[1] remedies provided under their customary laws and have obtained a certification from

the Council of Elders/Leaders who participated in the attempt to settle the dispute
SECOND DIVISION that the same has not been resolved.
THE CITY GOVERNMENT OF G.R. No. 180206
BAGUIO CITY, represented by Same; Same; Same; Temporary Restraining Orders; The National Commission on
REINALDO BAUTISTA, JR., Present: Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) may issue temporary restraining orders and writs of
City Mayor; THE ANTI-SQUATTING injunction without any prohibition against the issuance of the writ when the main
COMMITTEE, represented by ATTY. QUISUMBING, J., action is for injunction.—As can be gleaned from the foregoing provisions, the NCIP
MELCHOR CARLOS R. RAGANES, Chairperson, may issue temporary restraining orders and writs of injunction without any
CITY BUILDINGS and CARPIO MORALES, prohibition against the issuance of the writ when the main action is for injunction.
ARCHITECTURE office, represented TINGA, The power to issue temporary restraining orders or writs of injunction allows parties
by OSCAR FLORES; and PUBLIC VELASCO, JR., and to a dispute over which the NCIP has jurisdiction to seek relief against any action
ORDER and SAFETY OFFICE, BRION, JJ. which may cause them grave or irreparable damage or injury. In this case, the
Represented by EMMANUEL REYES, Regional Hearing Officer issued the injunctive writ because its jurisdiction was
Petitioners. called upon to protect and preserve the rights of private respondents who are
undoubtedly members of ICCs/IPs.
- versus -
Promulgated: Same; Same; Same; No restraining order or preliminary injunction may be issued by
February 4, 2009 any inferior court against the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP)
ATTY. BRAIN MASWENG, Regional in any case, dispute or controversy arising from or necessary to the interpretation of
Officer-National Commission on the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA) and other laws relating to
Indigenous People-CAR, ELVIN ICCs/IPs and ancestral domains.—In order to reinforce the powers of the NCIP, the
GUMANGAN, NARCISO BASATAN IPRA even provides that no restraining order or preliminary injunction may be
and LAZARO BAWAS, issued by any inferior court against the NCIP in any case, dispute or controversy
Respondents. arising from or necessary to the interpretation of the IPRA and other laws relating to
  ICCs/IPs and ancestral domains.
x--------------------------------------------------------------------------x
  Same; Same; Indigenous People’s Rights Act of 1997 (R.A. No. 8371); The
  exemption of Baguio City from the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA)
DECISION cannot ipso facto be deduced because the law concedes the validity of prior land
rights recognized or acquired through any process before its effectivity.—Petitioners
argue that Baguio City is exempt from the provisions of the IPRA, and necessarily
Administrative Law; National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (R.A. No. 8371);
the jurisdiction of the NCIP, by virtue of Sec. 78 thereof, x x x The foregoing
Administrative Agencies; The National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) provision indeed states that Baguio City is governed by its own charter. Its
is the primary government agency responsible for the formulation and
exemption from the IPRA, however, cannot ipso facto be deduced because the law
implementation of policies, plans and programs to protect and promote the rights concedes the validity of prior land rights recognized or acquired through any process
and well-being of indigenous cultural communities/indigenous peoples (ICCs/IPs)
before its effectivity. The IPRA demands that the city’s charter respect the validity of
and the recognition of their ancestral domains as well as their rights thereto; The these recognized land rights and titles.
National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) is vested with jurisdiction over
all claims and disputes involving the rights of ICCs/IPs.—The NCIP is the primary Same; Same; Same; Proclamation No. 15 does not appear to be a definitive
government agency responsible for the formulation and implementation of policies,
recognition of private respondents’ ancestral land claim.—Proclamation No. 15,
plans and programs to protect and promote the rights and wellbeing of indigenous however, does not appear to be a definitive recognition of private respondents’
cultural communities/indigenous peoples (ICCs/IPs) and the recognition of their
ancestral land claim. The proclamation merely identifies the Molintas and Gumangan
ancestral domains as well as their rights thereto. In order to fully effectuate its families, the predecessors-in-interest of private respondents, as claimants of a portion
mandate, the NCIP is vested with jurisdiction over all claims and disputes involving
of the Busol Forest Reservation but does not acknowledge vested rights over the
the rights of ICCs/IPs. The only condition precedent to the NCIP’s assumption of
jurisdiction over such disputes is that the parties thereto shall have exhausted all

Human Rights Law (Rights of Indigenous People) Page 1 of 174

same. In fact, Proclamation No. 15 explicitly withdraws the Busol Forest Safety Division, among others, (collectively called
Reservation from sale or settlement. petitioners) before the National Commission on Indigenous
Peoples, Cordillera Administrative Region (NCIP-CAR),
Same; Same; Same; Busol Forest Reservation was declared by the Court as Regional Hearing Office, La Trinidad, Benguet, docketed as
inalienable in Heirs of Gumangan v. Court of Appeals, 172 SCRA 563 (1989).—The Case No. 31-CAR-06.
fact remains, too, that the Busol Forest Reservation was declared by the Court as  
inalienable in Heirs of Gumangan v. Court of Appeals, 172 SCRA 563 (1989). The In their petition, private respondents basically
declaration of the Busol Forest Reservation as such precludes its conversion into claimed that the lands where their residential houses stand
private property. Relatedly, the courts are not endowed with jurisdictional are their ancestral lands which they have been occupying
competence to adjudicate forest lands. and possessing openly and continuously since time
immemorial; that their ownership thereof have been
TINGA, J.: expressly recognized in Proclamation No. 15 dated April 27,
  1922 and recommended by the Department of Environment
Petitioners, the City Government of Baguio City, represented by its and Natural Resources (DENR) for exclusion from the
Mayor, Reinaldo Bautista, Jr., the Anti-Squatting Committee, represented by coverage of the Busol Forest Reserve. They, thus,
Atty. Melchor Carlos R. Rabanes; the City Buildings and Architecture Office, contended that the demolition of their residential houses is a
represented by Oscar Flores; and the Public Order and Safety Office, violation of their right of possession and ownership of
represented by Emmanuel Reyes and later substituted by Gregorio Deligero, ancestral lands accorded by the Constitution and the law,
assail the Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. SP No. 96895, dated perforce, must be restrained.
April 16, 2007, and its Resolution[2] dated September 11, 2007, which  
affirmed the injunctive writ issued by the National Commission on Indigenous On October 16 and 19, 2006, Regional Hearing
Peoples (NCIP) against the demolition orders of petitioners. Officer Atty. Brain S. Masweng of the NCIP issued the two
  (2) assailed temporary restraining orders (TRO) directing the
The following undisputed facts are culled from the assailed Decision: petitioners and all persons acting for and in their behalf to
  refrain from enforcing Demolition Advice dated September
The case stemmed from the three (3) Demolition 18, 2006; Demolition Order dated September 19, 2006;
Orders issued by the City Mayor of Baguio City, Braulio D. Demolition Order No. 25, Series of 2004; Demolition Order
Yaranon, ordering the demolition of the illegal structures No. 33, Series of 2005; and Demolition Order No. 28, Series
constructed by Lazaro Bawas, Alexander Ampaguey, Sr. of 2004, for a total period of twenty (20) days.
and a certain Mr. Basatan on a portion of the Busol  
Watershed Reservation located at Aurora Hill, Baguio City, Subsequently, the NCIP issued the other assailed
without the required building permits and in violation of Resolution dated November 10, 2006 granting the private
Section 69 of Presidential Decree No. 705, as amended, respondents application for preliminary injunction subject to
Presidential Decree No. 1096 and Republic Act No. 7279. the posting of an injunctive bond each in the amount
  of P10,000.00.[3]
Pursuant thereto, the corresponding demolition  
advices dated September 19, 2006 were issued informing  
the occupants thereon of the intended demolition of the Acting on the petition for certiorari filed by petitioners, [4] the Court of
erected structures on October 17 to 20, 2006. Consequently, Appeals upheld the jurisdiction of the NCIP over the action filed by private
Elvin Gumangan, Narciso Basatan and Lazaro Bawas respondents and affirmed the temporary restraining orders dated October
(hereinafter private respondents) filed a petition for injunction 16[5] and 19, 2006,[6] and the Resolution dated November 10, 2006,[7] granting
with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order the application for a writ of preliminary injunction, issued by the NCIP. The
and/or writ of preliminary injunction against the Office of the appellate court also ruled that Baguio City is not exempt from the coverage of
City Mayor of Baguio City through its Acting City Mayor, Republic Act No. 8371, otherwise known as the Indigenous Peoples Rights
Reynaldo Bautista, the City Building and Architecture Office, Act of 1997 (IPRA).
the Anti-Squatting Task Force, and the Public Order and  

Human Rights Law (Rights of Indigenous People) Page 2 of 174

 Petitioners assert that the NCIP has no jurisdiction to hear and This claim of ownership is an exception to the governments contention that
decide main actions for injunction such as the one filed by private the whole area is a forest reservation.
respondents. They claim that the NCIP has the authority to issue temporary  
restraining orders and writs of preliminary injunction only as auxiliary Lastly, private respondents assert that the power of the city mayor to
remedies to cases pending before it. order the demolition of certain structures is not absolute. Regard should be
  taken of the fact that private respondents cannot be issued building permits
Further, the IPRA provides that Baguio City shall be governed by its precisely because they do not have paper titles over their ancestral lands, a
Charter. Thus, private respondents cannot claim their alleged ancestral lands requirement for the issuance of a building permit under the National Building
under the provisions of the IPRA. Code.
   
Petitioners contend that private respondents are not entitled to the Petitioners Reply to Comment[11] dated June 11, 2008 merely
protection of an injunctive writ because they encroached upon the Busol reiterates their previous arguments.
Forest Reservation and built structures thereon without the requisite permit.  
Moreover, this Court, in Heirs of Gumangan v. Court of Appeals, [8]  had We shall first dispose of the elemental issue of the NCIPs
already declared that the Busol Forest Reservation is inalienable and jurisdiction.
possession thereof, no matter how long, cannot convert the same into private  
property. Even assuming that private respondents have a pending The NCIP is the primary government agency responsible for the
application for ancestral land claim, their right is at best contingent and formulation and implementation of policies, plans and programs to protect
cannot come under the protective mantle of injunction. and promote the rights and well-being of indigenous cultural
  communities/indigenous peoples (ICCs/IPs) and the recognition of their
Petitioners also claim that the Busol Forest Reservation is exempt ancestral domains as well as their rights thereto. [12] In order to fully effectuate
from ancestral claims as it is needed for public welfare. It is allegedly one of its mandate, the NCIP is vested with jurisdiction over all claims and disputes
the few remaining forests in Baguio City and is the citys main watershed. involving the rights of ICCs/IPs. The only condition precedent to the NCIPs
  assumption of jurisdiction over such disputes is that the parties thereto shall
Finally, petitioners contend that the demolition orders were issued have exhausted all remedies provided under their customary laws and have
pursuant to the police power of the local government. obtained a certification from the Council of Elders/Leaders who participated
  in the attempt to settle the dispute that the same has not been resolved. [13]
In their Comment[9] dated March 1, 2007, private respondents defend  
the jurisdiction of the NCIP to take cognizance of and decide main actions for In addition, NCIP Administrative Circular No. 1-03 dated April 9,
injunction arguing that the IPRA does not state that the NCIP may only issue 2003, known as the Rules on Pleadings, Practice and Procedure Before the
such writs of injunction as auxiliary remedies. Private respondents also NCIP, reiterates the jurisdiction of the NCIP over claims and disputes
contend that the IPRA does not exempt Baguio City from its coverage nor involving ancestral lands and enumerates the actions that may be brought
does it state that there are no ancestral lands in Baguio City. before the commission. Sec. 5, Rule III thereof provides:
   
As members of the Ibaloi Indigenous Community native Sec. 5. Jurisdiction of the NCIP.The NCIP through
to Baguio City, private respondents are treated as squatters despite the fact its Regional Hearing Offices shall exercise jurisdiction over
that they hold native title to their ancestral land. The IPRA allegedly now all claims and disputes involving rights of ICCs/IPs and all
recognizes ancestral lands held by native title as never to have been public cases pertaining to the implementation, enforcement, and
lands. interpretation of R.A. 8371, including but not limited to the
  following:
Private respondents aver that the Busol Forest Reservation is  
subject to ancestral land claims. In fact, Proclamation No. 15 [10] dated April (1)    Original and Exclusive Jurisdiction of the Regional
27, 1922, which declared the area a forest reserve, allegedly did not nullify Hearing Office (RHO):
the vested rights of private respondents over their ancestral lands and even  
identified the claimants of the particular portions within the forest reserve. a.       Cases involving disputes and controversies over
ancestral lands/domains of ICCs/IPs;

Human Rights Law (Rights of Indigenous People) Page 3 of 174

 b.      Cases involving violations of the requirement of  
free and prior and informed consent of ICCs/IPs;  
c.       Actions for enforcement of decisions of ICCs/IPs  
involving violations of customary laws or desecration  
of ceremonial sites, sacred places, or rituals; Clearly then, the allegations in the petition, which axiomatically
d.      Actions for redemption/reconveyance under determine the nature of the action and the jurisdiction of a particular tribunal,
[16]
Section 8(b) of R.A. 8371; and  squarely qualify it as a dispute(s) or controversy(s) over ancestral
e.       Such other cases analogous to the foregoing. lands/domains of ICCs/IPs within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the
  NCIP-RHO.
(2)    Original Jurisdiction of the Regional Hearing Officer:  
  The IPRA, furthermore, endows the NCIP with the power to issue
a.       Cases affecting property rights, claims of temporary restraining orders and writs of injunction. Sec. 69 thereof states:
ownership, hereditary succession, and settlement of  
land disputes, between and among ICCs/IPs that Sec. 69. Quasi-Judicial Powers of the NCIP.The NCIP
have not been settled under customary laws; and shall have the power and authority:
b.      Actions for damages arising out of any violation of  
Republic Act No. 8371. a)      To promulgate rules and regulations governing the
  hearing and disposition of cases filed before it as well as
  those pertaining to its internal functions and such rules and
  regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purposes
(3)    Exclusive and Original Jurisdiction of the Commission: of this Act;
   
a. Petition for cancellation of Certificate of Ancestral b)      To administer oaths, summon the parties to a
Domain Titles/Certificate of Ancestral Land Titles controversy, issue subpoenas requiring the attendance and
(CADTs/CALTs) alleged to have been fraudulently testimony of witnesses or the production of such books,
acquired by, and issued to, any person or papers, contracts, records, agreements, and other document
community as provided for under Section 54 of R.A. of similar nature as may be material to a just determination
8371. Provided that such action is filed within one (1) of the matter under investigation or hearing conducted in
year from the date of registration. pursuance of this Act;
   
In order to determine whether the NCIP has jurisdiction over the c)      To hold any person in contempt, directly or
dispute in accordance with the foregoing provisions, it is necessary to indirectly, and impose appropriate penalties therefor; and
resolve, on the basis of the allegations in their petition, whether private  
respondents are members of ICCs/IPs. In their petition[14] filed before the d)      To enjoin any or all acts involving or arising
NCIP, private respondents, members of the Ibaloi tribe who first settled from any case pending before it which, if not restrained
in Baguio City, were asserting ownership of portions of the Busol Forest forthwith, may cause grave or irreparable damage to any
Reservation which they claim to be their ancestral lands. Correctly of the parties to the case or seriously affect social or
denominated as a petition for injunction as it sought to prevent the economic activity. [Emphasis supplied]
enforcement of the demolition orders issued by the City Mayor, the petition  
traced private respondents ancestry to Molintas and Gumangan and  
asserted their possession, occupation and utilization of their ancestral lands.  
The petition also alleged that private respondents claim over these lands had  
been recognized by Proclamation No. 15 which mentions the names of  
Molintas and Gumangan as having claims over portions of the Busol Forest NCIP Administrative Circular No. 1-03 echoes the above-quoted
Reservation.[15] provision in Sec. 82, Rule XV, which provides:
   

Human Rights Law (Rights of Indigenous People) Page 4 of 174

 Sec. 82. Preliminary Injunction and Temporary provision shall not apply to any territory which becomes part
Restraining Order.A writ of preliminary injunction or of the City of Baguio after the effectivity of this Act.
restraining order may be granted by the Commission [Emphasis supplied]
pursuant to the provisions of Sections 59 and 69 of R.A.  
[No.] 8371 when it is established, on the basis of sworn  
allegations in a petition, that the acts complained of involving The foregoing provision indeed states that Baguio City is governed by its own
or arising from any case, if not restrained forthwith, may charter. Its exemption from the IPRA, however, cannot ipso facto be
cause grave or irreparable damage or injury to any of the deduced because the law concedes the validity of prior land rights
parties, or seriously affect social or economic activity. This recognized or acquired through any process before its effectivity. The IPRA
power may also be exercised by RHOs in cases pending demands that the citys charter respect the validity of these recognized land
before them in order to preserve the rights of the parties. rights and titles.
   
As can be gleaned from the foregoing provisions, the NCIP may The crucial question to be asked then is whether private respondents
issue temporary restraining orders and writs of injunction without any ancestral land claim was indeed recognized by Proclamation No. 15, in
prohibition against the issuance of the writ when the main action is for which case, their right thereto may be protected by an injunctive writ. After
injunction. The power to issue temporary restraining orders or writs of all, before a writ of preliminary injunction may be issued, petitioners must
injunction allows parties to a dispute over which the NCIP has jurisdiction to show that there exists a right to be protected and that the acts against which
seek relief against any action which may cause them grave or irreparable injunction is directed are violative of said right. [18]
damage or injury. In this case, the Regional Hearing Officer issued the  
injunctive writ because its jurisdiction was called upon to protect and Proclamation No. 15, however, does not appear to be a definitive
preserve the rights of private respondents who are undoubtedly members of recognition of private respondents ancestral land claim. The proclamation
ICCs/IPs. merely identifies the Molintas and Gumangan families, the predecessors-in-
  interest of private respondents, as claimants of a portion of the Busol Forest
Parenthetically, in order to reinforce the powers of the NCIP, the Reservation but does not acknowledge vested rights over the same. In fact,
IPRA even provides that no restraining order or preliminary injunction may be Proclamation No. 15 explicitly withdraws the Busol Forest Reservation from
issued by any inferior court against the NCIP in any sale or settlement. It provides:
case, dispute or controversy arising from or necessary to the  
Pursuant to the provisions of section eighteen
hundred and twenty-six of Act Numbered Twenty-seven
  Hundred and eleven[,] I hereby establish the Busol Forest
  Reservation to be administered by the Bureau of Forestry for
interpretation of the IPRA and other laws relating to ICCs/IPs and ancestral the purpose of conserving and protecting water and timber,
domains.[17] the protection of the water supply being of primary
  importance and all other uses of the forest are to be
Petitioners argue that Baguio City is exempt from the provisions of subordinated to that purpose. I therefore withdraw from sale
the IPRA, and necessarily the jurisdiction of the NCIP, by virtue of Sec. 78 or settlement the following described parcels of the public
thereof, which states: domain situated in the Township of La Trinidad, City
  of Baguio, MountainProvince, Island of Luzon, to wit:
SEC. 78. Special Provision.The City of Baguio shall  
remain to be governed by its Charter and all lands The fact remains, too, that the Busol Forest Reservation was
proclaimed as part of its townsite reservation shall remain as declared by the Court as inalienable in Heirs of Gumangan v. Court of
such until otherwise reclassified by appropriate Appeals.[19] The declaration of the Busol Forest Reservation as such
legislation: Provided,  That prior land rights and titles precludes its conversion into private property. Relatedly, the courts are not
recognized and/or acquired through any judicial, endowed with jurisdictional competence to adjudicate forest lands.
administrative or other processes before the effectivity  
of this Act shall remain valid: Provided, further, That this

Human Rights Law (Rights of Indigenous People) Page 5 of 174

 All told, although the NCIP has the authority to issue temporary
restraining orders and writs of injunction, we are not convinced that private
respondents are entitled to the relief granted by the Commission.
 
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the
Court of Appeals in CA G.R. SP No. 96895 dated April 16, 2007 and its
Resolution dated September 11, 2007 are
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Case No. 31-CAR-06 entitled, Elvin
Gumangan, Narciso Basatan and Lazaro Bawas v. Office of the City Mayor
of Baguio City, et al. is DISMISSED. No pronouncement as to costs.
 
SO ORDERED.

Human Rights Law (Rights of Indigenous People) Page 6 of 174

[2] September 21, 2010
EN BANC
  x --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x
   
CENTRAL MINDANAO UNIVERSITY, G.R. No. 184869 DECISION
Represented by Officer-In-Charge
Dr. Rodrigo L. Malunhao,
Petitioner, Present: Courts; Jurisdiction; There is nothing essentially wrong about a court holding on
CORONA, C.J., the one hand that it has no jurisdiction over a case, and on the other, based on an
CARPIO, assumption that it has jurisdiction, deciding the case on its merits, both with the
same results, which is the dismissal of the action.—The RTC invoked two reasons
CARPIO MORALES, for dismissing CMU’s action. The first is that jurisdiction over the action to declare
VELASCO, JR.,* Presidential Proclamation 310 lies with the RTC of Manila, not the RTC of
Malaybalay City, given that such action relates to official acts of the Executive done
NACHURA,* in Manila. The second reason, presumably made on the assumption that the
Malaybalay RTC had jurisdiction over the action, Presidential Proclamation 310 was
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,*
valid and constitutional since the State, as ultimate owner of the subject lands, has
- versus - BRION,* the right to dispose of the same for some purpose other than CMU’s use. There is
nothing essentially wrong about a court holding on the one hand that it has no
PERALTA,
jurisdiction over a case, and on the other, based on an assumption that it has
BERSAMIN, jurisdiction, deciding the case on its merits, both with the same results, which is the
dismissal of the action. At any rate, the issue of the propriety of the RTC using two
DEL CASTILLO, incompatible reasons for dismissing the action is academic. The CA from which the
ABAD, present petition was brought dismissed CMU’s appeal on some technical ground.

VILLARAMA, JR., Same; Appeals; Pleadings and Practice; Where an appeal from the Regional Trial
Court raises purely questions of law, recourse should be by a petition for review on
PEREZ, certiorari filed directly with the Supreme Court.—Section 9(3) of the Judiciary
MENDOZA,* and Reorganization Act of 1980 vests in the CA appellate jurisdiction over the final
judgments or orders of the RTCs and quasi-judicial bodies. But where an appeal
SERENO,** JJ. from the RTC raises purely questions of law, recourse should be by a petition for
review on certiorari filed directly with this Court. The question in this case is
THE HONORABLE EXECUTIVE
SECRETARY, THE HONORABLE whether or not CMU’s appeal from the RTC’s order of dismissal raises purely
SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF questions of law.
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL
Same; Same; Questions of Fact; Questions of Law; Whether the Regional Trial
RESOURCES, THE CHAIRPERSON AND
Court (RTC) in fact prematurely decided the constitutionality of the Presidential
COMMISSIONERS OF THE NATIONAL
COMMISSION ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES, Proclamation, resulting in the denial of petitioner’s right to be heard on the same, is
and THE LEAD CONVENOR OF THE a factual issue that was proper for the Court of Appeals to hear and ascertain from
NATIONAL ANTI-POVERTY COMMISSION, the parties.—As to the second reason, the CMU claimed that the Malaybalay RTC
deprived it of its right to due process when it dismissed the case based on the ground
Respondents. Promulgated: that Presidential Proclamation 310, which it challenged, was constitutional. CMU
  points out that the issue of the constitutionality of the proclamation had not yet been
properly raised and heard. NCIP, et al had not yet filed an answer to join issue with

Human Rights Law (Rights of Indigenous People) Page 7 of 174

CMU on that score. What NCIP, et al filed was merely a motion to dismiss on the Forty-five years later or on January 7, 2003 President Gloria
ground of lack of jurisdiction of the Malaybalay RTC over the injunction case. Macapagal-Arroyo issued Presidential Proclamation 310 that takes 670
Whether the RTC in fact prematurely decided the constitutionality of the hectares from CMUs registered lands for distribution to indigenous peoples
proclamation, resulting in the denial of CMU’s right to be heard on the same, is a and cultural communities in Barangay Musuan, Maramag, Bukidnon. 
factual issue that was proper for the CA Mindanao Station to hear and ascertain from On April 3, 2003, however, CMU filed a petition for prohibition against
the parties. Consequently, the CA erred in dismissing the action on the ground that it respondents Executive Secretary, Secretary of the Department of
raised pure questions of law. Environment and Natural Resources, Chairperson and Commissioner of the
National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP), and Lead Convenor of
Public Lands; The lands by their character have become inalienable from the the National Anti-Poverty Commission (collectively, NCIP, et al) before the
moment President Garcia dedicated them for Central Mindanao University’s use in Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malaybalay City (Branch 9), seeking to stop
scientific and technological research in the field of agriculture—they ceased to be the implementation of Presidential Proclamation 310 and have it declared
alienable public lands.—It did not matter that it was President Arroyo who, in this unconstitutional.
case, attempted by proclamation to appropriate the lands for distribution to
indigenous peoples and cultural communities. As already stated, the lands by their The NCIP, et al moved to dismiss the case on the ground of lack of
character have become inalienable from the moment President Garcia dedicated jurisdiction of the Malaybalay RTC over the action, pointing out that since the
act sought to be enjoined relates to an official act of the Executive
them for CMU’s use in scientific and technological research in the field of
Department done in Manila, jurisdiction lies with the Manila RTC. The
agriculture. They have ceased to be alienable public lands.
Malaybalay RTC denied the motion, however, and proceeded to hear CMUs
Same; Indigenous People’s Rights Act (IPRA) (Republic Act No. 8371); National application for preliminary injunction. Meanwhile, respondents NCIP, et
Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) (R.A. No. 8371); Since ownership over al moved for partial reconsideration of the RTCs order denying their motion
to dismiss. 
the subject lands had been vested in Central Mindanao University (CMU) as early
as 1958, transferring the lands in 2003 to the indigenous peoples around the area is On October 27, 2003, after hearing the preliminary injunction
not in accord with the Indigenous People’s Rights Act (IPRA).—When Congress incident, the RTC issued a resolution granting NCIP, et als motion for partial
enacted the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act (IPRA) or Republic Act 8371 in 1997, it reconsideration and dismissed CMUs action for lack of jurisdiction. Still, the
provided in Section 56 that “property rights within the ancestral domains already RTC ruled that Presidential Proclamation 310 was constitutional, being a
existing and/or vested” upon its effectivity “shall be recognized and respected.” In valid State act. The RTC said that the ultimate owner of the lands is the State
this case, ownership over the subject lands had been vested in CMU as early as 1958. and that CMU merely held the same in its behalf. CMU filed a motion for
Consequently, transferring the lands in 2003 to the indigenous peoples around the reconsideration of the resolution but the RTC denied the same on April 19,
2004. This prompted CMU to appeal the RTCs dismissal order to the Court
area is not in accord with the IPRA.
of Appeals (CA) Mindanao Station.[2]
ABAD, J.: 
CMU raised two issues in its appeal: 1) whether or not the RTC
This case concerns the constitutionality of a presidential deprived it of its right to due process when it dismissed the action; and 2)
proclamation that takes property from a state university, over its objections, whether or not Presidential Proclamation 310 was constitutional. [3]
for distribution to indigenous peoples and cultural communities.
In a March 14, 2008 decision,[4] the CA dismissed CMUs appeal for
The Facts and the Case lack of jurisdiction, ruling that CMUs recourse should have been a petition for
review on certiorari filed directly with this Court, because it raised pure
Petitioner Central Mindanao University (CMU) is a chartered questions lawbearing mainly on the constitutionality of Presidential
educational institution owned and run by the State. [1] In 1958, the President Proclamation 310. The CA added that whether the trial court can decide the
issued Presidential Proclamation 476, reserving 3,401 hectares of lands of merits of the case based solely on the hearings of the motion to dismiss and
the public domain in Musuan, Bukidnon, as school site for CMU. Eventually, the application for injunction is also a pure question of law.
CMU obtained title in its name over 3,080 hectares of those lands under
Original Certificates of Title (OCTs) 0-160, 0-161, and 0-162. Meanwhile, the  
government distributed more than 300 hectares of the remaining untitled
lands to several tribes belonging to the areas cultural communities. 

Human Rights Law (Rights of Indigenous People) Page 8 of 174

 CMU filed a motion for reconsideration of the CAs order of dismissal 2) Presidential Proclamation 310 was constitutional. Did these grounds raise
but it denied the same,[5] prompting CMU to file the present petition for factual issues that are proper for the CA to hear and adjudicate?
review.
Regarding the first reason, CMUs action was one for injunction
The Issues Presented against the implementation of Presidential Proclamation 310 that authorized
the taking of lands from the university. The fact that the President issued this
The case presents the following issues: proclamation in Manila and that it was being enforced
1. Whether or not the CA erred in not finding that the RTC erred in in Malaybalay City where the lands were located were facts that were not in
dismissing its action for prohibition against NCIP, et al for lack of jurisdiction issue. These were alleged in the complaint and presumed to be true by the
and at the same time ruling that Presidential Proclamation 310 is valid and motion to dismiss. Consequently, the CMUs remedy for assailing the
constitutional; correctness of the dismissal, involving as it did a pure question of law, indeed
lies with this Court.
2. Whether or not the CA correctly dismissed CMUs appeal on the
ground that it raised purely questions of law that are proper for a petition for As to the second reason, the CMU claimed that the Malaybalay RTC
review filed directly with this Court; and deprived it of its right to due process when it dismissed the case based on
the ground that Presidential Proclamation 310, which it challenged, was
3. Whether or not Presidential Proclamation 310 is valid and constitutional. CMU points out that the issue of the constitutionality of the
constitutional. proclamation had not yet been properly raised and heard. NCIP, et al had not
yet filed an answer to join issue with CMU on that score. What NCIP, et
The Courts Rulings al filed was merely a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of
the Malaybalay RTC over the injunction case. Whether the RTC in fact
One. The RTC invoked two reasons for dismissing CMUs
prematurely decided the constitutionality of the proclamation, resulting in the
action. The first is that jurisdiction over the action to declare Presidential
denial of CMUs right to be heard on the same, is a factual issue that was
Proclamation 310 lies with the RTC of Manila, not the RTC of Malaybalay
proper for the CA Mindanao Station to hear and ascertain from the
City, given that such action relates to official acts of the Executive done
parties.Consequently, the CA erred in dismissing the action on the ground
in Manila. The second reason, presumably made on the assumption that the
that it raised pure questions of law.
Malaybalay RTC had jurisdiction over the action, Presidential Proclamation
310 was valid and constitutional since the State, as ultimate owner of the Three. Since the main issue of the constitutionality of Presidential
subject lands, has the right to dispose of the same for some purpose other Proclamation 310 has been raised and amply argued before this Court, it
than CMUs use. would serve no useful purpose to have the case remanded to the CA
Mindanao Station or to the Malaybalay RTC for further
There is nothing essentially wrong about a court holding on the one
proceedings. Ultimately, the issue of constitutionality of the Proclamation in
hand that it has no jurisdiction over a case, and on the other, based on an
question will come to this Court however the courts below decide
assumption that it has jurisdiction, deciding the case on its merits, both with
it. Consequently, the Court should, to avoid delay and multiplicity of suits,
the same results, which is the dismissal of the action. At any rate, the issue
now resolve the same.
of the propriety of the RTC using two incompatible reasons for dismissing the
action is academic. The CA from which the present petition was brought  
dismissed CMUs appeal on some technical ground.
The key question lies in the character of the lands taken from
Two. Section 9(3) of the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980 [6] vests CMU. In CMU v. Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board
in the CA appellate jurisdiction over the final judgments or orders of the (DARAB),[7] the DARAB, a national government agency charged with taking
RTCs and quasi-judicial bodies. But where an appeal from the RTC raises both privately-owned and government-owned agricultural lands for
purely questions of law, recourse should be by a petition for review distribution to farmers-beneficiaries, ordered the segregation for this purpose
on certiorari filed directly with this Court. The question in this case is whether of 400 hectares of CMU lands. The Court nullified the DARAB action
or not CMUs appeal from the RTCs order of dismissal raises purely considering the inalienable character of such lands, being part of the long
questions of law. term functions of an autonomous agricultural educational institution. Said the
Court:
As already stated, CMU raised two grounds for its appeal: 1) the
RTC deprived it of its right to due process when it dismissed the action; and

Human Rights Law (Rights of Indigenous People) Page 9 of 174

 The construction given by the DARAB to Section available to landless peasants, assuming the claimants
10 restricts the land area of the CMU to its present here, or some of them, can qualify as CARP
needs or to a land area presently, actively exploited and beneficiaries. To our mind, the taking of the CMU land
utilized by the university in carrying out its present which had been segregated for educational purposes for
educational program with its present student population distribution to yet uncertain beneficiaries is a gross
and academic facility overlooking the very significant misinterpretation of the authority and jurisdiction
factor of growth of the university in the years to come. granted by law to the DARAB.
By the nature of the CMU, which is a school established
to promote agriculture and industry, the need for a vast The decision in this case is of far-reaching
tract of agricultural land for future programs of significance as far as it concerns state colleges and
expansion is obvious. At the outset, the CMU was universities whose resources and research facilities
conceived in the same manner as land grant colleges may be gradually eroded by misconstruing the
in America, a type of educational institution which exemptions from the CARP. These state colleges and
blazed the trail for the development of vast tracts of universities are the main vehicles for our scientific and
unexplored and undeveloped agricultural lands in the technological advancement in the field of agriculture, so
Mid-West. What we now know vital to the existence, growth and development of this
as Michigan State University, Penn State University and  country.[8]
Illinois State University, started as small land grant It did not matter that it was President Arroyo who, in this case,
colleges, with meager funding to support their ever attempted by proclamation to appropriate the lands for distribution to
increasing educational programs. They were given indigenous peoples and cultural communities. As already stated, the lands by
extensive tracts of agricultural and forest lands to be their character have become inalienable from the moment President Garcia
developed to support their numerous expanding dedicated them for CMUs use in scientific and technological research in the
activities in the fields of agricultural technology and field of agriculture. They have ceased to be alienable public lands.
scientific research. Funds for the support of the
educational programs of land grant colleges came from Besides, when Congress enacted the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act
government appropriation, tuition and other student (IPRA) or Republic Act 8371[9] in 1997, it provided in Section 56 that property
fees, private endowments and gifts, and earnings from rights within the ancestral domains already existing and/or vested upon its
miscellaneous sources. It was in this same spirit that effectivity shall be recognized and respected. In this case, ownership over
President Garcia issued Proclamation No. 476, the subject lands had been vested in CMU as early as 1958. Consequently,
withdrawing from sale or settlement and reserving for transferring the lands in 2003 to the indigenous peoples around the area is
the Mindanao Agricultural College (forerunner of the not in accord with the IPRA. 
CMU) a land reservation of 3,080 hectares as its future
campus. It was set up in Bukidnon, in the hinterlands of Furthermore, the land registration court considered the claims of
Mindanao, in order that it can have enough resources several tribes belonging to the areas cultural communities in the course of
and wide open spaces to grow as an agricultural the proceedings for the titling of the lands in CMUs name. Indeed, eventually,
educational institution, to develop and train future only 3,080 hectares were titled in CMUs name under OCTs 0-160, 0-161 and
farmers of Mindanao and help attract settlers to that part 0-162. More than 300 hectares were acknowledged to be in the possession
of the country. of and subject to the claims of those tribes.

