here the0 "ere sta0in$ at the tie

the0 "ere forcibl0 ta=en.#6he Court of Appeals further stressed that the Medical Certificate of

the petitioner can onl0 affir the e4istence of a true abduction, as its findin$s are reflective ofthe ver0 in/uries the latter clais to have sustained durin$ her harro"in$ ordeal, particularl0

"hen she "as handcuffed and then dra$$ed b0 her abductors onto their van.%

6he Court of Appeals also reco$ni>ed the e4istence of an on$oin$ threat a$ainst the securit0 ofthe petitioner, as anifested in the attepts of RC to contact and onitor her, even after she

"as released.+6his threat, accordin$ to the Court of Appeals, is all the ore copounded b0 the

failure of the police authorities to identif0 the aterial perpetrators "ho are still at lar$e.?6hus,the appellate court e4tended to the petitioner the privile$e of the "rit of aparo b0 directin$ the

public respondents to afford protection to the forer, as "ell as continuin$, under the nor of

e4traordinar0 dili$ence, their e4istin$ investi$ations involvin$ the abduction.@

6he Court of Appeals li=e"ise observed a trans$ression of the ri$ht to inforational privac0 ofthe petitioner, notin$ the e4istence of records of investi$ations that concerns the petitioner as a

suspected eber of the CPP)NPA.&6he appellate court derived the e4istence of such records

fro a photo$raph and video file presented in a press conference b0 part0)list representativesovito Palparan 1Palparan2 and Pastor Alcover 1Alcover2, "hich alle$edl0 sho" the petitioner

participatin$ in rebel e4ercises. Representative Alcover also revealed that the photo$raph and

video cae fro a feale CPP)NPA eber "ho "anted out of the or$ani>ation. Accordin$ to
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt74http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt75http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt75http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt76http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt77http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt77http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt78http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt79http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt80http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt81http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt82http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt83http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt84http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt85http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt86http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt74http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt75http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt76http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt77http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt78http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt79http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt80http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt81http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt82http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt83http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt84http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt85http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt86


7/25

the Court of Appeals, the proliferation of the photo$raph and video, as "ell as an0 for of

edia, insinuatin$ that petitioner is part of the CPP)NPA does not onl0 constitute a violation of

the ri$ht to privac0 of the petitioner but also puts further strain on her alread0 volatile securit0.6o this end, the appellate court $ranted the privile$e of the "rit of habeas data andatin$ the

public respondents to refrain fro distributin$ to the public an0 records, in "hatever for,

relative to petitioner5s alle$ed ties "ith the CPP)NPA or pertinentl0 related to her abduction andtorture.

6he fore$oin$ not"ithstandin$, ho"ever, the Court of Appeals "as not convinced that the

ilitar0 or an0 other person actin$ under the acFuiescence of the $overnent, "ere responsible

for the abduction and torture of the petitioner.(6he appellate court stressed that, /ud$in$ b0 hero"n stateents, the petitioner erel0 believed that the ilitar0 "as behind her abduction.('

6hus, the Court of Appeals absolved the public respondents fro an0 coplicit0 in the

abduction and torture of petitioner.(#6he petition "as li=e"ise disissed as a$ainst publicrespondent President *loria Macapa$al)Arro0o, in vie" of her iunit0 fro suit.(%

Accordin$l0, the petitioner5s pra0ers for the return of her personal belon$in$s "ere denied.

(+

Petitioner5s pra0ers for an inspection order and production order also et the sae fate.(?

3ence, this appeal b0 the petitioner.

AMPAR

A.

Petitioner first contends that the Court of Appeals erred in absolvin$ the public respondents fro

an0 responsibilit0 in her abduction and torture.(@Corollar0 to this, petitioner also finds fault on

the part of Court of Appeals in den0in$ her pra0er for the return of her personal belon$in$s.

(&

Petitioner insists that the anner b0 "hich her abduction and torture "as carried out, as "ell asthe sounds of construction, $un)fire and airplanes that she heard "hile in detention, as these "ere

detailed in her t"o affidavits and affired b0 her in open court, are alread0 sufficient evidence to

prove $overnent involveent.(

Proceedin$ fro such assuption, petitioner invo=es the doctrine of coand responsibilit0 toiplicate the hi$h)ran=in$ civilian and ilitar0 authorities she ipleaded as respondents in her

aparo petition.(6hus, petitioner see=s fro this Court a pronounceent holdin$ the

respondents as coplicit in her abduction and torture, as "ell as liable for the return of her

belon$in$s.

