EN BANC

[ * G.R. No. 178497. February 4, 2014.]

EDITA T. BURGOS , petitioner, vs . GEN. HERMOGENES ESPERON, JR.,

LT. GEN. ROMEO P. TOLENTINO, MAJ. GEN. JUANITO GOMEZ, MAJ.
GEN. DELFIN BANGIT, LT. COL. NOEL CLEMENT, LT. COL.
MELQUIADES FELICIANO, and DIRECTOR GENERAL OSCAR
CALDERON , respondents.

[G.R. No. 183711. February 4, 2014.]

EDITA T. BURGOS , petitioner, v s . GEN. HERMOGENES ESPERON, JR.,

LT. GEN. ROMEO P. TOLENTINO, MAJ. GEN. JUANITO GOMEZ, MAJ.
GEN. DELFIN BANGIT, LT. COL. NOEL CLEMENT, LT. COL.
MELQUIADES FELICIANO, and DIRECTOR GENERAL OSCAR
CALDERON , respondents.

[G.R. No. 183712. February 4, 2014.]

EDITA T. BURGOS , petitioner, v s . GEN. HERMOGENES ESPERON, JR.,

LT. GEN. ROMEO P. TOLENTINO, MAJ. GEN. JUANITO GOMEZ, LT.
COL. MELQUIADES FELICIANO, and LT. COL. NOEL CLEMENT ,
respondents.

G.R. No. 183713 February 4, 2014

EDITA T. BURGOS , petitioner, v s . CHIEF OF STAFF OF THE ARMED

FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES, GEN. HERMOGENES ESPERON, JR.;
Commanding General of the Philippine Army, LT. GEN. ALEXANDER
YANO; and Chief of the Philippine National Police, DIRECTOR
GENERAL AVELINO RAZON, JR. , respondents.

RESOLUTION

BRION , J : p

We resolve in this Resolution all the pending incidents in this case, specifically:
(a) The determination of the relevance and advisability of the public
disclosure of the documents submitted by respondents President
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, Lt. Gen. Romeo P. Tolentino, Maj. Gen.
Juanito Gomez, Maj. Gen. Del n Bangit, Lt. Col. Noel Clement, Lt. Col.
Melquiades Feliciano, Director General Oscar Calderon, Chief of Staff
of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, Gen. Hermogenes Esperon,
Jr.; Commanding General of the Philippine Army, Lt. Gen. Alexander
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 Yano; and Chief of the Philippine National Police, Director General
Avelino Razon, Jr. to this Court per paragraph III (i) of the fallo of our
July 5, 2011 Resolution; and
(b) The Urgent Ex Parte Motion Ex Abundanti Cautela 1 (together with sealed
attachments) led by petitioner Edita T. Burgos praying that the
Court: (1) order the persons named in the sealed documents
impleaded in CA-G.R. SP No. 00008-WA and G.R. No. 183713; (2)
issue a writ of Amparo on the basis of the newly discovered evidence
(the sealed attachments to the motion); and (3) refer the cases to the
Court of Appeals (CA) for further hearings on the newly discovered
evidence. aTEAHc

FACTUAL ANTECEDENTS
A. The Court's June 22, 2010 Resolution
These incidents stemmed from our June 22, 2010 Resolution referring the present
case to the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) as the Court's directly commissioned
agency, tasked with the continuation of the investigation of Jonas Joseph T. Burgos'
abduction with the obligation to report its factual ndings and recommendations to this
Court. This referral was necessary as the investigation by the Philippine National Police-
Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (PNP-CIDG), by the Armed Forces of the
Philippines (AFP) Provost Marshal, and even the initial CHR investigation had been less
than complete. In all of them, there were signi cant lapses in the handling of the
investigation. In particular, we highlighted the PNP-CIDG's failure to identify the
cartographic sketches of two (one male and one female) of the ve abductors
of Jonas, based on their interview with the eyewitnesses to the abduction .
In this same Resolution, we also a rmed the CA's dismissal of the petitions for
Contempt and issuance of a Writ of Amparo with respect to President Macapagal-Arroyo
who was then entitled, as President, to immunity from suit.
The March 15, 2011 CHR Report
On March 15, 2011, the CHR submitted to the Court its Investigation Report on the
Enforced Disappearance of Jonas Burgos (CHR Report), in compliance with our June 22,
2010 Resolution. On the basis of the gathered evidence, the CHR submitted the following
findings: ICAcaH

Based on the facts developed by evidence obtaining in this case, the CHR
nds that the enforced disappearance of Jonas Joseph T. Burgos had
transpired; and that his constitutional rights to life liberty and security
were violated by the Government have been fully determined .

Jeffrey Cabintoy and Elsa Agasang have witnessed on that

fateful day of April 28, 2007 the forcible abduction of Jonas Burgos by
a group of about seven (7) men and a woman from the extension portion of
Hapag Kainan Restaurant, located at the ground oor of Ever Gotesco Mall,
Commonwealth Avenue, Quezon City.

xxx xxx xxx

The eyewitnesses mentioned above were Jeffrey Cabintoy (Jeffrey)

and Elsa Agasang (Elsa), who at the time of the abduction were working as
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 busboy and Trainee-Supervisor, respectively, at Hapag Kainan Restaurant.

In his Sinumpaang Salaysay, Jeffrey had a clear recollection of

the face of HARRY AGAGEN BALIAGA, JR. as one of the principal
abductors , apart from the faces of the two abductors in the cartographic
sketches that he described to the police, after he was shown by the Team the
pictures in the PMA Year Book of Batch Sanghaya 2000 and group pictures of
men taken some years thereafter.

The same group of pictures were shown to detained former 56th

IB Army trooper Edmond M. Dag-uman (Dag-uman), who also positively
identi ed Lt. Harry Baliaga, Jr. Daguman's Sinumpaang Salaysay
states that he came to know Lt. Baliaga as a Company Commander in
the 56th IB while he was still in the military service (with Serial No.
800693, from 1997 to 2002) also with the 56th IB but under 1Lt.
Usmalik Tayaban, the Commander of Bravo Company . When he was
arrested and brought to the 56th IB Camp in April 2005, he did not see Lt. Baliaga
anymore at the said camp. The similar reaction that the pictures elicited from
both Jeffrey and Daguman did not pass unnoticed by the Team . Both men
always look pensive, probably because of the pathetic plight they are in right now.
It came as a surprise therefore to the Team when they could hardly hide their
smile upon seeing the face of Baliaga, as if they know the man very well. ISDHcT

Moreover, when the Team asked how certain Jeffrey was or [sic] that it
was indeed Baliaga that he saw as among those who actually participated in
Jonas' abduction. Jeffrey was able to give a graphic description and
spontaneously, to boot, the blow by blow account of the incident, including the
initial positioning of the actors, specially Baliaga, who even approached, talked to,
and prevented him from interfering in their criminal act.