xxxx WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the petition, SETS ASIDE the

March 14, 2008 decision and September 22, 2008 resolution of the Court of
The education of the youth and agrarian reform Appeals in CA-G.R. SP 85456, and DECLARES Presidential Proclamation
are admittedly among the highest priorities in the 310 as null and void for being contrary to law and public policy.
government socio-economic programs. In this case,
neither need give way to the other. Certainly, there must SO ORDERED.
still be vast tracts of agricultural land in Mindanao
outside the CMU land reservation which can be made

Human Rights Law (Rights of Indigenous People) Page 10 of 174

[3] the IPRA, the NCIP shall still have jurisdiction over such claims and disputes even if
the parties involved do not belong to the same ICC/IP group.
EN BANC
Same; Same; Same; Limited Jurisdiction; Limited or special jurisdiction is that
April 18, 2017 which is confined to particular causes or which can be exercised only under
limitations and circumstances prescribed by the statute.—Jurisdiction over the
G.R. No. 181284 subject matter is conferred by the Constitution or by law. A court of general
jurisdiction has the power or authority to hear and decide cases whose subject matter
does not fall within the exclusive original jurisdiction of any court, tribunal or body
LO LOY UNDURAN, BARANGAY CAPTAIN ROMEO PACANA, NESTOR exercising judicial or quasi-judicial function. In contrast, a court of limited
MACAPAYAG, RUPERTO DOGIA, JIMMY TALINO, ERMELITO ANGEL, jurisdiction, or a court acting under special powers, has only the jurisdiction
PETOY BESTO, VICTORINO ANGEL, RUEL BOLING, JERMY ANGEL, expressly delegated. An administrative agency, acting in its quasi-judicial capacity,
BERTING SULOD, RIO BESTO, BENDIJO SIMBALAN, and MARK is a tribunal of limited jurisdiction which could wield only such powers that are
BRAZIL, Petitioners  specifically granted to it by the enabling statutes. Limited or special jurisdiction is
vs. that which is confined to particular causes or which can be exercised only under
RAMON ABERASTURI, CRISTINA C. LOPEZ, CESAR LOPEZ JR., limitations and circumstances prescribed by the statute.
.DIONISIO A. LOPEZ, MERCEDES L. GASTON, AGNES H. LOPEZ,
EUSEBIO S. LOPEZ, JOSE MARIA S. LOPEZ, ANTON B. ABERASTURI,
MA. RAISSA A. VELEZ, ZOILO ANTONIO A. VELEZ, CRISTINA Same; Same; Same; National Commission on Indigenous Peoples; The National
ABERASTURI, EDUARDO LOPEZ, JR., ROSARIO S. LOPEZ, JUAN S. Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) shall have jurisdiction over claims and
LOPEZ, CESAR ANTHONY R. LOPEZ, VENANCIO L. GASTON, disputes involving rights of Indigenous Cultural Communities/Indigenous Peoples
ROSEMARIE S. LOPEZ, JAY A. ASUNCION, NICOLO ABE RAS TURI, (ICCs/IPs) only when they arise between or among parties belonging to the same
LISA A. ASUNCION, INEZ A. VERAY, HERNAN A. ASUNCION, ICC/IP group because of the qualifying provision under Section 66 of the Indigenous
ASUNCION LOPEZ, THOMAS A. VELEZ, LUIS ENRIQUE VELEZ, Peoples’ Rights Act (IPRA) that “no such dispute shall be brought to the NCIP
ANTONIO H. LOPEZ, CHARLES H. LOPEZ, ANA L. ZAYCO, PILAR L. unless the parties have exhausted all remedies provided under their customary
QUIROS, CRISTINA L. PICAZO, RENATO SANTOS, GERALDINE laws.”—As held in the main decision, the NCIP shall have jurisdiction over claims
AGUIRRE, MARIA CARMENCITA T. LOPEZ, and as represented by and disputes involving rights of ICCs/IPs only when they arise between or among
attorney-in-fact RAMON ABERASTURI, Respondents parties belonging to the same ICC/IP group because of the qualifying provision
under Section 66 of the IPRA that “no such dispute shall be brought to the NCIP
unless the parties have exhausted all remedies provided under their customary laws.”
RESOLUTION
Bearing in mind that the primary purpose of a proviso is to limit or restrict the
general language or operation of the statute, and that what determines whether a
Indigenous People; Indigenous Cultural Communities; Jurisdiction; The ponencia clause is a proviso is the legislative intent, the Court stated that said qualifying
has held that pursuant to Section 66 of the Indigenous Peoples’ Right Act (IPRA), provision requires the presence of two conditions before such claims and disputes
the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) shall have jurisdiction over may be brought before the NCIP, i.e., exhaustion of all remedies provided under
claims and disputes involving rights of Indigenous Cultural Communities/Indi customary laws, and the Certification issued by the Council of Elders/Leaders who
genous Peoples (ICCs/IPs) only when they arise between or among parties participated in the attempt to settle the dispute that the same has not been resolved.
belonging to the same ICC/IP group.— The ponencia has held that pursuant to The Court thus noted that the two conditions cannot be complied with if the parties
Section 66 of the IPRA, the NCIP shall have jurisdiction over claims and disputes to a case either (1) belong to different ICC/IP groups which are recognized to have
involving rights of ICCs/IPs only when they arise between or among parties their own separate and distinct customary laws, or (2) if one of such parties was a
belonging to the same ICC/IP group. When such claims and disputes arise between non-ICC/IP member who is neither bound by customary laws or a Council of
or among parties who do not belong to the same ICC/IP group, the case shall fall Elders/Leaders, for it would be contrary to the principles of fair play and due process
under the jurisdiction of the regular courts, instead of the NCIP. Thus, even if the for parties who do not belong to the same ICC/IP group to be subjected to its own
real issue involves dispute over a land which appear to be located within the distinct customary laws and Council of Elders/Leaders. In which case, the Court
ancestral domain of an ICC/IP, it is not the NCIP but the RTC which has the power ruled that the regular courts shall have jurisdiction, and that the NCIP’s quasi-
to hear, try and decide the case. In exceptional cases under Sections 52, 54 and 62 of judicial jurisdiction is, in effect, limited to cases where the opposing parties belong
to the same ICC/IP group.

Human Rights Law (Rights of Indigenous People) Page 11 of 174

Courts; Jurisdiction; Concurrent Jurisdiction; Concurrent or coordinate jurisdiction traditions and institutions.—The NCIP has primary jurisdiction over these cases even
is that which is “exercised by different courts at the same time over the same subject if one of the parties is a non-ICC/IP, or where the opposing parties are members of
matter and within the same territory, and wherein litigants may in the first instance different ICCs/IPs groups. Indeed, the questions involved in said cases demand the
resort to either court indifferently, that of several different tribunals, each exercise of sound administrative discretion requiring special knowledge, experience,
authorized to  deal with the same subject matter, and when a proceeding in respect and services of the NCIP to determine technical and intricate matters of fact. No less
of a certain subject matter can be brought in any one of several different courts, they than the IPRA states that the NCIP is the primary government agency responsible for
are said to have concurrent jurisdiction.”—Concurrent or coordinate jurisdiction is the formulation and implementation of policies, plans and programs to promote and
that which is “exercised by different courts at the same time over the same subject protect the rights and wellbeing of the ICCs/IPs and the recognition of their ancestral
matter and within the same territory, and wherein litigants may in the first instance domain as well as their rights thereto, with due regard to their beliefs, customs,
resort to either court indifferently, that of several different tribunals, each authorized traditions and institutions. At this juncture, it is not amiss to state that the NCIP’s
to deal with the same subject matter, and when a proceeding in respect of a certain decision shall be appealable to the Court of Appeals by way of a petition for review
subject matter can be brought in any one of several different courts, they are said to under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.
have concurrent jurisdiction.” While courts of concurrent jurisdiction are courts of
equal dignity as to matters concurrently cognizable, neither having supervisory Same; Same; Same; As a matter of fair play and due process, such parties cannot be
power over process from the other, the rule is that the court which first takes compelled to comply with the two (2) conditions before such disputes may be
cognizance of an action over which it has jurisdiction and power to afford complete brought before the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) under
relief has the exclusive right to dispose of the controversy without interference from Section 66 of the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act (IPRA), since Indigenous
other courts of concurrent jurisdiction in which similar actions are subsequently Peoples/Indigenous Cultural Communities (IPs/ICCs) are recognized to have their
instituted between the same parties seeking similar remedies and involving the same own separate and distinct customary laws and Council of Elders/Leaders.—It is
questions. Such rule is referred to as the principle of priority or the rule of exclusive inevitable that disputes will arise involving the above stated contentious areas/issues,
concurrent jurisdiction. Although comity is sometimes a motive for the courts to and affecting the rights of parties who are non-IPs or those who belong to different
abide by the priority principle, it is a legal duty of a court to abide by such principle ICCs/IPs groups. As a matter of fair play and due process, however, such parties
to reduce the possibility of the conflicting exercise of concurrent jurisdiction, cannot be compelled to comply with the two conditions before such disputes may be
especially to reduce the possibility that a case involving the same subject matter and brought before the NCIP under Section 66 of the IPRA, since IPs/ICCs are
the same parties is simultaneously acted on in more than one court. recognized to have their own separate and distinct customary laws and Council of
Elders/Leaders. Hence, the Court cannot sustain the view that the NCIP shall have
Same; Same; Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction; Words and Phrases; Primary exclusive and original jurisdiction over all claims and disputes involving rights of
jurisdiction is the power and authority vested by the Constitution or by statute upon ICCs/IPs. Moreover, having in mind the principle that rules and regulations issued
an administrative body to act upon a matter by virtue of its specific competence.— by administrative bodies to interpret the law which they are entrusted to enforce,
Primary jurisdiction is the power and authority vested by the Constitution or by have the force and effect of law, and are entitled to great respect, the Court cannot
statute upon an administrative body to act upon a matter by virtue of its specific ignore that Sections 14 and 16 of the Joint DAR-DENR LRA-NCIP Administrative
competence. Given that the provisions of the enabling statute are the yardsticks by Order provide for the proper forum where the contentious areas/issues involve lands
which the Court would measure the quantum of quasi-judicial powers that an with prior and vested property rights.
administrative agency may exercise, as defined in the enabling act of such agency, it
is apt to underscore the provisions of the IPRA which invest primary jurisdiction Civil Law; Property; The “property rights” referred to in Section 56 of the
over claims and disputes involving rights of ICCs/IP groups to the NCIP, as the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act (IPRA) belong to those acquired by individuals,
primary government agency responsible for the recognition of their ancestral domain whether indigenous or nonindigenous peoples, as said provision makes no
and rights thereto. distinction as to the ethnic origin of the ownership of these rights.—Note that the
“property rights” referred to in Section 56 of the IPRA belong to those acquired by
Indigenous People; National Commission on Indigenous Peoples; Jurisdiction; No individuals, whether indigenous or nonindigenous peoples, as said provision makes
less than the Indigenous People’s Rights Act (IPRA) of 1997 states that the National no distinction as to the ethnic origin of the ownership of these rights. Considering the
Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) is the primary government agency rule on statutory construction that courts should not distinguish where the law does
responsible for the formulation and implementation of policies, plans and programs not do so, the IPRA thus recognizes and respects “vested rights” regardless of
to promote and protect the rights and wellbeing of the Indigenous Cultural whether they pertain to IPs or non-IPs, and it only requires that these “property
Communities/Indigenous Peoples (ICCs/IPs) and the recognition of their ancestral rights” already exist and/or vested upon its effectivity. On petitioners’ assertion that
domain as well as their rights thereto, with due regard to their beliefs, customs, Section 72 of the IPRA negates the ruling that the NCIP has jurisdiction only over

Human Rights Law (Rights of Indigenous People) Page 12 of 174

claims and disputes under Sections 52, 54, and 62 thereof, even if the parties Same; Same; Same; Under Section 66 of the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act (IPRA),
involved do not belong to the same ICC/IP, the Court finds the same as misplaced. the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) shall have limited
jurisdiction over claims and disputes involving rights of Indigenous
Indigenous People; Indigenous People’s Rights Act; Under Section 72 of the Peoples/Indigenous Cultural Communities (IPs/ICCs) only when they arise between
Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act (IPRA), any person who commits violation of any of or among parties belonging to the same ICC/IP group; but if such claims and
the provisions of the IPRA may be punished either (1) in accordance with the disputes arise between or among parties who do not belong to the same ICC/IP
customary laws of the Indigenous Cultural Communities/Indigenous Peoples group, the proper regular courts shall have jurisdiction.—On a final note, the Court
(ICCs/IPs) concerned, provided that the penalty shall not be a cruel, degrading or restates that under Section 66 of the IPRA, the NCIP shall have limited jurisdiction
inhumane punishment, and that neither death penalty nor excessive fines shall be over claims and disputes involving rights of IPs/ICCs only when they arise between
imposed; or (2) upon conviction, by imprisonment of not less than nine (9) months or among parties belonging to the same ICC/IP group; but if such claims and
but not more than twelve (12) years, or a fine of not less than one hundred thousand disputes arise between or among parties who do not belong to the same ICC/IP
pesos (P100,000.00) nor more than five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00), or group, the proper regular courts shall have jurisdiction. However, under Sections
both such fine and imprisonment upon the discretion of the court.—Note that under 52(h) and 53, in relation to Section 62 of the IPRA, as well as Section 54, the NCIP
Section 72 of the IPRA, any person who commits violation of any of the provisions shall have primary jurisdiction over adverse claims and border disputes arising from
of the IPRA may be punished either (1) in accordance with the customary laws of the the delineation of ancestral domains/lands, and cancellation of fraudulently-issued
ICCs/IPs concerned, provided that the penalty shall not be a cruel, degrading or CADTs, regardless of whether the parties are non ICCs/IPs, or members of different
inhumane punishment, and that neither death penalty nor excessive fines shall be ICCs/IPs groups, as well as violations of ICCs/IPs rights under Section 72 of the
imposed; or (2) upon conviction, by imprisonment of not less than 9 months but not IPRA where both parties belong to the same ICC/IP group.
more than 12 years, or a fine of not less than P100,000.00 nor more than
P500,000.00, or both such fine and imprisonment upon the discretion of the court. PERALTA, J.:
Again, it would be contrary to the principles of fair play and due process for those
parties who do not belong to the same ICC/IP group to be subjected to its separate For resolution are petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration and Supplemental
and distinct customary laws, and to be punished in accordance therewith. The Court Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's en bane  Decision dated October
thus rules that the NCIP shall have primary jurisdiction over violations of IPRA 20, 2015, the dispositive portion of which states:
provisions only when they arise between or among parties belonging to the same
ICC/IP group. When the parties belong to different ICC/IP group or where one of the WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the Court of Appeals Decision
parties is a non-ICC/IP, jurisdiction over such violations shall fall under the proper dated August 17, 2006, and its Resolution dated July 4, 2007, in CA-G.R. SP
Regional Trial Court. No. 00204-MIN, are AFFIRMED.

Same; National Commission on Indigenous Peoples; Jurisdiction; Even as Section SO ORDERED.

66 grants jurisdiction to the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP)
over claims and disputes involving rights of Indigenous Cultural
Communities/Indigenous Peoples (ICCs/IPs), it is required that the opposing parties In their Motion for Reconsideration, petitioners maintain that it is the National
are both ICCs/IPs who have exhausted all their remedies under their customs and Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP), not the regular courts, which
customary law before bringing their claim and dispute to the NCIP.—There is also has jurisdiction over disputes and controversies involving ancestral domain of
no merit in petitioners’ argument that the Court’s interpretation of the NCIP’s the Indigenous Cultural Communities (JCCs) and Indigenous
jurisdiction under Section 66 of the IPRA runs counter to its purpose to protect the Peoples (IPs) regardless of the parties involved.
rights, customs, customary laws and cultural integrity of the ICCs/IPs. To stress,
even as Section 66 grants jurisdiction to the NCIP over claims and disputes involving Petitioners argue that the rule that jurisdiction over the subject matter is
rights of ICCs/IPs, it is required that the opposing parties are both ICCs/IPs who determined by the allegations of the complaint, admits of exceptions and can
have exhausted all their remedies under their customs and customary law before be relaxed in view of the special and unique circumstances obtaining this
bringing their claim and dispute to the NCIP. And, in some instances that the regular case, i.e.,  the actual issue, as shown by their motion to dismiss, involves a
courts may exercise jurisdiction over cases involving rights of ICCs/IPs, the conflicting claim over an ancestral domain. They seek to apply by analogy
governing law for such disputes necessarily include the IPRA and the rights the law the principles inlgrzacio v. CF! Bulacan,  1 Ferrer v. Villamor,2 Nonan v.
bestows on ICCs/IPs. Plan,3among others, where it was held that the allegations of tenancy by the
defendant in its answer may be used in the determination of the jurisdiction

Human Rights Law (Rights of Indigenous People) Page 13 of 174

of the court, and if indeed tenancy exists, the same should be lodged before NCIP's jurisdiction under Sections 46(g),8 62,9 69,10 7011 and 7212 of the
the Court of Industrial Relations (now the Department of Agrarian Reform IPRA.
and Adjudication Board).
Petitioners further point out that Section 72 of the IPRA permits the
They also invoke Leoquinco v. Canada DryBottling Co.,  4 and Mindanao imposition of penalties under customary law even to non-IPs, and does not
Rapid Co. v. Omandam5  where it was ruled that if allegations of labor distinguish as to whom customary law may apply. According to them, any
disputes or employer-employee relations are alleged by defendants in their natural or juridical person, IPs or not, found to have violated provisions of
answer and the same is shown to exist, the Industrial Court (now the then IPRA, particularly those identified in Section 72, may be dealt with by
National Labor Relations Commission) takes cognizance of the case. imposing penalties found in the corresponding customary laws. They submit
that Section 72 does not require as a condition precedent familiarity of the
Petitioners also argue that the Court's interpretation of Section 666 of person to be penalized to the existing customary law of the affected
Republic Act No. 8371, or the Indigenous Peoples' Rights Act of community nor does it require for the said customary law to have been
1997," (JPRA)to the effect that the NCIP shall have jurisdiction over claims published to allow for its imposition to any person who committed the
and disputes involving rights of ICCs/IPs only when they arise between or violation. Thus, they assert that Section 72 negates the ruling that NCIP's
among parties belonging to the same ICC/IP group, is contrary to law and the jurisdiction applies only to Sections 52, 54, 62 and 66, insofar as the dispute
Constitution. They posit that the State recognizes that each ICC or IP group involves opposing parties belonging to the same tribe.
is, and has been since time immemorial, governed by their own customary
laws, culture, traditions and governance systems, and has the right to Petitioners likewise aver that Sections 46(g), 62, 69, 70 and 72 of the IPRA,
preserve and develop them as they may deem fit and necessary. Thus, each taken together and in harmony with each other, clearly show that conflicts
ICC and IP group did not, and does not, need an act of Congress such as the and disputes within and between ICCs/IPs are first under the jurisdiction of
IPRA, to enforce their customary laws among themselves and their whatever their customary law provides, but disputes that are not covered by
respective communities, and more so in further developing them. their customary laws, either between different ICCs/IPs or between an,
ICC/IP and a non-IP are also within the jurisdiction within the NCIP.
Petitioners insist that claims and disputes within ICCs/IPs and/or between Petitioners invoke The City Government of Baguio
ICCs/IPs shall be resolved using customary laws, consistent with the State City v. Masweng13 and Baguio Regreening Movement, Inc. v. Masweng14 to
policy under the Constitution and the IPRA to recognize, respect and protect support their theory that NCIP has original and exclusive jurisdiction over a
the customs, traditions and cultural integrity and institutions of the ICCs/IPs. case involving a dispute or controversy over ancestral domains even if one of
They claim that cases of disputes between IPs within the same ICC/IP group the parties is a non-ICC/IP or does not belong to the same ICC/IP group.
are always resolved completely and with finality in accordance with their
customary laws and practice, hence, the interpretation: that the NCIP shall In essence, petitioners argue that (1) the IPRA was not enacted to protect an
have jurisdiction in cases of disputes among IPs within the same ICC/IP IP from another IP whether from the same or different group, because they
group is not only absurd but unconstitutional. They aver that even disputes have their own means of resolving a dispute arising between them, through
between different ICCs/IPs shall also (all within the jurisdiction of whatever customary laws or compromises, as had been done for a very long time even
their customary laws and practice provide since Section 657 of the IPRA before the passage of the law; (2) the IPRA is meant to address the greater
does not so distinguish. They presume that after coexisting for centuries in prejudice that IPs experience from non-IPs or the majority group; and (3) the
adjacent ancestral domains, some of the ICCs/IPs have developed their own limited interpretation of Section 66 of the IPRA to its minute details without
indigenous means of settling disputes between other ICCs/IPs. looking into the intent of the law will result in an unimaginable situation where
the jurisdiction of the NCIP is only limited to those where both parties belong
With respect to unresolved claims and disputes between different ICCs/IP to the same ICCs/IPs; and (4) the application. of the provisions of the IPRA,
groups and between ICCs/IPs and non-IPs, petitioners theorize that they fall as a national law and a landmark social justice legislation, is encompassing
under the jurisdiction of the NCIP pursuant to the provisions of the IPRA. and not limited to a particular' group,.i.e.,  ICCs/IPs.
They cite the concurring opinion of Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. that the
second and third parts of Section 66 of the law only provide for a condition In their Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration, petitioners stress that (1)
precedent that is merely procedural and does not limit the NCIP jurisdiction the NCIP and not the regular courts has jurisdiction over the case under the
over disputes involving the rights of ICC/IPs. They contend that such principle that jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case is determined by
interpretation is consistent with other provisions of the IPRA which lay out the allegations in the complaint, and pursuant to jurisprudence allowing

Human Rights Law (Rights of Indigenous People) Page 14 of 174

exemptions thereto; (2) the jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case concise statement of the ultimate facts constituting the plaintiffs cause of
rests upon the NCIP as conferred by the IPRA; (3) the IPRA is a social action." It cannot be acquired through a waiver or enlarged by the mission of
legislation that seeks to protect the IPs not so much from themselves or the parties or conferred by acquiescence of the court. 17
fellow IPs but more from non-IPs; (4) the· IPRA created the NCIP as the
agency of government mandated to realize the rights of IPs; In his Separate Opinion, Justice Arturo D. Brion also concurred with
the ponencia 's  conclusion that the RTC has jurisdiction over the case
(5) in the exercise of its mandate, the NCIP was created as a quasi-judicial because (1) the CA correctly ruled that the RTC's February 14, 2005 Order is
body with jurisdiction to resolve claims and disputes involving the rights of not tainted with grave abuse of discretion, (2) jurisdiction over the subject
IPs; (6) the jurisdiction of the NCIP in resolving claims· and disputes matter is determined by law and the allegations of the complaint; and (3) the
involving the rights of IPs is not limited to IPs of the same tribe; (7) NCIP's jurisdiction over disputes is limited to cases where both parties are
harmonizing the related provisions of the IPRA supports the argument that members of the same ICC/IP group.
the NCIP has jurisdiction over cases involving IP rights whether or not the
parties are IPs or non-ICCs/IPs; (8) the NCIP as quasi-judicial agency In his Concurring Opinion, Justice Jose Portugal Perez agreed with
provides IPs mechanisms for access to justice in the fulfillment of the State's the ponencia  that jurisdiction over the original and amended
obligations to respect, protect and fulfill IP's human rights; (9) the NCIP has complaint, accion reivindicatoria and injunction, correctly lies with the RTC,
the competence and skill that would greatly advance the administration of based on the principle that jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is
justice with respect to protection and fulfillment of ICC/IP rights/human rights; conferred by law and determined by the allegations in the complaint.
and (10) recognition and enforcement of customary laws and indigenous
justice systems fulfill the State's obligations as duty bearers in the In his Concurring Opinion, Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen likewise voted to
enforcement of human rights. dismiss the petition for review on certiorari,  and to affirm the assailed
decision and resolution of the CA. He concurred with the ponencia  in holding
While the petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration and the Supplemental that respondents' action, alleged to be involving a claim over the ancestral
Motion for Reconsideration fail to persuade, there is a need to clarify the domain of an ICC/IP, does not fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the
NCIP's jurisdiction over claims and disputes involving rights of ICC/IPs. NCIP.

The Court finds no merit in petitioners' contention that jurisdiction of the court In sum, the Court finds no substantial argument in petitioners' motions for
over the subject matter of a case is not merely based on the allegations of reconsideration to justify a reversal of its ruling that jurisdiction over the
the complaint in certain cases where the actual issues are evidenced by subject matter of respondents' original and amended complaint based on the
subsequent pleadings. It is well settled that the jurisdiction of the court allegations therein lies with the RTC.
cannot be made to depend on the defenses raised by the defendant in the
answer or a motion to dismiss; otherwise, the question of jurisdiction would The crucial issue in this case, however, revolves around the complex nature
depend almost entirely on the defendant. 15 Suffice it also to state that the of the jurisdiction of the NCIP, as shown by the different but well reasoned
Court is unanimous16 in denying the petition for review on certiorari on the opinions of the Associate Justices concerned vis-a-vis the arguments in
ground that the CA correctly ruled that the subject matter of the original and petitioners' motions for reconsideration.
amended complaint based on the allegations therein is within the jurisdiction
of the RTC.
To recall, the ponencia  has held that pursuant to Section 66 of the IPRA, the
NCIP shall have jurisdiction over claims and disputes involving rights of
In his Concurring Opinion, Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. concurred with ICCs/IPs only when they arise between or among parties belonging to the
the ponencia  that the RTC has jurisdiction over the case: same ICC/IP group. When such claims and disputes arise between or among
parties who do not belong to the same ICC/IP group, the case shall fall under
Both original and amended complaints, accion reivindicatoria  and injunction, the jurisdiction of the regular courts, instead of the NCIP. Thus, even if the
respectively, are incapable of pecuniary estimation; thus falling within the real issue involves dispute over a land which appear to be located within the
jurisdiction of the R TC. As correctly pointed out by ancestral domain of an ICC/IP, it is not the NCIP but the RTC which has the
the ponencia, ''jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is conferred by power to hear, try and decide the case. In exceptional cases1 under Sections
law and determined by the allegations in the complaint which comprise a 52, 54 and 62 of the IPRA, the NCIP shall still have jurisdiction over such

Human Rights Law (Rights of Indigenous People) Page 15 of 174

claims and disputes even if the parties involved do not belong to the same Meanwhile, in Lim v. Gamosa,  18 which was penned by Justice Perez, the
ICC/IP group. Court held that the limited jurisdiction of the NCIP is at best concurrent with
that of the regular trial courts:
Justice Velasco's position is that the NCIP has jurisdiction over all claims
and. disputes involving rights of ICCs/IPs, regardless of whether or not they As previously adverted to, we are not unaware of The City Government of
belong to the same IP/IC group. According to him, all cases and disputes Baguio City, et al. v. Atty. Masweng, et al. and similar cases where we made
where both parties are ICCs/IPs fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the an implicit affirmation of the NCIP's jurisdiction over cases where one of the
NCIP; all cases and disputes where one of the parties is a non-ICC/IP are parties are non-ICCs/IPs. Such holding, however, and all the succeeding
covered by the jurisdiction of the regular courts regardless of the subject exercises of jurisdiction by the NCIP, cannot tie our hands and declare a
matter even if it involves ancestral domains or lands of ICCs/IPs; and regular grant of primary and/or original jurisdiction, where there is no such explicit
courts have jurisdiction over cases and disputes as long as there are parties conferment by the IPRA. At best, the limited jurisdiction of the NCIP is
who are non-ICCs/IPs. concurrent with that of the regular trial courts in the exercise of the latter's
general jurisdiction extending to all controversies brought before them within
For Justice Brion, the IPRA's intent is neither to grant the NCIP sole the legal bounds of rights and remedies. 19
jurisdiction over disputes involving ICCs/IPs, nor to disregard the rights of
non-ICCs/IPs under national laws. However, he stresses that the NCIP Guided by the foregoing ruling, the Court held in Begnaen v. Spouses
maintains primary jurisdiction over: (1) adverse claims and border disputes Caligtan20  that the NCIP-Regional Hearing Office (RHO), being the agency
arising from delineation of ancestral domains/lands; (2) cancellation of that first took cognizance of petitioner-appellant's complaint, has jurisdiction
fraudulently issued Certificate of Ancestral Domain Titles (CADTs); and (3) over the same to the exclusion of the MCTC. In said case where both parties
disputes and violations of ICCs/IPs rights between members of the same are members of the same ICC and the subject of their dispute was an
ICC/IP group. ancestral land, petitioner-appellant first invoked the NCIP's jurisdiction by
filing with the RHO his complaint against respondents for "Land Dispute and
Justice Perez opines that neither does the IPRA confer original and exclusive Enforcement of Rights." When the RHO dismissed the complaint without
jurisdiction to the NCIP over all claims and disputes involving rights of prejudice for his failure to first bring the matter for settlement before the
ICCs/IPs. He adds that the NCIP is only vested with jurisdiction to determine Council of Elders as mandated by the IPRA, petitioner-appellant filed instead
the rights of ICCs/IPs based on customs and customary law in a given a complaint for forcible entry before the MCTC. Aside from its ruling that the
controversy against another ICC/IP, but not the applicable law for each and NCIP has excluded the MCTC of its jurisdiction over the same subject
every kind of ICC/IP controversy even against an opposing non-ICC/ IP. He matter~ the Court said that petitioner is estopped from belatedly impugning
concludes that under Section 66 of the IPRA, the jurisdiction of the NCIP is the jurisdiction of the NCIP-RHO after initiating a complaint before it and
limited, and confined only to cases involving rights of IPs/ICCs, where both receiving an adverse ruling.
such parties belong to the same ICC/IP group.
Based on the diverse views on the nature and scope of the NCIP's
Justice Leonen is of the view that the jurisdiction of the NCIP is limited to jurisdiction over claims and disputes involving the rights of ICCs/IPs, the
disputes where both parties are members of ICC/IP group and come from the recent jurisprudence21 on the matter, as well as petitioners' arguments in their
same ethnolinguistic group. He states that the requirements for the proper motions for reconsideration, the Court is confronted again with the issue of
exercise of the NCIP's jurisdiction over a dispute, pursuant to Section 66 of whether the NCIP's jurisdiction is limited to cases where both parties are
the IPRA, are as follows: (1) the claim or dispute must involve the rights of ICCs/IPs, or primary and concurrent with regular courts, and/or original and
ICCs/IPs; (2) both parties must belong to the same ICC/IP group; (3) these exclusive to the exclusion of said courts, on all matters involving the rights of
parties must have exhausted remedies under their ICC/IP's customary laws; ICCs/IPs.
and (4) compliance with this requirement of exhausting remedies under
customary laws must be evidenced by a certification issued by the Council of After a circumspect review of the relevant laws and jurisprudence, the Court
Elders/Leaders who participated in the attempt to settle the dispute, to the maintains that the jurisdiction of the NCIP under Section 66 of the IPRA is
effect that the dispute has not been resolved. limited to claims and disputes involving rights of IPs/ICCs where both parties
belong to the same ICC/IP group, but if such claims and disputes arise
between or among parties who do not belong to the same ICC/IP group, the
proper regular courts shall have jurisdiction.

Human Rights Law (Rights of Indigenous People) Page 16 of 174

To begin with, jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by the predicated upon the condition that a substantial and an irreconcilable conflict
Constitution or by law. A court of general jurisdiction has the power or must be found in existing and prior Acts. The two laws refer to different
authority to hear and decide cases whose subject matter does not fall within subject matters, albeit the IPRA includes the jurisdiction of the NCIP. As
the exclusive original jurisdiction of any court, tribunal or body exercising such, resolution of conflicts between parties who are not both ICCs/IPs may
judicial or quasi-judicial function. 22 In contrast, a court of limited jurisdiction, still fall within the general jurisdiction of regular courts dependent on the
or a court acting under special powers, has only the jurisdiction expressly allegations in the complaint or petition and the status of the parties.
delegated.23An administrative agency, acting in its quasi-judicial capacity, is a
tribunal of limited jurisdiction which could wield only such powers that are There is no clear irreconcilable conflict from the investiture of jurisdiction to
specifically granted to it by the enabling statutes. 24 Limited or special the NCIP in instances where, among others, all the parties are ICCs/IPs and
jurisdiction is that which is confined to particular causes or which can be the claim or dispute involves their rights, and the specific wording of Batas
exercised only under limitations and circumstances prescribed by the Pambansa Bilang 129, Sections 19-21 on the exclusive and original
statute.25 jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts, and Sections 33-35 on the exclusive·
and original jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial
As held in the main decision, the NCIP shall have jurisdiction over claims and Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts.
disputes involving rights of ICCs/IPs only when they arise between or among
parties belonging to the same ICC/IP group because of the qualifying We should not, and cannot, adopt the theory of implied repeal except upon a
provision under Section 66 of the IPRA that "no such dispute shall be brought clear and unequivocal expression of the will of the Congress, which is not
to the NCIP unless the parties have exhausted all remedies provided under manifest from the language of Section 66 of the IPRA which, to reiterate:
their customary laws." Bearing in mind that the primary purpose of (1) did not use the words "primary" and/or "original and exclusive" to
a proviso  is to limit or restrict the general language or operation of the describe the jurisdiction of the NCIP over "all claims and disputes
statute,26 and that what determines whether a clause is a proviso is the involving rights of ICCs/IPs"and (2) contained a proviso requiring
legislative intent,27 the Court stated that said qualifying provision requires the certification that the parties have exhausted their remedies provided under
presence of two conditions before such claims and disputes may be brought customary laws.
before the NCIP, i.e., exhaustion of all remedies provided under customary
laws, and the Certification issued by the· Council of Elders/Leaders who We are quick to clarify herein that even as we declare that in some instances
participated in the attempt to settle the dispute that the same has not been the regular courts may exercise jurisdiction over cases which involve rights of
resolved. The Court thus noted that the two conditions cannot be complied ICCs/IPs, the governing law for these kinds of disputes necessarily include
with if the parties to a case either (1) belong to different ICCs/IP groups the IPRA and the rights the law bestows on ICCs/IPs.
which are recognized to have their own separate and distinct customary
laws, or (2) if one of such parties was a non-ICC/IP member who is neither
bound by customary laws or a Council of Elders/Leaders, for it would .be In Begnaen v. Spouses Caligtan,  29 the Court affirmed and emphasized I the
contrary to the principles of fair play and due process for parties who do not afore-quoted ruling in Lim v. Gamosa30where it struck down as void atj
belong to the same ICC/IP group to be subjected to its own distinct administrative rule that expanded the jurisdiction of the NCIP beyond the
customary laws and Council of Elders/Leaders. In which case, the Court boundaries of the IPRA.
ruled that the regular courts shall have jurisdiction, and that the NCIP's quasi-
judicial jurisdiction is, in effect, limited to cases where the opposing parties However, exception must be taken to the pronouncement
belong to the same ICC/IP group. in Begnaen  v. Spouses Caligtan31 that "[a]t best, the limited jurisdiction of the
NCIP is concurrent .with that of the regular trial courts in the exercise of the
That the NCIP's quasi-judicial jurisdiction is limited can be further gathered latter's general jurisdiction extending to all controversies brought before them
from Justice Perez' discussion in Lim  v. Gamosa,28 thus: within the legal bounds of rights and remedies."

