Professional Documents
Culture Documents
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME606
December 3, 2009.*
1/104
11/21/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME606
599
599
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001588480c15b3c921db5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
2/104
11/21/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME606
600
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001588480c15b3c921db5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
601
3/104
11/21/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME606
602
4/104
11/21/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME606
603
5/104
11/21/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME606
604
6/104
11/21/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME606
has not spoken on the matter the determination of what acts are
criminal and what the corresponding penalty these criminal acts
should carry are matters of substantive law that only the
Legislature has the power to enact under the countrys
constitutional scheme and power structure.
Same Same Supreme Court Even without the benefit of
directly applicable substantive laws on extrajudicial killings and
enforced disappearances, however, the Supreme Court is not
powerless to act under its own constitutional mandate to
promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of
constitutional rights, pleading, practice and procedure in all
courts, since extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances,
by their nature and purpose, constitute State or private party
violation of the constitutional rights of individuals to life, liberty
and securitythe legal protection that the Court can provide can
be very meaningful through the procedures it sets in addressing
extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances.Even without
the benefit of directly applicable substantive laws on extrajudicial
killings and enforced disappearances, however, the Supreme
Court is not powerless to act under its own constitutional
mandate to promulgate rules concerning the protection and
enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice and
procedure in all courts, since extrajudicial killings and enforced
disappearances, by their nature and purpose, constitute State or
private party violation of the constitutional rights of individuals
to life, liberty and security. Although the Courts power is strictly
procedural and as such does not diminish, increase or modify
substantive rights, the legal protection that the Court can provide
can be very meaningful through the procedures it sets in
addressing extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances.
The Court, through its
605
605
7/104
11/21/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME606
606
person and the restoration of his or her liberty and security, and,
in the proper case, by the commencement of criminal action
against the guilty parties.
Same Same International Law From the International Law
perspective, involuntary or enforced disappearance is considered a
flagrant violation of human rights.From the International Law
perspective, involuntary or enforced disappearance is considered a
flagrant violation of human rights. It does not only violate the
right to life, liberty and security of the desaparecido it affects
their families as well through the denial of their right to
information regarding the circumstances of the disappeared
family member. Thus, enforced disappearances have been said to
be a double form of torture, with doubly paralyzing impact for
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001588480c15b3c921db5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
8/104
11/21/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME606
the victims, as they are kept ignorant of their own fates, while
family members are deprived of knowing the whereabouts of their
detained loved ones and suffer as well the serious economic
hardship and poverty that in most cases follow the disappearance
of the household breadwinner. The UN General Assembly first
considered the issue of Disappeared Persons in December 1978
under Resolution 33/173. The Resolution expressed the General
Assemblys deep concern arising from reports from various parts
of the world relating to enforced or involuntary disappearances,
and requested the UN Commission on Human Rights to consider
the issue of enforced disappearances with a view to making
appropriate recommendations.
Same Same Same Convention for the Protection of All
Persons from Enforced Disappearance (Convention) In 1992, in
response to the reality that the insidious practice of enforced
disappearance had become a global phenomenon, the United
Nations General Assembly adopted the Declaration on the
Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, and
fourteen years later (or on December 20, 2006), the UN General
Assembly adopted the International Convention for the Protection
of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance.In 1992, in
response to the reality that the insidious practice of enforced
disappearance had become a global phenomenon, the UN General
Assembly adopted the Declaration on the Protection of All
Persons from Enforced
607
607
9/104
11/21/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME606
608
10/104
11/21/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME606
609
11/104
11/21/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME606
610
specific terms of the Rome Statute) and has not formally declared
enforced disappearance as a specific crime, the above recital
shows that enforced disappearance as a State practice has
been repudiated by the international community, so that
the ban on it is now a generally accepted principle of
international law, which we should consider a part of the
law of the land, and which we should act upon to the
extent already allowed under our laws and the
international conventions that bind us.