A Rebel-returnee (RR) named Maria Vita Lozada y Villegas @KA MY, has
identi ed the face of the female in the cartographic sketch as a certain Lt.
Fernando. While Lozada refuses to include her identi cation of Lt. Fernando in
her Sinumpaang Salaysay for fear of a backlash, she told the Team that she was
certain it was Lt. Fernando in the cartographic sketch since both of them were
involved in counter-insurgency operations at the 56th IB, while she was under the
care of the battalion from March 2006 until she left the 56th IB Headquarters in
October 2007. Lozada's involvement in counter-insurgency operations together
with Lt. Fernando was among the facts gathered by the CHR Regional O ce 3
Investigators, whose investigation into the enforced disappearance of Jonas
Joseph Burgos was documented by way of an After Mission Report dated August
13, 2008.
Most if not all the actual abductors would have been identi ed
had it not been for what is otherwise called as evidentiary di culties
shamelessly put up by some police and military elites. The deliberate
refusal of TJAG Roa to provide the CHR with the requested documents
does not only defy the Supreme Court directive to the AFP but ipso
facto created a disputable presumption that AFP personnel were
responsible for the abduction and that their superiors would be found
accountable, if not responsible, for the crime committed . This observation
nds support in the disputable presumption "That evidence willfully suppressed
would be adverse if produced." (Paragraph (e), Section 3, Rule 131 on Burden of
Proof and Presumptions, Revised Rules on Evidence of the Rules of Court of the
Philippines). ISCaDH

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com

 In saying that the requested document is irrelevant, the Team has
deemed that the requested documents and pro les would help
ascertain the true identities of the cartographic sketches of two
abductors because a certain Virgilio Eustaquio has claimed that one of
the intelligence operatives involved in the 2007 ERAP 5 case ts the
description of his abductor.

As regards the PNP CIDG, the positive identi cation of former

56th IB o cer Lt. HARRY A. BALIAGA, JR. as one of the principal
abductors has effectively crushed the theory of the CIDG witnesses that
the NPAs abducted Jonas . Baliaga's true identity and a liation with
the military have been established by overwhelming evidence
corroborated by detained former Army trooper Dag-uman .
For lack of material time, the Commission will continue to investigate the
enforced disappearance of Jonas Burgos as an independent body and pursuant
to its mandate under the 1987 Constitution. Of particular importance are the
identities and locations of the persons appearing in the cartographic sketches; the
allegations that CIDG Witnesses Emerito G. Lipio and Meliza Concepcion-Reyes
are AFP enlisted personnel and the alleged participation of Del n De Guzman @
Ka Baste in the abduction of Jonas Burgos whose case for Murder and Attempted
Murder was dismissed by the court for failure of the lone witness, an army man of
the 56th IB to testify against him.
DHTECc

Interview with Virgilio Eustaquio, Chairman of the Union Masses for

Democracy and Justice (UMDJ), revealed that the male abductor of Jonas
Burgos appearing in the cartographic sketch was among the raiders
who abducted him and four others, identi ed as Jim Cabauatan, Jose
Curament, Ruben Dionisio and Dennis Ibona otherwise known as ERAP
FIVE .

Unfortunately, and as already pointed out above, The Judge Advocate

General (TJAG) turned down the request of the Team for a pro le of the
operatives in the so-called "Erap 5" abduction on the ground of relevancy and
branded the request as a shing expedition per its Disposition Form dated
September 21, 2010. HCaDIS

Efforts to contact Virgilio Eustaquio to secure his a davit proved futile, as

his present whereabouts cannot be determined. And due to lack of material time,
the Commission decided to pursue the same and determine the whereabouts of
the other members of the "Erap 5" on its own time and authority as an
independent body. 2

B. The Court's July 5, 2011 Resolution

On July 5, 2011, in light of the new evidence and leads the CHR uncovered, we issued
a Resolution: (1) issuing anew a Writ of Habeas Corpus and referring the habeas corpus
petition to the CA; (2) holding in abeyance our ruling on the merits of the Amparo
aspect of the case; referring back the same to the CA in order to allow Lt. Harry
A. Baliaga, Jr. and the present Amparo respondents to le their Comments on
the CHR Report; and ordering Lt. Baliaga to be impleaded as a party to the
Amparo petition ; and (3) a rming the dismissal of the petitioner's petition for
Contempt, without prejudice to the re- ling of the contempt charge as may be warranted
by the results of the subsequent CHR investigation. To quote the exact wording of our
Resolution:
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 WHEREFORE , in the interest of justice and for the foregoing reasons, we
RESOLVE to:
I. IN G.R. NO. 183711 (HABEAS CORPUS PETITION, CA-G.R. SP No.
99839)
a. ISSUE a Writ of Habeas Corpus anew, returnable to the Presiding
Justice of the Court of Appeals who shall immediately refer the writ
to the same Division that decided the habeas corpus petition; DAaEIc

b. ORDER Lt. Harry A. Baliaga, Jr. impleaded in CA-G.R. SP No. 99839 and
G.R. No. 183711, and REQUIRE him, together with the incumbent
Chief of Staff, Armed Forces of the Philippines; the incumbent
Commanding General, Philippine Army; and the Commanding
O cer of the 56th IB, 7th Infantry Division, Philippine Army at the
time of the disappearance of Jonas Joseph T. Burgos, Lt. Col.
Melquiades Feliciano, to produce the person of Jonas Joseph T.
Burgos under the terms the Court of Appeals shall prescribe, and to
show cause why Jonas Joseph T. Burgos should not be released
from detention;
c. REFER back the petition for habeas corpus to the same Division of the
Court of Appeals which shall continue to hear this case after the
required Returns shall have been led and render a new decision
within thirty (30) days after the case is submitted for decision; and

d. ORDER the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and
the Commanding General of the Philippine Army to be impleaded as
parties, separate from the original respondents impleaded in the
petition, and the dropping or deletion of President Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo as party-respondent.
II. IN G.R. NO. 183712 (CONTEMPT OF COURT CHARGE, CA-G.R.
SP No. 100230)
e. AFFIRM the dismissal of the petitioner's petition for Contempt in CA-
G.R. SP No. 100230, without prejudice to the re- ling of the
contempt charge as may be warranted by the results of the
subsequent CHR investigation this Court has ordered; and TEacSA

f. ORDER the dropping or deletion of former President Gloria Macapagal-

Arroyo as party-respondent, in light of the unconditional dismissal
of the contempt charge against her.

III. IN G.R. NO. 183713 (WRIT OF AMPARO PETITION, CA-G.R. SP

No. 00008-WA)
g. ORDER Lt. Harry A. Baliaga, Jr., impleaded in CA-G.R. SP No. 00008-WA
and G.R. No. 183713, without prejudice to similar directives we may
issue with respect to others whose identities and participation may
be disclosed in future investigations and proceedings;

h. DIRECT Lt. Harry A. Baliaga, Jr., and the present Amparo respondents to
le their Comments on the CHR report with the Court of Appeals,
within a non-extendible period of fteen (15) days from receipt of
this Resolution.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com

 i. REQUIRE General Roa of the O ce of the Judge Advocate General, AFP;
the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, JI, AFP, at the time of our
June 22, 2010 Resolution; and then Chief of Staff, AFP, Gen.
Ricardo David, (a) to show cause and explain to this Court, within a
non-extendible period of fteen (15) days from receipt of this
Resolution, why they should not be held in contempt of this Court
for their de ance of our June 22, 2010 Resolution; and (b) to submit
to this Court, within a non-extendible period of fteen (15) days
from receipt of this Resolution, a copy of the documents requested
by the CHR, particularly:

1) The pro le and Summary of Information and pictures of T/Sgt.