((

Coand Responsibilit0 in Aparo Proceedin$s

It ust be stated at the outset that the use b0 the petitioner of the doctrine of coand

responsibilit0 as the /ustification in ipleadin$ the public respondents in her aparo petition, is

le$all0 inaccurate, if not incorrect. 6he doctrine of coand responsibilit0 is a rule of
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt87http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt88http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt89http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt90http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt90http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt91http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt91http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt92http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt93http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt94http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt95http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt96http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt97http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt98http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt99http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt87http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt88http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt89http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt90http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt91http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt92http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt93http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt94http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt95http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt96http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt97http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt98http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt99


8/25

substantive la" that establishes liabilit0 and, b0 this account, cannot be a proper le$al basis to

iplead a part0)respondent in an aparo petition.#''

6he case of Rubrico v. Arro0o,#'#"hich "as the first to e4aine coand responsibilit0 in theconte4t of an aparo proceedin$, observed that the doctrine is used to pinpoint liabilit0. Rubrico

notes that7#'%

6he evolution of the coand responsibilit0 doctrine finds its conte4t in the developent of

la"s of "ar and ared cobats. Accordin$ to !r. Bernas, coand responsibilit0, in itssiplest ters, eans the responsibilit0 of coanders for cries coitted b0 subordinate

ebers of the ared forces or other persons sub/ect to their control in international "ars or

doestic conflict.#'+In this sense, coand responsibilit0 is properl0 a for of criinalcoplicit0. 6he 3a$ue Conventions of #(' adopted the doctrine of coand responsibilit0,#'?

foreshado"in$ the present)da0 precept of holdin$ a superior accountable for the atrocities

coitted b0 his subordinates should he be reiss in his dut0 of control over the. As then

forulated, coand responsibilit0 is / omo/ moe o3 /46 rm/6 6b6t0,

"hereb0 the superior is ade responsible for rme ommtte b0 his subordinates for failin$to prevent or punish the perpetrators#'@ 1as opposed to cries he ordered2. 1Ephasis in the

or$inal, underscorin$ supplied2

Since the application of coand responsibilit0 presupposes an iputation of individualliabilit0, it is ore aptl0 invo=ed in a full)blo"n criinal or adinistrative case rather than in a

suar0 aparo proceedin$. 6he obvious reason lies in the nature of the "rit itself7

6he "rit of aparo is a protective reed0 aied at providin$ /udicial relief consistin$ of theappropriate reedial easures and directives that a0 be crafted b0 the court, in order to address

specific violations or threats of violation of the constitutional ri$hts to life, libert0 or securit0.#'&

hile the principal ob/ective of its proceedin$s is the initial deterination of "hether anenforced disappearance, e4trale$al =illin$ or threats thereof had transpired-the "rit does not, b0so doin$, fi4 liabilit0 for such disappearance, =illin$ or threats, "hether that a0 be criinal,

civil or adinistrative under the applicable substantive la".#'6he rationale underpinnin$ this

peculiar nature of an aparo "rit has been, in turn, clearl0 set forth in the landar= case of 6heSecretar0 of National Defense v. Manalo7#'

4 4 4 6he reed0 provides rapid /udicial relief as it parta=es of a suar0 proceedin$ that

reFuires onl0 substantial evidence to a=e the appropriate reliefs available to the petitioner< it is

not an action to deterine criinal $uilt reFuirin$ proof be0ond reasonable doubt, or liabilit0 fordaa$es reFuirin$ preponderance of evidence, or adinistrative responsibilit0 reFuirin$

substantial evidence that "ill reFuire full and e4haustive proceedin$s.#'(1Ephasis supplied2

It ust be clarified, ho"ever, that the inapplicabilit0 of the doctrine of coand responsibilit0

in an aparo proceedin$ does not, b0 an0 easure, preclude ipleadin$ ilitar0 or policecoanders on the $round that the coplained acts in the petition "ere coitted "ith their

direct or indirect acFuiescence. In "hich case, coanders a0 be ipleaded-not actuall0 on

the basis of coand responsibilit0-but rather on the $round of their responsibilit0, or at leastaccountabilit0. In Ra>on v. 6a$itis,##'the distinct, but interrelated concepts of responsibilit0 and
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt100http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt100http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt101http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt101http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt102http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt103http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt103http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt104http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt105http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt105http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt106http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt107http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt107http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt108http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt109http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt110http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt100http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt101http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt102http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt103http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt104http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt105http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt106http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt107http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt108http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt109http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt110


9/25

accountabilit0 "ere $iven special and uniFue si$nifications in relation to an aparo proceedin$,

to "it7

4 4 4Repo/b6t refers to the e4tent the actors have been established b0 substantial evidenceto have participated in "hatever "a0, b0 action or oission, in an enforced disappearance, as a

easure of the reedies this Court shall craft, aon$ the, the directive to file the appropriatecriinal and civil cases a$ainst the responsible parties in the proper courts. Ao/tb6t, on

the other hand, refers to the easure of reedies that should be addressed to those "ho e4hibitedinvolveent in the enforced disappearance "ithout brin$in$ the level of their coplicit0 to the

level of responsibilit0 defined above< or "ho are iputed "ith =no"led$e relatin$ to the

enforced disappearance and "ho carr0 the burden of disclosure< or those "ho carr0, but havefailed to dischar$e, the burden of e4traordinar0 dili$ence in the investi$ation of the enforced

disappearance.