Same Same Past experiences in other jurisdictions relative to
enforced disappearances show that the evidentiary difficulties are
generally threefold: first, there may be a deliberate concealment of
the identities of the direct perpetrators second, deliberate
concealment of pertinent evidence of the disappearance is a
distinct possibility and, third is the element of denial.These
difficulties largely arise because the State itselfthe party whose
involvement is allegedinvestigates enforced disappearances.
Past experiences in other jurisdictions show that the evidentiary
difficulties are generally threefold. First, there may be a
deliberate concealment of the identities of the direct
perpetrators. Experts note that abductors are well organized,
armed and usually members of the military or police forces.
Second, deliberate concealment of pertinent evidence of the
disappearance is a distinct possibility the central piece of
evidence in an enforced disappearancei.e., the corpus delicti or
the victims bodyis usually concealed to effectively thwart the
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001588480c15b3c921db5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
12/104
11/21/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME606
611
13/104
11/21/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME606
612
tional rights to life, liberty or security, and the failure on the part
of the investigating authorities to appropriately respond.
Same Same Same Quantum of Evidence Substantial
Evidence Words and Phrases The landmark case of Ang Tibay v.
Court of Industrial Relations, 69 Phil. 635 (1940), provided the
Court its first opportunity to define the substantial evidence
required to arrive at a valid decision in administrative
proceedings.The landmark case of Ang Tibay v. Court of
Industrial Relations provided the Court its first opportunity to
define the substantial evidence required to arrive at a valid
decision in administrative proceedings. To directly quote Ang
Tibay: Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla. It
means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to support a conclusion. [citations
omitted] The statute provides that the rules of evidence
prevailing in courts of law and equity shall not be controlling.
The obvious purpose of this and similar provisions is to free
administrative boards from the compulsion of technical rules so
that the mere admission of matter which would be deemed
incompetent in judicial proceedings would not invalidate the
administrative order. [citations omitted] But this assurance of a
desirable flexibility in administrative procedure does not go so far
as to justify orders without a basis in evidence having rational
probative force.
Same Same Same Same Same The fair and proper rule is
to consider all the pieces of evidence adduced in their totality, and
to consider any evidence otherwise inadmissible under our usual
rules to be admissible if it is consistent with the admissible
evidence adducedwe reduce our rules to the most basic test of
reason, i.e., to the relevance of the evidence to the issue at hand
and its consistency with all other pieces of adduced evidence.
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001588480c15b3c921db5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
14/104
11/21/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME606
613
15/104
11/21/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME606
614
16/104
11/21/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME606
615
17/104
11/21/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME606
616
616
,
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001588480c15b3c921db5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
617
18/104
11/21/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME606
618
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001588480c15b3c921db5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
19/104
11/21/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME606
619
20/104
11/21/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME606
620
21/104
11/21/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME606
621
22/104
11/21/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME606
622
23/104
11/21/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME606
623
24/104
11/21/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME606
624
625
25/104
11/21/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME606
626
26/104
11/21/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME606
defenses to show that the respondent did not violate or threaten with
violation the right to life, liberty and security of the aggrieved party,
through any act or omission (B) steps or actions taken by respondent to
determine the fate or whereabouts of the aggrieved party and the person
or persons responsible for the threat, act or omission (C) all relevant
information in the possession of each respondent pertaining to the threat,
act or omission against the aggrieved party and (D) since the respondents
were all public officials, being either members of the Armed Forces of the
Philippines or the Philippine National Police, the return should further
state the actions that have been or would be taken: (i) To verify the
identity of the aggrieved party (ii) To recover and preserve evidence
related to the disappearance of ENGINEER MORCED N. TAGITIS, the
person identified in the petition, which may aid in the prosecution of the
person or persons responsible (iii) To identify witnesses and obtain
statements from them concerning the disappearance (iv) To determine
the cause, manner, location and time of disappearance as well as any
pattern or practice that may have brought about the disappearance (v) To
identify and apprehend the person or persons involved in the
disappearance of ENGINEER MORCED N. TAGITIS and (vi) To bring
the suspected offenders before a competent court. General denial of the
allegations in the petition would not be allowed and all defenses not raised
in the return would be considered as waived. Id.