Jason Roxas (Philippine Army); Cpl. Maria Joana Francisco
(Philippine Air Force); M/Sgt. Aron Arroyo (Philippine Air
Force); an alias T.L. — all reportedly assigned with Military
Intelligence Group 15 of Intelligence Service of the Armed
Forces of the Philippines — and 2Lt. Fernando, a lady o cer
involved in the counter-insurgency operations of the 56th IB
in 2006 to 2007; EcHIAC

2) Copies of the records of the 2007 ERAP 5 incident in Kamuning,

Quezon City and the complete list of the intelligence
operatives involved in that said covert military operation,
including their respective Summary of Information and
individual pictures; and

3) Complete list of the o cers, women and men assigned at the

56th and 69th Infantry Battalion and the 7th Infantry Division
from January 1, 2004 to June 30, 2007 with their respective
pro les, Summary of Information and pictures; including the
list of captured rebels and rebels who surrendered to the said
camps and their corresponding pictures and copies of their
Tactical Interrogation Reports and the cases led against
them, if any.
These documents shall be released exclusively to this Court for
our examination to determine their relevance to the present case and
the advisability of their public disclosure.

j. ORDER the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the
Commanding General of the Philippine Army to be impleaded as
parties, in representation of their respective organizations,
separately from the original respondents impleaded in the petition;
and the dropping of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo as party-
respondent; ADSTCI

k. REFER witnesses Jeffrey T. Cabintoy and Elsa B. Agasang to the

Department of Justice for admission to the Witness Protection
Security and Bene t Program, subject to the requirements of
Republic Act No. 6981; and
l. NOTE the criminal complaint led by the petitioner with the DOJ which
the latter may investigate and act upon on its own pursuant to
Section 21 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo. 3

C. The Court's August 23, 2011 Resolution

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 On August 23, 2011, we issued a Resolution resolving among others:
(a) t o NOTE the Explanation separately led by Brigadier Gen. Gilberto Jose C.
Roa, Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) , General Ricardo A. David, Jr.,
APP (ret.), and Rear Admiral Cornelio A. dela Cruz, Jr., AFP;
aEACcS

xxx xxx xxx

(c) to LIMIT the documents to be submitted to this Court to those assigned at the
56th Infantry Battalion (IB) from January 1, 2004 to June 30, 2007, and to
SUBMIT these materials within ten (10) days from notice of this
Resolution, without prejudice to the submission of the other documents
required under the Court's July 5, 2011 Resolution, pertaining to those
assigned at the other units of the AFP, should the relevance of these
documents be established during the Court of Appeal's hearing;
(d) t o REQUIRE the submission, within ten (10) days from notice of this
Resolution, of the Summary of Information and individual pictures of the
intelligence operatives involved in the ERAP 5 incident, in compliance with
the Court's July 5, 2011 Resolution;
(e) t o REQUIRE the submission, within ten (10) days from notice of this
Resolution, of the pro le and Summary of Information and pictures of an
alias T.L., reportedly assigned with Military Intelligence Group 15 of the
Intelligence Service of the AFP and of a 2Lt. Fernando, a lady o cer in the
counter-insurgency operations of the 56th IB in 2006 to 2007, in
compliance with the Court's July 5, 2011 Resolution. 4

The Respondents' September 23, 2011 Manifestation

and Motion
On September 23, 2011, the respondents submitted a Manifestation and Motion in
compliance with the Court's August 23, 2011 Resolution. Attached to this Manifestation
and Motion are the following documents: TAcDHS

a. The Summary of Information (SOI) of the o cers and enlisted personnel of the
56th IB, 7th ID from January 1, 2004 to June 30, 2007;
b. The Summary of Information (SOI) of the intelligence operatives who were
involved in the ERAP 5 incident; and
c. The Summary of Information (SOI) of 2Lt. Fernando, who was a member of the
56th IB, 7th ID. 5

D. The Court's September 6, 2011 Resolution

On August 19, 2011, the petitioner led a Manifestation and a Motion for
Clari catory Order praying among others that she be allowed to examine the documents
submitted to the Court pursuant to paragraph III (i) of the Court's July 5, 2011 Resolution.
In our September 6, 2011 Resolution, we resolved, among others, to:
(3) DENY the petitioner's request to be allowed to examine the documents
submitted to this Court per paragraph (i) of the fallo of our July 5, 2011
Resolution, without prejudice to our later determination of the relevance
and of the advisability of public disclosure of those documents/materials;
6

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com

 E. The Court's October 11, 2011 Resolution
On October 11, 2011, we issued a Resolution requiring the CHR to secure Virgilio
Eustaquio's a davit, and to submit a report of its ongoing investigation of Jonas'
abduction, viz.: ITAaCc

(1) REQUIRE the Commission on Human Rights to undertake all available

measures to obtain the a davit of witness Virgilio Eustaquio in
connection with his allegation that one of the male abductors of Jonas
Joseph T. Burgos, appearing in the cartographic sketch, was among the
"raiders" who abducted him and four others, identi ed as Jim Cabauatan,
Jose Curament, Ruben Dionisio and Dennis Ibona (otherwise known as the
"ERAP FIVE");
(2) DIRECT the Commission on Human Rights to submit to this Court, within
thirty (30) days from receipt of this Resolution, a Report, with its
recommendations of its ongoing investigation of Burgos' abduction, and
the a davit of Virgilio Eustaquio, if any, copy furnished the petitioner, the
Court of Appeals, the incumbent Chiefs of the AFP, the PNP and the PNP-
CIDG, and all the present respondents before the Court of Appeals. 7

F. The Court's November 29, 2011 Resolution

On November 2, 2011, we received a letter dated October 28, 2011 from
Commissioner Jose Manuel S. Mamauag, Team Leader, CHR Special Investigation Team,
requesting photocopies of the following documents:
i. SOI of the o cers and enlisted personnel of the 56th IB, 7th ID from January 1,
2004 to June 30, 2007;

ii. SOI of the intelligence operatives who were involved in the ERAP 5 incident; and
EHaCTA

iii. SOI of 2Lt. Fernando who was a member of the 56th IB, 7th ID. 8

In our November 29, 2011 Resolution, we denied the CHR's request considering the
con dential nature of the requested documents and because the relevance of these
documents to the present case had not been established. We referred the CHR to our July
5, 2011 Resolution where we pointedly stated that these documents shall be "released
exclusively to this Court for our examination to determine their relevance to the present
case and the advisability of their public disclosure." 9 ETCcSa