Section 83 of the IPRA, the repealing clause, only specifies Presidential Concurrent or coordinate jurisdiction is that which is "exercised by different
Decree No. 410, Executive Order Nos. 122B and 122C as expressly courts at the same time over the same subject matter and within the same
repealed. While the same section does state that "all other laws, decrees, territory, and wherein litigants may in the first instance resort to either court
orders, rules and regulations or parts thereof inconsistent with this Act are indifferently, that of several different tribunals, each authorized to deal with
hereby repealed or modified accordingly," such an implied repeal is the same subject matter, and when a proceeding in respect of a certain

Human Rights Law (Rights of Indigenous People) Page 17 of 174

subject matter can be brought in any one of several different courts, they are 1. Section 52(h) of the IPRA anent the power of the NCIP Ancestral Domain
said to have concurrent jurisdiction. "32 While courts of concurrent jurisdiction Office (ADO) to deny application for CADTs, in relation to Section 62,
are courts of equal dignity as to matters concurrently cognizable, neither regarding the power of the NCIP to hear and decide unresolved adverse
having supervisory power over process from the other, 33 the rule is that the claims:
court which first takes cognizance of an action over which it has jurisdiction
and power to afford complete relief has the exclusive right to dispose of the SECTION 52. Delineation Process.  - The identification and delineation of
controversy without interference from other courts of concurrent jurisdiction in ancestral domains shall be done in accordance with the following
which similar actions are subsequently instituted between the same parties procedures:
seeking similar remedies and involving the same questions. 34 Such rule is
referred to as the principle of priority or the rule of exclusive concurrent xxxx
jurisdiction. Although comity is sometimes a motive for the courts to abide by
the priority principle, it is a legal duty of a court to abide by such principle to
reduce the possibility of the conflicting exercise of concurrent jurisdiction, h) Endorsement to NCIP.  - Within fifteen (15) days from publication, and of
especially to reduce the possibility that a case involving the same subject the inspection process, the Ancestral Domains Office shall prepare a report
matter and the same parties is simultaneously acted on in more than one to the NCIP endorsing a favorable action upon a claim that is deemed to
court. 35 have sufficient proof. However, if the proof is deemed insufficient, the
Ancestral Domains Office shall require the submission of additional
evidence: Provided, That the Ancestral Domains Office shall teject any claim
After a careful perusal of the provisions of the entire IPRA, the Court discerns that is deemed patently false or fraudulent after inspection and
nothing therein that expressly or impliedly confers concurrent jurisdiction to verification: Provided, further,  That in case of rejection, the Ancestral
the NCIP and the regular courts over claims and disputes involving rights of Domains Office shall give the applicant due notice, copy furnished all
ICCs/IPs between and among parties belonging to the same ICC/IP group. concerned, containing the grounds for denial. The denial shall be appealable
What the Court finds instead is that the NCIP's limited jurisdiction is vested to the NCIP: Provided,furthermore, That in cases where there are
under Section 66 of the IPRA, while its primary jurisdiction is bestowed under conflicting claims among ICCs/IPs on the boundaries of ancestral
Section 52(h) and 53, in relation to Section 62 of the IPRA, and Section 54 domain claims, the Ancestral Domains Office shall cause the
thereof. contending parties to meet and assist them in coming up with a
preliminary resolution of the conflict, without prejudice to its full
Having discussed why the NCIP's jurisdiction under Section 66 of the IPRA is adjudication according to the section below.
limited, but not concurrent with the regular courts, the Court will now expound
on the NCIP' s primary jurisdiction over claims regardless of whether the XXXX
parties are non-ICCs/IPs, or members of different ICCs/IP groups, namely:(I)
adverse claims and border disputes arising from the delineation of ancestral
domains/lands,(2) cancellation of fraudulently issued CADTs, and (3) SECTION 62. Resolution of Conflicts.  - In cases of conflicting interest, where
disputes and violations of ICCs/IPs rights between members of the same there are adverse claims within the ancestral domains as delineated in the
ICC/IP. survey plan, and which cannot be resolved, the NCIP shall hear and
decide, after notice to the proper parties, the disputes arising from the
delineation of such ancestral domains: Provided, That if thedispute is
Primary jurisdiction is the power and authority vested by the Constitution or between and/or among ICCs/IPs regarding the traditional boundaries of
by statute upon an administrative body to act upon a matter by virtue of its their respective ancestral domains, customary process shall be
specific competence.36 Given that the provisions of the enabling statute are followed. The NCIP shall promulgate the necessary rules and regulations to
the yardsticks by which the Court would measure the quantum of quasi- carry out its adjudicatory functions: Provided, further,  That any decision,
judicial powers that an administrative agency may exercise, as defined in the order, award or ruling of the NCIP on any ancestral domain dispute or on any
enabling act of such agency,37 it is apt to underscore the provisions of the matter pertaining to the application, implementation, enforcement and
IPRA which invest primary jurisdiction over claims and disputes involving interpretation of this Act may be brought for Petition for Review to the Court
rights of ICCs/IP groups to the NCIP, as the primacy government agency of Appeals within fifteen (15) days from receipt of a copy thereof. 39
responsible for the recognition of their ancestral domain and rights thereto: 38

Human Rights Law (Rights of Indigenous People) Page 18 of 174

2. Section 53 on the NCIP-ADO's power to deny applications for CALTs and 3. Section 54 as to the power of the NCIP to resolve fraudulent claims over
on the NCIP's power to grant meritorious claims and resolve conflicting ancestral domains and lands:
claims:
SECTION 54. Fraudulent Claims.  -The Ancestral Domains Office may, upon
SECTION 53. Identification, Delineation and Certification of Ancestral written request from the ICCs/IPs, review existing claims which have been
Lands,.  - fraudulently acquired by any person or community. Any claim found to be
fraudulently acquired by, and issued to, any person or community may
xxxx be cancelled by the NCIP after due notice and hearing of all parties
concerned.41
e) Upon receipt of the applications for delineation and recognition of
ancestral land claims, the Ancestral Domains Office shall cause the As can be gleaned from the foregoing provisions, the NCIP has primary
publication of the application and a copy of each document submitted jurisdiction over these cases even if one of the parties is a non! CC/IP, or
including a translation in the native language of the ICCs/IPs concerned in a where the opposing parties are members of different ICCs/IPs groups.
prominent place therein for at least fifteen (15) days. A copy of the document Indeed, the questions involved in said cases demand the exercise of sound
shall also be posted at the local, provincial, and regional offices of the NCIP administrative discretion requiring special knowledge, experience, and
and shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation once a week for services of the NCIP to determine technical and intricate matters of fact. 42 No
two (2) consecutive weeks to allow other claimants to file opposition thereto less than the IPRA states that the NCIP is the primary government agency
within fifteen (15) days from the date of such publication: Provided, That in responsible for the formulation and implementation of policies, plans and
areas where no such newspaper exists, broadcasting in a radio station will programs to promote and protect the rights and well:-being of the ICCs/IPs
be a valid substitute: Provided,further,  That mere posting shall be deemed and the recognition of their ancestral domain as well as their rights
sufficient if both newspapers and radio station are not available; thereto, 43 with due regard to their beliefs, customs, traditions and
institutions.44 At this juncture, it is not amiss to state that the NCIP's decision
shall be appealable to the Court of Appeals by way of a petition for review
f) Fifteen (15) days after such publication, the Ancestral Domains Office shall
under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.45
investigate and inspect each application, and if found to be meritorious, shall
cause a parcellary survey of the area being claimed. The Ancestral Domains
Office shall reject any claim that is deemed patently false or fraudulent after Meanwhile, the fatal flaw in petitioners' insistence that the NCIP's quasi-
inspection and verification. In case of rejection, the Ancestral Domains Office judicial jurisdiction is exclusive and original, can be gathered from records of
shall give the applicant due notice, copy furnished all concerned, containing the Bicameral Conference Committee cited in Justice Brion's Separate
the grounds for denial. The denial shall be appealable to the NCIP. In case Opinion:
of conflicting claims among individuals or indigenous corporate
claimants, the Ancestral Domains Office shall cause the contending The word "jurisdiction" in the first part of Section 66 is unqualified. Section 66
parties to meet and assist them in coming up with a preliminary (then Section 71) of Senate Bill 1728 was originally worded exclusive and
resolution of the conflict, without prejudice to its full adjudication original jurisdiction.  During the Bicameral Conference, the lower house
according to Sec. 62 of this Act. In all proceedings for the identification or objected to giving the NCIP exclusive and original jurisdiction:
delineation of the ancestral domains as herein provided, the Director of
Lands shall represent the interest of the Republic of the Philippines; and
Sen. Juan Flavier: (Chairman of the Senate There is
Panel) exclusive original.
g) The Ancestral Domains Office shall prepare and submit a report on each And so what do
and every application surveyed and delineated to the NCIP, which shall, in you suggest?
turn, evaluate the report submitted. If the NCIP finds such claim
meritorious, it shall issue a certificate of ancestral land, declaring and ……
certifying the claim of each individual or corporate (family· or clan) Rep. Zapata (Chairman of the Chairman, may I
claimant over ancestral lands.40 Panel for the House of butt in?
Representatives)

Human Rights Law (Rights of Indigenous People) Page 19 of 174

 Sen. Flavier Yes, please. good.
Rep. Zapata This was Sen. Flavier But what he is
considered. The saymg is that ...
original, we were
Rep. Zapata But they may not
willing in the
have the facility
house. But the
"exclusive", we Rep. ___________ Senado na lang.
objected to the
Rep. Zapata Oo, iyong original
word "exclusive"
na lang.
because it would
only be the Sen. Flavier In other words,
commission that it's not only the
would exclude Commission
the court and the that can
Commission may originate it,
not be able to pwedeng
undertake all the magoriginate sa
review courts.
nationwide. And
so we remove Rep. Zapata Or else, we just
the word remove
"exclusive" so "exclusive
that they will original" so that
have original they will say, the
jurisdiction but National will have
with the removal jurisdiction over
of the word claims. So we
"exclusive" that remove both
would mean that "exclusive and
they may bring original".
the case to the Sen. Flavier So what version
ordinary courts you are batting
of justice. for, Mr.
Sen Flavier Without passing Chaorman?
through the Rep. Zapata Just to remove
commission? the word
Rep. Zapata Yes, Anyway, if "exclusive
they go to the original" The
regular courts, Commission wil
they will have to still have
litigate in court, jurisdiction only
because if its that, if the
(sic) exclusive, parties will opt
that would be to go to courts
nationwide. Here

Human Rights Law (Rights of Indigenous People) Page 20 of 174

 there may be not a. Untitled lands being claimed by the ICCs/IPs to be part of their AD/AL
enough courts of which are covered by approved survey plans and also being claimed by the
the commision. DAR and/or the DENR.

Sen. Flavier So we ae going b. Titled lands with registered Certificate of Land Ownership Awards (CLO
to adopt the As),  Emancipation Patents (EPs  ), and Patents within Certificate of Ancestral
senate version Domain Title (CADT)/Certificate of Ancestral Land Title (CALT)/Certificate of
minus the words Ancestral Domain Claim (CADC)/Certificate of Ancestral Land Claim (CALC).
"exclusive
original"?
c. Resource access/development instruments issued by the DENR over
Rep. Zapata Yes, Mr. lands within Ancestral Land/Domain Claims such as, but not limited to,
Chairman, that's Community-Based Forest Management Agreement (CBFMA), Integrated
my proposal Forest Management Agreement (IFMA),  Socialized Forest Management
Sen. Flavier No, problem. Agreement (SIFMA),  Protected Area Community""Based Resources
Okay, approved. Management Agreement (PACBRMA),  Forest Land Grazing Management
Agreement (FLGMA),  Co-Management Agreement, Certificate of
Rep. Zapata xxxx46 Stewardship Contract (CSC), Certificate of Forest Stewardship
Agreement (CFSA),  Wood Processing Plant Permit (WPPP), Special Land
The Bicameral Committee's removal of the words "exclusive and original" Use Permit (SLUP), Private Land Timber Permit (PLTP),  Special Private
mean that the NCIP shares concurrent jurisdiction with the regular courts. Land Timber Permit (SPLTP), and Foreshore Lease
Thus, I agree with the revised ponencia that it would be ultra vires for the Agreement/Permit (FLAIFLP).
NCIP to promulgate rules and regulations stating that it has exclusive
jurisdiction.47 d. Exploration Permit (EP),  Financial or Technical Assistance
Agreement (FTAA);  Mineral Agreement (either Production Sharing, Co-
Another cogent reason why the NCIP's quasi-judicial jurisdiction over claims Production or Joint Venture) issued within CARP-covered areas.
and disputes involving rights of ICCs/IPs under Section 66 of the IPRA
cannot be exclusive and original, is because of the so-called "Contentious e. Reservations, proclamations and other special law-declared areas a
Areas/Issues" identified in the Joint Department of Agriculture-Land portion or the entirety of which is subsequently issued a CADT/CALT.
Registration Authority-Department of Environment and Natural Resources-
National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (DARDENR- LRA- f. Areas with existing and/or vested rights after the registration of the
NCIP) Administrative Order No. 01, Series of 2012. 48 Such contentious CADTs/CAL Ts but for any reason not segregated/excluded.
matters arose in the course of the implementation of the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Law,49 the IPRA, the Public Land Act, 50 and the Land g. Other jurisdictional and operational issues that may arise between and
Registration Act,51 as amended by the Property Registration Decree, 52 which amongst the DAR, the DENR and the NCIP as may be determined by the
created not only issues of overlapping jurisdiction between the DAR, DENR National/Regional/Provincial Joint Committees, as created under Section 19
and NCIP, but also operational issues and conflicting claims in the of the Joint Administrative Order.
implementation of their respective programs.
h. Formal complaints filed by concerned ICCs/IPs or by the NCIP in behalf of
Section 12 of the Joint DAR-DENR-LRA-NCIP Administrative Order defines the ICCs/IPs over those identified titled areas found within the AD/AL.
those contentious areas/issues which are subject of operational issues and
conflicting claims between and among the DAR, the DENR and the NCIP, as
It is inevitable that disputes will arise involving the above-stated contentious
follows:
areas/issues, and affecting the rights of parties who are non-IPs or those
who belong to different ICCs/IPs groups. As a matter of fair play and due
process, however, such parties cannot be compelled to comply with the two
conditions53 before such disputes may be brought before the NCIP under

Human Rights Law (Rights of Indigenous People) Page 21 of 174

Section 66 of the IPRA, since IPs/ICCs are recognized to have their own Note that the "property rights" referred to in Section 56 56 of the IPRA belong
separate and distinct customary laws and Council of Elders/Leaders. Hence, to ·those acquired by individuals, whether indigenous or nonindigenous
the Court cannot sustain the view that the NCIP shall have exclusive and peoples, as said provision makes no distinction as to the ethnic origin of the
original jurisdiction over all claims and disputes involving rights of ICCs/IPs. ownership of these rights. 57 Considering the rule on statutory construction
that courts should not distinguish where the law does not do so, the IPRA
Moreover, having in mind the principle that rules and regulations issued by thus recognizes and respects "vested rights" regardless of whether they
administrative bodies to interpret the law which they are entrusted to enforce, pertain to IPs or non-IPs, and it only requires that these "property rights"
have the force and effect of law, and are entitled to great respect, 54 the Court already exist and/or vested upon its effectivity. 58
cannot ignore that Sections 14 and 16 of the Joint DAR-DENRLRA- NCIP
Administrative Order provide for the proper forum where the contentious On petitioners' assertion that Section 72 59 of the IPRA negates the ruling that
areas/issues involve lands with prior and vested property rights, thus: the NCIP has jurisdiction only over claims and disputes under Sections 52,
54, and 62 thereof, even if the parties involved do not belong to the same
Section 14. Exclusion/Segregation of Lands Covered by Judicially ICC/IP, the Court finds the same as misplaced.
Decreed Titles and Titles Administratively issued by DENR and DAR. In
the delineation and titling of ADs/ALs, the NCIP must exclude and segregate Note that under Section 72 of the IPRA, any person who commits violation of
all lands covered by titles. For this purpose, the registered owner of the land any of the provisions of the IPRA may be punished either(1) in accordance.
may opt to submit to the NCIP a copy of the title of the property to facilitate with the customary laws of the ICCs/IPs concerned, provided that the penalty
segregation or exclusion pursuant to existing guidelines and other pertinent shall not be a cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment, and that neither
issuances . death penalty nor excessive fines shall be imposed; or (2) upon conviction,
by imprisonment of not less than 9 months but not more than 12 years, or a
The ICCs/IPs, however, are not precluded from questioning the validity of fine of not less than ₱100,000.00 nor more than ₱500,000.00, or both such
these titles in a proper forum as hereunder enumerated: fine and imprisonment upon the discretion of the court.1a\^/phi1 Again, it
would be contrary to the principles of fair play and due process for those
parties who do not belong to the same ICC/IP group to be subjected to its
1. DAR Secretary for registered EPs or CLOAs; and
separate and distinct customary laws, and to be punished in accordance
therewith. The Court thus rules that the NCIP shall have primary jurisdiction
2. Regional Trial Court for registered patents/judicially-decreed titles. over violations of IPRA provisions only when they arise between or among
parties belonging to the same ICC/IP group. When the parties belong to
On the other hand, the DAR and DENR shall not process titles pursuant to different ICC/IP group or where one of the parties is a non-ICC/IP, jurisdiction
their mandate on lands certified by NCIP as ancestral domain or ancestral over such violations shall fall under the proper Regional Trial Court.
lands except in areas with prior and vested rights. Provided, however, that
the certification by NCIP on lands as Ancestral Domains or Ancestral Lands Justice Brion has aptly discussed that even if Section 72 of the IPRA is a
pursuant to Section 52(i) of IPRA presupposes that the provision of Section special penal law that applies to all persons, including non-ICCs/IPs, the
13 hereof on the projection of survey plans and issuance of Certification of NCIP jurisdiction over violations of ICC/IP rights is limited to those committed
Non-Overlap have already been complied with. by and against members of the same ICC/IP group, thus:

xxxx Section 72 of the IPRA provides that any person  who violates the Rights of
ICCs/IPs shall be punished "in accordance with the customary laws of the
Section 16. CARP Coverage of Titled Properties. Titled lands under the ICCs/IPs concerned .... without prejudice to the right of the ICC/IP concerned
Torrens System issued prior to IPRA are deemed vested rights pursuant to to avail of the protection of "existing laws .  . .[i]n which case,"  the penalty
the provision of Section 56 of IPRA. Accordingly, the DAR shall proceed with shall be imprisonment and/or fine, and damages, "upon the discretion of  the
the CARP coverage of said lands, unless a Restraining Order is issued by court."
the Supreme Court without prejudice, however, to the rights of the ICCs/IPs
to question the validity of these titles before a court or body of competent
jurisdiction. 55

Human Rights Law (Rights of Indigenous People) Page 22 of 174

"Existing laws" refer to national laws as opposed to customary laws; while members of a different ICC/IP, can still file criminal charges before the
"the court" refers to the regular courts as opposed to administrative bodies regular courts. In this situation, the NCIP's role is not to adjudicate but to
like the NCIP. provide ICCs/IPs with "legal assistance in litigation involving community
interest."60
Under Section 72, ICCs/IPs can avail of the protection under national
laws  and file an action before the regular courts,  in which case, the penalty There is also no merit in petitioners' argument that the Court's interpretation
shall be imprisonment and/or fine, and damages. From this perspective, of the NCIP's jurisdiction under Section 66 of the IPRA runs counter to its
Section 72 is a special penal law that applies to ALL persons, including purpose to protect the rights, customs, customary laws and cultural integrity
non-ICCs/IPs. of the ICCs/IPs. To stress, even as Section 66 grants jurisdiction to the NCIP
over claims and disputes involving rights of ICCs/IPs, it is required that the
The phrase "without prejudice," however, means without limiting the course opposing parties are both ICCs/IPs who have exhausted all their remedies
of action that one can take. Thus, a recourse under customary laws does not under their customs and customary law before bringing their claim and
take away the right of ICCs/IPs to secure punishment under existing national dispute to the NCIP.61 And, in some instances that the regular courts may
laws.  An express caveat under the customary law option is that the penalty exercise jurisdiction over cases involving rights of ICCs/IPs, the governing
must not be cruel, degrading, or inhuman, nor shall it consist of the death law for such disputes necessarily include the IPRA and the rights the law
penalty or excessive fines. bestows on ICCs/IPs.62

Since the regular courts, not the NCIP, have jurisdiction over national laws, It also bears emphasis that the right of ICCs/IPs to use their own commonly
then the NCIP's jurisdiction is limited to punishment under customary laws. accepted justice systems, conflict resolution institutions, peace building
processes or mechanism under Section 1563 of the IPRA pertains only to
those customary laws and practices within their respective communities, as
The NCIP's power to impose penalties under customary laws presents two
may be compatible with the national legal system and with internationally
important issues:  first, whether it is legally possible to punish non-ICCs/IPs
recognized human rights. In this regard, it is fitting to quote the Separate
with penalties under customary laws; and second, whether a member of a
Opinion of Justice Santiago M. Kapunan in Cruz v. Secretary of Environment
particular ICC/IP could be punished in accordance with the customary laws
& Natural Resources64 on the constitutionality of Sections 63, 65 and other
of another ICC/IP.
related provisions, like Section 15, of the IPRA:
Laws that provide for fines, forfeitures, or penalties .for their violation or
Anent the use of customary laws in determining the ownership and extent of
otherwise impose a burden on the people, such as tax and revenue
ancestral domains, suffice it to say that such is allowed under paragraph 2,
measures, must be published.
Section 5 of Article XII of the Constitution. Said provision states, "The
Congress may provide for the applicability of customary laws governing
Most customary laws are not written, much less published. Hence, it is highly property rights and relations in determining the ownership and extent of the
unlikely that the NCIP or even the regular courts have the power to penalize ancestral domains." Notably, the use of customary laws under IPRA is not
non-ICCs/IPs with these penalties under customary laws. A contrary ruling absolute, for the law speaks merely of primacy of use.  xxx
would be constitutionally infirm for lack of due process.
xxxx
Similarly, an ICC/IP cannot be punished under the customary law of another.
Otherwise, the former would be forced to observe a nonbinding customary
The application of customary law is limited to disputes concerning property
law.
rights or relations in determining the ownership and extent of the ancestral
domains, where all the parties involved are members of indigenous peoples,
Therefore, while the NCIP has jurisdiction over violations of ICC/IP rights, its specifically, of the same indigenous group. It therefore follows that when one
jurisdiction is limited to those committed by and against members of the of the parties to a dispute is a nonmember of an indigenous group, or when
same ICC/IP. the indigenous peoples involved belong to different groups, the application of
customary law is not required.
This view does not detract from the IPRA's policy to "protect the rights· of
ICCs/IPs." ICCs/IPs, whose rights are violated by non-ICCs/IPs or by

Human Rights Law (Rights of Indigenous People) Page 23 of 174

Like any other law, the objective of IPRA in prescribing the primacy of cases where one of the parties is not ICC/IPs, a careful review of that case
customary law in disputes concerning ancestral lands and domains where all would show that the Court merely cited Sections 3(k), 68 3869 and 66 of the
parties involved are indigenous peoples is justice. The utilization of IPRA and Section 570 of NCIP Administrative Circular No. 1-03 dated April 9,
customary laws is in line with the constitutional policy of recognizing the 2003, known as the Rules on Pleadings, Practice and Procedure Before the
application thereof through legislation passed by Congress. NCIP, as bases of its ruling to the effect that disputes or controversies over
ancestral lands/domains of ICCs/IPs are within the original and exclusive
Furthermore, the recognition and use of customary law is not a novel idea in jurisdiction of the NCIP-RHO. However, the Court did not identify and
this jurisdiction.1âwphi1 Under the Civil Code, use of customary law is elaborate on the statutory basis of the NCIP's "original and exclusive
sanctioned, as long as it is proved as a fact according to the rules of jurisdiction" on disputes or controversies over ancestral lands/domains of
evidence, and it is not contrary to law, public order or public policy. Moreover, ICCs/IPs. Hence, such description of the nature and scope of the NCIP's
the Local Government Code of 1991 calls for the recognition and application jurisdiction made without argument or full consideration of the point, can only
of customary laws to the resolution of issues involving members of be considered as an obiter dictum, which is a mere expression of an opinion
indigenous peoples. This law admits the operation of customary laws in the with no binding force for purposes of res judicata and does not embody the
settling of disputes if such are ordinarily used in barangays  where majority of determination of the court.71
the inhabitants are members of indigenous peoples.651avvphi1
On a final note, the Court restates that under Section 66 of the IPRA, the
Likewise, unavailing is petitioners' contention that unresolved claims and NCIP shall have limited jurisdiction over claims and disputes involving rights
disputes between different ICCs/IPs of IPs/ICCs only when they arise between or among parties belonging to the
same ICC/IP group; but if such claims and disputes arise between or among
parties who do not belong to the same ICC/IP group, the proper regular
groups, and those between ICCs/IPs and non-ICCs/IPs should fall under the
courts shall have jurisdiction. However, under Sections 52(h) and 53, in
jurisdiction of the NCIP. In this regard, the Court shares the view of Justice
relation to Section 62 of the IPRA, as well as Section 54, the NCIP shall have
Perez:
primary jurisdiction over adverse claims and border disputes arising from the
delineation of ancestral domains/lands, and cancellation of fraudulently-
That the proviso found in Section 66 of the IPRA is exclusionary, specifically issued CADTs, regardless of whether the parties are non-ICCs/ IPs, or
excluding disputes involving rights of IPs/ICCs where the opposing party is members of different ICCs/IPs groups, as well as violations of ICCs/IPs rights
non-ICC/IP, is reflected in the IPRA's emphasis of customs and customary under Section 72 of the IPRA where both parties belong to the same ICC/IP
law to govern in the lives of the ICCs/IPs. group.

Indeed, non-ICCs/IPs cannot be subjected to the special and limited WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration and the Supplemental Motion
jurisdiction of the NCIP even if the dispute involves rights of ICCs/IPs for Reconsideration are DENIED for lack of merit.
since the NCIP has no power and authority to decide on a controversy
involving as well rights of non-ICCs/IPs which may be brought before a·
SO ORDERED.
court of general jurisdiction within the legal bounds of rights and
remedies. Even as a practical concern, non-IPs and nonmembers of ICCs
ought to be excepted from the NCIP's competence since it cannot determine
the right-duty correlative, and breach thereof, between opposing parties who
are ICCs/IPs and non-ICCs/IPs, the controversy necessarily contemplating
application of other laws, not only customs and customary law of the
ICCs/IPs. In short, the NCIP is only vested with jurisdiction to determine the
rights of ICCs/IPs based on customs and customary law in a given
controversy against another ICC/IP, but not the applicable law for each and
every kind of ICC/IP controversy even against an opposing non-ICC/IP. 66

Anent what Justice Perez described as the "implicit affirmation" done in The
City Government of Baguio City v. Masweng 67 of the NCIP' s jurisdiction over

Human Rights Law (Rights of Indigenous People) Page 24 of 174

 marriage, former marriage, or a sexual or dating relationship, it does not preclude the
[1] application of the principle of conspiracy under the RPC.
Same; Same; If the principle of conspiracy under Article 8 of the Revised Penal
  Code (RPC) is applied to B.P. 22 in the absence of a contrary provision therein, with
SHARICA MARI L. GO-TAN   G.R. No. 168852 more reason could the same principle be applied suppletorily to R.A. No. 9262
because of the express provision of Section 47 that the Revised Penal Code (RPC)
Petitioner,     shall be supplementary to said law.—Most recently, in Ladonga v. People, 451
SCRA 673 (2005), the Court applied suppletorily the principle of conspiracy under
    Present: Article 8 of the RPC to B.P. Blg. 22 in the absence of a contrary provision therein.
With more reason, therefore, the principle of conspiracy under Article 8 of the RPC
     
may be applied suppletorily to R.A. No. 9262 because of the express provision of
    YNARES-SANTIAGO, J., Section 47 that the RPC shall be supplementary to said law. Thus, general provisions
of the RPC, which by their nature, are necessarily applicable, may be applied
    Chairperson, suppletorily. Thus, the principle of conspiracy may be applied to R.A. No. 9262. For
once conspiracy or action in concert to achieve a criminal design is shown, the act of
- versus -   AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
one is the act of all the conspirators, and the precise extent or modality of
    CHICO-NAZARIO, participation of each of them becomes secondary, since all the conspirators are
principals.
    NACHURA, and
Same; Same; Section 5 of R.A. No. 9262 expressly recognizes that the acts of
    REYES, JJ. violence against women and their children may be committed by an offender through
another.—It must be further noted that Section 5 of R.A. No. 9262 expressly
SPOUSES PERFECTO C. TAN     recognizes that the acts of violence against women and their children may be
and JUANITA L. TAN,   Promulgated: committed by an offender through another, thus: SEC. 5. Acts of Violence against
Women and Their Children.—The crime of violence against women and their
Respondents.*   September 30, 2008 children is committed through any of the following acts: x x x (h) Engaging in
purposeful, knowing, or reckless conduct, personally or through another, that alarms
x----------------------------------------------------------x or causes substantial emotional or psychological distress to the woman or her child.
  This shall include, but not be limited to, the following acts: x x x

DECISION Same; Same; Statutory Construction; The intent of the statute is the law.—It bears
mention that the intent of the statute is the law and that this intent must be
Anti-Violence against Women and Their Children Act of 2004 (R.A. No. 9262); effectuated by the courts. In the present case, the express language of R.A. No. 9262
Conspiracy; Words and Phrases; “Violence against Women and Their Children,” reflects the intent of the legislature for liberal construction as will best ensure the
Defined; While Section 3 of R.A. No. 9262 provides that the offender be related or attainment of the object of the law according to its true intent, meaning and spirit—
connected to the victim by marriage, former marriage, or a sexual or dating the protection and safety of victims of violence against women and children.
relationship, it does not preclude the application of the principle of conspiracy
under the Revised Penal Code (RPC).—Section 3 of R.A. No. 9262 defines Same; Same; Same; Words and Phrases; The maxim “expressio unios est exclusio
‘‘[v]iolence against women and their children’’ as “any act or a series of acts alterius” is only an ancillary rule of statutory construction which should be applied
committed by any person against a woman who is his wife, former wife, or against a only as a means of discovering legislative intent which is not otherwise manifest and
woman with whom the person has or had a sexual or dating relationship, or with should not be permitted to defeat the plainly indicated purpose of the legislature.—
whom he has a common child, or against her child whether legitimate or illegitimate, Contrary to the RTC’s pronouncement, the maxim “expressio unios est exclusio
within or without the family abode, which result in or is likely to result in physical, alterius” finds no application here. It must be remembered that this maxim is only an
sexual, psychological harm or suffering, or economic abuse including threats of such “ancillary rule of statutory construction.” It is not of universal application. Neither is
acts, battery, assault, coercion, harassment or arbitrary deprivation of liberty.” While it conclusive. It should be applied only as a means of discovering legislative intent
the said provision provides that the offender be related or connected to the victim by

Human Rights Law (Rights of Women) Page 25 of 174

which is not otherwise manifest and should not be permitted to defeat the plainly provisions of R.A. No. 9262 since the relationship between the offender and the
indicated purpose of the legislature. alleged victim was an essential condition for the application of R.A. No. 9262.
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.: On July 11, 2005, the RTC issued a Resolution[16] denying petitioner's
Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Verified Motion for Reconsideration. The RTC reasoned that to include respondents
Court assailing the Resolution[1] dated March 7, 2005 of the Regional Trial Court under the coverage of R.A. No. 9262 would be a strained interpretation of the
(RTC), Branch 94, Quezon City in Civil Case No. Q-05-54536 and the RTC provisions of the law.
Resolution[2] dated July 11, 2005 which denied petitioner's Verified Motion for
Reconsideration. Hence, the present petition on a pure question of law, to wit:

The factual background of the case:  

On April 18, 1999, Sharica Mari L. Go-Tan (petitioner) and Steven L. Tan (Steven) WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENTS-SPOUSES
were married.[3] Out of this union, two female children were born, Kyra Danielle[4] and PERFECTO & JUANITA, PARENTS-IN-LAW OF SHARICA, MAY
Kristen Denise.[5] On January 12, 2005, barely six years into the marriage, petitioner BE INCLUDED IN THE PETITION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A
filed a Petition with Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary Protective Order (TPO) PROTECTIVE ORDER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH REPUBLIC
[6]
 against Steven and her parents-in-law, Spouses Perfecto C. Tan and Juanita L. Tan ACT NO. 9262, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE ANTI-VIOLENCE
(respondents) before the RTC.She alleged that Steven, in conspiracy with AGAINST WOMEN AND THEIR CHILDREN ACT OF 2004.[17]
respondents, were causing verbal, psychological and economic abuses upon her in Petitioner contends that R.A. No. 9262 must be understood in the light of the
violation of Section 5, paragraphs (e)(2)(3)(4), (h)(5), and (i)[7] of Republic Act (R.A.) provisions of Section 47 of R.A. No. 9262 which explicitly provides for
No. 9262,[8] otherwise known as the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children the suppletory application of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) and, accordingly, the
Act of 2004. provision on conspiracy under Article 8 of the RPC can be suppletorilyapplied to R.A.
On January 25, 2005, the RTC issued an Order/Notice [9] granting petitioner's prayer No. 9262; that Steven and respondents had community of design and purpose in
for a TPO. tormenting her by giving her insufficient financial support; harassing and pressuring her
to be ejected from the family home; and in repeatedly abusing her verbally,
On February 7, 2005, respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss with Opposition to the emotionally, mentally and physically; that respondents should be included as
Issuance of Permanent Protection Order Ad Cautelam and Comment on the Petition, indispensable or necessary parties for complete resolution of the case.
[10]
 contending that the RTC lacked jurisdiction over their persons since, as parents-in-
law of the petitioner, they were not covered by R.A. No. 9262. On the other hand, respondents submit that they are not covered by R.A. No. 9262
since Section 3 thereof explicitly provides that the offender should be related to the
On February 28, 2005, petitioner filed a Comment on Opposition[11] to respondents' victim only by marriage, a former marriage, or a dating or sexual relationship; that
Motion to Dismiss arguing that respondents were covered by R.A. No. 9262 under a allegations on the conspiracy of respondents require a factual determination which
liberal interpretation thereof aimed at promoting the protection and safety of victims of cannot be done by this Court in a petition for review; that respondents cannot be
violence. characterized as indispensable or necessary parties, since their presence in the case
is not only unnecessary but altogether illegal, considering the non-inclusion of in-laws
On March 7, 2005, the RTC issued a Resolution [12] dismissing the case as to as offenders under Section 3 of R.A. No. 9262.
respondents on the ground that, being the parents-in-law of the petitioner, they were
not included/covered as respondents under R.A. No. 9262 under the well-known rule The Court rules in favor of the petitioner.
of law expressio  unius est exclusio alterius.[13]
Section 3 of R.A. No. 9262 defines ''[v]iolence against women and their children'' as
On March 16, 2005, petitioner filed her Verified Motion for any act or a series of acts committed by any person against a woman who is his wife,
Reconsideration[14] contending that the doctrine of necessary implication should be former wife, or against a woman with whom the person has or had a sexual or dating
applied in the broader interests of substantial justice and due process. relationship, or with whom he has a common child, or against her child whether
legitimate or illegitimate, within or without the family abode, which result in or is likely to
On April 8, 2005, respondents filed their Comment on the Verified Motion for result in physical, sexual, psychological harm or suffering, or economic abuse including
Reconsideration[15] arguing that petitioner's liberal construction unduly broadened the threats of such acts, battery, assault, coercion, harassment or arbitrary deprivation of
liberty.