12CA Rollo, pp. 5690.
627
627
27/104
11/21/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME606
628
28/104
11/21/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME606
629
29/104
11/21/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME606
630
x x x x
That, I and our men and women in PACER vehemently deny
any participation in the alleged abduction or illegally [sic]
detention of ENGR. MORCED N. TAGITIS on October 30, 2007.
As a matter of fact, nowhere in the writ was mentioned that the
alleged abduction was perpetrated by elements of PACER nor
was there any indication that the alleged abduction or illegal
detention of ENGR. TAGITIS was undertaken jointly by our men
and by the alleged covert CIDGPNP intelligence operatives
alleged to have abducted or illegally detained ENGR. TAGITIS.
That I was shocked when I learned that I was implicated in the
alleged disappearance of ENGR. MORCED in my capacity as the
chief PACER [sic] considering that our office, the Police Anti
Crime and Emergency Response (PACER), a special task force
created for the purpose of neutralizing or eradicating kidnapfor
ransom groups which until now continue to be one of the menace
of our society is a respondent in kidnapping or illegal detention
case. Simply put, our task is to go after kidnappers and charge
them in court and to abduct or illegally detain or kidnap anyone is
anathema to our mission.
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001588480c15b3c921db5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
30/104
11/21/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME606
631
31/104
11/21/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME606
632
32/104
11/21/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME606
633
633
634
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001588480c15b3c921db5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
33/104
11/21/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME606
635
34/104
11/21/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME606
636
35/104
11/21/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME606
637
are exerting their efforts and religiously doing their tasked [sic] in
the conduct of its intelligence monitoring and investigation for the
early resolution of this instant case. But rest assured, our office,
in coordination with other lawenforcement agencies in the area,
are continuously and religiously conducting our investigation for
the resolution of this case.
36/104
11/21/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME606
638
37/104
11/21/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME606
639
38/104
11/21/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME606
640
dated
January
30,
2008
contradicting
the
respondents
That, I told her that her problem was purely a police matter
which does not fall under our mandate but that nonetheless I was
willing to extend my help
5. That during our conversation, I asked her to provide me with
some documents/information for purposes of back tracking/tracing
the possible personalities whom her husband supposedly met in
Jolo before he was reported missing. However, this did not
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001588480c15b3c921db5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
39/104
11/21/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME606
641
40/104
11/21/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME606
642
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001588480c15b3c921db5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
643
41/104
11/21/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME606
644
42/104
11/21/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME606
645
43/104
11/21/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME606
646
the phone that Prof., lalabas din yan.50 Prof. Matli also
emphasized that despite what his January 4, 2008 affidavit
indicated,51 he never told PS Supt. Pingay, or made any
accusation, that Tagitis took away money entrusted to
him.52 Prof. Matli confirmed, however, that that he had
received an email report53 from Nuraya
_______________
50Id., at pp. 6163.
51 Id., at pp. 8081. Paragraph 13 of Prof. Matlis January 26, 2008
affidavit states:
13. Contrary to the contents of the affidavit I signed on January 4,
2008, it was not I who said that Brother Engr.[sic] Morced converted the
money that were entrusted and deposited to be [sic] said institution he
was working with, by means of deceitful performance, grave abuse of trust
and confidence, misappropriate, misapply and convert the same to his own
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001588480c15b3c921db5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
44/104
11/21/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME606
647
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001588480c15b3c921db5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
45/104
11/21/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME606
648
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001588480c15b3c921db5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
46/104
11/21/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME606
_______________
58Id., at pp. 5356.
59Id., at p. 56.
60Id., at pp. 5758.
61Id., at pp. 6162.
62Id., at p. 63.
63Id., at p. 68.
64Id., at p. 70.