We held that "[w]e see no reason at this time to release these con dential
documents since their relevance to the present case has not been established to our
satisfaction. It is precisely for this reason that we issued our October 24, 2011 Resolution
and directed the CHR to submit to this Court, within thirty (30) days from receipt of the
Resolution, a Report with its recommendations of its ongoing investigation of Jonas
Burgos' abduction, and the a davit of Virgilio Eustaquio, if any. Simply stated, it is only
after the CHR's faithful compliance with our October 24, 2011 Resolution that we will be
able to determine the relevance of the requested documents to the present case." 1 0
G. The March 20, 2012 CHR Progress Report and Eustaquio's Affidavit
On March 20, 2012, the CHR submitted its Progress Report detailing its efforts to
secure the a davit of witness Eustaquio in relation with his allegation that one of the male
abductors of Jonas, appearing in the cartographic sketch, was among the raiders who
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 abducted him and four others, identi ed as Jim Cabauatan, Jose Curament, Ruben Dionisio
and Dennis Ibona (otherwise known as the "ERAP FIVE"). Attached to this Report is
Eustaquio's sworn affidavit dated March 16, 2012, which pertinently stated:
1. I was one of the victims in the abduction incident on May 22, 2006 otherwise
known as ERAP 5 and because of that, we led a case with the
Ombudsman against Commodore Leonardo Calderon, et al., all then ISAFP
elements, docketed as OMB-P-C-06-04050-E for Arbitrary Detention,
Unlawful Arrest, Maltreatment of Prisoners, Grave Threats, Incriminatory
Machination, and Robbery.

2. On March 16, 2012, I was approached again by the CHR Special Investigation
Team regarding the information I have previously relayed to them
sometime in September 2010 as to the resemblance of the cartographic
sketch of the man as described by the two eyewitnesses Elsa Agasang and
Jeffrey Cabintoy in the abduction case of Jonas Burgos; AHSEaD

3. I can say that the male abductor of Jonas Burgos appearing in the cartographic
sketch is among the raiders who abducted me and my four other
companions because the cartographic sketch almost exactly matched
and/or resembled to the cartographic sketch that I also provided and
described in relation to the said incident at my rented house in Kamuning,
Quezon City on May 22, 2006.
4. I am executing this a davit voluntarily, freely and attest to the truth of the
foregoing. 1 1
STIEHc

H. The March 18, 2013 CA Decision

On March 18, 2013, the CA issued its decision pursuant to the Court's July 5, 2011
Resolution referring the Amparo and Habeas Corpus aspects of the case to the CA for
appropriate hearings and ruling on the merits of the petitions.
Petition for Habeas Corpus
The CA held that the issue in the petition for habeas corpus is not the illegal
con nement or detention of Jonas, but his enforced disappearance. Considering that
Jonas was a victim of enforced disappearance, the present case is beyond the ambit of a
petition for habeas corpus.
Petition for the Writ of Amparo
Based on its nding that Jonas was a victim of enforced disappearance, the CA
concluded that the present case falls within the ambit of the Writ of Amparo. The CA found
that the totality of the evidence supports the petitioner's allegation that the military was
involved in the enforced disappearance of Jonas. The CA took note of Jeffrey Cabintoy's
positive identi cation of Lt. Baliaga as one of the abductors who approached him and told
him not to interfere because the man being arrested had been under surveillance for drugs;
he also remembered the face of Lt. Baliaga — the face he identi ed in the pictures because
he resembles his friend Raven. The CA also held that Lt. Baliaga's alibi and corroborative
evidence cannot prevail over Cabintoy's positive identi cation, considering especially the
absence of any indication that he was impelled by hatred or any improper motive to testify
against Lt. Baliaga. Thus, the CA held that Lt. Baliaga was responsible and the AFP and the
PNP were accountable for the enforced disappearance of Jonas.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com

 Based on these considerations, the CA resolved to: SDAcaT

1) RECOGNIZING the abduction of Jonas Burgos as an enforced disappearance

covered by the Rule on the Writ of Amparo;
2) With regard to authorship,
a) DECLARING Maj. Harry A. Baliaga, Jr. RESPONSIBLE for the enforced
disappearance of Jonas Burgos; and
b) DECLARING the Armed Forces of the Philippines and elements of the
Armed Forces of the Philippines, particularly the Philippine Army,
ACCOUNTABLE for the enforced disappearance of Jonas Burgos;
3) DECLARING the Philippine National Police ACCOUNTABLE for the conduct
of an exhaustive investigation of the enforced disappearance of Jonas
Burgos. To this end, the PNP through its investigative arm, the PNP-CIDG,
is directed to exercise extraordinary diligence to identify and locate the
abductors of Jonas Burgos who are still at large and to establish the link
between the abductors of Jonas Burgos and those involved in the ERAP 5
incident.
(4) DIRECTING the incumbent Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the
Philippines and the Director General of the Philippine National Police, and
their successors, to ensure the continuance of their investigation and
coordination on the enforced disappearance of Jonas Burgos until the
persons found responsible are brought before the bar of justice; ASHICc

(5) DIRECTING the Commission on Human Rights to continue with its own
independent investigation on the enforced disappearance of Jonas Burgos
with the same degree of diligence required under the Rule on the Writ of
Amparo; and
(6) DIRECTING the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippine National
Police to extend full assistance to the Commission on Human Rights in the
conduct of the latter's investigation.
The Chief of Staff, Armed Forces of the Philippines, the Director General,
Philippine National Police and the Chairman, Commission on Human Rights are
hereby DIRECTED to submit a quarterly report to this Court on the results of
their respective investigation.
The filing of petitioner's Affidavit-Complaint against Maj. Harry A. Baliaga, Jr., et
al. before the Department of Justice on June 9, 2011 is NOTED . Petitioner is
DIRECTED to immediately inform this Court of any development regarding the
outcome of the case. 1 2

The Respondent's April 3, 2013 Motion for Partial

Reconsideration
The Solicitor General, in behalf of the public respondents (the AFP Chief of Staff and
the PNP Director General), led a motion for partial reconsideration of the March 18, 2013
CA decision. The motion made the following submissions:
5. . . . [T]he Director General, PNP, respectfully takes exception to the
Honorable Court's ndings that the PNP, speci cally the CIDG, "failed to exercise
extraordinary diligence in the conduct of its investigation." . . . [T]hat this
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 Honorable Court arrived at a conclusion different from that of the CIDG, or
accorded different credence to the statements of the witnesses presented by the
parties, does not necessarily translate to the CIDG's failure to exercise
extraordinary diligence.
6. The Chief of Staff, AFP also takes exception to the Honorable Court's
ndings that the "Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the
Commanding General should be held accountable for Jonas Burgos
disappearance for failing to exercise extraordinary diligence in conducting an
internal investigation on the matter. The unwillingness of the respondent o cers
of the 56th IB to cooperate in the investigation conducted by the CHR is a
persuasive proof of the alleged cover up of the military's involvement in the
enforced disappearance of Jonas Burgos."
The AFP and the Philippine Army conducted a thorough investigation to
determine the veracity of the allegations implicating some of its o cers and
personnel. After the conduct of the same, it is the conclusion of the Armed Forces
of the Philippines and the Philippine Army, based on the evidence they obtained,
that Jonas Burgos has never been in custody.
7. The Chief of Staff, AFP, also respectfully takes exception to the nding
of the Honorable Court "recognizing the abduction of Jonas Burgos as an
enforced disappearance." aTICAc

xxx xxx xxx

That the Honorable Court found a member of the Philippine Army or even a
group of military men to be responsible for the abduction of Jonas Burgos, does
not necessarily make the same a case of "enforced disappearance" involving the
State. There is dearth of evidence to show that the government is involved.
Respondent Baliaga's alleged participation in the abduction and his previous
membership in the 56th Infantry Battalion of the Philippine Army, by themselves,
do not prove the participation or acquiescence of the State. 1 3

