Yano V. Sanchez (2010) G.R. No. 186640 February 11, 2010 Facts: Cleofas and Marciana (Respondents) Alleged That One Evening, Their Respective

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 1

YANO V.

SANCHEZ (2010)
G.R. No. 186640 February 11, 2010
FACTS:
Cleofas and Marciana (respondents) alleged that one evening, their respective
sons Nicolas Sanchez and Heherson Medina were catching frogs outside their home
in, Tarlac; that at around past midnight the next day, Nicolas’ "wives" Lourdez and
Rosalie Sanchez, who were then at home, heard gunshots and saw armed men in
soldiers’ uniforms passing by; that at around dawn of the same day, Lourdez and
Rosalie went out to check on Nicolas, but to no avail.

Respondents alleged that Josephine Galang Victoria, niece of a neighbor, later


informed them that she had seen two men inside Camp Servillano Aquino of the
Northern Luzon Command (Nolcom) Tarlac City, whom Josephine later identified as
Nicolas and Heherson (the victims) after respondents had shown her their
photographs; and that Josephine informed them that she saw the victims again on
September 24, 2006 and November 1, 2006, this time at the Camp of the Bravo
Company of the Army’s 71st Infantry Batallion inside Hacienda Luisita.

Upon the endorsement of the CHR to the Ombudsman, respondents prayed


for the issuance of writ of amparo.

The appellate court, after hearing, absolved herein petitioner among others,
but granted herein respondents with the reliefs of investigation of the camps and
thorough impartial investigation.

ISSUE:
Whether the grant of the reliefs by the appellate court after finding want of
substantial evidence are valid and proper

RULING:
No. These provisional reliefs are intended to assist the court before it arrives
at a judicious determination of the amparo petition. For the appellate court to, in the
present case, still order the inspection of the military camps and order the army units
to conduct an investigation into the disappearance of Nicolas and Heherson after it
absolved petitioners is thus not in order. The reliefs granted by the appellate court to
respondents are not in sync with a finding that petitioners could not be held
accountable for the disappearance of the victims.

You might also like