Responsibilit0 of Public Respondents

At an0 rate, it is clear fro the records of the case that the intent of the petitioner in ipleadin$the public respondents is to ascribe soe for of responsibilit0 on their part, based on her

assuption that the0, in one "a0 or the other, had condoned her abduction and torture.###

6o establish such assuption, petitioner attepted to sho" that it "as $overnent a$ents "ho

"ere behind her ordeal. 6hus, the petitioner calls attention to the circustances surroundin$ herabduction and torture-i.e., the forcible ta=in$ in broad da0li$ht< use of vehicles "ith no license

plates< utili>ation of blindfolds< conductin$ interro$ations to elicit counist inclinations< and

the infliction of ph0sical abuse-"hich, accordin$ to her, is consistent "ith the "a0 enforceddisappearances are bein$ practiced b0 the ilitar0 or other state forces.##%

Moreover, petitioner also clais that she "as held inside the ilitar0 cap !ort Ma$sa0sa0-aconclusion that she "as able to infer fro the travel tie reFuired to reach the place "here she

"as actuall0 detained, and also fro the sounds of construction, $un)fire and airplanes she heard"hile thereat.##+

e are not ipressed. 6he totalit0 of the evidence presented b0 the petitioner does not inspire

reasonable conclusion that her abductors "ere ilitar0 or police personnel and that she "as

detained at !ort Ma$sa0sa0.

!irst. 6he siilarit0 bet"een the circustances attendin$ a particular case of abduction "iththose surroundin$ previous instances of enforced disappearances does not, necessaril0, carr0

sufficient "ei$ht to prove that the $overnent orchestrated such abduction. e opine thatinsofar as the present case is concerned, the perceived siilarit0 cannot stand as substantialevidence of the involveent of the $overnent.

In aparo proceedin$s, the "ei$ht that a0 be accorded to parallel circustances as evidence of

ilitar0 involveent depends lar$el0 on the availabilit0 or non)availabilit0 of other pieces of

evidence that has the potential of directl0 provin$ the identit0 and affiliation of the perpetrators.Direct evidence of identit0, "hen obtainable, ust be preferred over ere circustantial


10/25

evidence based on patterns and siilarit0, because the forer indubitabl0 offers $reater certaint0

as to the true identit0 and affiliation of the perpetrators. An aparo court cannot sipl0 leave to

reote and ha>0 inference "hat it could other"ise clearl0 and directl0 ascertain.

In the case at bench, petitioner "as, in fact, able to include in her ffer of E4hibits,##?the

carto$raphic s=etches##@

of several of her abductors "hose faces she ana$ed to see. 6o the indof this Court, these carto$raphic s=etches have the undeniable potential of $ivin$ the $reatest

certaint0 as to the true identit0 and affiliation of petitioner5s abductors. :nfortunatel0 for thepetitioner, this potential has not been reali>ed in vie" of the fact that the faces described in such

s=etches reain unidentified, uch less have been sho"n to be that of an0 ilitar0 or police

personnel. Bluntl0 stated, the abductors "ere not proven to be part of either the ilitar0 or thepolice chain of coand.

Second. 6he clai of the petitioner that she "as ta=en to !ort Ma$sa0sa0 "as not adeFuatel0

established b0 her ere estiate of the tie it too= to reach the place "here she "as detained

and b0 the sounds that she heard "hile thereat. 8i=e the Court of Appeals, e are not inclined to

ta=e the estiate and observations of the petitioner as accurate on its face-not onl0 becausethe0 "ere ade ostl0 "hile she "as in blindfolds, but also in vie" of the fact that she "as a

ere so/ourner in the Philippines, "hose failiarit0 "ith !ort Ma$sa0sa0 and the travel tiereFuired to reach it is in itself doubtful.##&ith nothin$ else but obscure observations to support

it, petitioner5s clai that she "as ta=en to !ort Ma$sa0sa0 reains a ere speculation.

In su, the petitioner "as not able to establish to a concrete point that her abductors "ere

actuall0 affiliated, "hether forall0 or inforall0, "ith the ilitar0 or the police or$ani>ations.Neither does the evidence at hand prove that petitioner "as indeed ta=en to the ilitar0 cap

!ort Ma$sa0sa0 to the e4clusion of other places. 6hese evidentiar0 $aps, in turn, a=e it

virtuall0 ipossible to deterine "hether the abduction and torture of the petitioner "as in fact

coitted "ith the acFuiescence of the public respondents. n account of this insufficienc0 inevidence, a pronounceent of responsibilit0 on the part of the public respondents, therefore,

cannot be ade.

Pra0er for the Return of Personal Belon$in$s

6his brin$s :s to the pra0er of the petitioner for the return of her personal belon$in$s.