649
649
47/104
11/21/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME606
650
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001588480c15b3c921db5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
48/104
11/21/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME606
651
652
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001588480c15b3c921db5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
49/104
11/21/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME606
the
653
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001588480c15b3c921db5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
50/104
11/21/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME606
654
51/104
11/21/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME606
655
52/104
11/21/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME606
656
53/104
11/21/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME606
_______________
79Id. Section 17 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo pertinently states
that [t]he respondent who is a public official or employee must prove that
extraordinary diligence as required by applicable laws, rules and
regulations was observed in the performance of duty.
80Supra note 9.
657
657
54/104
11/21/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME606
658
658
659
xxxx
15. According to reliable information received by the
[respondent], subject Engr. Tagitis is in the custody of police
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001588480c15b3c921db5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
55/104
11/21/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME606
660
56/104
11/21/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME606
Assembly,
Doc.
10679,
September
19,
2005,
http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=/Documents/Working
Docs/Doc05/EDOC10679.htm (last visited November 12, 2009). The aim of
the secret arrest and detention prescribed by the Night and Fog Decree
was twofold. First, an individual was to be removed from the protection of
law. Second and more importantly, secret arrest and detention served as a
form of general deterrence, achieved through the intimidation and anxiety
caused by the persistent un
661
661
Western
Europe
through
program
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001588480c15b3c921db5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
of
enforced
57/104
11/21/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME606
662
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001588480c15b3c921db5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
58/104
11/21/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME606
_______________
86 Human rights organizations first coined the term disappeared
(desaparecido) in 1966, during secret government crackdowns on
political opponents in Guatemala, with systematic documentation of
disappearances
developing
through
the
mid
1970s.
See Wasana
in
Diana
Grace
L.
Uy,
The
Problem
of
Enforced
and
Involuntary
or
Enforced
Disappearances
in
the
Philippines, 39 (2007).
88 Id., at p. 14, citing Amnesty International USA, Disappearances: A
Workbook, p. 91 (1981).
663
663
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001588480c15b3c921db5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
or Involuntary Disappearance reports 619
outstanding
59/104
11/21/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME606
members.
The
Working
Group
examines
the
reports
of
664
pp.
910
(2009),
available
at
http://www.
unhcr.org/refworld/category,REFERENCE,OHCHR,THEMREPORT,4794774bd,0.html
(last visited November 12, 2009).
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001588480c15b3c921db5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
60/104
11/21/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME606
February
6,
2009,
available
http://www.ohchr.org/english/issues/disappear/docs/A.HRC.10.9.pdf
(last
at
visited
665
61/104
11/21/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME606
666
62/104
11/21/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME606
667
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001588480c15b3c921db5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
63/104
11/21/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME606
668
20
December
1997,
http://www.un.org./documents/ga/res/33/ares335173.pdf
available
(last
at
visited
669
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001588480c15b3c921db5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
Enforced
Disappearance
(Declaration).
This
64/104
11/21/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME606
Enforced
Disappearance
(Declaration).104
This
Declaration, for the first time, provided in its third
preambular clause a working description of enforced
disappearance, as follows:
Deeply concerned that in many countries, often in a
persistent manner, enforced disappearances occur, in the sense
that persons are arrested, detained or abducted against
their will or otherwise deprived of their liberty by officials
of different branches or levels of Government, or by
organized groups or private individuals acting on behalf
of, or with the support, direct or indirect, consent or
acquiescence of the Government, followed by a refusal to
disclose the fate or whereabouts of the persons concerned
or a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of their
liberty, which places such persons outside the protection of the
law. [Emphasis supplied]
670
65/104
11/21/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME606
at
http://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?
src=TREATY&mtdsgho=iv168&chapter=4
&lang=en
(last
visited
671
66/104
11/21/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME606
672
67/104
11/21/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME606
673
68/104
11/21/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME606
674
69/104
11/21/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME606
_______________
118 Ian Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law, 6th ed., p. 5.
119Id., at p. 6.