Human Rights Law (Rights of Women) Page 26 of 174

  Most recently, in Ladonga v.  People,[22] the Court applied suppletorily the principle of
conspiracy under Article 8 of the RPC to B.P. Blg. 22 in the absence of a contrary
While the said provision provides that the offender be related or connected to the victim provision therein.
by marriage, former marriage, or a sexual or dating relationship, it does not preclude
the application of the principle of conspiracy under the RPC. With more reason, therefore, the principle of conspiracy under Article 8 of the RPC
may be applied suppletorily to R.A. No. 9262 because of the express provision of
Indeed, Section 47 of R.A. No. 9262 expressly provides for the suppletory application Section 47 that the RPC shall be supplementary to said law. Thus, general provisions
of the RPC, thus: of the RPC, which by their nature, are necessarily applicable, may be
SEC. 47. Suppletory Application. - For purposes of this applied suppletorily.
Act, the Revised Penal Code and other applicable laws, shall Thus, the principle of conspiracy may be applied to R.A. No. 9262. For once
have suppletory application. (Emphasis supplied) conspiracy or action in concert to achieve a criminal design is shown, the act of one is
  the act of all the conspirators, and the precise extent or modality of participation of each
Parenthetically, Article 10 of the RPC provides: of them becomes secondary, since all the conspirators are principals.[23]

ART. 10. Offenses not subject to the provisions of this It must be further noted that Section 5 of R.A. No. 9262 expressly recognizes that the
Code. Offenses which are or in the future may be punishable under acts of violence against women and their children may be committed by an offender
special laws are not subject to the provisions of this Code. This through another, thus:
Code shall be supplementary to such laws, unless the latter  
should specially provide the contrary. (Emphasis supplied) SEC. 5. Acts of Violence  Against  Women and Their Children. -
The crime of violence against women and their children is
Hence, legal principles developed from the Penal Code may be applied in a committed through any of the following acts:
supplementary capacity to crimes punished under special laws, such as R.A.  
No. 9262, in which the special law is silent on a particular matter. x x x
Thus, in People v. Moreno,[18] the Court applied suppletorily the provision on  
subsidiary penalty under Article 39 of the RPC to cases of violations of Act No. 3992, (h) Engaging in purposeful, knowing, or reckless conduct,
otherwise known as the Revised Motor Vehicle Law, noting that the special law did not personally or through another, that alarms or causes substantial
contain any provision that the defendant could be sentenced with subsidiary emotional or psychological distress to the woman or her child. This
imprisonment in case of insolvency. shall include, but not be limited to, the following acts:
 
In People v. Li Wai Cheung,[19] the Court applied suppletorily the rules on the service
of sentences provided in Article 70 of the RPC in favor of the accused who was found (1) Stalking or following the woman or her child in public or private
guilty of multiple violations of R.A. No. 6425, otherwise known as the Dangerous places;
Drugs Act of 1972, considering the lack of similar rules under the special law. (2) Peering in the window or lingering outside the residence of the
[20]
In People v. Chowdury,  the Court applied suppletorily Articles 17, 18 and 19 of the woman or her child;
RPC to define the words principal, accomplices and accessories under R.A. No. 8042, (3) Entering or remaining in the dwelling or on the property of the
otherwise known as the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, because woman or her child against her/his will;
said words were not defined therein, although the special law referred to the same
terms in enumerating the persons liable for the crime of illegal recruitment. (4) Destroying the property and personal belongings or inflicting
harm to animals or pets of the woman or her child; and
In Yu v.  People,[21] the Court applied suppletorily the provisions on subsidiary
imprisonment under Article 39 of the RPC to Batas  Pambansa (B.P.) Blg. 22, (5) Engaging in any form of harassment or violence;
otherwise known as the Bouncing Checks Law, noting the absence of an express x x x. (Emphasis supplied)
provision on subsidiary imprisonment in said special law.
In addition, the protection order that may be issued for the purpose of
preventing further acts of violence against the woman or her child may include

Human Rights Law (Rights of Women) Page 27 of 174

individuals other than the offending husband, thus:  
Considering the Court's ruling that the principle of conspiracy may be
SEC. 8. Protection Orders. x x x The protection orders that may be applied suppletorily to R.A. No. 9262, the Court will no longer delve on whether
issued under this Act shall include any, some or all of the respondents may be considered indispensable or necessary parties. To do so would
following reliefs: be an exercise in superfluity.
   
(a) Prohibition of the respondent from threatening to commit or WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The assailed Resolutions
committing, personally or through another, any of the acts dated March 7, 2005 and July 11, 2005 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch
mentioned in Section 5 of this Act; 94, Quezon City in Civil Case No. Q-05-54536 are hereby PARTLY REVERSED
  and SET ASIDE insofar as the dismissal of the petition against respondents
(b) Prohibition of the respondent from harassing, annoying, is concerned.
telephoning, contacting or otherwise communicating with the
petitioner, directly or indirectly; x x x(Emphasis supplied)  
 
SO ORDERED.
Finally, Section 4 of R.A. No. 9262 calls for a liberal construction of the law, thus:
 
SEC. 4. Construction. - This Act shall be liberally construed to
promote the protection and safety of victims of violence against
women and their children. (Emphasis supplied)
It bears mention that the intent of the statute is the law[24] and that this intent must be
effectuated by the courts. In the present case, the express language of R.A. No. 9262
reflects the intent of the legislature for liberal construction as will best ensure the
attainment of the object of the law according to its true intent, meaning and spirit - the
protection and safety of victims of violence against women and children.
 
Thus, contrary to the RTC's pronouncement, the
maxim "expressio  unios est exclusio alterius finds no application here. It must be
remembered that this maxim is only an ancillary rule of statutory construction. It is not
of universal application. Neither is it conclusive. It should be applied only as a means
of discovering legislative intent which is not otherwise manifest and should not be
permitted to defeat the plainly indicated purpose of the legislature.[25]
 
The Court notes that petitioner unnecessarily argues at great length on the attendance
of circumstances evidencing the conspiracy or connivance of Steven and respondents
to cause verbal, psychological and economic abuses upon her. However, conspiracy
is an evidentiary matter which should be threshed out in a full-blown trial on the merits
and cannot be determined in the present petition since this Court is not a trier of facts.
[26]
 It is thus premature for petitioner to argue evidentiary matters since this controversy
is centered only on the determination of whether respondents may be included in a
petition under R.A. No. 9262. The presence or absence of conspiracy can be best
passed upon after a trial on the merits.

Human Rights Law (Rights of Women) Page 28 of 174

[2] harassment against the woman; and 3. The harassment alarms or causes substantial
emotional or psychological distress to her.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT Same; Same; Same; Words and Phrases; “Dating Relationship,” Defined; A “dating
Baguio City relationship” includes a situation where the parties are romantically involved over
time and on a continuing basis during the course of the relationship.— Section 3(e)
SECOND DIVISION provides that a “dating relationship” includes a situation where the parties are
romantically involved over time and on a continuing basis during the course of the
G.R. No. 182835               April 20, 2010 relationship. Thus: (e) “Dating relationship” refers to a situation wherein the parties
live as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage or are romantically involved
over time and on a continuing basis during the course of the relationship. A casual
RUSTAN ANG y PASCUA, Petitioner,  acquaintance or ordinary socialization between two individuals in a business or
vs. social context is not a dating relationship.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and IRISH
SAGUD, Respondents.
Same; Same; Same; Same; “Sexual Relations,” Defined; Sexual relations refers to a
single sexual act which may or may not result in the bearing of a common child.—
DECISION R.A. 9262 provides in Section 3 that “violence against women x x x refers to any act
or a series of acts committed by any person against a woman x x x with whom the
Criminal Law; Violence against Women; Republic Act No. 9262; Section 3(a) of person has or had a sexual or dating relationship.” Clearly, the law itself
R.A. 9262 provides that violence against women includes an act or acts of a person distinguishes a sexual relationship from a dating relationship. Indeed, Section 3(e)
against a woman with whom he has or had a sexual or dating relationship that above defines “dating relationship” while Section 3(f) defines “sexual relations.” The
include any form of harassment that causes substantial emotional or psychological latter “refers to a single sexual act which may or may not result in the bearing of a
distress to a woman.—Section 3(a) of R.A. 9262 provides that violence against common child.” The dating relationship that the law contemplates can, therefore,
women includes an act or acts of a person against a woman with whom he has or had exist even without a sexual intercourse taking place between those involved
a sexual or dating relationship. Thus: “SEC. 3. Definition of Terms.—As used in this
Act, (a) “Violence against women and their children” refers to any act or a series of Same; Same; Same; Section 3(a) of R.A. 9262 punishes “any act or series of acts”
acts committed by any person against a woman who is his wife, former wife, or that constitutes violence against women—this means that a single act of harassment,
against a woman with whom the person has or had a sexual or dating relationship, or which translates into violence, would be enough.—Section 3(a) of R.A. 9262
with whom he has a common child, or against her child whether legitimate or punishes “any act or series of acts” that constitutes violence against women. This
illegitimate, within or without the family abode, which result in or is likely to result means that a single act of harassment, which translates into violence, would be
in physical, sexual, psychological harm or suffering, or economic abuse including enough. The object of the law is to protect women and children. Punishing only
threats of such acts, battery, assault, coercion, harassment or arbitrary deprivation of violence that is repeatedly committed would license isolated ones.
liberty. x x x x Section 5 identifies the act or acts that constitute violence against
women and these include any form of harassment that causes substantial emotional
or psychological distress to a woman. Thus: “SEC. 5. Acts of Violence Against Evidence; Rules on Electronic Evidence (A.M. 01-7-01-SC); The Rules on Electronic
Women and Their Children.—The crime of violence against women and their Evidence applies only to civil actions, quasi-judicial proceedings, and
children is committed through any of the following acts: x x x x h. Engaging in administrative proceedings.— Rustan claims that the obscene picture sent to Irish
purposeful, knowing, or reckless conduct, personally or through another, that alarms through a text message constitutes an electronic document. Thus, it should be
or causes substantial emotional or psychological distress to the woman or her child. authenticated by means of an electronic signature, as provided under Section 1, Rule
This shall include, but not be limited to, the following acts: x x x x 5. Engaging in 5 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence (A.M. 01-7-01-SC). But, firstly, Rustan is
any form of harassment or violence.” raising this objection to the admissibility of the obscene picture, Exhibit “A”, for the
first time before this Court. The objection is too late since he should have objected to
the admission of the picture on such ground at the time it was offered in evidence.
Same; Same; Same; Elements of the Crime of Violence against Women.—The He should be deemed to have already waived such ground for objection. Besides, the
elements of the crime of violence against women through harassment are: 1. The rules he cites do not apply to the present criminal action. The Rules on Electronic
offender has or had a sexual or dating relationship with the offended woman; 2. The
offender, by himself or through another, commits an act or series of acts of

Human Rights Law (Rights of Women) Page 29 of 174

Evidence applies only to civil actions, quasi-judicial proceedings, and administrative In the early morning of June 5, 2005, Irish received through multimedia
proceedings. message service (MMS) a picture of a naked woman with spread legs and
with Irish’s face superimposed on the figure (Exhibit A). 2 The sender’s
ABAD, J.: cellphone number, stated in the message, was 0921-8084768, one of the
numbers that Rustan used. Irish surmised that he copied the picture of her
face from a shot he took when they were in Baguio in 2003 (Exhibit B). 3
This case concerns a claim of commission of the crime of violence against
women when a former boyfriend sent to the girl the picture of a naked
woman, not her, but with her face on it. After she got the obscene picture, Irish got other text messages from Rustan.
He boasted that it would be easy for him to create similarly scandalous
pictures of her. And he threatened to spread the picture he sent through the
The Indictment
internet. One of the messages he sent to Irish, written in text messaging
shorthand, read: "Madali lang ikalat yun, my chatrum ang tarlac rayt pwede
The public prosecutor charged petitioner-accused Rustan Ang (Rustan) ring send sa lahat ng chatter."4
before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Baler, Aurora, of violation of the
Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act or Republic Act (R.A.)
Irish sought the help of the vice mayor of Maria Aurora who referred her to
9262 in an information that reads:
the police. Under police supervision, Irish contacted Rustan through the
cellphone numbers he used in sending the picture and his text messages.
That on or about June 5, 2005, in the Municipality of Maria Aurora, Province Irish asked Rustan to meet her at the Lorentess Resort in Brgy. Ramada,
of Aurora, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the Maria Aurora, and he did. He came in a motorcycle. After parking it, he
said accused willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, in a purposeful and reckless walked towards Irish but the waiting police officers intercepted and arrested
conduct, sent through the Short Messaging Service (SMS) using his mobile him. They searched him and seized his Sony Ericsson P900 cellphone and
phone, a pornographic picture to one Irish Sagud, who was his former several SIM cards. While Rustan was being questioned at the police station,
girlfriend, whereby the face of the latter was attached to a completely naked he shouted at Irish: "Malandi ka kasi!"
body of another woman making it to appear that it was said Irish Sagud who
is depicted in the said obscene and pornographic picture thereby causing
Joseph Gonzales, an instructor at the Aurora State College of Technology,
substantial emotional anguish, psychological distress and humiliation to the
testified as an expert in information technology and computer graphics. He
said Irish Sagud.1
said that it was very much possible for one to lift the face of a woman from a
picture and superimpose it on the body of another woman in another picture.
The Facts and the Case Pictures can be manipulated and enhanced by computer to make it appear
that the face and the body belonged to just one person.
The evidence for the prosecution shows that complainant Irish Sagud (Irish)
and accused Rustan were classmates at Wesleyan University in Aurora Gonzales testified that the picture in question (Exhibit A) had two distinct
Province. Rustan courted Irish and they became "on-and-off" sweethearts irregularities: the face was not proportionate to the body and the face had a
towards the end of 2004. When Irish learned afterwards that Rustan had lighter color. In his opinion, the picture was fake and the face on it had been
taken a live-in partner (now his wife), whom he had gotten pregnant, Irish copied from the picture of Irish in Exhibit B. Finally, Gonzales explained how
broke up with him. this could be done, transferring a picture from a computer to a cellphone like
the Sony Ericsson P900 seized from Rustan.
Before Rustan got married, however, he got in touch with Irish and tried to
convince her to elope with him, saying that he did not love the woman he For his part, Rustan admitted having courted Irish. He began visiting her in
was about to marry. Irish rejected the proposal and told Rustan to take on his Tarlac in October 2003 and their relation lasted until December of that year.
responsibility to the other woman and their child. Irish changed her cellphone He claimed that after their relation ended, Irish wanted reconciliation. They
number but Rustan somehow managed to get hold of it and sent her text met in December 2004 but, after he told her that his girlfriend at that time
messages. Rustan used two cellphone numbers for sending his messages, (later his wife) was already pregnant, Irish walked out on him.
namely, 0920-4769301 and 0921-8084768. Irish replied to his text messages
but it was to ask him to leave her alone.

Human Rights Law (Rights of Women) Page 30 of 174

Sometime later, Rustan got a text message from Irish, asking him to meet woman, inflicting anguish, psychological distress, and humiliation on her in
her at Lorentess Resort as she needed his help in selling her cellphone. violation of Section 5(h) of R.A. 9262.
When he arrived at the place, two police officers approached him, seized his
cellphone and the contents of his pockets, and brought him to the police The subordinate issues are:
station.
1. Whether or not a "dating relationship" existed between Rustan and
Rustan further claims that he also went to Lorentess because Irish asked him Irish as this term is defined in R.A. 9262;
to help her identify a prankster who was sending her malicious text
messages. Rustan got the sender’s number and, pretending to be Irish, 2. Whether or not a single act of harassment, like the sending of the
contacted the person. Rustan claims that he got back obscene messages nude picture in this case, already constitutes a violation of Section
from the prankster, which he forwarded to Irish from his cellphone. This 5(h) of R.A. 9262;
explained, he said, why the obscene messages appeared to have originated
from his cellphone number. Rustan claims that it was Irish herself who sent
the obscene picture (Exhibit A) to him. He presented six pictures of a woman 3. Whether or not the evidence used to convict Rustan was obtained
whom he identified as Irish (Exhibits 2 to 7).5 from him in violation of his constitutional rights; and

Michelle Ang (Michelle), Rustan’s wife, testified that she was sure Irish sent 4. Whether or not the RTC properly admitted in evidence the
the six pictures. Michelle claims that she received the pictures and hid the obscene picture presented in the case.
memory card (Exhibit 8) that contained them because she was jealous and
angry. She did not want to see anything of Irish. But, while the woman in the The Court’s Rulings
pictures posed in sexy clothing, in none did she appear naked as in Exhibit
A. Further, the face of the woman in Exhibits 2, 4, 5 and 6 could not be seen. Section 3(a) of R.A. 9262 provides that violence against women includes an
Irish denied that she was the woman in those four pictures. As for Exhibits 3 act or acts of a person against a woman with whom he has or had a sexual
and 7, the woman in the picture was fully dressed. or dating relationship. Thus:

After trial, the RTC found Irish’s testimony completely credible, given in an SEC. 3. Definition of Terms. – As used in this Act,
honest and spontaneous manner. The RTC observed that she wept while
recounting her experience, prompting the court to comment: "Her tears were (a) "Violence against women and their children" refers to any act or a
tangible expression of pain and anguish for the acts of violence she suffered series of acts committed by any person against a woman who is his
in the hands of her former sweetheart. The crying of the victim during her wife, former wife, or against a woman with whom the person has or
testimony is evidence of the credibility of her charges with the verity borne had a sexual or dating relationship, or with whom he has a common
out of human nature and experience." 6 Thus, in its Decision dated August 1, child, or against her child whether legitimate or illegitimate, within or
2001, the RTC found Rustan guilty of the violation of Section 5(h) of R.A. without the family abode, which result in or is likely to result in
9262. physical, sexual, psychological harm or suffering, or economic abuse
including threats of such acts, battery, assault, coercion, harassment
On Rustan’s appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA), 7 the latter rendered a or arbitrary deprivation of liberty.
decision dated January 31, 2008,8 affirming the RTC decision. The CA
denied Rustan’s motion for reconsideration in a resolution dated April 25, xxxx
2008. Thus, Rustan filed the present for review on certiorari.
Section 5 identifies the act or acts that constitute violence against
The Issues Presented women and these include any form of harassment that causes
substantial emotional or psychological distress to a woman. Thus:
The principal issue in this case is whether or not accused Rustan sent Irish
by cellphone message the picture with her face pasted on the body of a nude

Human Rights Law (Rights of Women) Page 31 of 174

 SEC. 5. Acts of Violence Against Women and Their Children. – The meaning to the word "romance" used as a verb, i.e., "to make love; to make
crime of violence against women and their children is committed love to" as in "He romanced her."
through any of the following acts:
But it seems clear that the law did not use in its provisions the
xxxx colloquial verb "romance" that implies a sexual act. It did not say that the
offender must have "romanced" the offended woman. Rather, it used the
h. Engaging in purposeful, knowing, or reckless conduct, personally noun "romance" to describe a couple’s relationship, i.e., "a love affair."9
or through another, that alarms or causes substantial emotional or
psychological distress to the woman or her child. This shall include, R.A. 9262 provides in Section 3 that "violence against women x x x refers to
but not be limited to, the following acts: any act or a series of acts committed by any person against a woman x x x
with whom the person has or had a sexual or dating relationship." Clearly,
xxxx the law itself distinguishes a sexual relationship from a dating relationship.
Indeed, Section 3(e) above defines "dating relationship" while Section 3(f)
defines "sexual relations." The latter "refers to a single sexual act which may
5. Engaging in any form of harassment or violence;
or may not result in the bearing of a common child." The dating relationship
that the law contemplates can, therefore, exist even without a sexual
The above provisions, taken together, indicate that the elements of the crime intercourse taking place between those involved.
of violence against women through harassment are:
Rustan also claims that since the relationship between Irish and him was of
1. The offender has or had a sexual or dating relationship with the the "on-and-off" variety (away-bati), their romance cannot be regarded as
offended woman; having developed "over time and on a continuing basis." But the two of them
were romantically involved, as Rustan himself admits, from October to
2. The offender, by himself or through another, commits an act or December of 2003. That would be time enough for nurturing a relationship of
series of acts of harassment against the woman; and mutual trust and love.

3. The harassment alarms or causes substantial emotional or An "away-bati" or a fight-and-kiss thing between two lovers is a common
psychological distress to her. occurrence. Their taking place does not mean that the romantic relation
between the two should be deemed broken up during periods of
One. The parties to this case agree that the prosecution needed to prove that misunderstanding. Explaining what "away-bati" meant, Irish explained that at
accused Rustan had a "dating relationship" with Irish. Section 3(e) provides times, when she could not reply to Rustan’s messages, he would get angry
that a "dating relationship" includes a situation where the parties are at her. That was all. Indeed, she characterized their three-month romantic
romantically involved over time and on a continuing basis during the course relation as continuous.10
of the relationship. Thus:
Two. Rustan argues that the one act of sending an offensive picture should
(e) "Dating relationship" refers to a situation wherein the parties live as not be considered a form of harassment. He claims that such would unduly
husband and wife without the benefit of marriage or are romantically involved ruin him personally and set a very dangerous precedent. But Section 3(a) of
over time and on a continuing basis during the course of the relationship. A R.A. 9262 punishes "any act or series of acts" that constitutes violence
casual acquaintance or ordinary socialization between two individuals in a against women. This means that a single act of harassment, which translates
business or social context is not a dating relationship. (Underscoring into violence, would be enough. The object of the law is to protect women
supplied.) and children. Punishing only violence that is repeatedly committed would
license isolated ones.
Here, Rustan claims that, being "romantically involved," implies that the
offender and the offended woman have or had sexual relations. According to Rustan alleges that today’s women, like Irish, are so used to obscene
him, "romance" implies a sexual act. He cites Webster’s Comprehensive communications that her getting one could not possibly have produced alarm
Dictionary Encyclopedia Edition which provides a colloquial or informal in her or caused her substantial emotional or psychological distress. He

Human Rights Law (Rights of Women) Page 32 of 174

claims having previously exchanged obscene pictures with Irish such that cellphone numbers belonged to Rustan, Irish and the police used such
she was already desensitized by them. numbers to summon him to come to Lorentess Resort and he
did.12 Consequently, the prosecution did not have to present the confiscated
But, firstly, the RTC which saw and heard Rustan and his wife give their cellphone and SIM cards to prove that Rustan sent those messages.
testimonies was not impressed with their claim that it was Irish who sent the
obscene pictures of herself (Exhibits 2-7). It is doubtful if the woman in the Moreover, Rustan admitted having sent the malicious text messages to
picture was Irish since her face did not clearly show on them. Irish.13 His defense was that he himself received those messages from an
unidentified person who was harassing Irish and he merely forwarded the
Michelle, Rustan’s wife, claimed that she deleted several other pictures that same to her, using his cellphone. But Rustan never presented the cellphone
Irish sent, except Exhibits 2 to 7. But her testimony did not make sense. She number of the unidentified person who sent the messages to him to
said that she did not know that Exhibits 2 to 7 had remained saved after she authenticate the same. The RTC did not give credence to such version and
deleted the pictures. Later, however, she said that she did not have time to neither will this Court. Besides, it was most unlikely for Irish to pin the things
delete them.11 And, if she thought that she had deleted all the pictures from on Rustan if he had merely tried to help her identify the sender.
the memory card, then she had no reason at all to keep and hide such
memory card. There would have been nothing to hide. Finally, if she knew Four. Rustan claims that the obscene picture sent to Irish through a text
that some pictures remained in the card, there was no reason for her to keep message constitutes an electronic document. Thus, it should be
it for several years, given that as she said she was too jealous to want to see authenticated by means of an electronic signature, as provided under
anything connected to Irish. Thus, the RTC was correct in not giving Section 1, Rule 5 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence (A.M. 01-7-01-SC).
credence to her testimony.1avvphi1
But, firstly, Rustan is raising this objection to the admissibility of the obscene
Secondly, the Court cannot measure the trauma that Irish experienced based picture, Exhibit A, for the first time before this Court. The objection is too late
on Rustan’s low regard for the alleged moral sensibilities of today’s youth. since he should have objected to the admission of the picture on such
What is obscene and injurious to an offended woman can of course only be ground at the time it was offered in evidence. He should be deemed to have
determined based on the circumstances of each case. Here, the naked already waived such ground for objection.14
woman on the picture, her legs spread open and bearing Irish’s head and
face, was clearly an obscene picture and, to Irish a revolting and offensive Besides, the rules he cites do not apply to the present criminal action. The
one. Surely, any woman like Irish, who is not in the pornography trade, would Rules on Electronic Evidence applies only to civil actions, quasi-judicial
be scandalized and pained if she sees herself in such a picture. What makes proceedings, and administrative proceedings.15
it further terrifying is that, as Irish testified, Rustan sent the picture with a
threat to post it in the internet for all to see. That must have given her a In conclusion, this Court finds that the prosecution has proved each and
nightmare. every element of the crime charged beyond reasonable doubt.

Three. Rustan argues that, since he was arrested and certain items were WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition and AFFIRMS the decision of
seized from him without any warrant, the evidence presented against him the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR 30567 dated January 31, 2008 and its
should be deemed inadmissible. But the fact is that the prosecution did not resolution dated April 25, 2008.
present in evidence either the cellphone or the SIM cards that the police
officers seized from him at the time of his arrest. The prosecution did not
need such items to prove its case. Exhibit C for the prosecution was but a SO ORDERED.
photograph depicting the Sony Ericsson P900 cellphone that was used,
which cellphone Rustan admitted owning during the pre-trial conference.

Actually, though, the bulk of the evidence against him consisted in Irish’s
testimony that she received the obscene picture and malicious text
messages that the sender’s cellphone numbers belonged to Rustan with
whom she had been previously in communication. Indeed, to prove that the

Human Rights Law (Rights of Women) Page 33 of 174

 Same; While the Court is mindful of the best interests of the child in cases involving
[3] paternity and filiation, it is just as aware of the disturbance that unfounded paternity
suits cause to the privacy and peace of the putative father’s legitimate family.—
Republic of the Philippines While the Court is mindful of the best interests of the child in cases involving
SUPREME COURT paternity and filiation, it is just as aware of the disturbance that unfounded paternity
Manila suits cause to the privacy and peace of the putative father’s legitimate family.
Vallecera disowns Dolina’s child and denies having a hand in the preparation and
signing of its certificate of birth. This issue has to be resolved in an appropriate case.
SECOND DIVISION
ABAD, J.:
G.R. No. 182367               December 15, 2010
This case is about a mother’s claim for temporary support of an
CHERRYL B. DOLINA, Petitioner,  unacknowledged child, which she sought in an action for the issuance of a
vs. temporary protection order that she brought against the supposed father.
GLENN D. VALLECERA, Respondent.
The Facts and the Case
DECISION
In February 2008 petitioner Cherryl B. Dolina filed a petition with prayer for
Support; Anti-Violence against Women and Their Children Act (R.A. No. 9262); The the issuance of a temporary protection order against respondent Glenn D.
petitioner evidently filed the wrong action to obtain support for her child—the object Vallecera before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tacloban City in P.O.
of R.A. 9262 under which she filed the case is the protection and safety of women 2008-02-071 for alleged woman and child abuse under Republic Act (R.A.)
and children who are victims of abuse or violence.—Dolina evidently filed the wrong 9262.2 In filling out the blanks in the pro-formacomplaint, Dolina added
action to obtain support for her child. The object of R.A. 9262 under which she filed a handwritten prayer for financial support3 from Vallecera for their supposed
the case is the protection and safety of women and children who are victims of abuse child. She based her prayer on the latter’s Certificate of Live Birth which
or violence. Although the issuance of a protection order against the respondent in the listed Vallecera as the child’s father. The petition also asked the RTC to
case can include the grant of legal support for the wife and the child, this assumes order Philippine Airlines, Vallecera’s employer, to withhold from his pay such
that both are entitled to a protection order and to legal support. Dolina of course amount of support as the RTC may deem appropriate.
alleged that Vallecera had been abusing her and her child. But it became apparent to
the RTC upon hearing that this was not the case since, contrary to her claim, neither
Vallecera opposed the petition. He claimed that Dolina’s petition was
she nor her child ever lived with Vallecera. As it turned out, the true object of her
essentially one for financial support rather than for protection against woman
action was to get financial support from Vallecera for her child, her claim being that
and child abuses; that he was not the child’s father; that the signature
he is the father. He of course vigorously denied this.
appearing on the child’s Certificate of Live Birth is not his; that the petition is
a harassment suit intended to force him to acknowledge the child as his and
Same; To be entitled to legal support, petitioner must, in proper action, first give it financial support; and that Vallecera has never lived nor has been
establish the filiation of the child, if the same is not admitted or acknowledged; living with Dolina, rendering unnecessary the issuance of a protection order
Illegitimate children are entitled to support and successional rights but their filiation against him.
must be duly proved.—To be entitled to legal support, petitioner must, in proper
action, first establish the filiation of the child, if the same is not admitted or
On March 13, 20084 the RTC dismissed the petition after hearing since no
acknowledged. Since Dolina’s demand for support for her son is based on her claim
prior judgment exists establishing the filiation of Dolina’s son and granting
that he is Vallecera’s illegitimate child, the latter is not entitled to such support if he
him the right to support as basis for an order to compel the giving of such
had not acknowledged him, until Dolina shall have proved his relation to him. The
support. Dolina filed a motion for reconsideration but the RTC denied it in its
child’s remedy is to file through her mother a judicial action against Vallecera for
April 4, 2008 Order,5 with an admonition that she first file a petition for
compulsory recognition. If filiation is beyond question, support follows as matter of
compulsory recognition of her child as a prerequisite for support. Unsatisfied,
obligation. In short, illegitimate children are entitled to support and successional
Dolina filed the present petition for review directly with this Court.
rights but their filiation must be duly proved.

Human Rights Law (Rights of Women) Page 34 of 174

The Issue Presented While the Court is mindful of the best interests of the child in cases involving
paternity and filiation, it is just as aware of the disturbance that unfounded
The sole issue presented in this case is whether or not the RTC correctly paternity suits cause to the privacy and peace of the putative father’s
dismissed Dolina’s action for temporary protection and denied her application legitimate family.12 Vallecera disowns Dolina’s child and denies having a
for temporary support for her child. hand in the preparation and signing of its certificate of birth. This issue has to
be resolved in an appropriate case.
The Court’s Ruling
ACCORDINGLY, the Court DENIES the petition and AFFIRMS the Regional
Trial Court of Tacloban City’s Order dated March 13, 2008 that dismissed
Dolina evidently filed the wrong action to obtain support for her child. The
petitioner Cherryl B. Dolina’s action in P.O. 2008-02-07, and Order dated
object of R.A. 9262 under which she filed the case is the protection and
April 4, 2008, denying her motion for reconsideration dated March 28, 2008.
safety of women and children who are victims of abuse or
violence.6 Although the issuance of a protection order against the respondent
in the case can include the grant of legal support for the wife and the child, SO ORDERED.
this assumes that both are entitled to a protection order and to legal support.

Dolina of course alleged that Vallecera had been abusing her and her
child.1avvphil But it became apparent to the RTC upon hearing that this was
not the case since, contrary to her claim, neither she nor her child ever lived
with Vallecera. As it turned out, the true object of her action was to get
financial support from Vallecera for her child, her claim being that he is the
father. He of course vigorously denied this.

To be entitled to legal support, petitioner must, in proper action, first establish

the filiation of the child, if the same is not admitted or acknowledged. Since
Dolina’s demand for support for her son is based on her claim that he is
Vallecera’s illegitimate child, the latter is not entitled to such support if he had
not acknowledged him, until Dolina shall have proved his relation to
him.7 The child’s remedy is to file through her mother a judicial action against
Vallecera for compulsory recognition.8 If filiation is beyond question, support
follows as matter of obligation. 9 In short, illegitimate children are entitled to
support and successional rights but their filiation must be duly proved. 10

Dolina’s remedy is to file for the benefit of her child an action against
Vallecera for compulsory recognition in order to establish filiation and then
demand support. Alternatively, she may directly file an action for support,
where the issue of compulsory recognition may be integrated and resolved. 11

It must be observed, however, that the RTC should not have dismissed the
entire case based solely on the lack of any judicial declaration of filiation
between Vallecera and Dolina’s child since the main issue remains to be the
alleged violence committed by Vallecera against Dolina and her child and
whether they are entitled to protection. But of course, this matter is already
water under the bridge since Dolina failed to raise this error on review. This
omission lends credence to the conclusion of the RTC that the real purpose
of the petition is to obtain support from Vallecera.

Human Rights Law (Rights of Women) Page 35 of 174

 bolstered by the testimony of Vivian Yu, petitioner’s secretary between 1979 to
[4] 1994, of Iryn Lago Salcedo, Public Health Nurse II, and of Farah Dongallo y
Alkuino, a city health nurse, all of whom were said to have likewise been victims of
THIRD DIVISION perverse behavior by petitioner.

