Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Supreme Court
Manila
EN BANC
NORIEL H. RODRIGUEZ,
Petitioner,
- versus -
GLORIA MACAPAGAL-
ARROYO, GEN. VICTOR S.
IBRADO, PDG JESUS AME
VERSOZA, LT. GEN. DELFIN
BANGIT, MAJ. GEN. NESTOR Z.
OCHOA, P/CSUPT. AMETO G.
TOLENTINO, P/SSUPT. JUDE W.
SANTOS, COL. REMIGIO M. DE
VERA, an officer named
MATUTINA, LT. COL. MINA,
CALOG, GEORGE PALACPAC
under the name HARRY,
ANTONIO CRUZ, ALDWIN
BONG PASICOLAN and
VINCENT CALLAGAN,
Respondents.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
IN THE MATTER OF THE G.R. No. 193160
PETITION FOR THE WRIT OF
AMPARO AND HABEAS DATA Present:
IN FAVOR OF NORIEL H.
RODRIGUEZ, CORONA, C.J.,
CARPIO,
POLICE DIR. GEN. JESUS A. VELASCO, JR.,
VERSOZA, P/SSUPT. JUDE W. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,
SANTOS, BGEN. REMEGIO M. BRION,
DE VERA, 1ST LT. RYAN S. PERALTA,
MATUTINA, LT. COL. BERSAMIN,
LAURENCE E. MINA, ANTONIO DEL CASTILLO,*
C. CRUZ, ALDWIN C. ABAD,
PASICOLAN and VICENTE A. VILLARAMA, JR.,
CALLAGAN, PEREZ,
Petitioners, MENDOZA,
SERENO,
REYES, and
- versus - PERLAS-BERNABE, JJ.
Promulgated:
NORIEL H. RODRIGUEZ,
Respondent. November 15, 2011
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
DECISION
SERENO, J.:
Before this Court are two consolidated cases, namely, (1) Petition for
Partial Review on Certiorari dated 20 April 2010 (G.R. No. 191805), and (2)
Petition for Review on Certiorari dated 19 August 2010 (G.R. No. 193160).
[1]
Both Petitions assail the 12 April 2010 Decision of the Court of Appeals, the
dispositive portion of which reads:
Respondents Gen. Victor S. Ibrado, Lt. Gen. Delfin Bangit, Maj. Gen.
Nestor Z. Ochoa, PCSupt. Ameto G. Tolentino, PSSupt. Jude W. Santos, Col.
Remigio M. De Vera, Lt. Col. Laurence E. Mina and 1Lt. Ryan S. Matutina, or
their replacements in their official posts if they have already vacated the same,
are ORDERED to furnish this Court within five (5) days from notice of this
decision, official or unofficial reports pertaining to petitioner covering but
not limited to intelligence reports, operation reports and provost marshal
reports prior to, during and subsequent to September 6, 2009 made by the
5th Infantry Division, Philippine Army, its branches and subsidiaries, including
the 17th Infantry Battalion, Philippine Army.
Antecedent Facts
Rodriguez claims that the military tagged KMP as an enemy of the State
under the Oplan Bantay Laya, making its members targets of extrajudicial
killings and enforced disappearances.[2]
The men tied the hands of Rodriguez, ordered him to lie on his stomach,
sat on his back and started punching him. The car travelled towards the
direction of Sta. Teresita-Mission and moved around the area until about 2:00
a.m. During the drive, the men forced Rodriguez to confess to being a member
of the New Peoples Army (NPA), but he remained silent. The car then entered a
place that appeared to be a military camp. There were soldiers all over the area,
and there was a banner with the word Bravo written on it. Rodriguez later on
learned that the camp belonged to the 17 th Infantry Battalion of the Philippine
Army.[4]
Upon reaching Birao on foot, the soldiers looked for and was able to
locate a certain Elvis and told him that Rodriguez had identified his
whereabouts location. The soldiers forced Rodriguez to convince Elvis to
disclose the location of the NPA camp. They brought the two to the mountains,
where both were threatened with death. When the soldiers punched Elvis,
Rodriguez told them that he would reveal the location of the NPA camp if they
let Elvis go home. They finally released Elvis around 3:00 p.m. that day. The
soldiers and Rodriguez spent the next three nights in the mountains.[9]
On 12 September 2009, the soldiers again hit Rodriguez and forced him
to identify the location of the NPA camp. He was blindfolded and warned to get
ready because they would beat him up again in the military camp. Upon arrival
therein, they brought him to the same room where he had first been detained,
and two soldiers mauled him again. They repeatedly punched and kicked him.