I. The CA Resolution dated May 23, 2013

On May 23, 2013, the CA issued its resolution denying the respondents' motion for
partial reconsideration. The CA ruled that as far as the PNP was concerned, its failure to
elicit leads and information from Cabintoy who witnessed Jonas' abduction is eloquent
proof of its failure to exercise extraordinary diligence in the conduct of its investigation. As
far as the AFP was concerned, the CA held that the fact that Lt. Baliaga of the Philippine
Army was positively identi ed as one of the abductors of Jonas, coupled with the AFP's
lack of serious effort to conduct further investigation, spoke loudly of the AFP leadership's
accountability. ASaTCE

To date, the respondents have not appealed to this Court, as provided

under Section 19 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo . 1 4
J. The Petitioner's Urgent Ex Parte Motion Ex Abundanti Cautela dated April
1, 2013
On April 1, 2013, the petitioner led an Ex Parte Motion Ex Abundanti Cautela asking
the Court to: (1) order the persons named in the sealed documents to be impleaded in CA-
G.R. SP No. 00008-WA and G.R. No. 183713; (2) issue a writ of Amparo on the basis of the
newly discovered evidence (the sealed attachment to the motion); and (3) refer the cases
to the CA for further hearing on the newly discovered evidence.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 The petitioner alleged that she received from a source (who requested to remain
anonymous) documentary evidence proving that an intelligence unit of the 7th Infantry
Division of the Philippine Army and 56th Infantry Battalion, operating together, captured
Jonas on April 28, 2007 at Ever Gotesco Mall, Commonwealth Avenue, Quezon City. This
documentary evidence consists of: (1) After Apprehension Report dated April 30, 2007; (2)
Psycho Social Processing Report dated April 28, 2007; and (3) Autobiography of Jonas.
The petitioner also claimed that these are copies of con dential o cial reports on le with
the Philippine Army. TCaEIc

i. After Apprehension Report dated April 30, 2007

This report is a photocopy consisting six pages dated April 30, 2007, addressed to
the Commanding O cer, 7MIB, 7ID, LA, Fort Magsaysay, NE. The report detailed the
planning and the objective of apprehending target communist leaders, among them, one
alias "Ramon" who was captured at Ever Gotesco Mall, Commonwealth, Quezon City on
April 28, 2007 by joint elements of the 72 MICO and S2, 56th IB. This report also listed the
names of the military personnel belonging to task organization 72 MICO and 56th IB who
conducted the operation.
ii. Psycho Social Processing Report dated April 28, 2007
This report details Jonas' abduction and "neutralization"; the results of his
interrogation and the intelligence gathered on his signi cant involvements/activities within
the CPP/NPA/NDF organization.
iii. Undated Autobiography
This autobiography narrates how Jonas started as a student activist, his recruitment
and eventual ascent in the CPP/NPA as an intelligence officer.
K. The Court's April 11, 2013 Resolution
In our April 11, 2013 Resolution, the Court resolved to require the respondents to
Comment on the petitioner's Urgent Ex Parte Motion Ex Abundanti Cautela and its
attachments, within ten (10) days from receipt of the Resolution. In the same Resolution,
the Court: SEDaAH

(1) required BGen. Roa and Lt. Gen. Emmanuel T. Bautista to fully comply with
the terms of Section III (i) of the dispositive portion of our July 5, 2011
Resolution within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the resolution;

(2) required Lt. Gen. Emmanuel T. Bautista to submit a written assurance within
fteen (15) days from receipt of the Resolution that the military personnel
listed in the submitted After Apprehension Report can be located and be
served with the processes that the Court may serve;

(3) issued a Temporary Protection Order in favor of the petitioner and all the
members of her immediate family;

(4) directed the DOJ and the NBI to provide security and protection to the
petitioner and her immediate family and to submit a con dential
memorandum on the security arrangements made;

(5) directed the NBI to coordinate and provide direct investigative assistance to
the CHR as it may require pursuant to the authority granted under the
Court's June 22, 2010 Resolution. 1 5
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 i. The respondents' Comment from the petitioner's Urgent Ex Parte
Motion Ex Abundanti Cautela dated June 6, 2013
On June 6, 2013, the respondents, through the O ce of the Solicitor General, led
their comments on the petitioner's Urgent Ex Parte Motion Ex Abundanti Cautela. SHDAEC

First, the respondents alleged that the documents submitted by the petitioner do
not exist in the concerned military units' respective records, nor are they in the custody or
possession of their respective units. To support their allegations, the respondents
submitted the following:
a. Certi cation dated May 29, 2013 from Maj. Gen. Gregorio Pio P. Catapang, Jr.
Commander, 7th Infantry Division, Philippine Army stating that the
documents 1 6 submitted by the petitioner "do not exist nor in the
possession/custody of this Headquarters."
b. Certi cation dated May 29, 2013, from Lt. Col. Louie D.S. Villanueva, Assistant
Chief of Staff, O ce of the Assistant Chief of Staff for Personnel, G1, 7th
Infantry Division, Philippine Army stating that the documents submitted by
the petitioner "could not be found nor do they exist in the records of this
Command."
c. Certi cation dated May 24, 2013 from Lt. Col. Bernardo M. Ona, Commanding
O cer, 56th Infantry Battalion, 7th Infantry Division, Philippine Army
stating that the documents submitted by the petitioner "do not exist at this
unit."
d. Certi cation dated May 24, 2013 from 1Lt. Donal S. Frias, Acting Commanding
O cer, 72nd Military Intelligence Company, 7th Military Intelligence
Battalion, 7th Infantry Division, Philippine Army stating that the documents
submitted by the petitioner "do not exist at the records or in the possession
of this unit." 1 7

The respondents also submitted the a davits of Lt. Col. Melquiades Feliciano, Maj.
Allan M. Margarata and Cpl. Ruby Benedicto, viz.:
a. In his June 3, 2013 Affidavit, Col. Feliciano stated:
1. That I was assigned as Battalion Commander of 56th Infantry Division, 7th
Infantry Division, PA last 17 January 2007 to 17 August 2007.

2. That I was showed a photocopy of the After Apprehension Report dated 30

April 2007 wherein members of 56th IB, 7ID, PA were included therein.
3. I vehemently oppose to (sic) the existence of the said document and the
participation of my men listed thereat. There were no military operations
that I have authorized or approved regarding Jonas Burgos. The contents
thereof are false and utter fabrication of facts.ACTESI

b. In his May 31, 2013 Affidavit, Maj. Margarata stated:

1. That I was assigned at 72nd Military Intelligence Company (72MICO), 7th
Infantry Division, PA from 01 July 2006 to 01 July 2008.