Same; Same; Appeals; The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts, and the factual
findings of the Sandiganbayan must be respected by, if not indeed conclusive upon,
[G.R. No. 140604. March 6, 2002] the Tribunal, where no cogent reasons have been sufficiently shown to now hold
otherwise. —The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts, and the factual findings of the
Sandiganbayan must be respected by, if not indeed conclusive upon, the tribunal, no
cogent reasons having been sufficiently shown to now hold otherwise. The
DR. RICO S. JACUTIN, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE assessment on the credibility of witnesses is a matter best left to the trial court
PHILIPPINES, respondent. because of its unique position of being able to observe that elusive and
incommunicable evidence on the deportment of witnesses at the stand, an
opportunity that is denied the appellate court.
DECISION
Same; Same; Damages; Moral damages are not intended to enrich a complainant
Criminal Law; Anti-Sexual Harassment Act (R.A. No. 7877); Words and Phrases; but are awarded only to enable an injured party obtain some means that would help
“Sexual Harassment,” Defined.—The above contentions of petitioner are not obviate the sufferings sustained on account of the culpable action of an offender.—
meritorious. Section 3 of Republic Act 7877 provides: “SEC. 3. Work, Education or Conformably with prevailing jurisprudence, the grant of moral and exemplary
Training-related Sexual Harassment Defined.—Work, education or trainingrelated damages by the Sandiganbayan must be tempered to reasonable levels. Moral
sexual harassment is committed by an employer, employee, manager, supervisor, damages are not intended to enrich a complainant but are awarded only to enable an
agent of the employer, teacher, instructor, professor, coach, trainor, or any other injured party obtain some means that would help obviate the sufferings sustained on
person who, having authority, influence or moral ascendancy over another in a work account of the culpable action of an offender. Its award must not appear to be the
or training or education environment, demands, requests or otherwise requires any result of passion or undue prejudice, and it must always reasonably approximate
sexual favor from the other, regardless of whether the demand, request or extent of injury and be proportional to the wrong committed. Indeed, Juliet should be
requirement for submission is accepted by the object of said Act. “(a) In a work- recompensed for her mental anguish. Dr. Merlita F. Adaza, a psychological
related or employment environment, sexual harassment is committed when: “(1) The counseling expert, has found Juliet to be emotionally and psychologically disturbed
sexual favor is made as a condition in the hiring or in the employment, re- and suffering from post trauma stress following her unpleasant experience with
employment or continued employment of said individual, or in granting said petitioner. The Court finds it fitting to award in favor of Juliet Yee P30,000.00 moral
individual favorable compensation, terms, conditions, promotions, or privileges; or damages. In addition, she should be entitled to P20,000.00 exemplary damages to
the refusal to grant the sexual favor results in limiting, segregating or classifying the serve as a deterrent against, or as a negative incentive to curb, socially deleterious
employee which in any way would discriminate, deprive or diminish employment actions.
opportunities or otherwise adversely affect said employee.”
VITUG, J.:
Same; Same; While the City Mayor has the exclusive prerogative in appointing city
personnel, it should stand to reason, nevertheless, that a recommendation from the In an accusatory Information, dated 22 July 1996, petitioner, City Health
City Health Officer in the appointment of personnel in the municipal health office Officer Rico Jacutin of Cagayan de Oro City, was charged before the
carry good weight.—While the City Mayor had the exclusive prerogative in Sandiganbayan, Fourth Division, with the crime of Sexual Harassment,
appointing city personnel, it should stand to reason, nevertheless, that a thusly:
recommendation from petitioner in the appointment of personnel in the municipal
health office could carry good weight. Indeed, petitioner himself would appear to That sometime on or about 01 December 1995, in Cagayan de Oro City, and
have conveyed, by his words and actions, an impression that he could facilitate within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court pursuant to the provisions of
Juliet’s employment. Indeed, petitioner would not have been able to take undue RA 7975, the accused, a public officer, being then the City Health Officer of
liberalities on the person of Juliet had it not been for his high position in the City Cagayan de Oro City with salary grade 26 but a high ranking official by
Health Office of Cagayan de Oro City. The findings of the Sandiganbayan were express provision of RA 7975, committing the offense in relation to his official

Human Rights Law (Rights of Women) Page 36 of 174

functions and taking advantage of his position, did there and then, willfully, together. Soon, at the designated place, a white car driven by petitioner
unlawfully and criminally, demand, solicit, request sexual favors from Ms. stopped. She got in. Petitioner held her pulse and told her not to be
Juliet Q. Yee, a young 22 year-old woman, single and fresh graduate in scared.After dropping by at his house to put on his bowling attire, petitioner
Bachelor of Science in Nursing who was seeking employment in the office of got back to the car.
the accused, namely: by demanding from Ms. Yee that she should, expose
her body and allow her private parts to be mashed and stimulated by the While driving, petitioner casually asked her if she already took her bath,
accused, which sexual favor was made as a condition for the employment of and she said she was so in a hurry that she did not find time for it. Petitioner
Ms. Yee in the Family Program of the Office of the accused, thus constituting then inquired whether she had varicose veins, and she said no. Petitioner
sexual harassment.[1] told her to raise her foot and lower her pants so that he might confirm it. She
felt assured that it was all part of the research. Petitioner still pushed her
pants down to her knees and held her thigh. He put his hands inside her
Upon his arraignment, petitioner pled not guilty to the offense charged; panty until he reached her pubic hair.Surprised, she exclaimed hala ka! and
hence, trial proceeded. instinctively pulled her pants up. Petitioner then touched her abdomen with
Juliet Q. Yee, then a 22-year old fresh graduate of nursing, averred that his right hand saying words of endearment and letting the back of his palm
on 28 November 1995 her father accompanied her to the office of petitioner touch her forehead. He told her to raise her shirt to check whether she had
at the City Health Office to seek employment. Juliets father and petitioner nodes or lumps. She hesitated for a while but, eventually, raised it up to her
were childhood friends. Juliet was informed by the doctor that the City Health navel. Petitioner then fondled her breast. Shocked at what petitioner did, she
Office had just then filled up the vacant positions for nurses but that he would lowered her shirt and embraced her bag to cover herself, telling him angrily
still see if he might be able to help her. that she was through with the research. He begged her not to tell anybody
about what had just happened. Before she alighted from the car, petitioner
The following day, 29 November 1995, Juliet and her father returned to urged her to reconsider her decision to quit. He then handed over to her
the City Health Office, and they were informed by petitioner that a medical P300.00 for her expenses.
group from Texas, U.S.A., was coming to town in December to look into
putting up a clinic in Lapasan, Cagayan de Oro, where she might be Arriving home, she told her mother about her meeting with Dr. Jacutin
considered. On 01 December 1995, around nine oclock in the morning, she and the money he gave her but she did not give the rest of the story.  Her
and her father went back to the office of petitioner. The latter informed her mother scolded her for accepting the money and instructed her to return it. In
that there was a vacancy in a family planning project for the city and that, if the morning of 04 December 1994, Juliet repaired to the clinic to return the
she were interested, he could interview her for the job. Petitioner then started money to petitioner but she was not able to see him until about one oclock in
putting up to her a number of questions. When asked at one point whether or the afternoon. She tried to give back the money but petitioner refused to
not she already had a boyfriend, she said no. Petitioner suggested that accept it.
perhaps if her father were not around, she could afford to be honest in her A week later, Juliet told her sister about the incident. On 16 December
answers to the doctor. The father, taking the cue, decided to leave. Petitioner 1995, she attempted to slash her wrist with a fastener right after relating the
then inquired whether she was still a virgin, explaining to her his theory on incident to her mother. Noticing that Juliet was suffering from some
the various aspects of virginity. He hypothetically asked whether she would psychological problem, the family referred her to Dr. Merlita Adaza for
tell her family or friends if a male friend happened to intimately touch counseling. Dr. Adaza would later testify that Juliet, together with her sister,
her. Petitioner later offered her the job where she would be the subject of a came to see her on 21 December 1995, and that Juliet appeared to be
research program. She was requested to be back after lunch. emotionally disturbed, blaming herself for being so stupid as to allow Dr.
Before proceeding to petitioners office that afternoon, Juliet dropped by Jacutin to molest her. Dr. Adaza concluded that Juliets frustration was due to
at the nearby church to seek divine guidance as she felt so confused. When post trauma stress.
she got to the office, petitioner made several telephone calls to some Petitioner contradicted the testimony of Juliet Yee. He claimed that on
hospitals to inquire whether there was any available opening for her. Not 28 November 1995 he had a couple of people who went to see him in his
finding any, petitioner again offered her a job in the family planning research office, among them, Juliet and her father, Pat. Justin Yee, who was a
undertaking. She expressed hesitation if a physical examination would boyhood friend. When it was their turn to talk to petitioner, Pat. Yee
include hugging her but petitioner assured her that he was only kidding about introduced his daughter Juliet who expressed her wish to join the City Health
it. Petitioner then invited her to go bowling. Petitioner told her to meet him at Office. Petitioner replied that there was no vacancy in his office, adding that
Borja Street so that people would not see them on board the same car only the City Mayor really had the power to appoint city personnel. On 01

Human Rights Law (Rights of Women) Page 37 of 174

December 1995, the afternoon when the alleged incident happened, he was favor from the other, regardless of whether the demand, request or
in a meeting with the Committee on Awards in the Office of the City requirement for submission is accepted by the object of said Act.
Mayor. On 04 December 1995, when Juliet said she went to his office to
return the P300.00, he did not report to the office for he was scheduled to (a) In a work-related or employment environment, sexual harassment is
leave for Davao at 2:35 p.m. to attend a hearing before the Office of the committed when:
Ombudsman for Mindanao. He submitted in evidence a photocopy of his
plane ticket. He asserted that the complaint for sexual harassment, as well (1) The sexual favor is made as a condition in the hiring or in the
as all the other cases filed against him by Vivian Yu, Iryn Salcedo, Mellie employment, re-employment or continued employment of said individual, or
Villanueva and Pamela Rodis, were but forms of political harassment in granting said individual favorable compensation, terms, conditions,
directed at him. promotions, or privileges; or the refusal to grant the sexual favor results in
The Sandiganbayan, through its Fourth Division, rendered its decision, limiting, segregating or classifying the employee which in any way would
dated 05 November 1999, penned by Mr. Justice Rodolfo G. Palattao, finding discriminate, deprive or diminish employment opportunities or otherwise
the accused, Dr. Rico Jacutin, guilty of the crime of Sexual Harassment adversely affect said employee.
under Republic Act No. 7877. The Sandiganbayan concluded:
Petitioner was the City Health Officer of Cagayan de Oro City, a position
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered, convicting the accused RICO he held when complainant, a newly graduated nurse, saw him to enlist his
JACUTIN Y SALCEDO of the crime of Sexual Harassment, defined and help in her desire to gain employment. He did try to show an interest in her
punished under R.A. No. 7877, particularly Secs. 3 and 7 of the same Act, plight, her father being a boyhood friend, but finding no opening suitable for
properly known as the Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995, and is hereby her in his office, he asked her about accepting a job in a family planning
sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of six (6) months and to pay research project. It all started from there; the Sandiganbayan recited the rest
a fine of Twenty Thousand (P20,000.00) Pesos, with subsidiary of the story:
imprisonment in case of insolvency. Accused is further ordered to indemnify
the offended party in the amount of Three Hundred Thousand (P300,000.00) x x x. Succeeding in convincing the complainant that her physical
Pesos, by way of moral damages; Two Hundred Thousand (P200,000.00) examination would be a part of a research, accused asked complainant if she
Pesos, by way of Exemplary damages and to pay the cost of suit. [2] would agree that her private parts (bolts) would be seen. Accused assured
her that with her cooperation in the research, she would gain knowledge from
In the instant recourse, it is contended that - it. As complainant looked upon the accused with utmost reverence, respect,
and paternal guidance, she agreed to undergo the physical examination. At
I. Petitioner cannot be convicted of the crime of sexual harassment in view of this juncture, accused abruptly stopped the interview and told the
the inapplicability of Republic Act No. 7877 to the case at bar. complainant to go home and be back at 2:00 oclock in the afternoon of the
same day, December 1, 1995. Complainant returned at 2:00 oclock in the
afternoon, but did not proceed immediately to the office of the accused, as
II. Petitioner [has been] denied x x x his constitutional right to due process of she dropped by a nearby church to ask divine guidance, as she was
law and presumption of innocence on account of the insufficiency of the confused and at a loss on how to resolve her present predicament. At 3:00
prosecution evidence to sustain his conviction.[3] oclock in the afternoon, she went back to the office of the accused. And once
inside, accused called up a certain Madonna, inquiring if there was a
The above contentions of petitioner are not meritorious. Section 3 of vacancy, but he was told that she would only accept a registered
Republic Act 7877 provides: nurse. Complainant was about to leave the office of the accused when the
latter prevailed upon her to stay because he would call one more hospital.  In
SEC. 3. Work, Education or Training-related Sexual Harassment Defined. her presence, a call was made. But again accused told her that there was no
Work, education or training-related sexual harassment is committed by an vacancy. As all efforts to look for a job in other hospitals failed, accused
employer, employee, manager, supervisor, agent of the employer, teacher, renewed the offer to the complainant to be a part of the research in the
instructor, professor, coach, trainor, or any other person who, having Family Planning Program where there would be physical
authority, influence or moral ascendancy over another in a work or training or examination. Thereafter, accused motioned his two (2) secretaries to go out
education environment, demands, requests or otherwise requires any sexual of the room. Upon moving closer to the complainant, accused asked her if
she would agree to the offer. Complainant told him she would not agree

Human Rights Law (Rights of Women) Page 38 of 174

because the research included hugging. He then assured her that he was the door of the car when he suddenly grabbed her thigh, but this time,
just kidding and that a pre-schooler and high schooler have already been complainant instantly parried his hand with her bag. [4]
subjected to such examination. With assurance given, complainant changed
her mind and agreed to the research, for she is now convinced that she While the City Mayor had the exclusive prerogative in appointing city
would be of help to the research and would gain knowledge from it. At this personnel, it should stand to reason, nevertheless, that a recommendation
point, accused asked her if she was a tomboy, she answered in the from petitioner in the appointment of personnel in the municipal health office
negative. He then instructed her to go with him but he would first play could carry good weight. Indeed, petitioner himself would appear to have
bowling, and later proceed with the research (physical examination). On the conveyed, by his words and actions, an impression that he could facilitate
understanding of the complainant that they will proceed to the clinic where Juliets employment. Indeed, petitioner would not have been able to take
the research will be conducted, she agreed to go with the accused. But undue liberalities on the person of Juliet had it not been for his high position
accused instructed her to proceed to Borja St. where she will just wait for in the City Health Office of Cagayan de Oro City. The findings of the
him, as it was not good for people to see them riding in a car together.  She Sandiganbayan were bolstered by the testimony of Vivian Yu, petitioners
walked from the office of the accused and proceeded to Borja St. as secretary between 1979 to 1994, of Iryn Lago Salcedo, Public Health Nurse
instructed. And after a while, a white car arrived. The door was opened to her II, and of Farah Dongallo y Alkuino, a city health nurse, all of whom were said
and she was instructed by the accused to come inside. Inside the car, he to have likewise been victims of perverse behavior by petitioner.
called her attention why she was in a pensive mood. She retorted she was
not. As they were seated side by side, the accused held her pulse and told The Sandiganbayan rightly rejected the defense of alibi proffered by
her not to be scared. He informed her that he would go home for a while to petitioner, i.e., that he was at a meeting of the Committee on Awards; the
put on his bowling attire. After a short while, he came back inside the car and court a quo said:
asked her if she has taken a bath. She explained that she was not able to do
so because she left the house hurriedly. Still while inside the car, accused There are some observations which the Court would like to point out on the
directed her to raise her foot so he could see whether she has varicose veins evidence adduced by the defense, particularly in the Minutes of the meeting
on her legs. Thinking that it was part of the research, she did as of the Awards Committee, as testified to by witness Myrna Maagad on
instructed. He told her to raise it higher, but she protested. He then instructed September 8, 1998.
her to lower her pants instead. She did lower her pants, exposing half of her
legs.But then the accused pushed it forward down to her knees and grabbed First, admitted, Teresita I. Rozabal was the immediate supervisor of witness
her legs. He told her to raise her shirt. Feeling as if she had lost control of the Myrna Maagad. The Notices to hold the meeting (Exh. 3-A and 3-B) were
situation, she raised her shirt as instructed. Shocked, she exclaimed, hala ka! signed by Teresita Rozabal. But the Minutes of the meeting, Exh. 5, was
because he tried to insert his hand into her panty. Accused then held her signed by Myrna Maagad and not by Teresita Rozabal. The documents,
abdomen, saying, you are like my daughter, Day! (Visayan word of Exhs. 3-A and 3-B certify that the officially designated secretary of the
endearment), and let the back of his palm touch her forehead, indicating the Awards Committee was Teresita Rozabal.
traditional way of making the young respect their elders. He again told her to
raise her shirt. Feeling embarrassed and uncomfortable, yet unsure whether
Second, why was Myrna Maagad in possession of the attendance logbook
she was entertaining malice, she raised her shirt up to her breast. He then
and how was she able to personally bring the same in court when she
fondled her breast. Reacting, she impulsively lower her shirt and embraced
testified on September 8, 1998, when in fact, she admitted during her
her bar while silently asking God what was happening to her and asking the
testimony that she retired from the government service on December 1,
courage to resist accuseds physical advances. After a short while, she asked
1997? Surely, Myrna Maagad could not still be the custodian of the logbook
him if there could be a right place for physical examination where there would
when she testified.
be many doctors. He just exclaimed, so you like that there are many doctors!
Then he asked her if she has tooth decay. Thinking that he was planning to
kiss her, she answered that she has lots of decayed teeth. He advised her And finally, in the logbook, under the sub-heading, Others Present, the
then to have them treated. Finally, she informed him that she would not attendance of those who attended was individually handwritten by the
continue with the research. The accused retorted that complainant was persons concerned who wrote and signed their names. But in the case of Dr.
entertaining malice and reminded her of what she earlier agreed; that she Tiro and Dr. Rico Jacutin, their names were handwritten by clerk Sylvia Tan-
would not tell anybody about what happened. He then promised to give her Nerry, not by Dr. Tiro and Dr. Jacutin. However, Myrna Maagad testified that
P15,000.00 so that she could take the examination. She was about to open the logbook was passed around to attending individuals inside the
conference room.[5]

Human Rights Law (Rights of Women) Page 39 of 174

 Most importantly, the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts, and the
factual findings of the Sandiganbayan must be respected by, if not indeed
conclusive upon, the tribunal,[6] no cogent reasons having been sufficiently
shown to now hold otherwise. The assessment on the credibility of witnesses
is a matter best left to the trial court because of its unique position of being
able to observe that elusive and incommunicable evidence on the
deportment of witnesses at the stand, an opportunity that is denied the
appellate court.[7]
Conformably with prevailing jurisprudence, the grant of moral and
exemplary damages by the Sandiganbayan must be tempered to reasonable
levels. Moral damages are not intended to enrich a complainant but are
awarded only to enable an injured party obtain some means that would help
obviate the sufferings sustained on account of the culpable action of an
offender. Its award must not appear to be the result of passion or undue
prejudice,[8] and it must always reasonably approximate the extent of injury
and be proportional to the wrong committed. Indeed, Juliet should be
recompensed for her mental anguish. Dr. Merlita F. Adaza, a psychological
counseling expert, has found Juliet to be emotionally and psychologically
disturbed and suffering from post trauma stress following her unpleasant
experience with petitioner. The Court finds it fitting to award in favor of Juliet
Yee P30,000.00 moral damages. In addition, she should be entitled to
P20,000.00 exemplary damages to serve as a deterrent against, or as a
negative incentive to curb, socially deleterious actions.[9]
WHEREFORE, the questioned decision of the Sandiganbayan in
Criminal Case No. 23799, finding Dr. Rico Jacutin y Salcedo GUILTY of the
crime of Sexual Harassment defined and punished under Republic Act No.
7877, particularly Sections 3 and 7 thereof, and penalizing him with
imprisonment of six (6) months and to pay a fine of Twenty Thousand
(P20,000.00) Pesos, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, is
AFFIRMED. The Sandiganbayans award of moral and exemplary damages
are MODIFIED; instead, petitioner is ordered to indemnify the offended party,
Juliet Yee, in the amount of P30,000.00 and P20,000.00 by way of,
respectively, moral damages and exemplary damages. Costs against
petitioner.
SO ORDERED.

Human Rights Law (Rights of Women) Page 40 of 174

 criminal cases, self-defense (and similarly, defense of a stranger or third person)
[5] shifts the burden of proof from the prosecution to the defense.
EN BANC
Same; Same; Same; Same; Battered Woman Syndrome (BWS); The concept has been
recognized in foreign jurisdictions as a form of self-defense or, at the least,
incomplete self-defense.—In claiming self-defense, appellant raises the novel theory
[G.R. No. 135981. January 15, 2004] of the battered woman syndrome. While new in Philippine jurisprudence, the concept
has been recognized in foreign jurisdictions as a form of self-defense or, at the least,
incomplete self-defense. By appreciating evidence that a victim or defendant is
afflicted with the syndrome, foreign courts convey their “understanding of the
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs.  MARIVIC justifiably fearful state of mind of a person who has been cyclically abused and
GENOSA, appellant. controlled over a period of time.”

DECISION Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; “Battered Woman”, defined; In order to be
classified as a battered woman, the couple must go through the battering cycle at
least twice.—A battered woman has been defined as a woman “who is repeatedly
Criminal Law; Parricide; Evidence; Witnesses; Appeals; The findings of the trial
subjected to any forceful physical or psychological behavior by a man in order to
court on the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are entitled to a high
coerce her to do something he wants her to do without concern for her rights.
degree of respect and will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of any showing
Battered women include wives or women in any form of intimate relationship with
that the trial judge gravely abused his discretion.—The first six assigned errors
men. Furthermore, in order to be classified as a battered woman, the couple must go
raised by appellant are factual in nature, if not collateral to the resolution of the
through the battering cycle at least twice. Any woman may find herself in an abusive
principal issues. As consistently held by this Court, the findings of the trial court on
relationship with a man once. If it occurs a second time, and she remains in the
the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are entitled to a high degree of
situation, she is defined as a battered woman.”
respect and will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of any showing that the
trial judge gravely abused his discretion or overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied
material facts or circumstances of weight and substance that could affect the Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Battered women exhibit common personality
outcome of the case traits.—Battered women exhibit common personality traits, such as low self-esteem,
traditional beliefs about the home, the family and the female sex role; emotional
dependence upon the dominant male; the tendency to accept responsibility for the
Same; Same; Same; Relationship; The key element in parricide is the relationship of
batterer’s actions; and false hopes that the relationship will improve.
the offender with the victim.—The key element in parricide is the relationship of the
offender with the victim. In the case of parricide of a spouse, the best proof of the
relationship between the accused and the deceased is the marriage certificate. In the Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; “Cycle of Violence”; Phases; Tension-Building
absence of a marriage certificate, however, oral evidence of the fact of marriage may Phase; During the tension-building phase, minor battering occurs—it could be
be considered by the trial court if such proof is not objected to. verbal or slight physical abuse or another form of hostile behavior.—During the
tension-building phase,minor battering occurs—it could be verbal or slight physical
abuse or another form of hostile behavior. The woman usually tries to pacify the
Same; Same; Same; Admission; Exceptions; Axiomatic is the rule that a judicial
batterer through a show of kind, nurturing behavior; or by simply staying out of his
admission is conclusive upon the party making it, with exceptions.—Axiomatic is the
way. What actually happens is that she allows herself to be abused in ways that, to
rule that a judicial admission is conclusive upon the party making it, except only
her, are comparatively minor. All she wants is to prevent the escalation of the
when there is a showing that (1) the admission was made through a palpable mistake,
violence exhibited by the batterer. This wish, however, proves to be double-edged,
or (2) no admission was in fact made.
because her “placatory” and passive behavior legitimizes his belief that he has the
right to abuse her in the first place. However, the techniques adopted by the woman
Same; Same; Justifying Circumstances; Self-defense; In criminal cases, self-defense in her effort to placate him are not usually successful, and the verbal and/or physical
shifts the burden of proof from the prosecution to the defense.—When the accused abuse worsens. Each partner senses the imminent loss of control and the growing
admits killing the victim, it is incumbent upon her to prove any claimed justifying tension and despair. Exhausted from the persistent stress, the battered woman soon
circumstance by clear and convincing evidence. Well-settled is the rule that in withdraws emotionally. But the more she becomes emotionally unavailable, the more

Human Rights Law (Rights of Women) Page 41 of 174

the batterer becomes angry, oppressive and abusive. Often, at some unpredictable and effect of self-defense: “Art. 11. Justifying circumstances.—The following do not
point, the violence “spirals out of control” and leads to an acute battering incident. incur any criminal liability: “1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights,
provided that the following circumstances concur; First. Unlawful aggression;
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Acute Battering Incident; The acute battering Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; Third.
incident is said to be characterized by brutality, destructiveness and, sometimes, Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.”
death.—The acute battering incidentis said to be characterized by brutality,
destructiveness and, sometimes, death. The battered woman deems this incident as Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Unlawful aggression; Unlawful aggression is the
unpredictable, yet also inevitable. During this phase, she has no control; only the most essential element of self-defense.— Unlawful aggression is the most essential
batterer may put an end to the violence. Its nature can be as unpredictable as the time element of self-defense. It presupposes actual, sudden and unexpected attack—or an
of its explosion, and so are his reasons for ending it. The battered woman usually imminent danger thereof—on the life or safety of a person Same; Same; Same;
realizes that she cannot reason with him, and that resistance would only exacerbate Same; Same; Same; Aggression, if not continuous, does not warrant self-defense.—
her condition. At this stage, she has a sense of detachment from the attack and the Aggression, if not continuous, does not warrant self-defense. In the absence of such
terrible pain, although she may later clearly remember every detail. Her apparent aggression, there can be no self-defense—complete or incomplete —on the part of
passivity in the face of acute violence may be rationalized thus: the batterer is almost the victim.
always much stronger physically, and she knows from her past painful experience
that it is futile to fight back. Acute battering incidents are often very savage and out Same; Same; Mitigating Circumstances; Passion and Obfuscation; Requisites; To
of control, such that innocent bystanders or intervenors are likely to get hurt. appreciate this circumstance, the following requisites should concur.—In addition,
we also find in favor of appellant the extenuating circumstance of having acted upon
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Tranquil Period; The final phase of an impulse so powerful as to have naturally produced passion and obfuscation. It has
the cycle of violence begins when the acute battering incident ends—during this been held that this state of mind is present when a crime is committed as a result of
tranquil period, the couple experience profound relief.—The final phase of the cycle an uncontrollable burst of passion provoked by prior unjust or improper acts or by a
of violence begins when the acute battering incident ends. During this tranquil legitimate stimulus so powerful as to overcome reason. To appreciate this
period, the couple experience profound relief. On the one hand, the batterer may circumstance, the following requisites should concur: (1) there is an act, both
show a tender and nurturing behavior towards his partner. He knows that he has been unlawful and sufficient to produce such a condition of mind; and (2) this act is not
viciously cruel and tries to make up for it, begging for her forgiveness and promising far removed from the commission of the crime by a considerable length of time,
never to beat her again. On the other hand, the battered woman also tries to convince during which the accused might recover her normal equanimity.
herself that the battery will never happen again; that her partner will change for the
better; and that this “good, gentle and caring man” is the real person whom she loves. Same; Same; Qualifying Circumstances; Treachery; Because of the gravity of the
A battered woman usually believes that she is the sole anchor of the emotional resulting offense, treachery must be proved as conclusively as the killing itself.—
stability of the batterer. Sensing his isolation and despair, she feels responsible for There is treachery when one commits any of the crimes against persons by
his well-being. The truth, though, is that the chances of his reforming, or seeking or employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof without risk to oneself
receiving professional help, are very slim, especially if she remains with him. arising from the defense that the offended party might make. In order to qualify an
Generally, only after she leaves him does he seek professional help as a way of act as treacherous, the circumstances invoked must be proven as indubitably as the
getting her back. Yet, it is in this phase of remorseful reconciliation that she is most killing itself; they cannot be deduced from mere inferences, or conjectures, which
thoroughly tormented psychologically. The illusion of absolute inter dependency is have no place in the appreciation of evidence. Because of the gravity of the resulting
well-entrenched in a battered woman’s psyche. In this phase, she and her batterer are offense, treachery must be proved as conclusively as the killing itself.
indeed emotionally dependent on each other—she for his nurturant behavior, he for
her forgiveness. Underneath this miserable cycle of ‘‘tension, violence and PANGANIBAN, J.:
forgiveness,” each partner may believe that it is better to die than to be separated.
Neither one may really feel independent, capable of functioning without the other. Admitting she killed her husband, appellant anchors her prayer for
acquittal on a novel theory -- the battered woman syndrome (BWS), which
Same; Same; Same; Same; Elements; One who resorts to selfdefense must face a allegedly constitutes self-defense. Under the proven facts, however, she is
real threat on one’s life, not merely imaginary. —Settled in our jurisprudence, not entitled to complete exoneration because there was no unlawful
however, is the rule that the one who resorts to self-defense must face a real threat on aggression -- no immediate and unexpected attack on her by her batterer-
one’s life; and the peril sought to be avoided must be imminent and actual, not husband at the time she shot him.
merely imaginary. Thus, the Revised Penal Code provides the following requisites

Human Rights Law (Rights of Women) Page 42 of 174

 Absent unlawful aggression, there can be no self-defense, complete or That on or about the 15th day of November 1995, at Barangay Bilwang,
incomplete. Municipality of Isabel, Province of Leyte, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with intent to
But all is not lost. The severe beatings repeatedly inflicted on appellant kill, with treachery and evident premeditation, did then and there wilfully,
constituted a form of cumulative provocation that broke down her unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault, hit and wound one BEN GENOSA,
psychological resistance and self-control. This psychological paralysis she her legitimate husband, with the use of a hard deadly weapon, which the
suffered diminished her will power, thereby entitling her to the mitigating accused had provided herself for the purpose, [causing] the following
factor under paragraphs 9 and 10 of Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code. wounds, to wit:
In addition, appellant should also be credited with the extenuating
circumstance of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as to have Cadaveric spasm.
naturally produced passion and obfuscation. The acute battering she
suffered that fatal night in the hands of her batterer-spouse, in spite of the Body on the 2nd stage of decomposition.
fact that she was eight months pregnant with their child, overwhelmed her
and put her in the aforesaid emotional and mental state, which overcame her Face, black, blownup & swollen w/ evident post-mortem lividity.
reason and impelled her to vindicate her life and her unborn childs. Eyes protruding from its sockets and tongue slightly protrudes out
Considering the presence of these two mitigating circumstances arising of the mouth.
from BWS, as well as the benefits of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, she
may now apply for and be released from custody on parole, because she has Fracture, open, depressed, circular located at the occipital bone of
already served the minimum period of her penalty while under detention the head, resulting [in] laceration of the brain, spontaneous
during the pendency of this case. rupture of the blood vessels on the posterior surface of the brain,
laceration of the dura and meningeal vessels producing severe
intracranial hemorrhage.
The Case
Blisters at both extrem[i]ties, anterior chest, posterior chest, trunk w/
shedding of the epidermis.
For automatic review before this Court is the September 25, 1998
Decision[1] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Ormoc City (Branch 35) in Abdomen distended w/ gas. Trunk bloated.
Criminal Case No. 5016-0, finding Marivic Genosa guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of parricide. The decretal portion of the Decision reads: which caused his death.[4]

WHEREFORE, after all the foregoing being duly considered, the Court finds With the assistance of her counsel, [5] appellant pleaded not guilty during
the accused, Marivic Genosa y Isidro, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of her arraignment on March 3, 1997.[6] In due course, she was tried for and
the crime of Parricide as provided under Article 246 of the Revised Penal convicted of parricide.
Code as restored by Sec. 5, RA No. 7659, and after finding treachery as a
generic aggravating circumstance and none of mitigating circumstance,
hereby sentences the accused with the penalty of DEATH. The Facts

The Court likewise penalizes the accused to pay the heirs of the deceased
the sum of fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00), Philippine currency as
Version of the Prosecution
indemnity and another sum of fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00), Philippine
currency as moral damages.[2]
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) summarizes the prosecutions
The Information[3] charged appellant with parricide as follows: version of the facts in this wise:

Human Rights Law (Rights of Women) Page 43 of 174

Appellant and Ben Genosa were united in marriage on November 19, 1983 in Meanwhile, in the morning of the same day, SPO3 Leo Acodesin, then
Ormoc City. Thereafter, they lived with the parents of Ben in their house at assigned at the police station at Isabel, Leyte, received a report regarding the
Isabel, Leyte. For a time, Bens younger brother, Alex, and his wife lived with foul smell at the Genosas rented house. Together with SPO1 Millares, SPO1
them too. Sometime in 1995, however, appellant and Ben rented from Colon, and Dr. Refelina Cerillo, SPO3 Acodesin proceeded to the house and
Steban Matiga a house at Barangay Bilwang, Isabel, Leyte where they lived went inside the bedroom where they found the dead body of Ben lying on his
with their two children, namely: John Marben and Earl Pierre. side wrapped with a bedsheet. There was blood at the nape of Ben who only
had his briefs on. SPO3 Acodesin found in one corner at the side of
On November 15, 1995, Ben and Arturo Basobas went to a cockfight after an aparador a metal pipe about two (2) meters from where Ben was, leaning
receiving their salary. They each had two (2) bottles of beer before heading against a wall. The metal pipe measured three (3) feet and six (6) inches
home. Arturo would pass Bens house before reaching his. When they arrived long with a diameter of one and half (1 1/2) inches. It had an open end
at the house of Ben, he found out that appellant had gone to Isabel, Leyte to without a stop valve with a red stain at one end. The bedroom was not in
look for him. Ben went inside his house, while Arturo went to a store across disarray.
it, waiting until 9:00 in the evening for the masiao runner to place a bet.
Arturo did not see appellant arrive but on his way home passing the side of About 10:00 that same morning, the cadaver of Ben, because of its stench,
the Genosas rented house, he heard her say I wont hesitate to kill you to had to be taken outside at the back of the house before the postmortem
which Ben replied Why kill me when I am innocent? That was the last time examination was conducted by Dr. Cerillo in the presence of the police. A
Arturo saw Ben alive. Arturo also noticed that since then, the Genosas rented municipal health officer at Isabel, Leyte responsible for medico-legal cases,
house appeared uninhabited and was always closed. Dr. Cerillo found that Ben had been dead for two to three days and his body
was already decomposing. The postmortem examination of Dr. Cerillo
On November 16, 1995, appellant asked Erlinda Paderog, her close friend yielded the findings quoted in the Information for parricide later filed against
and neighbor living about fifty (50) meters from her house, to look after her appellant. She concluded that the cause of Bens death was cardiopulmonary
pig because she was going to Cebu for a pregnancy check-up. Appellant arrest secondary to severe intracranial hemorrhage due to a depressed
likewise asked Erlinda to sell her motorcycle to their neighbor Ronnie fracture of the occipital [bone].
Dayandayan who unfortunately had no money to buy it.
Appellant admitted killing Ben. She testified that going home after work on
That same day, about 12:15 in the afternoon, Joseph Valida was waiting for November 15, 1995, she got worried that her husband who was not home yet
a bus going to Ormoc when he saw appellant going out of their house with might have gone gambling since it was a payday. With her cousin Ecel Arao,
her two kids in tow, each one carrying a bag, locking the gate and taking her appellant went to look for Ben at the marketplace and taverns at Isabel,
children to the waiting area where he was. Joseph lived about fifty (50) Leyte but did not find him there. They found Ben drunk upon their return at
meters behind the Genosas rented house. Joseph, appellant and her the Genosas house. Ecel went home despite appellants request for her to
children rode the same bus to Ormoc. They had no conversation as Joseph sleep in their house.
noticed that appellant did not want to talk to him.
Then, Ben purportedly nagged appellant for following him, even challenging
On November 18, 1995, the neighbors of Steban Matiga told him about the her to a fight. She allegedly ignored him and instead attended to their
foul odor emanating from his house being rented by Ben and appellant. children who were doing their homework. Apparently disappointed with her
Steban went there to find out the cause of the stench but the house was reaction, Ben switched off the light and, with the use of a chopping knife, cut
locked from the inside. Since he did not have a duplicate key with him, the television antenna or wire to keep her from watching television.
Steban destroyed the gate padlock with a borrowed steel saw. He was able According to appellant, Ben was about to attack her so she ran to the
to get inside through the kitchen door but only after destroying a window to bedroom, but he got hold of her hands and whirled her around. She fell on
reach a hook that locked it. Alone, Steban went inside the unlocked bedroom the side of the bed and screamed for help. Ben left. At this point, appellant
where the offensive smell was coming from. There, he saw the lifeless body packed his clothes because she wanted him to leave. Seeing his packed
of Ben lying on his side on the bed covered with a blanket. He was only in his clothes upon his return home, Ben allegedly flew into a rage, dragged
briefs with injuries at the back of his head. Seeing this, Steban went out of appellant outside of the bedroom towards a drawer holding her by the neck,
the house and sent word to the mother of Ben about his sons misfortune. and told her You might as well be killed so nobody would nag me. Appellant
Later that day, Iluminada Genosa, the mother of Ben, identified the dead testified that she was aware that there was a gun inside the drawer but since
body as that of [her] son. Ben did not have the key to it, he got a three-inch long blade cutter from his

Human Rights Law (Rights of Women) Page 44 of 174

wallet. She however, smashed the arm of Ben with a pipe, causing him to Mrs. Iluminada Genosa, Marivics mother-in-law, testified too, saying that Ben
drop the blade and his wallet. Appellant then smashed Ben at his nape with and Marivic married in 1986 or 1985 more or less here in Fatima, Ormoc
the pipe as he was about to pick up the blade and his wallet. She thereafter City. She said as the marriage went along, Marivic became already very
ran inside the bedroom. demanding. Mrs. Iluminada Genosa said that after the birth of Marivics two
sons, there were three (3) misunderstandings. The first was when Marivic
Appellant, however, insisted that she ended the life of her husband by stabbed Ben with a table knife through his left arm; the second incident was
shooting him. She supposedly distorted the drawer where the gun was and on November 15, 1994, when Marivic struck Ben on the forehead using a
shot Ben. He did not die on the spot, though, but in the bedroom. [7] (Citations sharp instrument until the eye was also affected. It was wounded and also
omitted) the ear and her husband went to Ben to help; and the third incident was in
1995 when the couple had already transferred to the house in Bilwang and
she saw that Bens hand was plastered as the bone cracked.
Version of the Defense
Both mother and son claimed they brought Ben to a Pasar clinic for medical
intervention.
Appellant relates her version of the facts in this manner:
5. Arturo Basobas, a co-worker of Ben, testified that on November 15, 1995
1. Marivic and Ben Genosa were allegedly married on November 19, 1983. After we collected our salary, we went to the cock-fighting place of ISCO.
Prior to her marriage, Marivic had graduated from San Carlos, Cebu City, They stayed there for three (3) hours, after which they went to Uniloks and
obtaining a degree of Bachelor of Science in Business Administration, and drank beer allegedly only two (2) bottles each. After drinking they bought
was working, at the time of her husbands death, as a Secretary to the Port barbeque and went to the Genosa residence. Marivic was not there. He
Managers in Ormoc City. The couple had three (3) children: John Marben, stayed a while talking with Ben, after which he went across the road to wait
Earl Pierre and Marie Bianca. for the runner and the usher of the masiao game because during that time,
the hearing on masiao numbers was rampant. I was waiting for the ushers
and runners so that I can place my bet. On his way home at about 9:00 in the
2. Marivic and Ben had known each other since elementary school; they evening, he heard the Genosas arguing. They were quarreling loudly.
were neighbors in Bilwang; they were classmates; and they were third Outside their house was one Fredo who is used by Ben to feed his fighting
degree cousins. Both sets of parents were against their relationship, but Ben cocks. Basobas testimony on the root of the quarrel, conveniently overheard
was persistent and tried to stop other suitors from courting her. Their by him was Marivic saying I will never hesitate to kill you, whilst Ben replied
closeness developed as he was her constant partner at fiestas. Why kill me when I am innocent. Basobas thought they were joking.