In the afternoon, they let him rest and gave him an Alaxan tablet. Thereafter, he
fell asleep due to over-fatigue and extreme body pain. The soldiers, however, hit
him again. After giving him a pen and a piece of paper, they ordered him to
write down his request for rice from the people. When he refused, the soldiers
maltreated him once more.[10]
that the soldiers did not shoot him because he became a military asset in May.
When he refused to sign the document, he received another beating. Thus, he
was compelled to sign, but did so using a different signature to show that he was
merely coerced.[11]
The soldiers showed Rodriguez photographs of different persons and
asked him if he knew the men appearing therein. When he told them that he did
not recognize the individuals on the photos, the soldiers instructed him to write
down the name of his school and organization, but he declined. The soldiers
then wrote something on the paper, making it appear that he was the one who
had written it, and forced him to sign the document. The soldiers took
photographs of him while he was signing. Afterwards, the soldiers forced him
down, held his hands, and sat on his feet. He did not only receive another
beating, but was also electrocuted. The torture lasted for about an hour.[12]
Back at the camp, the soldiers let Rodriguez eat with several military
officials and took pictures of him while he was eating with them. They also
asked him to point to a map in front of him and again took his photograph.
[16]
Later, they told him that he would finally see his mother.
At 9:00 a.m. on the same day, the mother and the brother of Rodriguez
arrived surrounded by several men. His mother, Wilma Rodriguez (Wilma),
talked to Lt. Col. Mina. Rodriguez heard one of the soldiers tell Wilma that he
had surrendered to the military and had long been its asset. His brother, Rodel
Rodriguez (Rodel), informed him that the men accompanying them were from
the CHR, namely, Pasicolan, Cruz and Callagan. Upon seeing Rodriguez, Cruz
instructed him to lift up his shirt, and one of the CHR employees took
photographs of his bruises.[19]
A soldier tried to convince Wilma to let Rodriguez stay in the camp for
another two weeks to supposedly prevent the NPA from taking revenge on him.
Respondent Calog also approached Rodriguez and Rodel and asked them to
become military assets. Rodel refused and insisted that they take Rodriguez
home to Manila. Again, the soldiers reminded them to refrain from facing the
media. The soldiers also told them that the latter will be taken to the Tuguegarao
Airport and guarded until they reached home.[20]
Rodriguez and his family missed their flight. Subsequently, the soldiers
accompanied them to the CHR office, where Rodriguez was made to sign an
affidavit stating that he was neither abducted nor tortured. Afraid and desperate
to return home, he was forced to sign the document. Cruz advised him not to
file a case against his abductors because they had already freed him. The CHR
personnel then led him and his family to the CHR Toyota Tamaraw FX service
vehicle. He noticed that a vehicle with soldiers on board followed them.[21]
The Tamaraw FX pulled over and respondent 1st Lt. Matutina boarded the
vehicle. Upon reaching a mall in Isabela, Rodriguez, his family, Callagan, 1st Lt.
Matutina and two other soldiers transferred to an orange Toyota Revo with plate
number WTG 579. Upon reaching the boundary of Nueva Ecija and Nueva
Viscaya, 1st Lt. Matutina alighted and called Rodriguez to a diner. A certain Alan
approached Rodriguez and handed him a cellphone with a SIM card. The latter
and his family then left and resumed their journey back home.[22]
B. Cabaccan and Cpl. Julius P. Navarro, Rodriguez was a former member of the
NPA operating in Cagayan Valley.[34] Wanting to bolt from the NPA, he told Cpl.
Cabaccan and Cpl. Navarro that he would help the military in exchange for his
protection.[35]
When the CHR officers, along with Wilma and Rodel, arrived at the
th
17 Infantry Battalion at Masin, Alcala, Cagayan, Brigade Commander Col. de
Vera and Battalion Commander Lt. Col. Mina alleged that Rodriguez had
become one of their assets, as evidenced by the Summary on the Surrender of
Noriel Rodriguez and the latters Contract as Agent. [45] The CHR officers
observed his casual and cordial demeanor with the soldiers. [46] In any case, Cruz
asked him to raise his shirt to see if he had been subjected to any maltreatment.