2. That I was showed a photocopy of the Psycho-Social Processing Report dated

28 April 2007 and After Apprehension Report dated 30 April 2007, both of
which purportedly came from 72MICO, 7th Infantry Division, Philippine
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 Army and that on the last page of the Psycho-Social Processing Report
appears my name therein.
3. I vehemently oppose to (sic) the existence of the said documents and the
implication of my name in the said documents. The contents thereof are
purely a product of wild imagination. I have never seen such document
until now. AIHECa

4. I can only surmise that these are plainly a shing expedition on the part of Mrs.
Edita Burgos. A ploy to implicate any military personnel especially those
belonging to the 7th Infantry Division, Philippine Army.

c. In her May 31, 2013 Affidavit, Cpl. Benedicto stated:

1. That I was never assigned at 72nd Military Intelligence Company, 7th Infantry
Division, PA.

2. That I was showed a photocopy of the Psycho-Social Processing Report dated

28 April 2007 and After Apprehension Report dated 30 April 2007, both of
which purportedly came from 72MICO, 7th Infantry Division, Philippine
Army and that on the last page of the Psycho-Social Processing Report
appears my name therein.

3. I vehemently oppose to (sic) the existence of the said documents and the
implication of my name in the said documents. The contents thereof are
false and utter fabrication of facts. How can I ever be at 72MICO if I was
never assigned thereat.
4. I have never been an interrogator in my entire military service. I have never been
a member of any operation which involves the name of Jonas Burgos or
any other military operation for that matter. I have never seen such
document until now.
5. Furthermore, I have never worked with Maj. Allan Margarata or of his unit,
72MICO. 1 8 ECSaAc

Second, the respondents note that none of the documents submitted by the
petitioner were signed; a writ of Amparo cannot be issued and the investigation cannot
progress on the basis of false documents and false information.
Lastly, the respondents argue that since the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI)
and CHR are conducting their own investigations of the case, the petitioner's motion at this
point is premature; the proceedings to be conducted by the CA will be at the very least
redundant.
ii. The Respondents' Compliance dated June 7, 2013
On June 7, 2013, the respondents, through the O ce of Judge Advocate General,
complied with our April 11, 2013 Resolution by submitting the following documents:
a. Pro le/Summary of Information (SOI) with pictures of the personnel of 56th
Infantry Battalion (IB), 69th IB, and 7th Infantry Division, Philippine Army
(PA). These documents were submitted by the 7th ID in sealed nine (9)
small and three (3) big boxes (total of twelve (12) sealed boxes);
b. Investigation Report of the Intelligence Service, Armed Forces of the Philippines
(ISAFP) on the 2007 "ERAP 5" incident in Kamuning, Quezon City;
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 Pro le/Summary of Information (SOI) with pictures of the Intel Operatives
involved in the "ERAP 5" incident; and certi cation issued by the Command
Adjutant of ISAFP concerning T/Sgt. Jason Roxas (Philippine Army), Cpl.
Maria Joana Francisco (Philippine Air Force), M/Sgt. Aron Arroyo
(Philippine Air Force), an alias T.L., all reportedly assigned with the Military
Intelligence Group 15 of the Intelligence Service, AFP (MIG 15, ISAFP).
These documents were submitted by ISAFP in a sealed envelope;
c. Pro le/Summary of Information (SOI) with a picture of 2LT Fernando PA. This
document was submitted by Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, G1, PA in
a sealed envelope;
d. A certi cation issued by 56IB and 69IB, 7ID, PA concerning
captured/surrendered rebels; DHSCEc

e. A certi cation stating the present location and whereabouts of military

personnel listed in the submitted After Apprehension Report, dated April 30,
2007, allegedly identi ed as members of the Task Organization -72 MICO
and 56th IB with the inclusion of four (4) separate certi cations from
Commander, 7ID, PA, O ce of the Assistant Chief of Staff for Personnel,
G1, 7ID, PA, Commanding O cer, 72 MICO, and 56Ib, 71ID, PA,
respectively, stating the non-existence of the following documents:
Psycho-Social Processing Report dated 28 April 2007; After-Apprehension
Report dated 30 April 2007; Autobiography of Jonas Burgos; and Picture of
Jonas Burgos;
f. A davit of Compliance of General Emmanuel T. Bautista, AFP, the Chief of
Staff, assuring that the active military personnel mentioned in the
purported apprehension report can be located at their given locations and
be served with the processes that may be issued by the Honorable Court.
19

OUR RULING
A. On the relevancy and disclosure of the documents submitted to this Court
per paragraph III (i) of the fallo of our July 5, 2011 Resolution
The directive for the submission of the above-mentioned documents arose from our
determination in our June 22, 2010 Resolution that the PNP-CIDG failed to identify the
cartographic sketches of two (one male and one female) of the ve abductors of Jonas,
based on their interview with eyewitnesses to the abduction. For this reason, the Court
directly commissioned the CHR to continue the investigation of Jonas' abduction and the
gathering of evidence. DTEIaC

Based on its March 15, 2011 Report, the CHR uncovered a lead — a claim made by
Eustaquio, Chairman of the Union Masses for Democracy and Justice, that the male
abductor of Jonas appearing in the cartographic sketch was among the raiders who
abducted him and four others, known as the "ERAP FIVE."
This prompted the CHR to request copies of the documents embodied in par. III (i)
of the fallo of the Court's July 5, 2011 Resolution from General Gilberto Jose C. Roa of the
O ce of the Judge Advocate General, AFP. Gen. Roa initially denied this request but
eventually complied with the Court's directive of July 5, 2011 to submit the documents via
the September 23, 2011 Manifestation and Motion and the June 7, 2013 Compliance. In
the same July 5, 2011 Resolution, the Court made it plain that these documents shall be
released exclusively to the Court for its examination to determine their relevance to the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 present case and the advisability of their public disclosure.
Pursuant to the Court's October 11, 2011 Resolution, the CHR submitted its March
20, 2012 Progress Report on its continuing investigation of Jonas' abduction. Attached to
this Progress Report was Virgilio Eustaquio's sworn a davit stating that: (1) he was one
of the victims of the abduction incident on May 22, 2006, otherwise known as the "ERAP
FIVE" incident; (2) as a result of this incident, they led a case with the Ombudsman
against Commodore Leonardo Calderon and other members of the Intelligence Service,
A FP (ISAFP) for arbitrary detention, unlawful arrest, maltreatment of prisoners, grave
threats, incriminatory machination and robbery; and (3) the male abductor of Jonas
appearing in the cartographic sketch shown to him by the CHR was among the raiders who
abducted him and his four companions because it resembled the cartographic sketch he
described in relation to the ERAP FIVE incident on May 22, 2006. HEDCAS