3. After their marriage, they lived first in the home of Bens parents, together He did not hear them quarreling while he was across the road from the
with Bens brother, Alex, in Isabel, Leyte. In the first year of marriage, Marivic Genosa residence. Basobas admitted that he and Ben were always at the
and Ben lived happily. But apparently, soon thereafter, the couple would cockpits every Saturday and Sunday. He claims that he once told Ben before
quarrel often and their fights would become violent. when he was stricken with a bottle by Marivic Genosa that he should leave
her and that Ben would always take her back after she would leave him so
4. Bens brother, Alex, testified for the prosecution that he could not many times.
remember when Ben and Marivic married. He said that when Ben and
Marivic quarreled, generally when Ben would come home drunk, Marivic Basobas could not remember when Marivic had hit Ben, but it was a long
would inflict injuries on him. He said that in one incident in 1993 he saw time that they had been quarreling. He said Ben even had a wound on the
Marivic holding a kitchen knife after Ben had shouted for help as his left hand right forehead. He had known the couple for only one (1) year.
was covered with blood. Marivic left the house but after a week, she returned
apparently having asked for Bens forgiveness. In another incident in May 22,
1994, early morning, Alex and his father apparently rushed to Bens aid again 6. Marivic testified that after the first year of marriage, Ben became cruel to
and saw blood from Bens forehead and Marivic holding an empty bottle. Ben her and was a habitual drinker. She said he provoked her, he would slap her,
and Marivic reconciled after Marivic had apparently again asked for Bens sometimes he would pin her down on the bed, and sometimes beat her.
forgiveness.

Human Rights Law (Rights of Women) Page 45 of 174

These incidents happened several times and she would often run home to 7.4. Miss Ecel Arano, an 18-year old student, who is a cousin of Marivic,
her parents, but Ben would follow her and seek her out, promising to change testified that in the afternoon of November 15, 1995, Marivic went to her
and would ask for her forgiveness. She said after she would be beaten, she house and asked her help to look for Ben. They searched in the market
would seek medical help from Dr. Dino Caing, Dr. Lucero and Dra. Cerillo. place, several taverns and some other places, but could not find him. She
These doctors would enter the injuries inflicted upon her by Ben into their accompanied Marivic home. Marivic wanted her to sleep with her in the
reports. Marivic said Ben would beat her or quarrel with her every time he Genosa house because she might be battered by her husband. When they
was drunk, at least three times a week. got to the Genosa house at about 7:00 in the evening, Miss Arano said that
her husband was already there and was drunk. Miss Arano knew he was
7. In her defense, witnesses who were not so closely related to Marivic, drunk because of his staggering walking and I can also detect his face.
testified as to the abuse and violence she received at the hands of Ben. Marivic entered the house and she heard them quarrel noisily. (Again, please
note that this is the same night as that testified to by Arturo Basobas) Miss
Arano testified that this was not the first time Marivic had asked her to sleep
7.1. Mr. Joe Barrientos, a fisherman, who was a [neighbor] of the Genosas,
in the house as Marivic would be afraid every time her husband would come
testified that on November 15, 1995, he overheard a quarrel between Ben
home drunk. At one time when she did sleep over, she was awakened at
and Marivic. Marivic was shouting for help and through the open jalousies, he
10:00 in the evening when Ben arrived because the couple were very noisy
saw the spouses grappling with each other. Ben had Marivic in a choke hold.
in the sala and I had heard something was broken like a vase. She said
He did not do anything, but had come voluntarily to testify. (Please note this
Marivic ran into her room and they locked the door. When Ben couldnt get in
was the same night as that testified to by Arturo Busabos.[8])
he got a chair and a knife and showed us the knife through the window grill
and he scared us. She said that Marivic shouted for help, but no one came.
7.2. Mr. Junnie Barrientos, also a fisherman, and the brother of Mr. Joe On cross-examination, she said that when she left Marivics house on
Barrientos, testified that he heard his neighbor Marivic shouting on the night November 15, 1995, the couple were still quarreling.
of November 15, 1995. He peeped through the window of his hut which is
located beside the Genosa house and saw the spouses grappling with each
7.5. Dr. Dino Caing, a physician testified that he and Marivic were co-
other then Ben Genosa was holding with his both hands the neck of the
employees at PHILPHOS, Isabel, Leyte. Marivic was his patient many times
accused, Marivic Genosa. He said after a while, Marivic was able to extricate
and had also received treatment from other doctors. Dr. Caing testified that
he[r]self and enter the room of the children. After that, he went back to work
from July 6, 1989 until November 9, 1995, there were six (6) episodes of
as he was to go fishing that evening. He returned at 8:00 the next morning.
physical injuries inflicted upon Marivic. These injuries were reported in his
(Again, please note that this was the same night as that testified to by Arturo
Out-Patient Chart at the PHILPHOS Hospital. The prosecution admitted the
Basobas).
qualifications of Dr. Caing and considered him an expert witness.
7.3. Mr. Teodoro Sarabia was a former neighbor of the Genosas while they
xxxxxxxxx
were living in Isabel, Leyte. His house was located about fifty (50) meters
from theirs. Marivic is his niece and he knew them to be living together for 13
or 14 years. He said the couple was always quarreling. Marivic confided in Dr. Caings clinical history of the tension headache and hypertention of
him that Ben would pawn items and then would use the money to gamble. Marivic on twenty-three (23) separate occasions was marked at Exhibits 2
One time, he went to their house and they were quarreling. Ben was so and 2-B. The OPD Chart of Marivic at the Philphos Clinic which reflected all
angry, but would be pacified if somebody would come. He testified that while the consultations made by Marivic and the six (6) incidents of physical
Ben was alive he used to gamble and when he became drunk, he would go injuries reported was marked as Exhibit 3.
to our house and he will say, Teody because that was what he used to call
me, mokimas ta, which means lets go and look for a whore. Mr. Sarabia On cross-examination, Dr. Caing said that he is not a psychiatrist, he could
further testified that Ben would box his wife and I would see bruises and one not say whether the injuries were directly related to the crime committed. He
time she ran to me, I noticed a wound (the witness pointed to his right breast) said it is only a psychiatrist who is qualified to examine the psychological
as according to her a knife was stricken to her. Mr. Sarabia also said that make-up of the patient, whether she is capable of committing a crime or not.
once he saw Ben had been injured too. He said he voluntarily testified only
that morning. 7.6 Mr. Panfilo Tero, the barangay captain in the place where the Genosas
resided, testified that about two (2) months before Ben died, Marivic went to

Human Rights Law (Rights of Women) Page 46 of 174

his office past 8:00 in the evening. She sought his help to settle or confront pathologist. She merely took the medical board exams and passed in 1986.
the Genosa couple who were experiencing family troubles. He told Marivic to She was called by the police to go to the Genosa residence and when she
return in the morning, but he did not hear from her again and assumed that got there, she saw some police officer and neighbor around. She saw Ben
they might have settled with each other or they might have forgiven with each Genosa, covered by a blanket, lying in a semi-prone position with his back to
other. the door. He was wearing only a brief.

xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx

Marivic said she did not provoke her husband when she got home that night Dra. Cerillo said that there is only one injury and that is the injury involving
it was her husband who began the provocation. Marivic said she was the skeletal area of the head which she described as a fracture. And that
frightened that her husband would hurt her and she wanted to make sure she based on her examination, Ben had been dead 2 or 3 days. Dra. Cerillo did
would deliver her baby safely. In fact, Marivic had to be admitted later at the not testify as to what caused his death.
Rizal Medical Centre as she was suffering from eclampsia and hypertension,
and the baby was born prematurely on December 1, 1995. Dra. Cerillo was not cross-examined by defense counsel.

Marivic testified that during her marriage she had tried to leave her husband 11. The Information, dated November 14, 1996, filed against Marivic Genosa
at least five (5) times, but that Ben would always follow her and they would charged her with the crime of PARRICIDE committed with intent to kill, with
reconcile. Marivic said that the reason why Ben was violent and abusive treachery and evidence premeditation, x x x wilfully, unlawfully and
towards her that night was because he was crazy about his recent girlfriend, feloniously attack, assault, hit and wound x x x her legitimate husband, with
Lulu x x x Rubillos. the use of a hard deadly weapon x x x which caused his death.

On cross-examination, Marivic insisted she shot Ben with a gun; she said 12. Trial took place on 7 and 14 April 1997, 14 May 1997, 21 July 1997, 17,
that he died in the bedroom; that their quarrels could be heard by anyone 22 and 23 September 1997, 12 November 1997, 15 and 16 December 1997,
passing their house; that Basobas lied in his testimony; that she left for 22 May 1998, and 5 and 6 August 1998.
Manila the next day, November 16, 1995; that she did not bother anyone in
Manila, rented herself a room, and got herself a job as a field researcher 13. On 23 September 1998, or only fifty (50) days from the day of the last
under the alias Marvelous Isidro; she did not tell anyone that she was leaving trial date, the Hon. Fortunito L. Madrona, Presiding Judge, RTC-Branch 35,
Leyte, she just wanted to have a safe delivery of her baby; and that she was Ormoc City, rendered a JUDGMENT finding Marivic guilty beyond
arrested in San Pablo, Laguna. reasonable doubt of the crime of parricide, and further found treachery as an
aggravating circumstance, thus sentencing her to the ultimate penalty of
Answering questions from the Court, Marivic said that she threw the gun DEATH.
away; that she did not know what happened to the pipe she used to smash
him once; that she was wounded by Ben on her wrist with the bolo; and that 14. The case was elevated to this Honorable Court upon automatic review
two (2) hours after she was whirled by Ben, he kicked her ass and dragged and, under date of 24 January 2000, Marivics trial lawyer, Atty. Gil Marvel P.
her towards the drawer when he saw that she had packed his things. Tabucanon, filed a Motion to Withdraw as counsel, attaching thereto, as a
precautionary measure, two (2) drafts of Appellants Briefs he had prepared
9. The body of Ben Genosa was found on November 18, 1995 after an for Marivic which, for reasons of her own, were not conformed to by her.
investigation was made of the foul odor emitting from the Genosa residence.
This fact was testified to by all the prosecution witnesses and some defense The Honorable Court allowed the withdrawal of Atty. Tabucanon and
witnesses during the trial. permitted the entry of appearance of undersigned counsel.

10. Dra. Refelina Y. Cerillo, a physician, was the Municipal Health Officer of 15. Without the knowledge of counsel, Marivic Genosa wrote a letter dated
Isabel, Leyte at the time of the incident, and among her responsibilities as 20 January 2000, to the Chief Justice, coursing the same through Atty.
such was to take charge of all medico-legal cases, such as the examination Teresita G. Dimaisip, Deputy Clerk of Court of Chief Judicial Records Office,
of cadavers and the autopsy of cadavers. Dra. Cerillo is not a forensic wherein she submitted her Brief without counsels to the Court.

Human Rights Law (Rights of Women) Page 47 of 174

This letter was stamp-received by the Honorable Court on 4 February 2000. of the ASEAN [Counseling] Association. She is actively involved with the
Philippine Judicial Academy, recently lecturing on the socio-demographic
16. In the meantime, under date of 17 February 2000, and stamp-received and psychological profile of families involved in domestic violence and nullity
by the Honorable Court on 19 February 2000, undersigned counsel filed an cases. She was with the Davide Commission doing research about Military
URGENT OMNIBUS MOTION praying that the Honorable Court allow the Psychology. She has written a book entitled Energy Global Psychology
exhumation of Ben Genosa and the re-examination of the cause of his death; (together with Drs. Allan Tan and Allan Bernardo). The Genosa case is the
allow the examination of Marivic Genosa by qualified psychologists and first time she has testified as an expert on battered women as this is the first
psychiatrists to determine her state of mind at the time she killed her case of that nature.
husband; and finally, to allow a partial re-opening of the case a quo  to take
the testimony of said psychologists and psychiatrists. Dra. Dayan testified that for the research she conducted, on the socio-
demographic and psychological profile of families involved in domestic
Attached to the URGENT OMNIBUS MOTION was a letter of Dr. Raquel violence, and nullity cases, she looked at about 500 cases over a period of
Fortun, then the only qualified forensic pathologist in the country, who opined ten (10) years and discovered that there are lots of variables that cause all of
that the description of the death wound (as culled from the post-mortem this marital conflicts, from domestic violence to infidelity, to psychiatric
findings, Exhibit A) is more akin to a gunshot wound than a beating with a disorder.
lead pipe.
Dra. Dayan described domestic violence to comprise of a lot of incidents of
17. In a RESOLUTION dated 29 September 2000, the Honorable Court psychological abuse, verbal abuse, and emotional abuse to physical abuse
partly granted Marivics URGENT OMNIBUS MOTION and remanded the and also sexual abuse.
case to the trial court for the reception of expert psychological and/or
psychiatric opinion on the battered woman syndrome plea, within ninety (90) xxxxxxxxx
days from notice, and, thereafter to forthwith report to this Court the
proceedings taken, together with the copies of the TSN and relevant Dra. Dayan testified that in her studies, the battered woman usually has a
documentary evidence, if any, submitted. very low opinion of herself. She has a self-defeating and self-sacrificing
characteristics. x x x they usually think very lowly of themselves and so when
18. On 15 January 2001, Dra. Natividad A. Dayan appeared and testified the violence would happen, they usually think that they provoke it, that they
before the Hon. Fortunito L. Madrona, RTC-Branch 35, Ormoc City. were the one who precipitated the violence, they provoke their spouse to be
physically, verbally and even sexually abusive to them. Dra. Dayan said that
Immediately before Dra. Dayan was sworn, the Court a quo asked if she had usually a battered x x x comes from a dysfunctional family or from broken
interviewed Marivic Genosa. Dra. Dayan informed the Court that interviews homes.
were done at the Penal Institution in 1999, but that the clinical interviews and
psychological assessment were done at her clinic. Dra. Dayan said that the batterer, just like the battered woman, also has a
very low opinion of himself. But then emerges to have superiority complex
Dra. Dayan testified that she has been a clinical psychologist for twenty (20) and it comes out as being very arrogant, very hostile, very aggressive and
years with her own private clinic and connected presently to the De La Salle very angry. They also had (sic) a very low tolerance for frustrations. A lot of
University as a professor. Before this, she was the Head of the Psychology times they are involved in vices like gambling, drinking and drugs. And they
Department of the Assumption College; a member of the faculty of become violent. The batterer also usually comes from a dysfunctional family
Psychology at the Ateneo de Manila University and St. Josephs College; and which over-pampers them and makes them feel entitled to do anything. Also,
was the counseling psychologist of the National Defense College. She has they see often how their parents abused each other so there is a lot of
an AB in Psychology from the University of the Philippines, a Master of Arts modeling of aggression in the family.
in Clinical [Counseling], Psychology from the Ateneo, and a PhD from the
U.P. She was the past president of the Psychological Association of the Dra. Dayan testified that there are a lot of reasons why a battered woman
Philippines and is a member of the American Psychological Association. She does not leave her husband: poverty, self-blame and guilt that she provoked
is the secretary of the International Council of Psychologists from about 68 the violence, the cycle itself which makes her hope her husband will change,
countries; a member of the Forensic Psychology Association; and a member

Human Rights Law (Rights of Women) Page 48 of 174

the belief in her obligations to keep the family intact at all costs for the sake Association of Military Surgeons; the Quezon City Medical Society; the
of the children. Cagayan Medical Society; and the Philippine Association of Military
Surgeons.
xxxxxxxxx
He authored The Comparative Analysis of Nervous Breakdown in the
Dra. Dayan said that abused wives react differently to the violence: some Philippine Military Academy from the Period 1954 1978 which was presented
leave the house, or lock themselves in another room, or sometimes try to twice in international congresses. He also authored The Mental Health of the
fight back triggering physical violence on both of them. She said that in a Armed Forces of the Philippines 2000, which was likewise published
normal marital relationship, abuses also happen, but these are not internationally and locally. He had a medical textbook published on the use of
consistent, not chronic, are not happening day in [and] day out. In an Prasepam on a Parke-Davis grant; was the first to use Enanthate (siquiline),
abnormal marital relationship, the abuse occurs day in and day out, is long on an E.R. Squibb grant; and he published the use of the drug Zopiclom in
lasting and even would cause hospitalization on the victim and even death on 1985-86.
the victim.
Dr. Pajarillo explained that psychiatry deals with the functional disorder of the
xxxxxxxxx mind and neurology deals with the ailment of the brain and spinal cord
enlarged. Psychology, on the other hand, is a bachelor degree and a
doctorate degree; while one has to finish medicine to become a specialist in
Dra. Dayan said that as a result of the battery of psychological tests she
psychiatry.
administered, it was her opinion that Marivic fits the profile of a battered
woman because inspite of her feeling of self-confidence which we can see at
times there are really feeling (sic) of loss, such feelings of humiliation which Even only in his 7th year as a resident in V. Luna Medical Centre, Dr.
she sees herself as damaged and as a broken person. And at the same time Pajarillo had already encountered a suit involving violent family relations, and
she still has the imprint of all the abuses that she had experienced in the testified in a case in 1964. In the Armed Forces of the Philippines, violent
past. family disputes abound, and he has seen probably ten to twenty thousand
cases. In those days, the primordial intention of therapy was reconciliation.
As a result of his experience with domestic violence cases, he became a
xxxxxxxxx
consultant of the Battered Woman Office in Quezon City under Atty. Nenita
Deproza.
Dra. Dayan said Marivic thought of herself as a loving wife and did not even
consider filing for nullity or legal separation inspite of the abuses. It was at
As such consultant, he had seen around forty (40) cases of severe domestic
the time of the tragedy that Marivic then thought of herself as a victim.
violence, where there is physical abuse: such as slapping, pushing, verbal
abuse, battering and boxing a woman even to an unconscious state such
xxxxxxxxx that the woman is sometimes confined. The affliction of Post-Traumatic
Stress Disorder depends on the vulnerability of the victim. Dr. Pajarillo said
19. On 9 February 2001, Dr. Alfredo Pajarillo, a physician, who has since that if the victim is not very healthy, perhaps one episode of violence may
passed away, appeared and testified before RTC-Branch 35, Ormoc City. induce the disorder; if the psychological stamina and physiologic
constitutional stamina of the victim is stronger, it will take more repetitive
Dr. Pajarillo was a Diplomate of the Philippine Board of Psychiatry; a Fellow trauma to precipitate the post-traumatic stress disorder and this x x x is very
of the Philippine Board of Psychiatry and a Fellow of the Philippine dangerous.
Psychiatry Association. He was in the practice of psychiatry for thirty-eight
(38) years. Prior to being in private practice, he was connected with the In psychiatry, the post-traumatic stress disorder is incorporated under the
Veterans Memorial Medical Centre where he gained his training on anxiety neurosis or neurologic anxcietism. It is produced by overwhelming
psychiatry and neurology. After that, he was called to active duty in the brutality, trauma.
Armed Forces of the Philippines, assigned to the V. Luna Medical Center for
twenty six (26) years. Prior to his retirement from government service, he xxxxxxxxx
obtained the rank of Brigadier General. He obtained his medical degree from
the University of Santo Tomas. He was also a member of the World

Human Rights Law (Rights of Women) Page 49 of 174

Dr. Pajarillo explained that with neurotic anxiety, the victim relives the beating On cross-examination by the private prosecutor, Dr. Pajarillo said that at the
or trauma as if it were real, although she is not actually being beaten at that time she killed her husband Marivicc mental condition was that she was re-
time. She thinks of nothing but the suffering. experiencing the trauma. He said that we are trying to explain scientifically
that the re-experiencing of the trauma is not controlled by Marivic. It will just
xxxxxxxxx come in flashes and probably at that point in time that things happened when
the re-experiencing of the trauma flashed in her mind. At the time he
interviewed Marivic she was more subdued, she was not super alert anymore
A woman who suffers battery has a tendency to become neurotic, her
x x x she is mentally stress (sic) because of the predicament she is involved.
emotional tone is unstable, and she is irritable and restless. She tends to
become hard-headed and persistent. She has higher sensitivity and her self-
world is damaged. xxxxxxxxx

Dr. Pajarillo said that an abnormal family background relates to an 20. No rebuttal evidence or testimony was presented by either the private or
individuals illness, such as the deprivation of the continuous care and love of the public prosecutor. Thus, in accord with the Resolution of this Honorable
the parents. As to the batterer, he normally internalizes what is around him Court, the records of the partially re-opened trial a quo were elevated.[9]
within the environment. And it becomes his own personality. He is very
competitive; he is aiming high all the time; he is so macho; he shows his
strong faade but in it there are doubts in himself and prone to act without Ruling of the Trial Court
thinking.

xxxxxxxxx Finding the proffered theory of self-defense untenable, the RTC gave
credence to the prosecution evidence that appellant had killed the deceased
Dr. Pajarillo emphasized that even though without the presence of the while he was in bed sleeping. Further, the trial court appreciated the generic
precipator (sic) or the one who administered the battering, that re- aggravating circumstance of treachery, because Ben Genosa was
experiencing of the trauma occurred (sic) because the individual cannot supposedly defenseless when he was killed -- lying in bed asleep when
control it. It will just come up in her mind or in his mind. Marivic smashed him with a pipe at the back of his head.
The capital penalty having been imposed, the case was elevated to this
xxxxxxxxx Court for automatic review.

Dr. Pajarillo said that a woman suffering post traumatic stress disorder try to
defend themselves, and primarily with knives. Usually pointed weapons or Supervening Circumstances
any weapon that is available in the immediate surrounding or in a hospital x x
x because that abound in the household. He said a victim resorts to weapons
when she has reached the lowest rock bottom of her life and there is no other On February 19, 2000, appellant filed an Urgent Omnibus Motion
recourse left on her but to act decisively. praying that this Court allow (1) the exhumation of Ben Genosa and the
reexamination of the cause of his death; (2) the examination of appellant by
xxxxxxxxx qualified psychologists and psychiatrists to determine her state of mind at the
time she had killed her spouse; and (3) the inclusion of the said experts
Dr. Pajarillo testified that he met Marivic Genosa in his office in an interview reports in the records of the case for purposes of the automatic review or, in
he conducted for two (2) hours and seventeen (17) minutes. He used the the alternative, a partial reopening of the case for the lower court to admit the
psychological evaluation and social case studies as a help in forming his experts testimonies.
diagnosis. He came out with a Psychiatric Report, dated 22 January 2001.
On September 29, 2000, this Court issued a Resolution granting in part
appellants Motion, remanding the case to the trial court for the reception of
xxxxxxxxx expert psychological and/or psychiatric opinion on the battered woman
syndrome plea; and requiring the lower court to report thereafter to this Court

Human Rights Law (Rights of Women) Page 50 of 174

the proceedings taken as well as to submit copies of the TSN and additional In the main, the following are the essential legal issues: (1) whether
evidence, if any. appellant acted in self-defense and in defense of her fetus; and (2) whether
treachery attended the killing of Ben Genosa.
Acting on the Courts Resolution, the trial judge authorized the
examination of Marivic by two clinical psychologists, Drs. Natividad
Dayan[10] and Alfredo Pajarillo,[11] supposedly experts on domestic violence.
Their testimonies, along with their documentary evidence, were then The Courts Ruling
presented to and admitted by the lower court before finally being submitted to
this Court to form part of the records of the case. [12]
The appeal is partly meritorious.

The Issues
Collateral Factual Issues

Appellant assigns the following alleged errors of the trial court for this
Courts consideration: The first six assigned errors raised by appellant are factual in nature, if
not collateral to the resolution of the principal issues. As consistently held by
this Court, the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses and
1. The trial court gravely erred in promulgating an obviously hasty decision
their testimonies are entitled to a high degree of respect and will not be
without reflecting on the evidence adduced as to self-defense.
disturbed on appeal in the absence of any showing that the trial judge
gravely abused his discretion or overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied
2. The trial court gravely erred in finding as a fact that Ben and Marivic material facts or circumstances of weight and substance that could affect the
Genosa were legally married and that she was therefore liable for parricide. outcome of the case.[14]

3. The trial court gravely erred finding the cause of death to be by beating In appellants first six assigned items, we find no grave abuse of
with a pipe. discretion, reversible error or misappreciation of material facts that would
reverse or modify the trial courts disposition of the case. In any event, we will
now briefly dispose of these alleged errors of the trial court.
4. The trial court gravely erred in ignoring and disregarding evidence
adduced from impartial and unbiased witnesses that Ben Genosa was a First, we do not agree that the lower court promulgated an obviously
drunk, a gambler, a womanizer and wife-beater; and further gravely erred in hasty decision without reflecting on the evidence adduced as to self-defense.
concluding that Ben Genosa was a battered husband. We note that in his 17-page Decision, Judge Fortunito L. Madrona
summarized the testimonies of both the prosecution and the defense
5. The trial court gravely erred in not requiring testimony from the children of witnesses and -- on the basis of those and of the documentary evidence on
Marivic Genosa. record -- made his evaluation, findings and conclusions. He wrote a 3-page
discourse assessing the testimony and the self-defense theory of the
6. The trial court gravely erred in concluding that Marivics flight to Manila accused. While she, or even this Court, may not agree with the trial judges
and her subsequent apologies were indicia of guilt, instead of a clear attempt conclusions, we cannot peremptorily conclude, absent substantial evidence,
to save the life of her unborn child. that he failed to reflect on the evidence presented.
Neither do we find the appealed Decision to have been made in an
7. The trial court gravely erred in concluding that there was an aggravating obviously hasty manner. The Information had been filed with the lower court
circumstance of treachery. on November 14, 1996. Thereafter, trial began and at least 13 hearings were
held for over a year. It took the trial judge about two months from the
8. The trial court gravely erred in refusing to re-evaluate the traditional conclusion of trial to promulgate his judgment. That he conducted the trial
elements in determining the existence of self-defense and defense of foetus and resolved the case with dispatch should not be taken against him, much
in this case, thereby erroneously convicting Marivic Genosa of the crime of less used to condemn him for being unduly hasty. If at all, the dispatch with
parricide and condemning her to the ultimate penalty of death. [13]

Human Rights Law (Rights of Women) Page 51 of 174

which he handled the case should be lauded. In any case, we find his actions prosecutor, in whom lies the discretion to determine which witnesses and
in substantial compliance with his constitutional obligation. [15] evidence are necessary to present.[20] As the former further points out, neither
the trial court nor the prosecution prevented appellant from presenting her
Second, the lower court did not err in finding as a fact that Ben Genosa children as witnesses. Thus, she cannot now fault the lower court for not
and appellant had been legally married, despite the non-presentation of their requiring them to testify.
marriage contract. In People v. Malabago,[16] this Court held:
Finally, merely collateral or corroborative is the matter of whether the
The key element in parricide is the relationship of the offender with the victim. flight of Marivic to Manila and her subsequent apologies to her brother-in-law
In the case of parricide of a spouse, the best proof of the relationship are indicia of her guilt or are attempts to save the life of her unborn child. Any
between the accused and the deceased is the marriage certificate. In the reversible error as to the trial courts appreciation of these circumstances has
absence of a marriage certificate, however, oral evidence of the fact of little bearing on the final resolution of the case.
marriage may be considered by the trial court if such proof is not objected to.
First Legal Issue:
Two of the prosecution witnesses -- namely, the mother and the brother Self-Defense and Defense of a Fetus
of appellants deceased spouse -- attested in court that Ben had been
married to Marivic.[17] The defense raised no objection to these testimonies. Appellant admits killing Ben Genosa but, to avoid criminal liability,
Moreover, during her direct examination, appellant herself made a judicial invokes self-defense and/or defense of her unborn child. When the accused
admission of her marriage to Ben. [18] Axiomatic is the rule that a judicial admits killing the victim, it is incumbent upon her to prove any claimed
admission is conclusive upon the party making it, except only when there is a justifying circumstance by clear and convincing evidence. [21] Well-settled is
showing that (1) the admission was made through a palpable mistake, or (2) the rule that in criminal cases, self-defense (and similarly, defense of a
no admission was in fact made. [19] Other than merely attacking the non- stranger or third person) shifts the burden of proof from the prosecution to
presentation of the marriage contract, the defense offered no proof that the the defense.[22]
admission made by appellant in court as to the fact of her marriage to the
deceased was made through a palpable mistake.
Third, under the circumstances of this case, the specific or direct cause The Battered Woman Syndrome
of Bens death -- whether by a gunshot or by beating with a pipe -- has no
legal consequence. As the Court elucidated in its September 29, 2000
Resolution, [c]onsidering that the appellant has admitted the fact of killing her In claiming self-defense, appellant raises the novel theory of the
husband and the acts of hitting his nape with a metal pipe and of shooting battered woman syndrome. While new in Philippine jurisprudence, the
him at the back of his head, the Court believes that exhumation is concept has been recognized in foreign jurisdictions as a form of self-
unnecessary, if not immaterial, to determine which of said acts actually defense or, at the least, incomplete self-defense. [23] By appreciating evidence
caused the victims death. Determining which of these admitted acts caused that a victim or defendant is afflicted with the syndrome, foreign courts
the death is not dispositive of the guilt or defense of appellant. convey their understanding of the justifiably fearful state of mind of a person
who has been cyclically abused and controlled over a period of time. [24]
Fourth, we cannot fault the trial court for not fully appreciating evidence that
Ben was a drunk, gambler, womanizer and wife-beater. Until this case came to A battered woman has been defined as a woman who is repeatedly
us for automatic review, appellant had not raised the novel defense of battered subjected to any forceful physical or psychological behavior by a man in
woman syndrome, for which such evidence may have been relevant. Her theory order to coerce her to do something he wants her to do without concern for
of self-defense was then the crucial issue before the trial court. As will be her rights. Battered women include wives or women in any form of intimate
discussed shortly, the legal requisites of self-defense under prevailing relationship with men. Furthermore, in order to be classified as a battered
jurisprudence ostensibly appear inconsistent with the surrounding facts that led woman, the couple must go through the battering cycle at least twice. Any
to the death of the victim. Hence, his personal character, especially his past woman may find herself in an abusive relationship with a man once. If it
behavior, did not constitute vital evidence at the time. occurs a second time, and she remains in the situation, she is defined as a
battered woman.[25]
Fifth, the trial court surely committed no error in not requiring testimony
from appellants children. As correctly elucidated by the solicitor general, all Battered women exhibit common personality traits, such as low self-
criminal actions are prosecuted under the direction and control of the public esteem, traditional beliefs about the home, the family and the female sex

Human Rights Law (Rights of Women) Page 52 of 174

role; emotional dependence upon the dominant male; the tendency to accept beat her again. On the other hand, the battered woman also tries to convince
responsibility for the batterers actions; and false hopes that the relationship herself that the battery will never happen again; that her partner will change
will improve.[26] for the better; and that this good, gentle and caring man is the real person
whom she loves.
More graphically, the battered woman syndrome is characterized by the
so-called cycle of violence,[27] which has three phases: (1) the tension- A battered woman usually believes that she is the sole anchor of the
building phase; (2) the acute battering incident; and (3) the tranquil, loving emotional stability of the batterer. Sensing his isolation and despair, she feels
(or, at least, nonviolent) phase.[28] responsible for his well-being. The truth, though, is that the chances of his
reforming, or seeking or receiving professional help, are very slim, especially
During the tension-building phase, minor battering occurs -- it could if she remains with him. Generally, only after she leaves him does he seek
be verbal or slight physical abuse or another form of hostile behavior. The professional help as a way of getting her back. Yet, it is in this phase of
woman usually tries to pacify the batterer through a show of kind, nurturing remorseful reconciliation that she is most thoroughly tormented
behavior; or by simply staying out of his way. What actually happens is that psychologically.
she allows herself to be abused in ways that, to her, are comparatively minor.
All she wants is to prevent the escalation of the violence exhibited by the The illusion of absolute interdependency is well-entrenched in a
batterer. This wish, however, proves to be double-edged, because her battered womans psyche. In this phase, she and her batterer are indeed
placatory and passive behavior legitimizes his belief that he has the right to emotionally dependent on each other -- she for his nurturant behavior, he for
abuse her in the first place. her forgiveness. Underneath this miserable cycle of tension, violence and
forgiveness, each partner may believe that it is better to die than to be
However, the techniques adopted by the woman in her effort to placate separated. Neither one may really feel independent, capable of functioning
him are not usually successful, and the verbal and/or physical abuse without the other.[31]
worsens. Each partner senses the imminent loss of control and the growing
tension and despair. Exhausted from the persistent stress, the battered History of Abuse
woman soon withdraws emotionally. But the more she becomes emotionally in the Present Case
unavailable, the more the batterer becomes angry, oppressive and abusive.
Often, at some unpredictable point, the violence spirals out of control and
leads to an acute battering incident.[29] To show the history of violence inflicted upon appellant, the defense
presented several witnesses. She herself described her heart-rending
The acute battering incident is said to be characterized by brutality, experience as follows:
destructiveness and, sometimes, death. The battered woman deems this
incident as unpredictable, yet also inevitable. During this phase, she has no ATTY. TABUCANON
control; only the batterer may put an end to the violence. Its nature can be as
unpredictable as the time of its explosion, and so are his reasons for ending Q How did you describe your marriage with Ben Genosa?
it. The battered woman usually realizes that she cannot reason with him, and A In the first year, I lived with him happily but in the subsequent
that resistance would only exacerbate her condition. year he was cruel to me and a behavior of habitual drinker.
At this stage, she has a sense of detachment from the attack and the Q You said that in the subsequent year of your marriage, your
terrible pain, although she may later clearly remember every detail. Her husband was abusive to you and cruel. In what way was this
apparent passivity in the face of acute violence may be rationalized thus: the abusive and cruelty manifested to you?
batterer is almost always much stronger physically, and she knows from her
past painful experience that it is futile to fight back. Acute battering incidents A He always provoke me in everything, he always slap me and
are often very savage and out of control, such that innocent bystanders or sometimes he pinned me down on the bed and sometimes
intervenors are likely to get hurt.[30] beat me.