In its decision, the Court of Appeals denied the above pra0er of the petitioner b0 reason of the

failure of the latter to prove that the public respondents "ere involved in her abduction and

torture.##e a$ree "ith the conclusion of the Court of Appeals, but not entirel0 "ith the reason

used to support it. 6o the ind of this Court, the pra0er of the petitioner for the return of herbelon$in$s is dooed to fail re$ardless of "hether there is sufficient evidence to hold public

respondents responsible for the abduction of the petitioner.

In the first place, an order directin$ the public respondents to return the personal belon$in$s ofthe petitioner is alread0 eFuivalent to a conclusive pronounceent of liabilit0. 6he order itself is

a substantial relief that can onl0 be $ranted once the liabilit0 of the public respondents has been
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt114http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt114http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt115http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt116http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt117http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt114http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt115http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt116http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt117


11/25

fi4ed in a full and e4haustive proceedin$. As alread0 discussed above, atters of liabilit0 are not

deterinable in a ere suar0 aparo proceedin$.##

But perhaps the ore fundaental reason in den0in$ the pra0er of the petitioner, lies "ith thefact that a person5s ri$ht to be restituted of his propert0 is alread0 subsued under the $eneral

rubric of propert0 ri$hts-"hich are no lon$er protected b0 the "rit of aparo.##(

Section # ofthe Aparo Rule,#%'"hich defines the scope and e4tent of the "rit, clearl0 e4cludes the

protection of propert0 ri$hts.

B.

6he ne4t error raised b0 the petitioner is the denial b0 the Court of Appeals of her pra0er for an

inspection of the detention areas of !ort Ma$sa0sa0.#%#

Considerin$ the dearth of evidence concretel0 pointin$ to an0 ilitar0 involveent in

petitioner5s ordeal, this Court finds no error on the part of the Court of Appeals in den0in$ an

inspection of the ilitar0 cap at !ort Ma$sa0sa0. e a$ree "ith the appellate court that acontrar0 stance "ould be eFuivalent to sanctionin$ a fishin$ e4pedition, "hich "as never

intended b0 the Aparo Rule in providin$ for the interi relief of inspection order.#%%Contrar0to the e4plicit position#%+espoused b0 the petitioner, the Aparo Rule does not allo" a fishin$

e4pedition for evidence.

An inspection order is an interi relief desi$ned to $ive support or stren$then the clai of a

petitioner in an aparo petition, in order to aid the court before a=in$ a decision.#%?A basicreFuireent before an aparo court a0 $rant an inspection order is that the place to be

inspected is reasonabl0 deterinable fro the alle$ations of the part0 see=in$ the order. hile

the Aparo Rule does not reFuire that the place to be inspected be identified "ith clarit0 and

precision, it is, nevertheless, a iniu for the issuance of an inspection order that thesupportin$ alle$ations of a part0 be sufficient in itself, so as to a=e a pria facie case. 6his, as

"as sho"n above, petitioner failed to do.

Since the ver0 estiates and observations of the petitioner are not stron$ enou$h to a=e out apria facie case that she "as detained in !ort Ma$sa0sa0, an inspection of the ilitar0 cap

cannot be ordered. An inspection order cannot issue on the basis of alle$ations that are, in

theselves, unreliable and doubtful.

3ABEAS DA6A

As earlier intiated, the Court of Appeals $ranted to the petitioner the privile$e of the "rit ofhabeas data, b0 en/oinin$ the public respondents fro distributin$ or causin$ the distribution to

the public an0 records in "hatever for, reports, docuents or siilar papers relative to the

petitioner5s alle$ed ties "ith the CPP)NPA or pertinentl0 related to her abduction and torture.6hou$h not raised as an issue in this appeal, this Court is constrained to pass upon and revie"

this particular rulin$ of the Court of Appeals in order to rectif0, "hat appears to :s, an error

infectin$ the $rant.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt118http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt119http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt120http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt121http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt122http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt123http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt124http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt118http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt119http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt120http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt121http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt122http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt123http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt124


12/25

!or the proper appreciation of the rationale used b0 the Court of Appeals in $rantin$ the

privile$e of the "rit of habeas data, e Fuote hereunder the relevant portion#%@of its decision7

:nder these preises, Petitioner pra0ed that all the records, intelli$ence reports and reports onthe investi$ations conducted on Melissa C. Ro4as or Melissa Ro4as be produced and eventuall0

e4pun$ed fro the records. Petitioner claied to be included in the *overnent5s rder ofBattle under plan Banta0 8a0a "hich listed political opponents a$ainst "ho false criinal

char$es "ere filed based on ade up and per/ured inforation.

Pendin$ resolution of this petition and before Petitioner could testif0 before :s, E4)ar0 $eneral

ovito Palaparan, Banta0 part0)list, and Pastor Alcover of the Alliance for Nationalis and

Deocrac0 part0)list held a press conference "here the0 revealed that the0 received aninforation fro a feale NPA rebel "ho "anted out of the or$ani>ation, that Petitioner "as a

counist rebel. Alcover claied that said inforation reached the thru a letter "ith photo of

Petitioner holdin$ firears at an NPA trainin$ cap and a video CD of the trainin$ e4ercises.