Cruz and Pasicolan did not see any traces of torture. Thereafter, Rodriguez was
released to his family, and they were made to sign a certification to this effect.
During the signing of the document, herein CHR officers did not witness any
threat, intimidation or force employed against Rodriguez or his family. [47]
During their journey back to the home of Rodriguez, the CHR officers
observed that he was very much at ease with his military escorts, especially with
1st Lt. Matutina.[48] Neither was there any force or intimidation when the soldiers
took pictures of his house, as the taking of photographs was performed with
Wilmas consent.
[49]
During the hearing on 27 January 2010, the parties agreed to file
additional affidavits and position papers and to have the case considered
submitted for decision after the filing of these pleadings.[50]
a. The Court of Appeals erred in not granting the Interim Relief for
temporary protection order.
Has not presented any adequate and competent evidence, must less
substantial evidence, to establish his claim that petitioners have violated, are
violating or threatening with violation his rights to life, liberty and security, as
well as his right to privacy; hence, he is not entitled to the privilege of the
writs of amparo and habeas data and their corresponding interim reliefs (i.e.,
inspection order, production order and temporary protection order) provided
under the Rule on the Writ of Amparo and the Rule on the Writ of Habeas
Data.[56]
IV. Whether the rights to life, liberty and property of Rodriguez were
violated or threatened by respondents in G.R. No. 191805.
At the outset, it must be emphasized that the writs of amparo and habeas
data were promulgated to ensure the protection of the peoples rights to life,
liberty and security.[57] The rules on these writs were issued in light of the
alarming prevalence of extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances.
[58]
The Rule on the Writ of Amparo took effect on 24 October 2007,[59] and the
Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data on 2 February 2008.[60]
In the petition in G.R. No. 191805, Rodriguez prays for the issuance of a
temporary protection order. It must be underscored that this interim relief is
only available before final judgment. Section 14 of the Rule on the Writ
of Amparo clearly provides:
The Supreme Court shall accredit the persons and private institutions
that shall extend temporary protection to the petitioner or the aggrieved party
and any member of the immediate family, in accordance with guidelines which
it shall issue.
The accredited persons and private institutions shall comply with the
rules and conditions that may be imposed by the court, justice or judge.
The court, justice or judge may also refer the witnesses to other
government agencies, or to accredited persons or private institutions capable
of keeping and securing their safety. (Emphasis supplied)
It does not determine guilt nor pinpoint criminal culpability for the
disappearance; rather, it determines responsibility, or at least accountability,
for the enforced disappearance for purposes of imposing the appropriate
remedies to address the disappearance. Responsibility refers to the extent the
actors have been established by substantial evidence to have participated in
whatever way, by action or omission, in an enforced disappearance, as a
measure of the remedies this Court shall craft, among them, the directive to
file the appropriate criminal and civil cases against the responsible parties in
the proper courts. Accountability, on the other hand, refers to the measure of
remedies that should be addressed to those who exhibited involvement in the
enforced disappearance without bringing the level of their complicity to the
level of responsibility defined above; or who are imputed with
knowledge relating to the enforced disappearance and who carry the burden of
disclosure; or those who carry, but have failed to discharge, the burden of
extraordinary diligence in the investigation of the enforced disappearance. In
all these cases, the issuance of the Writ of Amparo is justified by our primary
goal of addressing the disappearance, so that the life of the victim is preserved
and his liberty and security are restored.[70] (Emphasis supplied.)
Thus, in the case at bar, the Court of Appeals, in its Decision [71] found
respondents in G.R. No. 191805 with the exception of Calog, Palacpac or Harry
to be accountable for the violations of Rodriguezs right to life, liberty and
security committed by the 17th Infantry Battalion, 5th Infantry Division of the
Philippine Army. [72] The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition with respect to
former President Arroyo on account of her presidential immunity from suit.
Rodriguez contends, though, that she should remain a respondent in this case to
enable the courts to determine whether she is responsible or accountable therefor.
In this regard, it must be clarified that the Court of Appeals rationale for
dropping her from the list of respondents no longer stands since her presidential
immunity is limited only to her incumbency.
Fr. Bernas:
Mr. Suarez:
Fr. Bernas:
There is no need. It was that way before. The
only innovation made by the 1973 Constitution was to make
that explicit and to add other things.
Mr. Suarez:
Applying the foregoing rationale to the case at bar, it is clear that former
President Arroyo cannot use the presidential immunity from suit to shield herself
from judicial scrutiny that would assess whether, within the context
of amparo proceedings, she was responsible or accountable for the abduction of
Rodriguez.