The final phase of the cycle of violence begins when the acute battering Q How many times did this happen?
incident ends. During this tranquil period, the couple experience profound
A Several times already.
relief. On the one hand, the batterer may show a tender and nurturing
behavior towards his partner. He knows that he has been viciously cruel and Q What did you do when these things happen to you?
tries to make up for it, begging for her forgiveness and promising never to

Human Rights Law (Rights of Women) Page 53 of 174

 A I went away to my mother and I ran to my father and we separate Q Is it daily, weekly, monthly or how many times in a month or in a
each other. week?
Q What was the action of Ben Genosa towards you leaving home? A Three times a week.
A He is following me, after that he sought after me. Q Do you mean three times a week he would beat you?
Q What will happen when he follow you? A Not necessarily that he would beat me but sometimes he will just
quarrel me. [32]
A He said he changed, he asked for forgiveness and I was
convinced and after that I go to him and he said sorry. Referring to his Out-Patient Chart[33] on Marivic Genosa at the Philphos
Hospital, Dr. Dino D. Caing bolstered her foregoing testimony on chronic
Q During those times that you were the recipient of such cruelty battery in this manner:
and abusive behavior by your husband, were you able to see
a doctor? Q So, do you have a summary of those six (6) incidents which are
found in the chart of your clinic?
A Yes, sir.
A Yes, sir.
Q Who are these doctors?
Q Who prepared the list of six (6) incidents, Doctor?
A The company physician, Dr. Dino Caing, Dr. Lucero and Dra.
Cerillo. A I did.
Q Will you please read the physical findings together with the dates
xxxxxxxxx for the record.

Q You said that you saw a doctor in relation to your injuries? A 1. May 12, 1990 - physical findings are as follows: Hematoma (R)
lower eyelid and redness of eye. Attending physician: Dr.
A Yes, sir. Lucero;
Q Who inflicted these injuries? 2. March 10, 1992 - Contusion-Hematoma (L) lower arbital
area, pain and contusion (R) breast. Attending physician: Dr.
A Of course my husband.
Canora;
Q You mean Ben Genosa?
3. March 26, 1993 - Abrasion, Furuncle (L) Axilla;
A Yes, sir.
4. August 1, 1994 - Pain, mastitis (L) breast, 2 o to trauma.
Attending physician: Dr. Caing;
xxxxxxxxx
5. April 17, 1995 - Trauma, tenderness (R) Shoulder.
[Court] /to the witness Attending physician: Dr. Canora; and

Q How frequent was the alleged cruelty that you said? 6. June 5, 1995 - Swelling Abrasion (L) leg, multiple contusion
Pregnancy. Attending physician: Dr. Canora.
A Everytime he got drunk.
Q Among the findings, there were two (2) incidents wherein you
Q No, from the time that you said the cruelty or the infliction of were the attending physician, is that correct?
injury inflicted on your occurred, after your marriage, from that
time on, how frequent was the occurrence? A Yes, sir.

A Everytime he got drunk. Q Did you actually physical examine the accused?
A Yes, sir.

Human Rights Law (Rights of Women) Page 54 of 174

 Q Now, going to your finding no. 3 where you were the one who A Yes, sir.
attended the patient. What do you mean by abrasion furuncle
left axilla? Q On November 6, 1995, will you please tell this Honorable Court,
was the patient pregnant?
A Abrasion is a skin wound usually when it comes in contact with
something rough substance if force is applied. A Yes, sir.

Q What is meant by furuncle axilla? Q Being a doctor, can you more engage at what stage of
pregnancy was she?
A It is secondary of the light infection over the abrasion.
A Eight (8) months pregnant.
Q What is meant by pain mastitis secondary to trauma?
Q So in other words, it was an advance stage of pregnancy?
A So, in this 4th episode of physical injuries there is an
inflammation of left breast. So, [pain] meaning there is A Yes, sir.
tenderness. When your breast is traumatized, there is Q What was your November 6, 1995 examination, was it an
tenderness pain. examination about her pregnancy or for some other findings?
Q So, these are objective physical injuries. Doctor? A No, she was admitted for hypertension headache which
complicates her pregnancy.
xxxxxxxxx
Q When you said admitted, meaning she was confined?
Q Were you able to talk with the patient? A Yes, sir.
A Yes, sir. Q For how many days?
Q What did she tell you? A One day.
A As a doctor-patient relationship, we need to know the cause of Q Where?
these injuries. And she told me that it was done to her by her
husband. A At PHILPHOS Hospital.

Q You mean, Ben Genosa? xxxxxxxxx

A Yes, sir.
Q Lets go back to the clinical history of Marivic Genosa. You said
xxxxxxxxx that you were able to examine her personally on November 6,
1995 and she was 8 months pregnant.
ATTY. TABUCANON: What is this all about?
Q By the way Doctor, were you able to physical examine the A Because she has this problem of tension headache secondary to
accused sometime in the month of November, 1995 when this hypertension and I think I have a record here, also the same
incident happened? period from 1989 to 1995, she had a consultation for twenty-
three (23) times.
A As per record, yes.
Q For what?
Q What was the date?
A Tension headache.
A It was on November 6, 1995.
Q Can we say that specially during the latter consultation, that the
Q So, did you actually see the accused physically?
patient had hypertension?

Human Rights Law (Rights of Women) Page 55 of 174

 A The patient definitely had hypertension. It was refractory to our On the afternoon of November 15, 1995, Marivic again asked her help --
treatment. She does not response when the medication was this time to find Ben -- but they were unable to. They returned to the Genosa
given to her, because tension headache is more or less stress home, where they found him already drunk. Again afraid that he might hurt
related and emotional in nature. her, Marivic asked her to sleep at their house. Seeing his state of
drunkenness, Ecel hesitated; and when she heard the couple start arguing,
Q What did you deduce of tension headache when you said is she decided to leave.
emotional in nature?
On that same night that culminated in the death of Ben Genosa, at least
A From what I deduced as part of our physical examination of the three other witnesses saw or heard the couple quarreling. [37] Marivic relates in
patient is the family history in line of giving the root cause of detail the following backdrop of the fateful night when life was snuffed out of
what is causing this disease. So, from the moment you ask to him, showing in the process a vivid picture of his cruelty towards her:
the patient all comes from the domestic problem.
ATTY. TABUCANON:
Q You mean problem in her household?
Q Please tell this Court, can you recall the incident in November
A Probably. 15, 1995 in the evening?
Q Can family trouble cause elevation of blood pressure, Doctor? A Whole morning and in the afternoon, I was in the office working
A Yes, if it is emotionally related and stressful it can cause then after office hours, I boarded the service bus and went to
increases in hypertension which is unfortunately does not Bilwang. When I reached Bilwang, I immediately asked my
response to the medication. son, where was his father, then my second child said, he was
not home yet. I was worried because that was payday, I was
Q In November 6, 1995, the date of the incident, did you take the anticipating that he was gambling. So while waiting for him,
blood pressure of the accused? my eldest son arrived from school, I prepared dinner for my
children.
A On November 6, 1995 consultation, the blood pressure was
180/120. Q This is evening of November 15, 1995?
Q Is this considered hypertension? A Yes, sir.
A Yes, sir, severe. Q What time did Ben Genosa arrive?
Q Considering that she was 8 months pregnant, you mean this is A When he arrived, I was not there, I was in Isabel looking for him.
dangerous level of blood pressure?
Q So when he arrived you were in Isabel looking for him?
A It was dangerous to the child or to the fetus.  [34]
A Yes, sir.
Another defense witness, Teodoro Sarabia, a former neighbor of the
Genosas in Isabel, Leyte, testified that he had seen the couple quarreling Q Did you come back to your house?
several times; and that on some occasions Marivic would run to him with A Yes, sir.
bruises, confiding that the injuries were inflicted upon her by Ben. [35]
Q By the way, where was your conjugal residence situated this
Ecel Arano also testified[36] that for a number of times she had been time?
asked by Marivic to sleep at the Genosa house, because the latter feared
that Ben would come home drunk and hurt her. On one occasion that Ecel A Bilwang.
did sleep over, she was awakened about ten oclock at night, because the
couple were very noisy and I heard something was broken like a vase. Then Q Is this your house or you are renting?
Marivic came running into Ecels room and locked the door. Ben showed up A Renting.
by the window grill atop a chair, scaring them with a knife.
Q What time were you able to come back in your residence at
Bilwang?

Human Rights Law (Rights of Women) Page 56 of 174

 A I went back around almost 8:00 oclock. A He is nagging at me for following him and he dared me to quarrel
him.
Q What happened when you arrived in your residence?
Q What was the cause of his nagging or quarreling at you if you
A When I arrived home with my cousin Ecel whom I requested to know?
sleep with me at that time because I had fears that he was
again drunk and I was worried that he would again beat me so A He was angry at me because I was following x x x him, looking
I requested my cousin to sleep with me, but she resisted for him. I was just worried he might be overly drunk and he
because she had fears that the same thing will happen again would beat me again.
last year.
Q You said that he was yelling at you, what else, did he do to you if
Q Who was this cousin of yours who you requested to sleep with any?
you?
A He was nagging at me at that time and I just ignore him because
A Ecel Arao, the one who testified. I want to avoid trouble for fear that he will beat me again.
Perhaps he was disappointed because I just ignore him of his
Q Did Ecel sleep with you in your house on that evening? provocation and he switch off the light and I said to him, why
A No, because she expressed fears, she said her father would not did you switch off the light when the children were there. At
allow her because of Ben. that time I was also attending to my children who were doing
their assignments. He was angry with me for not answering
Q During this period November 15, 1995, were you pregnant? his challenge, so he went to the kitchen and [got] a bolo and
cut the antenna wire to stop me from watching television.
A Yes, 8 months.
Q What did he do with the bolo?
Q How advance was your pregnancy?
A He cut the antenna wire to keep me from watching T.V.
A Eight (8) months.
Q What else happened after he cut the wire?
Q Was the baby subsequently born?
A He switch off the light and the children were shouting because
A Yes, sir.
they were scared and he was already holding the bolo.
Q Whats the name of the baby you were carrying at that time?
Q How do you described this bolo?
A Marie Bianca.
A 1 1/2 feet.
Q What time were you able to meet personally your husband?
Q What was the bolo used for usually?
A Yes, sir.
A For chopping meat.
Q What time?
Q You said the children were scared, what else happened as Ben
A When I arrived home, he was there already in his usual behavior. was carrying that bolo?

Q Will you tell this Court what was his disposition? A He was about to attack me so I run to the room.

A He was drunk again, he was yelling in his usual unruly behavior. Q What do you mean that he was about to attack you?

Q What was he yelling all about? A When I attempt to run he held my hands and he whirled me and I
fell to the bedside.
A His usual attitude when he got drunk.
Q So when he whirled you, what happened to you?
Q You said that when you arrived, he was drunk and yelling at
you? What else did he do if any? A I screamed for help and then he left.

Human Rights Law (Rights of Women) Page 57 of 174

 Q You said earlier that he whirled you and you fell on the bedside? Q Were you actually brought to the drawer?
A Yes, sir. A Yes, sir.
Q You screamed for help and he left, do you know where he was Q What happened when you were brought to that drawer?
going?
A He dragged me towards the drawer and he was about to open
A Outside perhaps to drink more. the drawer but he could not open it because he did not have
the key then he pulled his wallet which contained a blade
Q When he left what did you do in that particular time? about 3 inches long and I was aware that he was going to kill
A I packed all his clothes. me and I smashed his arm and then the wallet and the blade
fell. The one he used to open the drawer I saw, it was a pipe
Q What was your reason in packing his clothes? about that long, and when he was about to pick-up the wallet
and the blade, I smashed him then I ran to the other room,
A I wanted him to leave us.
and on that very moment everything on my mind was to pity
Q During this time, where were your children, what were their on myself, then the feeling I had on that very moment was the
reactions? same when I was admitted in PHILPHOS Clinic, I was about
to vomit.
A After a couple of hours, he went back again and he got angry
with me for packing his clothes, then he dragged me again of COURT INTERPRETER:
the bedroom holding my neck.
(The witness at this juncture is crying intensely).
Q You said that when Ben came back to your house, he dragged
you? How did he drag you? xxxxxxxxx
COURT INTERPRETER:
ATTY. TABUCANON:
The witness demonstrated to the Court by using her right hand
flexed forcibly in her front neck) Q Talking of drawer, is this drawer outside your room?

A And he dragged me towards the door backward. A Outside.

ATTY. TABUCANON: Q In what part of the house?

Q Where did he bring you? A Dining.

A Outside the bedroom and he wanted to get something and then Q Where were the children during that time?
he kept on shouting at me that you might as well be killed so A My children were already asleep.
there will be nobody to nag me.
Q You mean they were inside the room?
Q So you said that he dragged you towards the drawer?
A Yes, sir.
A Yes, sir.
Q You said that he dropped the blade, for the record will you
Q What is there in the drawer? please describe this blade about 3 inches long, how does it
A I was aware that it was a gun. look like?

COURT INTERPRETER: A Three (3) inches long and 1/2 inch wide.

(At this juncture the witness started crying). Q Is it a flexible blade?

ATTY. TABUCANON: A Its a cutter.

Human Rights Law (Rights of Women) Page 58 of 174

 Q How do you describe the blade, is it sharp both edges? Q Before you met her in 1999 for three hours, we presume that you
already knew of the facts of the case or at least you have
A Yes, because he once used it to me. substantial knowledge of the facts of the case?
Q How did he do it? A I believe I had an idea of the case, but I do not know whether I
A He wanted to cut my throat. can consider them as substantial.

Q With the same blade? xxxxxxxxx

A Yes, sir, that was the object used when he intimidate me.  [38]
Q Did you gather an information from Marivic that on the side of her
In addition, Dra. Natividad Dayan was called by the RTC to testify as an husband they were fond of battering their wives?
expert witness to assist it in understanding the psyche of a battered person.
She had met with Marivic Genosa for five sessions totaling about seventeen A I also heard that from her?
hours. Based on their talks, the former briefly related the latters ordeal to the
Q You heard that from her?
court a quo as follows:
A Yes, sir.
Q: What can you say, that you found Marivic as a battered wife?
Could you in laymans term describe to this Court what her life Q Did you ask for a complete example who are the relatives of her
was like as said to you? husband that were fond of battering their wives?
A: What I remember happened then was it was more than ten A What I remember that there were brothers of her husband who
years, that she was suffering emotional anguish. There were a are also battering their wives.
lot of instances of abuses, to emotional abuse, to verbal abuse
and to physical abuse. The husband had a very meager Q Did she not inform you that there was an instance that she
income, she was the one who was practically the bread earner stayed in a hotel in Ormoc where her husband followed her
of the family. The husband was involved in a lot of vices, going and battered [her] several times in that room?
out with barkadas, drinking, even womanizing being involved A She told me about that.
in cockfight and going home very angry and which will trigger
a lot of physical abuse. She also had the experience a lot of Q Did she inform you in what hotel in Ormoc?
taunting from the husband for the reason that the husband
even accused her of infidelity, the husband was saying that A Sir, I could not remember but I was told that she was battered in
the child she was carrying was not his own. So she was very that room.
angry, she was at the same time very depressed because she Q Several times in that room?
was also aware, almost like living in purgatory or even hell
when it was happening day in and day out. [39] A Yes, sir. What I remember was that there is no problem about
being battered, it really happened.
In cross-examining Dra. Dayan, the public prosecutor not merely
elicited, but wittingly or unwittingly put forward, additional supporting Q Being an expert witness, our jurisprudence is not complete on
evidence as shown below: saying this matter. I think that is the first time that we have this
in the Philippines, what is your opinion?
Q In your first encounter with the appellant in this case in 1999,
where you talked to her about three hours, what was the most A Sir, my opinion is, she is really a battered wife and in this kind
relevant information did you gather? happened, it was really a self-defense. I also believe that there
had been provocation and I also believe that she became a
A The most relevant information was the tragedy that happened. disordered person. She had to suffer anxiety reaction because
The most important information were escalating abuses that of all the battering that happened and so she became an
she had experienced during her marital life. abnormal person who had lost shes not during the time and
that is why it happened because of all the physical battering,

Human Rights Law (Rights of Women) Page 59 of 174

 emotional battering, all the psychological abuses that she had what was happening to her. But incessant battering became more and more
experienced from her husband. frequent and more severe. x x x.[43]
Q I do believe that she is a battered wife. Was she extremely From the totality of evidence presented, there is indeed no doubt in the
battered? Courts mind that Appellant Marivic Genosa was a severely abused person.
A Sir, it is an extreme form of battering. Yes.[40]
Parenthetically, the credibility of appellant was demonstrated as follows: Effect of Battery on Appellant
Q And you also said that you administered [the] objective
personality test, what x x x [is this] all about?
Because of the recurring cycles of violence experienced by the abused
A The objective personality test is the Millon Clinical Multiaxial woman, her state of mind metamorphoses. In determining her state of mind,
Inventory. The purpose of that test is to find out about the lying we cannot rely merely on the judgment of an ordinary, reasonable person
prone[ne]ss of the person. who is evaluating the events immediately surrounding the incident. A
Canadian court has aptly pointed out that expert evidence on the
Q What do you mean by that? psychological effect of battering on wives and common law partners are both
A Meaning, am I dealing with a client who is telling me the truth, or relevant and necessary. How can the mental state of the appellant be
is she someone who can exaggerate or x x x [will] tell a lie[?] appreciated without it? The average member of the public may ask: Why
would a woman put up with this kind of treatment? Why should she continue
Q And what did you discover on the basis of this objective to live with such a man? How could she love a partner who beat her to the
personality test? point of requiring hospitalization? We would expect the woman to pack her
bags and go. Where is her self-respect? Why does she not cut loose and
A She was a person who passed the honesty test. Meaning she is make a new life for herself? Such is the reaction of the average person
a person that I can trust. That the data that Im gathering from confronted with the so-called battered wife syndrome. [44]
her are the truth.[41]
To understand the syndrome properly, however, ones viewpoint should
The other expert witness presented by the defense, Dr. Alfredo Pajarillo, not be drawn from that of an ordinary, reasonable person. What goes on in
testified on his Psychiatric Report, [42] which was based on his interview and the mind of a person who has been subjected to repeated, severe beatings
examination of Marivic Genosa. The Report said that during the first three may not be consistent with -- nay, comprehensible to -- those who have not
years of her marriage to Ben, everything looked good -- the atmosphere was been through a similar experience. Expert opinion is essential to clarify and
fine, normal and happy -- until Ben started to be attracted to other girls and refute common myths and misconceptions about battered women. [45]
was also enticed in[to] gambling[,] especially cockfighting. x x x. At the same
time Ben was often joining his barkada in drinking sprees. The theory of BWS formulated by Lenore Walker, as well as her
research on domestic violence, has had a significant impact in the United
The drinking sprees of Ben greatly changed the attitude he showed States and the United Kingdom on the treatment and prosecution of cases, in
toward his family, particularly to his wife. The Report continued: At first, it which a battered woman is charged with the killing of her violent partner. The
was verbal and emotional abuses but as time passed, he became physically psychologist explains that the cyclical nature of the violence inflicted upon
abusive. Marivic claimed that the viciousness of her husband was the battered woman immobilizes the latters ability to act decisively in her own
progressive every time he got drunk. It was a painful ordeal Marivic had to interests, making her feel trapped in the relationship with no means of
anticipate whenever she suspected that her husband went for a drinking escape.[46] In her years of research, Dr. Walker found that the abuse often
[spree]. They had been married for twelve years[;] and practically more than escalates at the point of separation and battered women are in greater
eight years, she was battered and maltreated relentlessly and mercilessly by danger of dying then.[47]
her husband whenever he was drunk.
Corroborating these research findings, Dra. Dayan said that the battered
Marivic sought the help of her mother-in-law, but her efforts were in woman usually has a very low opinion of herself. She has x x x self-defeating
vain. Further quoting from the Report, [s]he also sought the advice and help and self-sacrificing characteristics. x x x [W]hen the violence would happen,
of close relatives and well-meaning friends in spite of her feeling ashamed of they usually think that they provoke[d] it, that they were the one[s] who

Human Rights Law (Rights of Women) Page 60 of 174

precipitated the violence[; that] they provoke[d] their spouse to be physically, In the instant case, we meticulously scoured the records for specific
verbally and even sexually abusive to them.[48] evidence establishing that appellant, due to the repeated abuse she had
suffered from her spouse over a long period of time, became afflicted with
According to Dra. Dayan, there are a lot of reasons why a battered the battered woman syndrome. We, however, failed to find sufficient
woman does not readily leave an abusive partner -- poverty, self-blame and evidence that would support such a conclusion. More specifically, we failed
guilt arising from the latters belief that she provoked the violence, that she to find ample evidence that would confirm the presence of the essential
has an obligation to keep the family intact at all cost for the sake of their characteristics of BWS.
children, and that she is the only hope for her spouse to change. [49]
The defense fell short of proving all three phases of the cycle of violence
The testimony of another expert witness, Dr. Pajarillo, is also helpful. He supposedly characterizing the relationship of Ben and Marivic Genosa. No
had previously testified in suits involving violent family relations, having doubt there were acute battering incidents. In relating to the court a quo how
evaluated probably ten to twenty thousand violent family disputes within the the fatal incident that led to the death of Ben started, Marivic perfectly
Armed Forces of the Philippines, wherein such cases abounded. As a result described the tension-building phase of the cycle. She was able to explain in
of his experience with domestic violence cases, he became a consultant of adequate detail the typical characteristics of this stage. However, that single
the Battered Woman Office in Quezon City. As such, he got involved in about incident does not prove the existence of the syndrome. In other words, she
forty (40) cases of severe domestic violence, in which the physical abuse on failed to prove that in at least another battering episode in the past, she had
the woman would sometimes even lead to her loss of consciousness. [50] gone through a similar pattern.
Dr. Pajarillo explained that overwhelming brutality, trauma could result in How did the tension between the partners usually arise or build up prior
posttraumatic stress disorder, a form of anxiety neurosis or neurologic to acute battering? How did Marivic normally respond to Bens relatively
anxietism.[51] After being repeatedly and severely abused, battered persons minor abuses? What means did she employ to try to prevent the situation
may believe that they are essentially helpless, lacking power to change their from developing into the next (more violent) stage?
situation. x x x [A]cute battering incidents can have the effect of stimulating
the development of coping responses to the trauma at the expense of the Neither did appellant proffer sufficient evidence in regard to the third
victims ability to muster an active response to try to escape further trauma. phase of the cycle. She simply mentioned that she would usually run away to
Furthermore, x x x the victim ceases to believe that anything she can do will her mothers or fathers house;[58] that Ben would seek her out, ask for her
have a predictable positive effect.[52] forgiveness and promise to change; and that believing his words, she would
return to their common abode.
A study[53] conducted by Martin Seligman, a psychologist at the
University of Pennsylvania, found that even if a person has control over a Did she ever feel that she provoked the violent incidents between her
situation, but believes that she does not, she will be more likely to respond to and her spouse? Did she believe that she was the only hope for Ben to
that situation with coping responses rather than trying to escape. He said that reform? And that she was the sole support of his emotional stability and well-
it was the cognitive aspect -- the individuals thoughts -- that proved all- being? Conversely, how dependent was she on him? Did she feel helpless
important. He referred to this phenomenon as learned helplessness. [T]he and trapped in their relationship? Did both of them regard death as
truth or facts of a situation turn out to be less important than the individuals preferable to separation?
set of beliefs or perceptions concerning the situation. Battered women dont
attempt to leave the battering situation, even when it may seem to outsiders In sum, the defense failed to elicit from appellant herself her factual
that escape is possible, because they cannot predict their own safety; they experiences and thoughts that would clearly and fully demonstrate the
believe that nothing they or anyone else does will alter their terrible essential characteristics of the syndrome.
circumstances.[54] The Court appreciates the ratiocinations given by the expert witnesses
Thus, just as the battered woman believes that she is somehow for the defense. Indeed, they were able to explain fully, albeit merely
responsible for the violent behavior of her partner, she also believes that he theoretically and scientifically, how the personality of the battered woman
is capable of killing her, and that there is no escape. [55] Battered women feel usually evolved or deteriorated as a result of repeated and severe beatings
unsafe, suffer from pervasive anxiety, and usually fail to leave the inflicted upon her by her partner or spouse. They corroborated each others
relationship.[56] Unless a shelter is available, she stays with her husband, not testimonies, which were culled from their numerous studies of hundreds of
only because she typically lacks a means of self-support, but also because actual cases. However, they failed to present in court the factual experiences
she fears that if she leaves she would be found and hurt even more. [57] and thoughts that appellant had related to them -- if at all -- based on which
they concluded that she had BWS.

Human Rights Law (Rights of Women) Page 61 of 174

 We emphasize that in criminal cases, all the elements of a modifying he posed had ended altogether. He was no longer in a position that
circumstance must be proven in order to be appreciated. To repeat, the presented an actual threat on her life or safety.
records lack supporting evidence that would establish all the essentials of the
battered woman syndrome as manifested specifically in the case of the Had Ben still been awaiting Marivic when she came out of their
Genosas. childrens bedroom -- and based on past violent incidents, there was a great
probability that he would still have pursued her and inflicted graver harm --
then, the imminence of the real threat upon her life would not have ceased
yet. Where the brutalized person is already suffering from BWS, further
BWS as Self-Defense evidence of actual physical assault at the time of the killing is not required.
Incidents of domestic battery usually have a predictable pattern. To require
the battered person to await an obvious, deadly attack before she can defend
In any event, the existence of the syndrome in a relationship does not in her life would amount to sentencing her to murder by installment. [65] Still,
itself establish the legal right of the woman to kill her abusive partner. impending danger (based on the conduct of the victim in previous battering
Evidence must still be considered in the context of self-defense. [59] episodes) prior to the defendants use of deadly force must be shown.
From the expert opinions discussed earlier, the Court reckons further Threatening behavior or communication can satisfy the required imminence
that crucial to the BWS defense is the state of mind of the battered woman at of danger.[66] Considering such circumstances and the existence of BWS,
the time of the offense[60] -- she must have actually feared imminent harm self-defense may be appreciated.
from her batterer and honestly believed in the need to kill him in order to We reiterate the principle that aggression, if not continuous, does not
save her life. warrant self-defense.[67] In the absence of such aggression, there can be no
Settled in our jurisprudence, however, is the rule that the one who self-defense -- complete or incomplete -- on the part of the victim. [68] Thus,
resorts to self-defense must face a real threat on ones life; and the peril Marivics killing of Ben was not completely justified under the circumstances.
sought to be avoided must be imminent and actual, not merely imaginary.
[61]
 Thus, the Revised Penal Code provides the following requisites and effect
of self-defense:[62] Mitigating Circumstances Present

Art. 11. Justifying circumstances. -- The following do not incur any criminal

liability: In any event, all is not lost for appellant. While she did not raise any
other modifying circumstances that would alter her penalty, we deem it
proper to evaluate and appreciate in her favor circumstances that mitigate
1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that the
her criminal liability. It is a hornbook doctrine that an appeal in a criminal
following circumstances concur;
case opens it wholly for review on any issue, including that which has not
been raised by the parties.[69]
First. Unlawful aggression;
Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent From several psychological tests she had administered to Marivic, Dra.
or repel it; Dayan, in her Psychological Evaluation Report dated November 29, 2000,
Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending opined as follows:
himself.
This is a classic case of a Battered Woman Syndrome. The repeated
Unlawful aggression is the most essential element of self-defense. [63] It battering Marivic experienced with her husband constitutes a form of
presupposes actual, sudden and unexpected attack -- or an imminent danger [cumulative] provocation which broke down her psychological resistance and
thereof -- on the life or safety of a person. [64] In the present case, however, natural self-control. It is very clear that she developed heightened sensitivity
according to the testimony of Marivic herself, there was a sufficient time to sight of impending danger her husband posed continuously. Marivic truly
interval between the unlawful aggression of Ben and her fatal attack upon experienced at the hands of her abuser husband a state of psychological
him. She had already been able to withdraw from his violent behavior and paralysis which can only be ended by an act of violence on her part.  [70]
escape to their childrens bedroom. During that time, he apparently ceased
his attack and went to bed. The reality or even the imminence of the danger

Human Rights Law (Rights of Women) Page 62 of 174

 Dr. Pajarillo corroborates the findings of Dra. Dayan. He explained that A The chronic cases is this repetitious battering, repetitious
the effect of repetitious pain taking, repetitious battering, [and] repetitious maltreatment, any prolonged, it is longer than six (6) months.
maltreatment as well as the severity and the prolonged administration of the The [acute] is only the first day to six (6) months. After this six
battering is posttraumatic stress disorder.[71] Expounding thereon, he said: (6) months you become chronic. It is stated in the book
specifically that after six (6) months is chronic. The [a]typical
Q What causes the trauma, Mr. Witness? one is the repetitious battering but the individual who is
A What causes the trauma is probably the repetitious battering. abnormal and then become normal. This is how you get
Second, the severity of the battering. Third, the prolonged neurosis from neurotic personality of these cases of
administration of battering or the prolonged commission of the post[t]raumatic stress disorder. [72]
battering and the psychological and constitutional stamina of Answering the questions propounded by the trial judge, the expert
the victim and another one is the public and social support witness clarified further:
available to the victim. If nobody is interceding, the more she
will go to that disorder.... Q But just the same[,] neurosis especially on battered woman
syndrome x x x affects x x x his or her mental capacity?
xxxxxxxxx A Yes, your Honor.