Clearl0, and not"ithstandin$ Petitioner5s denial that she "as the person in said video, there "ererecords of other investi$ations on Melissa C. Ro4as or Melissa Ro4as "hich violate her ri$ht to

privac0. ithout a doubt, reports of such nature have reasonable connections, one "a0 or

another, to petitioner5s abduction "here she claied she had been sub/ected to cruelties and

dehuani>in$ acts "hich nearl0 caused her life precisel0 due to alle$ation of her alle$edebership in the CPP)NPA. And if said report or siilar reports are to be continuousl0 ade

available to the public, Petitioner5s securit0 and privac0 "ill certainl0 be in dan$er of bein$

violated or trans$ressed b0 persons "ho have stron$ sentients or aversion a$ainst ebers ofthis $roup. 6he unre$ulated disseination of said unverified video CD or reports of Petitioner5s

alle$ed ties "ith the CPP)NPA indiscriinatel0 ade available for public consuption "ithout

evidence of its authenticit0 or veracit0 certainl0 violates Petitioner5s ri$ht to privac0 "hich ust

be protected b0 this Court. e, thus, dee it necessar0 to $rant Petitioner the privile$e of therit of 3abeas Data. 1Ephasis supplied2.

6he "rit of habeas data "as conceptuali>ed as a /udicial reed0 enforcin$ the ri$ht to privac0,

ost especiall0 the ri$ht to inforational privac0 of individuals.#%&6he "rit operates to protect aperson5s ri$ht to control inforation re$ardin$ hiself, particularl0 in the instances "here such

inforation is bein$ collected throu$h unla"ful eans in order to achieve unla"ful ends.

Needless to state, an indispensable reFuireent before the privile$e of the "rit a0 be e4tended

is the sho"in$, at least b0 substantial evidence, of an actual or threatened violation of the ri$ht toprivac0 in life, libert0 or securit0 of the victi.#%6his, in the case at bench, the petitioner failed

to do.

6he ain proble behind the rulin$ of the Court of Appeals is that there is actuall0 no evidence

on record that sho"s that an0 of the public respondents had violated or threatened the ri$ht toprivac0 of the petitioner. 6he act ascribed b0 the Court of Appeals to the public respondents that

"ould have violated or threatened the ri$ht to privac0 of the petitioner, i.e.,=eepin$ records of

investi$ations and other reports about the petitioner5s ties "ith the CPP)NPA, "as not adeFuatel0proven-considerin$ that the ori$in of such records "ere virtuall0 une4plained and its e4istence,


13/25

clearl0, onl0 inferred b0 the appellate court fro the video and photo$raph released b0

Representatives Palparan and Alcover in their press conference. No evidence on record even

sho"s that an0 of the public respondents had access to such video or photo$raph.

In vie" of the above considerations, the directive b0 the Court of Appeals en/oinin$ the public

respondents fro distributin$ or causin$ the distribution to the public an0 records in "hateverfor, reports, docuents or siilar papers relative to the petitioner5s alle$ed ties "ith the

CPP)NPA, appears to be devoid of an0 le$al basis. 6he public respondents cannot be ordered torefrain fro distributin$ soethin$ that, in the first place, it "as not proven to have.

eril0, until such tie that an0 of the public respondents "ere found to be actuall0 responsible

for the abduction and torture of the petitioner, an0 inference re$ardin$ the e4istence of reportsbein$ =ept in violation of the petitioner5s ri$ht to privac0 becoes farfetched, and preature.

!or these reasons, this Court ust, at least in the eantie, stri=e do"n the $rant of the privile$e

of the "rit of habeas data.

DISPSI6IN ! 63E CASE

ur revie" of the evidence of the petitioner, "hile tellin$ of its innate insufficienc0 to iputean0 for of responsibilit0 on the part of the public respondents, revealed t"o iportant thin$s

that can $uide :s to a proper disposition of this case. ne, that further investi$ation "ith the use

of e4traordinar0 dili$ence ust be ade in order to identif0 the perpetrators behind the

abduction and torture of the petitioner< and t"o, that the Coission on 3uan Ri$hts 1C3R2,pursuant to its Constitutional andate to investi$ate all fors of huan ri$hts violations

involvin$ civil and political ri$hts and to provide appropriate le$al easures for the protection of

huan ri$hts,#%ust be tapped in order to fill certain investi$ative and reedial voids.