120 Joaquin G. Bernas, SJ, An Introduction to Public International
Law, 1st ed., p. 8.
121 Aloysius P. Llamzon, The Generally Accepted Principles of
International Law as Philippine Law: Towards a Structurally Consistent
Use of Customary International Law in Philippine Courts, 47 ATENEO
L.J. 243, 370 (2002).
122Supra note 83.
675
675
70/104
11/21/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME606
676
71/104
11/21/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME606
677
677
Obligation
Imposed
on
States
Parties
to
the
Covenant,
678
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001588480c15b3c921db5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
72/104
11/21/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME606
679
73/104
11/21/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME606
680
680
74/104
11/21/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME606
681
violations
promptly,
75/104
11/21/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME606
682
76/104
11/21/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME606
683
77/104
11/21/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME606
684
78/104
11/21/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME606
685
686
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001588480c15b3c921db5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
79/104
11/21/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME606
687
80/104
11/21/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME606
688
81/104
11/21/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME606
689
82/104
11/21/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME606
that
the
government
engaged
in
systemic
practice
of
690
83/104
11/21/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME606
691
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001588480c15b3c921db5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
84/104
11/21/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME606
108.
692
85/104
11/21/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME606
693
shall make known to the adverse party the intention to offer such
statement and its particulars to provide him a fair opportunity to object. If
the child is available, the court shall, upon motion of the adverse party,
require the child to be present at the presentation of the hearsay
statement for crossexamination by the adverse party. When the child is
unavailable, the fact of such circumstance must be proved by the
proponent.
(b) In ruling on the admissibility of such hearsay statement,
the court shall consider the time, content, and circumstances
thereof which provide sufficient indicia of reliability. It shall
consider the following factors:
(1) Whether there is a motive to lie
(2) The general character of the declarant child
(3) Whether more than one person heard the statement
(4) Whether the statement was spontaneous
(5) The timing of the statement and the relationship
between the declarant child and witness
(6) Crossexamination could not show the lack of knowledge of
the declarant child
(7) The possibility of faulty recollection of the declarant child is
remote and
(8)
The circumstances surrounding the statement are
such that there is no reason to suppose the declarant child
misrepresented the involvement of the accused. [Emphasis
supplied]
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001588480c15b3c921db5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
86/104
11/21/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME606
694
694
acting
with
the
authorization,
support
or
(d)
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001588480c15b3c921db5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
695
87/104
11/21/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME606
positing his room key with the hotel desk and was never
seen nor heard of again. The undisputed conclusion,
however, from all concernedthe petitioner, Tagitis
colleagues and even the police authoritiesis that Tagistis
disappeared under mysterious circumstances and was
never seen again. The respondent injected the causal
element in her petition and testimony, as we shall discuss
below.
We likewise find no direct evidence showing that
operatives of PNP CIDG Zamboanga abducted or arrested
Tagitis. If at all, only the respondents allegation that
Tagitis was under CIDG Zamboanga custody stands on
record, but it is not supported by any other evidence, direct
or circumstantial.
In her direct testimony, the respondent pointed to two
sources of information as her bases for her allegation that
Tagitis had been placed under government custody (in
contrast with CIDG Zamboanga custody). The first was an
unnamed friend in Zamboanga (later identified as Col.
Ancanan), who occupied a high position in the military and
who allegedly mentioned that Tagitis was in good hands.
Nothing came out of this claim, as both the respondent
herself and her witness, Mrs. Talbin, failed to establish
that Col. Ancanan gave them any information that Tagitis
was in government custody. Col. Ancanan, for his part,
admitted the meeting with the respondent but denied
giving her any information about the disappearance.
The more specific and productive source of
information was Col. Kasim, whom the respondent,
together with her witness Mrs. Talbin, met in Camp
Katitipan in Davao City. To quote the relevant portions of
the respondents testimony:
Q:
696
A:
Q:
What is J.I.?
A:
Q:
Was there any information that was read to you during one of those
visits of yours in that Camp?