After reviewing the submissions of both the respondents 2 0 and the CHR 2 1
pursuant to the Court's July 5, 2011, August 23, 2011 and October 11, 2011 Resolutions,
we resolve to grant the CHR access to these requested documents to allow them the
opportunity to ascertain the true identities of the persons depicted in the cartographic
sketches.
At this point, we emphasize that the sworn a davit of Eustaquio (that attests to the
resemblance of one of Jonas' abductors to the abductors of the ERAP FIVE) constitutes
the sought-after missing link that establishes the relevance of the requested documents to
the present case. We note that this lead may help the CHR ascertain the identities of those
depicted in the cartographic sketches as two of Jonas' abductors (one male and one
female) who, to this day, remain unidentified.
In view of the sensitive and con dential nature of the requested documents, we
direct the Clerk of Court of the Supreme Court to allow the duly-authorized representatives
of the CHR to inspect the requested documents in camera within ve (5) days from receipt
of this Resolution. The documents shall be examined and compared with the cartographic
sketches of the two abductors of Jonas, without copying and without bringing the
documents outside the premises of the O ce of the Clerk of Court of the Supreme Court.
The inspection of the documents shall be within o ce hours and for a reasonable period
of time su cient to allow the CHR to comprehensively investigate the lead provided by
Eustaquio. cDHCAE

To fully ful ll the objective of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo, further investigation
using the standard of extraordinary diligence should be undertaken by the CHR to pursue
the lead provided by Eustaquio. We take judicial notice of the ongoing investigation being
conducted by the Department of Justice (DOJ), through the NBI, on the disappearance of
Jonas. 2 2 In this regard, we direct the NBI to coordinate and provide direct investigative
assistance to the CHR as the latter may require, pursuant to the authority granted under
the Court's June 22, 2010 Resolution.
For this purpose, we require the CHR to submit a supplemental investigation report
to the DOJ, copy furnished the petitioner, the NBI, the incumbent Chiefs of the AFP, the
PNP and the PNP-CIDG, and all the respondents within sixty days (60) days from receipt of
this Resolution.
B. On the Urgent Ex Parte Motion Ex Abundanti Cautela
After reviewing the newly discovered evidence submitted by the petitioner and
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 considering all the developments of the case, including the March 18, 2013 CA decision
that con rmed the validity of the issuance of the Writ of Amparo in the present case, we
resolve to deny the petitioner's Urgent Ex Parte Motion Ex Abundanti Cautela.
We note and conclude, based on the developments highlighted above, that the
bene cial purpose of the Writ of Amparo has been served in the present case. As we held
in Razon, Jr. v. Tagitis , 2 3 the writ merely embodies the Court's directives to police
agencies to undertake speci ed courses of action to address the enforced
disappearance of an individual. The Writ of Amparo serves both a preventive and a curative
role. It is curative as it facilitates the subsequent punishment of perpetrators through the
investigation and remedial action that it directs. 2 4 The focus is on procedural curative
remedies rather than on the tracking of a speci c criminal or the resolution of
administrative liabilities. The unique nature of Amparo proceedings has led us to de ne
terms or concepts specific to what the proceedings seek to achieve. In Razon Jr. v. Tagitis ,
2 5 we de ned what the terms "responsibility" and "accountability" signify in an Amparo
case. We said:
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 le 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 de ned 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. 2 6 SHCaDA

In the present case, while Jonas remains missing, the series of calculated directives
issued by the Court outlined above and the extraordinary diligence the CHR demonstrated
in its investigations resulted in the criminal prosecution of Lt. Baliaga. We take judicial
notice of the fact that the Regional Trial Court, Quezon City, Branch 216, has already found
probable cause for arbitrary detention against Lt. Baliaga and has ordered his arrest in
connection with Jonas' disappearance. 2 7
We also emphasize that the CA in its March 18, 2013 decision already ruled with
finality on the entities responsible and accountable (as these terms are de ned in Razon,
Jr. v. Tagitis ) for the enforced disappearance of Jonas. In its March 18, 2013 decision, the
CA found, by substantial evidence, that Lt. Baliaga participated in the abduction on the
basis of Cabintoy's positive identi cation that he was one of the abductors of Jonas who
told him not to interfere because the latter had been under surveillance for drugs. In the
same Decision, the CA also held the AFP and the PNP accountable for having failed to
discharge the burden of extraordinary diligence in the investigation of the enforced
disappearance of Jonas. Thus, the CA issued the following directives to address the
enforced disappearance of Jonas:
(1) DIRECT the PNP through its investigative arm, the PNP-CIDG, to identify and
locate the abductors of Jonas Burgos who are still at large and to establish
the link between the abductors of Jonas Burgos and those involved in the
ERAP 5 incident;

(2) DIRECT the incumbent Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 and the Director General of the Philippines National Police, and their
successors, to ensure the continuance of their investigation and
coordination on the enforced disappearance of Jonas Burgos until the
persons found responsible are brought before the bar of justice;

(3) DIRECT the Commission on Human Rights to continue with its own
independent investigation on the enforced disappearance of Jonas Burgos
with the same degree of diligence required under the Rule on the Writ of
Amparo; SHTaID

(4) DIRECT the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippine National Police
to extend full assistance to the Commission on Human Rights in the
conduct of the latter's investigation; and
(5) DIRECT the Chief of Staff, Armed Forces of the Philippines, the Director
General, Philippine National Police and the Chairman, Commission on
Human Rights to submit a quarterly report to the Court on the results of
their respective investigation. 2 8

We note that the respondents did not appeal the March 18, 2013 CA decision and
the May 23, 2013 CA resolution denying their motion for partial reconsideration.
Based on the above considerations, in particular, the nal ruling of the CA that
con rmed the validity of the issuance of the Writ of Amparo and its determination of the
entities responsible for the enforced disappearance of Jonas, we resolve to deny the
petitioner's prayer to issue the writ of Amparo anew and to refer the case to the CA based
on the newly discovered evidence. We so conclude as the petitioner's request for the
reissuance of the writ and for the rehearing of the case by the CA would be redundant and
super uous in light of: (1) the ongoing investigation being conducted by the DOJ through
the NBI; (2) the CHR investigation directed by the Court in this Resolution; and (3) the
continuing investigation directed by the CA in its March 18, 2013 decision.
We emphasize that while the Rule on the Writ of Amparo accords the Court a wide
latitude in crafting remedies to address an enforced disappearance, it cannot (without
violating the nature of the writ of Amparo as a summary remedy that provides rapid
judicial relief) grant remedies that would complicate and prolong rather than expedite the
investigations already ongoing. Note that the CA has already determined with nality that
Jonas was a victim of enforced disappearance. aEcDTC