!urther Investi$ation Must Be :nderta=en

Ironic as it sees, but part and parcel of the reason "h0 the petitioner "as not able to adduce

substantial evidence provin$ her alle$ations of $overnent coplicit0 in her abduction and

torture, a0 be attributed to the incoplete and one)sided investi$ations conducted b0 the$overnent itself. 6his a"="ard situation, "herein the ver0 persons alle$ed to be involved in

an enforced disappearance or e4trale$al =illin$ are, at the sae tie, the ver0 ones tas=ed b0 la"

to investi$ate the atter, is a uniFue characteristic of these proceedin$s and is the ain source of

the evidentiar0 difficulties faced b0 an0 petitioner in an0 aparo case. #%(

Co$ni>ant of this situation, ho"ever, the Aparo Rule placed a potent safe$uard-reFuirin$ therespondent "ho is a public official or eplo0ee to prove that no less than e4traordinar0

dili$ence as reFuired b0 applicable la"s, rules and re$ulations "as observed in the perforance

of dut0.#+'6hus, unless and until an0 of the public respondents is able to sho" to the satisfactionof the aparo court that e4traordinar0 dili$ence has been observed in their investi$ations, the0

cannot shed the alle$ations of responsibilit0 despite the prevailin$ scarcit0 of evidence to that

effect.


14/25

ith this in ind, e note that e4traordinar0 dili$ence, as reFuired b0 the Aparo Rule, "as

not full0 observed in the conduct of the police and ilitar0 investi$ations in the case at bar.

A perusal of the investi$ation reports subitted b0 6as= *roup CARAN sho"s odest efforton the part of the police investi$ators to identif0 the perpetrators of the abduction. 6o be sure,

said reports are replete "ith bac=$round chec=s on the victis of the abduction, but are, at thesae tie, coparativel0 silent as to other concrete steps the investi$ators have been ta=in$ to

ascertain the authors of the crie. Althou$h conductin$ a bac=$round investi$ation on thevictis is a lo$ical first step in e4posin$ the otive behind the abduction-its necessit0 is

clearl0 out"ei$hed b0 the need to identif0 the perpetrators, especiall0 in li$ht of the fact that the

petitioner, "ho "as no lon$er in captivit0, alread0 cae up "ith alle$ations about the otive ofher captors.

Instead, 6as= *roup CARAN placed the fate of their investi$ations solel0 on the cooperation

or non)cooperation of the petitioner-"ho, the0 clai, "as less than enthusiastic in participatin$

in their investi$ative efforts.#+#hile it a0 be conceded that the participation of the petitioner

"ould have facilitated the pro$ress of 6as= *roup CARAN5s investi$ation, this Courtbelieves that the forer5s reticence to cooperate is hardl0 an e4cuse for 6as= *roup CARAN

not to e4plore other eans or avenues fro "hich the0 could obtain relevant leads.#+%Indeed,"hile the alle$ations of $overnent coplicit0 b0 the petitioner cannot, b0 theselves, hold up

as adeFuate evidence before a court of la"-the0 are, nonetheless, a vital source of valuable

investi$ative leads that ust be pursued and verified, if onl0 to copl0 "ith the hi$h standard ofdili$ence reFuired b0 the Aparo Rule in the conduct of investi$ations.

Assuin$ the non)cooperation of the petitioner, 6as= *roup CARAN5s reports still failed to

e4plain "h0 it never considered see=in$ the assistance of Mr. esus Paolo-"ho, alon$ "ith the

victis, is a central "itness to the abduction. 6he reports of 6as= *roup CARAN is silent in

an0 attept to obtain fro Mr. Paolo, a carto$raphic s=etch of the abductors or, at the ver0 least,of the one "ho, b0 petitioner5s account, "as not "earin$ an0 as=.1avvphi1

6he recollection of Mr. Paolo could have served as a coparative aterial to the s=etches

included in petitioner5s offer of e4hibits that, it a0 be pointed out, "ere prepared under thedirection of, and first subitted to, the C3R pursuant to the latter5s independent investi$ation on

the abduction and torture of the petitioner.#++But as entioned earlier, the C3R s=etches reain

to be unidentified as of this date.

In li$ht of these considerations, e a$ree "ith the Court of Appeals that further investi$ationunder the nor of e4traordinar0 dili$ence should be underta=en. 6his Court sipl0 cannot "rite

finis to this case, on the basis of an incoplete investi$ation conducted b0 the police and the

ilitar0. In a ver0 real sense, the ri$ht to securit0 of the petitioner is continuousl0 put in /eopard0because of the deficient investi$ation that directl0 contributes to the dela0 in brin$in$ the real

perpetrators before the bar of /ustice.

6o add teeth to the appellate court5s directive, ho"ever, e find it fittin$, na0, necessar0 to shift

the priar0 tas= of conductin$ further investi$ations on the abduction and torture of thepetitioner upon the C3R.#+?e note that the C3R, unli=e the police or the ilitar0, sees to
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt131http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt132http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt132http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt133http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt134http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt131http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt132http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt133http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt134


15/25

en/o0 the trust and confidence of the petitioner-as evidenced b0 her attendance and

participation in the hearin$s alread0 conducted b0 the coission.#+@Certainl0, it "ould be

reasonable to assue fro such cooperation that the investi$ations of the C3R have advanced,or at the ver0 least, bears the ost proise of advancin$ farther, in ters of locatin$ the

perpetrators of the abduction, and is thus, vital for a final resolution of this petition. !ro this

perspective, e also dee it /ust and appropriate to rele$ate the tas= of affordin$ interiprotection to the petitioner, also to the C3R.