Neither does Republic Act No. 9851 emasculate the applicability of the
command responsibility doctrine to Amparo cases. The short title of the law is
the Philippine Act on Crimes Against International Humanitarian Law,
Genocide, and Other Crimes Against Humanity. Obviously, it should, as it
did, only treat of superior responsibility as a ground for criminal responsibility
for the crimes covered. Such limited treatment, however, is merely in keeping
with the statutes purpose and not intended to rule out the application of the
doctrine of command responsibility to other appropriate cases.
In fine, I submit that the Court should take this opportunity to state
what the law ought to be if it truly wants to make the Writ of Amparo an
effective remedy for victims of extralegal killings and enforced disappearances
or threats thereof. While there is a genuine dearth of evidence to hold
respondents Gen. Hermogenes Esperon and P/Dir. Gen. Avelino Razon
accountable under the command responsibility doctrine, the ponencias
hesitant application of the doctrine itself is replete with implications abhorrent
to the rationale behind the Rule on the Writ of Amparo. [82] (Emphasis
supplied.)
This Separate Opinion was reiterated in the recently decided case of Boac
v. Cadapan,[83] likewise penned by Justice Carpio-Morales, wherein this Court
ruled:
b. the superior knew or had reason to know that the crime was about
to be or had been committed; and
b. Responsibility or
accountability of former President
Arroyo
The next question that must be tackled is whether Rodriguez has proven
through substantial evidence that former President Arroyo is responsible or
accountable for his abduction. We rule in the negative.
The doctrine of totality of evidence in amparo cases was first laid down
in this Courts ruling in Razon,[94] to wit:
The fair and proper rule, to our mind, 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 adduced. In other words, we 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. Thus, even
hearsay evidence can be admitted if it satisfies this basic minimum test.
[95]
(Emphasis supplied.)
In the case at bar, we find no reason to depart from the factual findings of
the Court of Appeals, the same being supported by substantial evidence. A
careful examination of the records of this case reveals that the totality of the
evidence adduced by Rodriguez indubitably prove the responsibility and
accountability of some respondents in G.R. No. 191805 for violating his right to
life, liberty and security.
X. Interpretation of Findings
Moreover, the Court of Appeals likewise aptly pointed out the illogical, if
not outrightly contradictory, contention of respondents in G.R. No. 191805 that
while Rodriguez had complained of his exhaustion from his activities as a
member of the CPP-NPA, he nevertheless willingly volunteered to return to his
life in the NPA to become a double-agent for the military. The lower court ruled
in this manner:
Furthermore, the appellate court also properly ruled that aside from the
abduction, detention and torture of Rodriguez, respondents, specifically 1 st Lt.
Matutina, had violated and threatened the formers right to security when they
made a visual recording of his house, as well as the photos of his relatives, to
wit:
The Rule on the Writ of Amparo explicitly states that the violation of or
threat to the right to life, liberty and security may be caused by either an act or
an omission of a public official.[111] Moreover, in the context of amparo
Clearly, the absence of a fair and effective official investigation into the
claims of Rodriguez violated his right to security, for which respondents in G.R.
No. 191805 must be held responsible or accountable.
From all the foregoing, we rule that Rodriguez was successful in proving
through substantial evidence that respondents Gen. Ibrado, PDG. Verzosa, Lt.
Gen. Bangit, Maj. Gen. Ochoa, Brig. Gen. De Vera, 1 st Lt. Matutina, and Lt.
Col. Mina were responsible and accountable for the violation of Rodriguezs
rights to life, liberty and security on the basis of (a) his abduction, detention and
torture from 6 September to 17 September 2009, and (b) the lack of any fair and
effective official investigation as to his allegations. Thus, the privilege of the
writs of amparo and habeas data must be granted in his favor. As a result, there
is no longer any need to issue a temporary protection order, as the privilege of
these writs already has the effect of enjoining respondents in G.R. No. 191805
from violating his rights to life, liberty and security.
It is also clear from the above discussion that despite (a) maintaining
former President Arroyo in the list of respondents in G.R. No. 191805, and (b)
allowing the application of the command responsibility doctrine
to amparo and habeas data proceedings, Rodriguez failed to prove through
substantial evidence that former President Arroyo was responsible or
accountable for the violation of his rights to life, liberty and property. He
likewise failed to prove through substantial evidence the accountability or
responsibility of respondents Maj. Gen. Ochoa, Cruz, Pasicolan and Callagan.