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001588480c15b3c921db5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
88/104
11/21/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME606
A:
Q: Was it read to you then even though you were not furnished
a copy?
A:
Q:
A:
A:
Yes, maam.
Q: And a certain Col. Kasim told you that your husband was
abducted and under custodial investigation?
A:
Yes, maam.
Yes, maam.
_______________
161TSN, January 7, 2008, pp. 2324.
697
697
Q:
How many were you when you went to see Col. Kasim?
A:
Q:
A:
Mrs. Talbin, tapos yung dalawang friends nya from Mati City,
Davao Oriental, maam.162
xxxx
Q:
When you were told that your husband is in good hands, what was
your reaction and what did you do?
A:
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001588480c15b3c921db5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
89/104
11/21/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME606
Q:
698
You said that you went to Camp Katitipan in Davao City sometime
November 24, 2007, who was with you when you went there?
A:
Q:
A:
No. We have some other companions. We were four at that time, sir.
Q:
A:
Q:
Were you able to talk, see some other officials at Camp Katitipan
during that time?
A:
Q:
A:
Yes, sir.
Q:
A:
Yes, sir.
Q:
What information did you get from Col. Kasim during that time?
A:
The first time we met with [him] I asked him if he knew of the
exact location, if he can furnish us the location of Engr. Tagitis. And
he was reading this report. He told us that Engr. Tagitis is in
good hands. He is with the military, but he is not certain
whether he is with the AFP or PNP. He has this serious case.
He was charged of terrorism because he was under
surveillance from January 2007 up to the time that he was
abducted.
He
told
us
that
he
was
under
custodial
90/104
11/21/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME606
Q:
699
You said that he was reading a report, was that report in document
form, in a piece of paper or was it in the computer or what?
A:
As far as I can see it, sir, it is written in white bond paper. I dont
know if it was computerized but Im certain that it was typewritten.
Im not sure if it used computer, fax or what, sir.
Q:
A:
Q:
Were you informed as to the place where he was being kept during
that time?
A:
Q:
A:
We just left and as Ive mentioned, we just waited because that raw
information that he was reading to us [sic] after the custodial
investigation, Engineer Tagitis will be released. [Emphasis
supplied]166
700
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001588480c15b3c921db5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
91/104
11/21/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME606
701
92/104
11/21/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME606
702
93/104
11/21/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME606
703
disappearances,
as
the
situation
may
require.
Consequently, we have no choice but to meet the
evidentiary difficulties inherent in enforced disappearances
with the flexibility that these difficulties demand.
To give full meaning to our Constitution and the rights
it protects, we hold that, as in Velasquez, we should at least
take a close look at the available evidence to determine the
correct import of every piece of evidenceeven of those
usually considered inadmissible under the general rules of
evidencetaking
into
account
the
surrounding
circumstances and the test of reason that we can use as
basic minimum admissibility requirement. In the present
case, we should at least determine whether the Kasim
evidence before us is relevant and meaningful to the
disappearance of Tagistis and reasonably consistent with
other evidence in the case.
The evidence about Tagitis personal circumstances
surrounded him with an air of mystery. He was reputedly a
consultant of the World Bank and a Senior Honorary
Counselor for the IDB who attended a seminar in
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001588480c15b3c921db5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
94/104
11/21/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME606
704
95/104
11/21/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME606
705
96/104
11/21/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME606
706
706
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001588480c15b3c921db5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
707
97/104
11/21/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME606
708
98/104
11/21/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME606
709
99/104
11/21/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME606
THE
OF THE
INTERIOR
AND
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
UNDER A
AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES.
710
710
100/104
11/21/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME606
See
CIDG
Profile,
available
at:
http://www.pnp.gov.ph/about/content/offices/central/cidg/content/cidg.html
(last visited November 12, 2009).
711
711
101/104
11/21/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME606
712
102/104
11/21/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME606
713
713
714
103/104
11/21/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME606
Copyright2016CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001588480c15b3c921db5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
104/104