3ence, e odif0 the directive of the Court of the Appeals for further investi$ation, as follo"s

-

#.2 Appointin$ the C3R as the lead a$enc0 tas=ed "ith conductin$ further investi$ationre$ardin$ the abduction and torture of the petitioner. Accordin$l0, the C3R shall, under

the nor of e4traordinar0 dili$ence, ta=e or continue to ta=e the necessar0 steps7 1a2 to

identif0 the persons described in the carto$raphic s=etches subitted b0 the petitioner, as

"ell as their "hereabouts< and 1b2 to pursue an0 other leads relevant to petitioner5s

abduction and torture.

%.2 Directin$ the incubent Chief of the Philippine National Police 1PNP2, or his

successor, and the incubent Chief of Staff of the A!P, or his successor, to e4tend

assistance to the on$oin$ investi$ation of the C3R, includin$ but not liited tofurnishin$ the latter a cop0 of its personnel records circa the tie of the petitioner5s

abduction and torture, sub/ect to reasonable re$ulations consistent "ith the Constitution

and e4istin$ la"s.

+.2 !urther directin$ the incubent Chief of the PNP, or his successor, to furnish to this

Court, the Court of Appeals, and the petitioner or her representative, a cop0 of the reports

of its investi$ations and their recoendations, other than those that are alread0 part ofthe records of this case, "ithin ninet0 1('2 da0s fro receipt of this decision.

?.2 !urther directin$ the C3R to 1a2 furnish to the Court of Appeals "ithin ninet0 1('2

da0s fro receipt of this decision, a cop0 of the reports on its investi$ation and its

correspondin$ recoendations< and to 1b2 provide or continue to provide protection to

the petitioner durin$ her sta0 or visit to the Philippines, until such tie as a0 hereinafterbe deterined b0 this Court.

Accordin$l0, this case ust be referred bac= to the Court of Appeals, for the purposes of

onitorin$ copliance "ith the above directives and deterinin$ "hether, in li$ht of an0 recent

reports or recoendations, there "ould alread0 be sufficient evidence to hold an0 of the publicrespondents responsible or, at least, accountable. After a=in$ such deterination, the Court of

Appeals shall subit its o"n report "ith recoendation to this Court for final action. 6he

Court of Appeals "ill continue to have /urisdiction over this case in order to accoplish its tas=sunder this decision.

!HEREORE,the instant petition is PARTIA$$' MERITORIOUS. e hereb0 render a

decision7
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt135http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#fnt135


16/25

#.2 A!!IRMIN* the denial of the petitioner5s pra0er for the return of her personal

belon$in$sarro, concurrin$. Rollo, pp @')%.

+Id. at #)%.

?Id. at @+.

@Id.

&A sister or$ani>ation ofBAYAN):SA.

Affidavit of Petitioner. CA rollo, p.##.

A di$ital ulti)edia pla0er cobined "ith a hard drive.

(Suppleental Affidavit of Petitioner. CA rollo,p. #(?.

#'Id.

##Id.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt11


19/25

#%Id.

#+Id.

#?Id.

#@Id.

#&Id.

#Id. at #%.

#Id.

#(Id.

%'

Id.

%#Id.

%%Id. at @?.

%+Id. at #%)#@.

%?Id.

%@Id.

%&Id. at #%.

%Id. at #%)#+.

%Suppleental Affidavit. Id. at #(?)#(&.

%(Id. at #?)#@ and #(@.

+'Id. at #@.

+#

Id. at #@)#&. Per investi$ation of the police, uanito Carabeo "as released b0 theabductors on %? Ma0 %''( alon$ the hi$h"a0 ofBarangaySanta Cru>, 8ubao,

Papan$a. 3is e4act "herabouts are, ho"ever, presentl0 un=no"n. Accordin$ to the

police, Carabeo has outstandin$ "arrants of arrest. As of the tie of this decision, none"s relative to the release and;or "hereabouts of ohn Ed"ard andoc is obtainable.

+%Meanin$, subscriber Identit0 Module.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt32


20/25

++6he eail address is riveradon$K0ahoo.co, "ith the pass"ord dantes%''(. CA

rollo,at #(&.

+?6he boo= "as 8ove in the 6ies of Cholera b0 *abriel *arcia MarFue>, and a cop0of a Bible of the in$ aes ersion. Id. at #(@.

+@Id. at #@.

+&Id.

+Id.

+Id. at %)#. Shortl0 after filin$ the petition, petitioner "ent to the :nited States to

recuperate fro her e4perience. She cae bac= to the Philippines on +' ul0 %''( totestif0 on the affidavits attached to her petition before the Court of Appeals, but returned

iediatel0 to the :nited States.