We clarify that by denying the petitioner's motion, we do not thereby rule on the
admissibility or the merits of the newly discovered evidence submitted by the petitioner.
We likewise do not foreclose any investigation by the proper investigative and prosecutory
agencies of the other entities whose identities and participation in the enforced
disappearance of Jonas may be disclosed in future investigations and proceedings.
Considering that the present case has already reached the prosecution stage, the
petitioner's motion should have been led with the proper investigative and prosecutory
agencies of the government.
To expedite proceedings, we refer the petitioner's motion, this Resolution and its
covered cases to the DOJ for investigation, for the purpose of ling the appropriate
criminal charges in the proper courts against the proper parties, if warranted, based on the
gathered evidence. For this purpose, we direct the petitioner to furnish the DOJ and the
NBI copies of her Urgent Ex Parte Motion Ex Abundanti Cautela, together with the sealed
attachments to the Motion, within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 As mentioned, we take judicial notice of the ongoing investigation by the DOJ,
through the NBI, of the disappearance of Jonas. This DOJ investigation is without
prejudice to the O ce of the Ombudsman's exercise of its primary jurisdiction over the
investigation of the criminal aspect of this case should the case be determined to be
cognizable by the Sandiganbayan. 2 9
As we direct below, further investigation for purposes of the present proceedings
shall continue to be undertaken by the CHR, in close coordination with the NBI, for the
completion of the investigation under the terms of our June 22, 2010 Resolution and the
additional directives under the present Resolution.
As a nal note, we emphasize that our ROLE in a writ of Amparo proceeding is
merely to determine whether an enforced disappearance has taken place; to determine
who is responsible or accountable; and to de ne and impose the appropriate remedies to
address the disappearance.
As shown above, the bene cial purpose of the Writ of Amparo has been served in
the present case with the CA's nal determination of the persons responsible and
accountable for the enforced disappearance of Jonas and the commencement of criminal
action against Lt. Baliaga. At this stage, criminal, investigation and prosecution
proceedings are already beyond the reach of the Writ of Amparo proceeding now before
us.
Based on the above developments, we now hold that the full extent of the remedies
envisioned by the Rule on the Writ of Amparo has been served and exhausted. SDAaTC

Considering the foregoing, the Court RESOLVES to:

(1) DENY petitioner Edita Burgos' Urgent Ex Parte Motion Ex Abundanti
Cautela;
(2) REFER the petitioner's Urgent Ex Parte Motion Ex Abundanti Cautela, this
Resolution and its covered cases to the Department of Justice for
investigation for the purpose of ling the appropriate criminal
charges in the proper courts against the proper parties if such action
is warranted by the gathered evidence. The referral to the Department
of Justice is without prejudice to the O ce of the Ombudsman's
exercise of its primary jurisdiction over the investigation should the
case be determined to be cognizable by the Sandiganbayan;
(3) DIRECT the petitioner to furnish the Department of Justice and the
National Bureau of Investigation copies of her Urgent Ex Parte Motion
Ex Abundanti Cautela, together with the sealed attachments to the
Motion, within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution;
(4) DIRECT the Clerk of Court of the Supreme Court to allow the duly-
authorized representatives of the Commission on Human Rights to
inspect the requested documents in camera within ve (5) days from
receipt of this Resolution. For this purpose, the documents shall be
examined and compared with the cartographic sketches of the two
abductors of Jonas Burgos without copying and bringing the
documents outside the premises of the O ce of the Clerk of Court of
the Supreme Court. The inspection of the documents shall be
conducted within o ce hours and for a reasonable period of time
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 that would allow the Commission on Human Rights to
comprehensively investigate the lead provided by Virgilio Eustaquio;
(5) DIRECT the National Bureau of Investigation to coordinate and provide
direct investigative assistance to the Commission on Human Rights
as the latter may require, pursuant to the authority granted under the
Court's June 22, 2010 Resolution. DTIaHE

(6) REQUIRE the Commission on Human Rights to submit a supplemental

investigation report to the Department of Justice, copy furnished the
petitioner, the National Bureau of Investigation, the incumbent Chiefs
of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, the Philippine National Police
and the Philippine National Police-Criminal Investigation and
Detection Group, and all the respondents, within sixty (60) days from
receipt of this Resolution.
(7) DECLARE this Writ of Amparo proceeding closed and terminated,
without prejudice to the concerned parties' compliance with the
above directives and subject to the Court's continuing jurisdiction to
enforce compliance with this Resolution.
SO ORDERED .
Sereno, C.J., Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-de Castro, Peralta, Bersamin, Del Castillo,
Abad, Villarama, Jr., Perez, Mendoza, Reyes, Perlas-Bernabe and Leonen, JJ., concur.

Footnotes

* G.R. No. 178497 is included.

1. Dated April 1, 2013; rollo, Vol. 3, pp. 3577-3586.

2. Id. at 808-812, Vol. 1; italics, emphases and underscores ours.

3. Id. at 956-960; italics, emphases and underscores in the original.

4. Id. at 1198-1199; italics and emphases in the original.

5. Id. at 1261-1264, Vol. 2.

6. Id. at 3025, Vol. 3; emphases in the original.

7. Id. at 3046; emphases in the original.

8. Id. at 3131.

9. Id. at 3131-3132.
10. Id. at 3132.

11. Id. at 3440.

12. Id. at 3601-3602; emphases and italics in the original.

13. Id. at 3612-3614.

14. Section 19 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo states:

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 SEC. 19. Appeal. — Any party may appeal from the nal judgment or order to the Supreme
Court under Rule 45. The appeal may raise questions of fact or law or both.
The period of appeal shall be ve (5) working days from the date of notice of the adverse
judgment.

The appeal shall be given the same priority as in habeas corpus cases.
15. Rollo, pp. 3592-3594, Vol. 3; italics ours.

16. The documents refer to: Psycho-Social Processing Report dated April 28, 2007; After-
Apprehension Report dated April 30, 2007; Undated Autobiography of Jonas; and Picture
of Jonas.
17. Rollo, (no pagination), Vol. 3.

18. Id., (no pagination). Annexes 1-F-1-H; emphases ours.

19. Id., (no pagination).

20. The respondents' submissions include the September 23, 2011 Manifestation and Motion
and the June 7, 2013 Compliance.

21. CHR Progress Report dated March 20, 2012; rollo, pp. 3451-3499, Vol. 3.
22. See Christine O. Avendano and TJ Burgonio, New NBI Probe to lead to truth behind Burgos'
disappearance-De Lima, Philippine Daily Inquirer, April 4, 2013.
23. G.R. No. 182498, December 3, 2009, 606 SCRA 598.
24. Secretary of Defense v. Manalo, 589 Phil. 1, 41 (2008).

25. Supra note 23.

26. Id. at 620-621; emphases supplied.

27. See Jeanette I. Andrade and Nikko Dizon, Court orders arrest of Army Major in Jonas
Burgos Abduction, Philippine Daily Inquirer, October 22, 2013.
28. Rollo, p. 3601.
29. See Section 15 (1) of the Ombudsman Act of 1989 which provides:

The Office of the Ombudsman shall have the following powers, functions and duties:
(1) Investigate and prosecute on its own or on complaint by any person, any act or omission
of any public o cer or employee, o ce or agency, when such act or omission appears
to be illegal, unjust, improper or ine cient. It has primary jurisdiction over cases
cognizable by the Sandiganbayan and, in the exercise of this primary
jurisdiction, it may take over, at any stage, from any investigatory agency of
Government, the investigation of such cases .
See also Honasan II v. The Panel of Investigating Prosecutors of the Department of Justice ,
G.R. No. 159747, April 13, 2004, 427 SCRA 46, 70, where the Court held that the "DOJ
Panel is not precluded from conducting any investigation of cases against public
o cers involving violations of penal laws but if the cases fall under the exclusive
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, then respondent Ombudsman may, in the exercise of
its primary jurisdiction take over at any stage."

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com