This Court directs the Office of the Ombudsman (Ombudsman) and the
Department of Justice (DOJ) to take the appropriate action with respect to any
possible liability or liabilities, within their respective legal competence, that may
have been incurred by respondents Gen. Victor Ibrado, PDG. Jesus Verzosa, Lt.
Gen. Delfin Bangit, Maj. Gen. Nestor Ochoa, Brig. Gen. Remegio De Vera,
1st Lt. Ryan Matutina, and Lt. Col. Laurence Mina. The Ombudsman and the
DOJ are ordered to submit to this Court the results of their action within a
period of six months from receipt of this Decision.
In the event that herein respondents no longer occupy their respective
posts, the directives mandated in this Decision and in the Court of Appeals are
enforceable against the incumbent officials holding the relevant
positions. Failure to comply with the foregoing shall constitute contempt of
court.
SO ORDERED.
WE CONCUR:
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
On official leave
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO ARTURO D.
BRION
Associate Justice Associate Justice
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA,
JR. JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ
Associate Justice Associate Justice
ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE
Associate Justice
C E R T I F I C AT I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the
conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court.
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
On Official leave.
[1]
Resolution dated 28 June 2011, ordering the consolidation of G.R. Nos. 191805 and 193160.
[2]
Petition, CA rollo (G.R. No. 191805), p. 4.
[3]
Decision, rollo (G.R. No. 191805), p. 30.
[4]
Rollo (G.R. No. 191805), p. 31.
[5]
Id.
[6]
Rollo (G.R. No. 191805), pp. 31-32.
[7]
Id. at 32.
[8]
Id. at 32-33.
[9]
Id. at 33.
[10]
Id. at 34.
[11]
Id.
[12]
Rollo (G.R. No. 191805), pp. 34-35.
[13]
Id.
[14]
Rodriguezs Position Paper dated 8 February 2010, CA rollo (G.R. No. 191805), pp. 422, 433.
[15]
Rollo (G.R. No. 191805), pp. 35-36.
[16]
Id. at 36.
[17]
Id.
[18]
Id.
[19]
Id. at 36-37.
[20]
Id. at 37.
[21]
Id. at 37-38.
[22]
Id. at 38.
[23]
Id.
[24]
Exhibit L of Rodriguezs Position Paper dated 8 February 2010, p. 13, CA rollo (G.R. No. 191805), p. 427.
[25]
Karagdagang Salaysay dated 20 January 2010, rollo (G.R. No. 191805), p. 43.
[26]
Rollo (G.R. No. 191805), p. 5; rollo (G.R. No. 193160), p. 15.
[27]
CA rollo (G.R. No. 191805), pp. 10-11.
[28]
Id. at 43-50.
[29]
Id.
[30]
Id.
[31]
Id. at 65-67; rollo (G.R. No. 193160), p. 16.
[32]
Id. at 75-121.
[33]
Id. at 78-79.
[34]
Id. at 78.
[35]
Id. at 79.
[36]
Id.
[37]
Id.
[38]
CA rollo (G.R. No. 191805), p. 80.
[39]
Id.
[40]
Id. at 79-80.
[41]
Id. at 275.
[42]
Id. at 278-279.
[43]
Id. at 279.
[44]
Id.
[45]
Id.
[46]
CA rollo (G.R. No. 191805), p. 280.
[47]
Id.
[48]
Id. at 281.
[49]
Id.
[50]
Id. at 412-414.
[51]
Id. at 608.
[52]
Id. at 1066-1100.
[53]
Rollo (G.R. No. 191805), p. 6.
[54]
Id. at 127.
[55]
CA rollo (G.R. No. 191805), p. 608.
[56]
Petition (G.R. No. 193160), p. 29.
[57]
Castillo v. Cruz, G.R. No. 182165, 25 November 2009, 605 SCRA 628, 636.
[58]
Annotation to the Rule on the Writ of Amparo, pamphlet released by the Supreme Court, p. 49.
[59]
A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC.
[60]
A.M. No. 08-1-06-SC.
[61]
Secretary of National Defense v. Manalo, G.R. No. 180906, 7 October 2008, 568 SCRA 1, 42.
[62]
Id.
[63]
Id at 43.
[64]
Id.