+(6he interro$ator identified onl0 b0 the nae of aes "as not siilarl0 ipleaded as

a co)respondent.

?'CA rollo, pp. ).

?#Supree CourtEn BancResolution, id. at #()%#.

?%Id.

?+No return "as filed b0 or for the un=no"n respondents De4, Rose and RC. Id. at

+@)(.

??Id. at @&.

?@Id. at # and ('.

?&Id.

?Id. at @.

?Id. at @(.

?(Id. at #.

@'Id. at &').

@#Id. at &'.

@%Id. at ?%)?+
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt50http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt52http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt50http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt52


21/25

@+Id. at ?+)@@.

@?Id.

@@Id. at # and ('.

@&Id.

@Id.

@Id.

@(Id.

&'Id. at ##+

Id. at #.

&%Affidavit of PC;Supt. 8eon Nilo A. Dela Cru>. Id. at +.

&+Id. at #)('.

&?Initial Report of Special Investi$ative 6as= *roup CARAN, id. at ##%)##?.

&@Id. at ##+)##?.

&&See 8etters sent b0 PC;Supt. *il C. Meneses, head of Special Investi$ative 6as= *roup

CARAN, to Sister Cecile Rui> of arapatan and the Alliance for Advanceent ofPeople5s Ri$hts. Id. at (+)(?.

&Id. at @?.

&See Initial Report dated %& Ma0 %''(< !irst Pro$ress Report dated % Ma0 %''(on, r. v. 6a$itis, *.R. No. #%?(, + Deceber %''(, &'& SCRA @(, &'%.

#'Separate pinion of Associate ustice Arturo D. Brion in Rubrico v. Arro0o, supranote #'#.

#'*.R. No. #'('&, ctober %'', @& SCRA #, ?%.

#'(Deliberations of the Coittee on the Revision of the Rules of Court, #' Au$ust

%'', %? Au$ust %'', +# Au$ust %'' and %' Septeber %''.

##'Supra note #'& at &%')&%#.

###Rollo, pp. %&)%.

##%Id. at #@.

##+CA rollo, p. @.

##?Id. at #)#(+.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt96http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt97http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt98http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt99http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt100http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt101http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt102http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt103http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt104http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt105http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt106http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt107http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt108http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt109http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt110http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt111http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt112http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt113http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt114http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt96http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt97http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt98http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt99http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt100http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt101http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt102http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt103http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt104http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt105http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt106http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt107http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt108http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt109http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt110http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt111http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt112http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt113http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt114


24/25

##@Id. See E4hibit *,5 and its sub)ar=in$s.

##&Rollo, pp. @)&. As observed b0 the Court of Appeals7

As respondents correctl0 ar$ued, considerin$ that Petitioner is an Aerican

citi>en "ho claied to be unfailiar "ith !ort Ma$sa0sa0 or its iediatevicinit0, she cannot possibl0 have an0 failiarit0 or actual =no"led$e of the

buildin$s in or around !ort Ma$sa0sa0 or the relative distances to and fro the

sae. Petitioner failed to offer a sin$le evidence to definitel0 prove that she "asbrou$ht to !ort Ma$sa0sa0 to the e4clusion of other places. It is also unfortunate

that her t"o other copanions Messrs. Carabeo and andoc, chose not to appear

in Court to corroborate the testion0 of the Petitioner.

##Id. at #.

##a&on, 'r. v. (agiti!, supra note #'& at &)&(.

##(6apu> v. Del Rosario, *.R. No. #%??, # une %'', @@? SCRA &, ?)@.

#%'Section # of the Aparo Rule states7

Section #.Petition. ) 6he petition for a "rit ofAmparois a reed0 available to

an0 person "hose ri$ht to life, libert0 and securit0 is violated or threatened "ith

violation b0 an unla"ful act or oission of a public official or eplo0ee, or of aprivate individual or entit0.

6he "rit shall cover e4tra)le$al =illin$s and enforced disappearances or threats

thereof. 1Ephasis supplied2.#%#ollo,pp. %)+#.

#%%Id. at &.

#%+Id. at %.

#%?9ano v. Sanche>, *.R. No. #&&?', ## !ebruar0 %'#'.

#%@Rollo, pp. ')#.

#%&Annotation to the Rule on the rit of 3abeas Data, A.M. No. ')#)#&)SC, effective %

!ebruar0 %'' 1paphlet released b0 the Supree Court2, p. %+.

#%Section # of the 3abeas Data Rule states7

SEC6IN #.)a"ea! Data.) 6he "rit of ha"ea! datais a reed0 available to an0

person "hose ri$ht to privac0 in life, libert0 or securit0 is violated or threatened
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt115http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt116http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt117http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt118http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt119http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_2010.html#rnt120http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_189155_20

Writ of Habeas Data Case

Documents

Transcript of Writ of Habeas Data Case