Q You referred a while ago to severity. What are the qualifications Q As you were saying[,] it x x x obfuscated her rationality?
in terms of severity of the postraumatic stress disorder, Dr.
A Of course obfuscated.[73]
Pajarillo?
In sum, the cyclical nature and the severity of the violence inflicted upon
A The severity is the most severe continuously to trig[g]er this
appellant resulted in cumulative provocation which broke down her
post[t]raumatic stress disorder is injury to the head, banging of
psychological resistance and natural self-control, psychological paralysis,
the head like that. It is usually the very very severe stimulus
and difficulty in concentrating or impairment of memory.
that precipitate this post[t]raumatic stress disorder. Others are
suffocating the victim like holding a pillow on the face, Based on the explanations of the expert witnesses, such manifestations
strangulating the individual, suffocating the individual, and were analogous to an illness that diminished the exercise by appellant of her
boxing the individual. In this situation therefore, the victim is will power without, however, depriving her of consciousness of her
heightened to painful stimulus, like for example she is acts. There was, thus, a resulting diminution of her freedom of action,
pregnant, she is very susceptible because the woman will not intelligence or intent. Pursuant to paragraphs 9 [74] and 10[75] of Article 13 of
only protect herself, she is also to protect the fetus. So the the Revised Penal Code, this circumstance should be taken in her favor and
anxiety is heightened to the end [sic] degree. considered as a mitigating factor. [76]
Q But in terms of the gravity of the disorder, Mr. Witness, how do In addition, we also find in favor of appellant the extenuating
you classify? circumstance of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as to have
naturally produced passion and obfuscation. It has been held that this state
A We classify the disorder as [acute], or chronic or delayed or
of mind is present when a crime is committed as a result of an uncontrollable
[a]typical.
burst of passion provoked by prior unjust or improper acts or by a legitimate
Q Can you please describe this pre[-]classification you called stimulus so powerful as to overcome reason. [77] To appreciate this
delayed or [atypical]? circumstance, the following requisites should concur: (1) there is an act, both
unlawful and sufficient to produce such a condition of mind; and (2) this act is
A The acute is the one that usually require only one battering and not far removed from the commission of the crime by a considerable length
the individual will manifest now a severe emotional instability, of time, during which the accused might recover her normal equanimity. [78]
higher irritability remorse, restlessness, and fear and probably
in most [acute] cases the first thing will be happened to the Here, an acute battering incident, wherein Ben Genosa was the unlawful
individual will be thinking of suicide. aggressor, preceded his being killed by Marivic. He had further threatened to
kill her while dragging her by the neck towards a cabinet in which he had
Q And in chronic cases, Mr. Witness? kept a gun. It should also be recalled that she was eight months pregnant at

Human Rights Law (Rights of Women) Page 63 of 174

the time. The attempt on her life was likewise on that of her fetus. [79] His proven as indubitably as the killing itself; they cannot be deduced from mere
abusive and violent acts, an aggression which was directed at the lives of inferences, or conjectures, which have no place in the appreciation of
both Marivic and her unborn child, naturally produced passion and evidence.[82] Because of the gravity of the resulting offense, treachery must
obfuscation overcoming her reason. Even though she was able to retreat to a be proved as conclusively as the killing itself.[83]
separate room, her emotional and mental state continued. According to her,
she felt her blood pressure rise; she was filled with feelings of self-pity and of Ruling that treachery was present in the instant case, the trial court
fear that she and her baby were about to die. In a fit of indignation, she pried imposed the penalty of death upon appellant. It inferred this qualifying
open the cabinet drawer where Ben kept a gun, then she took the weapon circumstances merely from the fact that the lifeless body of Ben had been
and used it to shoot him. found lying in bed with an open, depressed, circular fracture located at the
back of his head. As to exactly how and when he had been fatally attacked,
The confluence of these events brings us to the conclusion that there however, the prosecution failed to establish indubitably. Only the following
was no considerable period of time within which Marivic could have testimony of appellant leads us to the events surrounding his death:
recovered her normal equanimity. Helpful is Dr. Pajarillos testimony [80] that
with neurotic anxiety -- a psychological effect on a victim of overwhelming Q You said that when Ben came back to your house, he dragged
brutality [or] trauma -- the victim relives the beating or trauma as if it were you? How did he drag you?
real, although she is not actually being beaten at the time. She cannot control COURT:
re-experiencing the whole thing, the most vicious and the trauma that she
suffered. She thinks of nothing but the suffering. Such reliving which is The witness demonstrated to the Court by using her right hand
beyond the control of a person under similar circumstances, must have been flexed forcibly in her front neck)
what Marivic experienced during the brief time interval and prevented her
A And he dragged me towards the door backward.
from recovering her normal equanimity. Accordingly, she should further be
credited with the mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation. ATTY. TABUCANON:
It should be clarified that these two circumstances -- psychological Q Where did he bring you?
paralysis as well as passion and obfuscation -- did not arise from the same
set of facts. A Outside the bedroom and he wanted to get something and then
he kept on shouting at me that you might as well be killed so
On the one hand, the first circumstance arose from the cyclical nature there will be nobody to nag me
and the severity of the battery inflicted by the batterer-spouse upon
appellant. That is, the repeated beatings over a period of time resulted in her Q So you said that he dragged you towards the drawer?
psychological paralysis, which was analogous to an illness diminishing the A Yes, sir.
exercise of her will power without depriving her of consciousness of her acts.
Q What is there in the drawer?
The second circumstance, on the other hand, resulted from the violent
aggression he had inflicted on her prior to the killing. That the incident A I was aware that it was a gun.
occurred when she was eight months pregnant with their child was deemed
by her as an attempt not only on her life, but likewise on that of their unborn COURT INTERPRETER
child. Such perception naturally produced passion and obfuscation on her (At this juncture the witness started crying)
part.
ATTY. TABUCANON:
Second Legal Issue:
Q Were you actually brought to the drawer?
Treachery
A Yes, sir.
There is treachery when one commits any of the crimes against persons Q What happened when you were brought to that drawer?
by employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof without risk
to oneself arising from the defense that the offended party might make. [81] In A He dragged me towards the drawer and he was about to open
order to qualify an act as treacherous, the circumstances invoked must be the drawer but he could not open it because he did not have
the key then he pulled his wallet which contained a blade

Human Rights Law (Rights of Women) Page 64 of 174

 about 3 inches long and I was aware that he was going to kill A When I was in the other room, I felt the same thing like what
me and I smashed his arm and then the wallet and the blade happened before when I was admitted in PHILPHOS Clinic, I
fell. The one he used to open the drawer I saw, it was a pipe was about to vomit. I know my blood pressure was raised. I
about that long, and when he was about to pick-up the wallet was frightened I was about to die because of my blood
and the blade, I smashed him then I ran to the other room, pressure.
and on that very moment everything on my mind was to pity
on myself, then the feeling I had on that very moment was the COURT INTERPRETER:
same when I was admitted in PHILPHOS Clinic, I was about (Upon the answer of the witness getting the pipe and smashed him,
to vomit. the witness at the same time pointed at the back of her neck
COURT INTERPRETER or the nape).

(The witness at this juncture is crying intensely). ATTY. TABUCANON:

Q You said you went to the room, what else happened?
xxxxxxxxx
A Considering all the physical sufferings that Ive been through with
him, I took pity on myself and I felt I was about to die also
Q You said that he dropped the blade, for the record will you
because of my blood pressure and the baby, so I got that gun
please describe this blade about 3 inches long, how does it
and I shot him.
look like?
COURT
A Three (3) inches long and inch wide.
/to Atty. Tabucanon
Q It is a flexible blade?
Q You shot him?
A Its a cutter.
A Yes, I distorted the drawer.[84]
Q How do you describe the blade, is it sharp both edges?
The above testimony is insufficient to establish the presence of
A Yes, because he once used it to me.
treachery. There is no showing of the victims position relative to appellants at
Q How did he do it? the time of the shooting. Besides, equally axiomatic is the rule that when a
killing is preceded by an argument or a quarrel, treachery cannot be
A He wanted to cut my throat. appreciated as a qualifying circumstance, because the deceased may be
said to have been forewarned and to have anticipated aggression from the
Q With the same blade?
assailant.[85]
A Yes, sir, that was the object used when he intimidate me.
Moreover, in order to appreciate alevosia, the method of assault
adopted by the aggressor must have been consciously and deliberately
xxxxxxxxx chosen for the specific purpose of accomplishing the unlawful act without risk
from any defense that might be put up by the party attacked. [86] There is no
ATTY. TABUCANON: showing, though, that the present appellant intentionally chose a specific
means of successfully attacking her husband without any risk to herself from
Q You said that this blade fell from his grip, is it correct?
any retaliatory act that he might make. To the contrary, it appears that the
A Yes, because I smashed him. thought of using the gun occurred to her only at about the same moment
when she decided to kill her batterer-spouse. In the absence of any
Q What happened? convincing proof that she consciously and deliberately employed the method
A Ben tried to pick-up the wallet and the blade, I pick-up the pipe by which she committed the crime in order to ensure its execution, this Court
and I smashed him and I ran to the other room. resolves the doubt in her favor.[87]

Q What else happened?

Human Rights Law (Rights of Women) Page 65 of 174

 Proper Penalty points. First, each of the phases of the cycle of violence must be proven to
have characterized at least two battering episodes between the appellant
and her intimate partner. Second, the final acute battering episode preceding
The penalty for parricide imposed by Article 246 of the Revised Penal the killing of the batterer must have produced in the battered persons mind
Code is reclusion perpetua to death. Since two mitigating circumstances and an actual fear of an imminent harm from her batterer and an honest belief
no aggravating circumstance have been found to have attended the that she needed to use force in order to save her life. Third, at the time of the
commission of the offense, the penalty shall be lowered by one (1) degree, killing, the batterer must have posed probable -- not necessarily immediate
pursuant to Article 64 of paragraph 5 [88] of the same Code.[89] The penalty and actual -- grave harm to the accused, based on the history of violence
of reclusion temporal in its medium period is imposable, considering that two perpetrated by the former against the latter. Taken altogether, these
mitigating circumstances are to be taken into account in reducing the penalty circumstances could satisfy the requisites of self-defense. Under the existing
by one degree, and no other modifying circumstances were shown to have facts of the present case, however, not all of these elements were duly
attended the commission of the offense. [90] Under the Indeterminate established.
Sentence Law, the minimum of the penalty shall be within the range of that
which is next lower in degree -- prision mayor -- and the maximum shall be WHEREFORE, the conviction of Appellant Marivic Genosa for parricide
within the range of the medium period of reclusion temporal. is hereby AFFIRMED. However, there being two (2) mitigating circumstances
and no aggravating circumstance attending her commission of the offense,
Considering all the circumstances of the instant case, we deem it just her penalty is REDUCED to six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as
and proper to impose the penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period, or minimum; to 14 years, 8 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal as
six (6) years and one (1) day in prison as minimum; to reclusion temporal in maximum.
its medium period, or 14 years 8 months and 1 day as maximum. Noting that
appellant has already served the minimum period, she may now apply for Inasmuch as appellant has been detained for more than the minimum penalty
and be released from detention on parole.[91] hereby imposed upon her, the director of the Bureau of Corrections may
immediately RELEASE her from custody upon due determination that she is
eligible for parole, unless she is being held for some other lawful cause.
Costs de oficio.
Epilogue
SO ORDERED.

Being a novel concept in our jurisprudence, the battered woman

syndrome was neither easy nor simple to analyze and recognize vis--vis the
given set of facts in the present case. The Court agonized on how to apply
the theory as a modern-day reality. It took great effort beyond the normal
manner in which decisions are made -- on the basis of existing law and
jurisprudence applicable to the proven facts. To give a just and proper
resolution of the case, it endeavored to take a good look at studies
conducted here and abroad in order to understand the intricacies of the
syndrome and the distinct personality of the chronically abused person.
Certainly, the Court has learned much. And definitely, the solicitor general
and appellants counsel, Atty. Katrina Legarda, have helped it in such
learning process.
While our hearts empathize with recurrently battered persons, we can
only work within the limits of law, jurisprudence and given facts. We cannot
make or invent them. Neither can we amend the Revised Penal Code. Only
Congress, in its wisdom, may do so.
The Court, however, is not discounting the possibility of self-defense
arising from the battered woman syndrome. We now sum up our main

Human Rights Law (Rights of Women) Page 66 of 174

 valid and binding laws by the criterion of their conformity to the fundamental law.”
[7] The Constitution vests the power of judicial review or the power to declare the
constitutionality or validity of a law, treaty, international or executive agreement,
Republic of the Philippines presidential decree, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation not only in this Court,
SUPREME COURT but in all RTCs. We said in J.M. Tuason and Co., Inc. v. CA, 3 SCRA 696 (1961),
Manila that, “[p]lainly the Constitution contemplates that the inferior courts should have
jurisdiction in cases involving constitutionality of any treaty or law, for it speaks of
EN BANC appellate review of final judgments of inferior courts in cases where such
constitutionality happens to be in issue.”
G.R. No. 179267               June 25, 2013
Same; Violence Against Women and Children; Section 20 of A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC,
JESUS C. GARCIA, Petitioner,  the Rule on Violence Against Women and Their Children, lays down a new kind of
vs. procedure requiring the respondent to file an opposition to the petition and not an
THE HONORABLE RAY ALAN T. DRILON, Presiding Judge, Regional answer. —Section 20 of A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC, the Rule on Violence Against
Trial Court-Branch 41, Bacolod City, and ROSALIE JAYPE-GARCIA, for Women and Their Children, lays down a new kind of procedure requiring the
herself and in behalf of minor children, namely: JO-ANN, JOSEPH respondent to file an opposition to the petition and not an answer. Thus: SEC. 20.
EDUARD, JESSE ANTHONE, all surnamed GARCIA, Respondents. Opposition to petition. —(a) The respondent may file an opposition to the petition
which he himself shall verify. It must be accompanied by the affidavits of witnesses
DECISION and shall show cause why a temporary or permanent protection order should not be
issued; (b) Respondent shall not include in the opposition any counterclaim, cross-
claim or third-party complaint, but any cause of action which could be the subject
Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Courts; Family Courts; Family Courts Act of 1997 thereof may be litigated in a separate civil action
(R.A. No. 8369); It must be stressed that Family Courts are special courts, of the
same level as Regional Trial Courts. Under R.A. 8369, otherwise known as the
“Family Courts Act of 1997,” family courts have exclusive original jurisdiction to Same; Civil Procedure; Cause of Action; The unconstitutionality of a statute is not a
hear and decide cases of domestic violence against women and children.—At the cause of action that could be the subject of a counterclaim, cross-claim or a third-
outset, it must be stressed that Family Courts are special courts, of the same level as party complaint.—We cannot subscribe to the theory espoused by petitioner that,
Regional Trial Courts. Under R.A. 8369, otherwise known as the “Family Courts Act since a counterclaim, cross-claim and third-party complaint are to be excluded from
of 1997,” family courts have exclusive original jurisdiction to hear and decide cases the opposition, the issue of constitutionality cannot likewise be raised therein. A
of domestic violence against women and children. In accordance with said law, the counterclaim is defined as any claim for money or other relief which a defending
Supreme Court designated from among the branches of the Regional Trial Courts at party may have against an opposing party. A crossclaim, on the other hand, is any
least one Family Court in each of several key cities identified. To achieve harmony claim by one party against a co-party arising out of the transaction or occurrence that
with the first mentioned law, Section 7 of R.A. 9262 now provides that Regional is the subject matter either of the original action or of a counterclaim therein. Finally,
Trial Courts designated as Family Courts shall have original and exclusive a third-party complaint is a claim that a defending party may, with leave of court, file
jurisdiction over cases of VAWC defined under the latter law. against a person not a party to the action for contribution, indemnity, subrogation or
any other relief, in respect of his opponent’s claim. As pointed out by Justice
Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, the unconstitutionality of a statute is not a cause of
Same; Same; Same; Regional Trial Courts; It is settled that Regional Trial Courts action that could be the subject of a counterclaim, cross-claim or a third-party
have jurisdiction to resolve the constitutionality of a statute, “this authority being complaint. Therefore, it is not prohibited from being raised in the opposition in view
embraced in the general definition of the judicial power to determine what are the of the familiar maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius.
valid and binding laws by the criterion of their conformity to the fundamental
law.”—Inspite of its designation as a family court, the RTC of Bacolod City remains
possessed of authority as a court of general original jurisdiction to pass upon all Same; Evidence; Constitutional Law; The question relative to the constitutionality of
kinds of cases whether civil, criminal, special proceedings, land registration, a statute is one of law which does not need to be supported by evidence.—That the
guardianship, naturalization, admiralty or insolvency. It is settled that RTCs have proceedings in Civil Case No. 06-797 are summary in nature should not have
jurisdiction to resolve the constitutionality of a statute, “this authority being deterred petitioner from raising the same in his Opposition. The question relative to
embraced in the general definition of the judicial power to determine what are the the constitutionality of a statute is one of law which does not need to be supported by
evidence.

Human Rights Law (Rights of Women) Page 67 of 174

Same; Temporary Protection Order (TPO); If a temporary protection order issued is perceived as erroneous but even then, the remedy against it is to seek its amendment
due to expire, the trial court may extend or renew the said order for a period of or repeal by the legislative. By the principle of separation of powers, it is the
thirty (30) days each time until final judgment is rendered.—To obviate potential legislative that determines the necessity, adequacy, wisdom and expediency of any
dangers that may arise concomitant to the conduct of a hearing when necessary, law. We only step in when there is a violation of the Constitution. However, none
Section 26 (b) of A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC provides that if a temporary protection was sufficiently shown in this case.
order issued is due to expire, the trial court may extend or renew the said order for a
period of thirty (30) days each time until final judgment is rendered. It may likewise Same; Equal Protection of the Laws; Equal protection simply requires that all
modify the extended or renewed temporary protection order as may be necessary to persons or things similarly situated should be treated alike, both as to rights
meet the needs of the parties. With the private respondent given ample protection, conferred and responsibilities im posed.—Equal protection simply requires that all
petitioner could proceed to litigate the constitutional issues, without necessarily persons or things similarly situated should be treated alike, both as to rights
running afoul of the very purpose for the adoption of the rules on summary conferred and responsibilities imposed. The oft-repeated disquisition in the early
procedure. case of Victoriano v. Elizalde Rope Workers’ Union, 59 SCRA 54 (1974), is
instructive: The guaranty of equal protection of the laws is not a guaranty of equality
Same; Provisional Remedies; Injunction; Temporary Protection Order (TPO); It in the application of the laws upon all citizens of the state. It is not, therefore, a
bears stressing that protection orders are granted ex parte so as to protect women requirement, in order to avoid the constitutional prohibition against inequality, that
and their children from acts of violence. To issue an injunction against such orders every man, woman and child should be affected alike by a statute. Equality of
will defeat the very purpose of the law against Violence Against Women and operation of statutes does not mean indiscriminate operation on persons merely as
Children.—As the rules stand, a review of the case by appeal or certiorari before such, but on persons according to the circumstances surrounding them. It guarantees
judgment is prohibited. Moreover, if the appeal of a judgment granting permanent equality, not identity of rights. The Constitution does not require that things which
protection shall not stay its enforcement, with more reason that a TPO, which is valid are different in fact be treated in law as though they were the same. The equal
only for thirty (30) days at a time, should not be enjoined. The mere fact that a protection clause does not forbid discrimination as to things that are different. It does
statute is alleged to be unconstitutional or invalid, does not of itself entitle a litigant not prohibit legislation which is limited either in the object to which it is directed or
to have the same enjoined. In Younger v. Harris, Jr., 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971), the by the territory within which it is to operate. The equal protection of the laws clause
Supreme Court of the United States declared, thus: Federal injunctions against state of the Constitution allows classification. Classification in law, as in the other
criminal statutes, either in their entirety or with respect to their separate and distinct departments of knowledge or practice, is the grouping of things in speculation or
prohibitions, are not to be granted as a matter of course, even if such statutes are practice because they agree with one another in certain particulars. A law is not
unconstitutional. No citizen or member of the community is immune from invalid because of simple inequality. The very idea of classification is that of
prosecution, in good faith, for his alleged criminal acts. The imminence of such a inequality, so that it goes without saying that the mere fact of inequality in no
prosecution even though alleged to be unauthorized and, hence, unlawful is not alone manner determines the matter of constitutionality. All that is required of a valid
ground for relief in equity which exerts its extraordinary powers only to prevent classification is that it be reasonable, which means that the classification should be
irreparable injury to the plaintiff who seeks its aid. (Citations omitted) The sole based on substantial distinctions which make for real differences; that it must be
objective of injunctions is to preserve the status quo until the trial court hears fully germane to the purpose of the law; that it must not be limited to existing conditions
the merits of the case. It bears stressing, however, that protection orders are granted only; and that it must apply equally to each member of the class. This Court has held
ex parte so as to protect women and their children from acts of violence. To issue an that the standard is satisfied if the classification or distinction is based on a
injunction against such orders will defeat the very purpose of the law against reasonable foundation or rational basis and is not palpably arbitrary.
VAWC.
Same; Same; The unequal power relationship between women and men; the fact that
Constitutional Law; Separation of Powers; Courts are not concerned with the women are more likely than men to be victims of violence; and the widespread
wisdom, justice, policy, or expediency of a statute; By the principle of separation of gender bias and prejudice against women all make for real differences justifying the
powers, it is the legislative that determines the necessity, adequacy, wisdom and classification under the law.—The unequal power relationship between women and
expediency of any law.—It is settled that courts are not concerned with the wisdom, men; the fact that women are more likely than men to be victims of violence; and the
justice, policy, or expediency of a statute. Hence, we dare not venture into the real widespread gender bias and prejudice against women all make for real differences
motivations and wisdom of the members of Congress in limiting the protection justifying the classification under the law. As Justice McIntyre succinctly states, “the
against violence and abuse under R.A. 9262 to women and children only. No proper accommodation of differences ... is the essence of true equality.”
challenge on said grounds may be entertained in this proceeding. Congress has made
its choice and it is not our prerogative to supplant this judgment. The choice may be

Human Rights Law (Rights of Women) Page 68 of 174

Same; Same; Gender-Based Violence; According to the Philippine Commission on Convention on the Rights of the Child and other international human rights
Women (the National Machinery for Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment), instruments of which the Philippines is a party.
violence against women (VAW) is deemed to be closely linked with the unequal
power relationship between women and men otherwise known as “gender-based Same; Same; The application of R.A. 9262 is not limited to the existing conditions
violence.”—According to the Philippine Commission on Women (the National when it was promulgated, but to future conditions as well, for as long as the safety
Machinery for Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment), violence against and security of women and their children are threatened by violence and abuse.—
women (VAW) is deemed to be closely linked with the unequal power relationship The application of R.A. 9262 is not limited to the existing conditions when it was
between women and men otherwise known as “gender-based violence.” Societal promulgated, but to future conditions as well, for as long as the safety and security of
norms and traditions dictate people to think men are the leaders, pursuers, providers, women and their children are threatened by violence and abuse. R.A. 9262 applies
and take on dominant roles in society while women are nurturers, men’s companions equally to all women and children who suffer violence and abuse.
and supporters, and take on subordinate roles in society. This perception leads to
men gaining more power over women. With power comes the need to control to Statutes; An act will not be held invalid merely because it might have been more
retain that power. And VAW is a form of men’s expression of controlling women to explicit in its wordings or detailed in its provisions.—There is nothing in the
retain power. definition of VAWC that is vague and ambiguous that will confuse petitioner in his
defense. The acts enumerated above are easily understood and provide adequate
Same; Same; The enactment of R.A. 9262 aims to address the discrimination contrast between the innocent and the prohibited acts. They are worded with
brought about by biases and prejudices against women.—The enactment of R.A. sufficient definiteness that persons of ordinary intelligence can understand what
9262 aims to address the discrimination brought about by biases and prejudices conduct is prohibited, and need not guess at its meaning nor differ in its application.
against women. As emphasized by the CEDAW Committee on the Elimination of Yet, petitioner insists that phrases like “depriving or threatening to deprive the
Discrimination against Women, addressing or correcting discrimination through woman or her child of a legal right,” “solely controlling the conjugal or common
specific measures focused on women does not discriminate against men. Petitioner’s money or properties,” “marital infidelity,” and “causing mental or emotional
contention, therefore, that R.A. 9262 is discriminatory and that it is an “anti-male,” anguish” are so vague that they make every quarrel a case of spousal abuse.
“husband-bashing,” and “hate-men” law deserves scant consideration. As a State However, we have stressed that the “vagueness” doctrine merely requires a
Party to the CEDAW, the Philippines bound itself to take all appropriate measures reasonable degree of certainty for the statute to be upheld — not absolute precision
“to modify the social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women, with a or mathematical exactitude, as petitioner seems to suggest. Flexibility, rather than
view to achieving the elimination of prejudices and customary and all other practices meticulous specificity, is permissible as long as the metes and bounds of the statute
which are based on the idea of the inferiority or the superiority of either of the sexes are clearly delineated. An act will not be held invalid merely because it might have
or on stereotyped roles for men and women.” Justice Puno correctly pointed out that been more explicit in its wordings or detailed in its provisions.
“(t)he paradigm shift changing the character of domestic violence from a private
affair to a public offense will require the development of a distinct mindset on the Criminal Law; Violence Against Women and Children; Conspiracy; While the law
part of the police, the prosecution and the judges provides that the offender be related or connected to the victim by marriage, former
marriage, or a sexual or dating relationship, it does not preclude the application of
Same; Same; The distinction between men and women is germane to the purpose of the principle of conspiracy under the Revised Penal Code (RPC).— VAWC may
R.A. 9262, which is to address violence committed against women and children, likewise be committed “against a woman with whom the person has or had a sexual
spelled out in its Declaration of Policy.—The distinction between men and women is or dating relationship.” Clearly, the use of the gender-neutral word “person” who has
germane to the purpose of R.A. 9262, which is to address violence committed or had a sexual or dating relationship with the woman encompasses even lesbian
against women and children, spelled out in its Declaration of Policy, as follows: relationships. Moreover, while the law provides that the offender be related or
SEC. 2. Declaration of Policy.—It is hereby declared that the State values the dignity connected to the victim by marriage, former marriage, or a sexual or dating
of women and children and guarantees full respect for human rights. The State also relationship, it does not preclude the application of the principle of conspiracy under
recognizes the need to protect the family and its members particularly women and the Revised Penal Code (RPC). Thus, in the case of Go-Tan v. Spouses Tan, 567
children, from violence and threats to their personal safety and security. Towards this SCRA 231 (2008), the parents-in-law of Sharica Mari L. Go-Tan, the victim, were
end, the State shall exert efforts to address violence committed against women and held to be proper respondents in the case filed by the latter upon the allegation that
children in keeping with the fundamental freedoms guaranteed under the they and their son (GoTan’s husband) had community of design and purpose in
Constitution and the provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the tormenting her by giving her insufficient financial support; harassing and pressuring
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, her to be ejected from the family home; and in repeatedly abusing her verbally,
emotionally, mentally and physically.

Human Rights Law (Rights of Women) Page 69 of 174

Remedial Law; Temporary Protection Order; Words and Phrases; A protection TPOs are initially effective for thirty (30) days from service on the respondent.
order is an order issued to prevent further acts of violence against women and their Where no TPO is issued ex parte, the court will nonetheless order the immediate
children, their family or household members, and to grant other necessary reliefs; issuance and service of the notice upon the respondent requiring him to file an
The rules require that petitions for protection order be in writing, signed and opposition to the petition within five (5) days from service. The date of the
verified by the petitioner thereby undertaking full responsibility, criminal or order preliminary conference and hearing on the merits shall likewise be indicated on the
issued to prevent further acts of violence against women and their children, their notice.
family or household members, and to grant other necessary reliefs. Its purpose is to
safeguard the offended parties from further harm, minimize any disruption in their Same; Same; The respondent of a petition for protection order should be apprised of
daily life and facilitate the opportunity and ability to regain control of their life. “The the charges imputed to him and afforded an opportunity to present his side; “To be
scope of reliefs in protection orders is broadened to ensure that the victim or heard” does not only mean verbal arguments in court; one may be heard also
offended party is afforded all the remedies necessary to curtail access by a through pleadings.—It is clear from the foregoing rules that the respondent of a
perpetrator to the victim. This serves to safeguard the victim from greater risk of petition for protection order should be apprised of the charges imputed to him and
violence; to accord the victim and any designated family or household member afforded an opportunity to present his side. Thus, the fear of petitioner of being
safety in the family residence, and to prevent the perpetrator from committing acts “stripped of family, property, guns, money, children, job, future employment and
that jeopardize the employment and support of the victim. It also enables the court to reputation, all in a matter of seconds, without an inkling of what happened” is a mere
award temporary custody of minor children to protect the children from violence, to product of an overactive imagination. The essence of due process is to be found in
prevent their abduction by the perpetrator and to ensure their financial support.” The the reasonable opportunity to be heard and submit any evidence one may have in
rules require that petitions for protection order be in writing, signed and verified by support of one’s defense. “To be heard” does not only mean verbal arguments in
the petitioner thereby undertaking full responsibility, criminal or civil, for every court; one may be heard also through pleadings. Where opportunity to be heard,
allegation therein. Since “time is of the essence in cases of VAWC if further violence either through oral arguments or pleadings, is accorded, there is no denial of
is to be prevented,” the court is authorized to issue ex parte a TPO after raffle but procedural due process.
before notice and hearing when the life, limb or property of the victim is in jeopardy
and there is reasonable ground to believe that the order is necessary to protect the Same; Same; Indubitably, petitioner may be removed and excluded from private
victim from the immediate and imminent danger of VAWC or to prevent such respondent’s residence, regardless of ownership, only temporarily for the purpose of
violence, which is about to recur. protecting the latter. Such removal and exclusion may be permanent only where no
property rights are violated.—Petitioner next laments that the removal and exclusion
Same; Same; Just like a writ of preliminary attachment which is issued without of the respondent in the VAWC case from the residence of the victim, regardless of
notice and hearing because the time in which the hearing will take could be enough ownership of the residence, is virtually a “blank check” issued to the wife to claim
to enable the defendant to abscond or dispose of his property, in the same way, the any property as her conjugal home. The wording of the pertinent rule, however, does
victim of Violence Against Women and Children may already have suffered not by any stretch of the imagination suggest that this is so. It states: SEC. 11.
harrowing experiences in the hands of her tormentor, and possibly even death, if Reliefs available to the offended party.—The protection order shall include any,
notice and hearing were required before such acts could be prevented.—The grant of some or all of the following reliefs: x x x x (c) Removing and excluding the
a TPO ex parte cannot, therefore, be challenged as violative of the right to due respondent from the residence of the offended party, regardless of ownership of the
process. Just like a writ of preliminary attachment which is issued without notice and residence, either temporarily for the purpose of protecting the offended party, or
hearing because the time in which the hearing will take could be enough to enable permanently where no property rights are violated. If the respondent must remove
the defendant to abscond or dispose of his property, in the same way, the victim of personal effects from the residence, the court shall direct a law enforcement agent to
VAWC may already have suffered harrowing experiences in the hands of her accompany the respondent to the residence, remain there until the respondent has
tormentor, and possibly even death, if notice and hearing were required before such gathered his things and escort him from the residence; x x x x Indubitably, petitioner
acts could be pre vented. It is a constitutional commonplace that the ordinary may be removed and excluded from private respondent’s residence, regardless of
requirements of procedural due process must yield to the necessities of protecting ownership, only temporarily for the purpose of protecting the latter. Such removal
vital public interests, among which is protection of women and children from and exclusion may be permanent only where no property rights are violated. How
violence and threats to their personal safety and security. It should be pointed out then can the private respondent just claim any property and appropriate it for herself,
that when the TPO is issued ex parte, the court shall likewise order that notice be as petitioner seems to suggest?
immediately given to the respondent directing him to file an opposition within five
(5) days from service. Moreover, the court shall order that notice, copies of the Same; Same; Under Section 23(c) of A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC, the court shall not refer
petition and TPO be served immediately on the respondent by the court sheriffs. The the Violence Against Women and Children case or any issue thereof to a mediator.—

Human Rights Law (Rights of Women) Page 70 of 174

Under Section 23(c) of A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC, the court shall not refer the case or convincing arguments were presented by petitioner to warrant a declaration of the
any issue thereof to a mediator. The reason behind this provision is well-explained unconstitutionality of R.A. 9262, which is an act of Congress and signed into law by
by the Commentary on Section 311 of the Model Code on Domestic and Family the highest officer of the co-equal executive department. As we said in Estrada v.
Violence as follows: This section prohibits a court from ordering or referring parties Sandiganbayan, 369 SCRA 394 (2001), courts must assume that the legislature is
to mediation in a proceeding for an order for protection. Mediation is a process by ever conscious of the borders and edges of its plenary powers, and passed laws with
which parties in equivalent bargaining positions voluntarily reach consensual full knowledge of the facts and for the purpose of promoting what is right and
agreement about the issue at hand. Violence, however, is not a subject for advancing the welfare of the majority.
compromise. A process which involves parties mediating the issue of violence
implies that the victim is somehow at fault. In addition, mediation of issues in a PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
proceeding for an order of protection is problematic because the petitioner is
frequently unable to participate equally with the person against whom the protection Hailed as the bastion of Christianity in Asia, the Philippines boasts of 86.8
order has been sought. million Filipinos- or 93 percent of a total population of 93.3 million – adhering
to the teachings of Jesus Christ.1 Yet, the admonition for husbands to love
Same; Same; Barangay Protection Order (BPO); The Barangay Protection Order their wives as their own bodies just as Christ loved the church and gave
issued by the Punong Barangay or, in his unavailability, by any available Barangay himself up for her2 failed to prevent, or even to curb, the pervasiveness of
Kagawad, merely orders the perpetrator to desist from (a) causing physical harm to violence against Filipino women. The National Commission on the Role of
the woman or her child; and (2) threatening to cause the woman or her child physical Filipino Women (NCRFW) reported that, for the years 2000-2003, "female
harm. Such function of the Punong Barangay is, thus, purely executive in nature, in violence comprised more than 90o/o of all forms of abuse and violence and
pursuance of his duty under the Local Government Code to “enforce all laws and more than 90% of these reported cases were committed by the women's
ordinances,” and to “maintain public order in the barangay.”—Judicial power intimate partners such as their husbands and live-in partners." 3
includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving
rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or Thus, on March 8, 2004, after nine (9) years of spirited advocacy by women's
not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of groups, Congress enacted Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9262, entitled "An Act
jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government. On the Defining Violence Against Women and Their Children, Providing for
other hand, executive power “is generally defined as the power to enforce and Protective Measures for Victims, Prescribing Penalties Therefor, and for
administer the laws. It is the power of carrying the laws into practical operation and Other Purposes." It took effect on March 27, 2004. 4
enforcing their due observance.” As clearly delimited by the aforequoted provision,
the BPO issued by the Punong Barangay or, in his unavailability, by any available
Barangay Kagawad, merely orders the perpetrator to desist from (a) causing physical R.A. 9262 is a landmark legislation that defines and criminalizes acts of
violence against women and their children (VAWC) perpetrated by women's
harm to the woman or her child; and (2) threatening to cause the woman or her child
intimate partners, i.e, husband; former husband; or any person who has or
physical harm. Such function of the Punong Barangay is, thus, purely executive in
had a sexual or dating relationship, or with whom the woman has a common
nature, in pursuance of his duty under the Local Government Code to “enforce all
child.5 The law provides for protection orders from the barangay and the
laws and ordinances,” and to “maintain public order in the barangay.” We have held
courts to prevent the commission of further acts of VAWC; and outlines the
that “(t)he mere fact that an officer is required by law to inquire into the existence of
duties and responsibilities of barangay officials, law enforcers, prosecutors
certain facts and to apply the law thereto in order to determine what his official
and court personnel, social workers, health care providers, and other local
conduct shall be and the fact that these acts may affect private rights do not
government officials in responding to complaints of VAWC or requests for
constitute an exercise of judicial powers.”
assistance.
Statutes; Before a statute or its provisions duly challenged are voided, an
A husband is now before the Court assailing the constitutionality of R.A. 9262
unequivocal breach or a clear conflict with the Constitution, not merely a doubtful
as being violative of the equal protection and due process clauses, and an
or argumentative one, must be demonstrated in such a manner as to leave no doubt
undue delegation of judicial power to barangay officials.
in the mind of the Court.—Before a statute or its provisions duly challenged are
voided, an unequivocal breach or a clear conflict with the Constitution, not merely a
doubtful or argumentative one, must be demonstrated in such a manner as to leave no The Factual Antecedents
doubt in the mind of the Court. In other words, the grounds for nullity must be
beyond reasonable doubt. In the instant case, however, no concrete evidence and

Human Rights Law (Rights of Women) Page 71 of 174

On March 23, 2006, Rosalie Jaype-Garcia (private respondent) filed, for are aware of private respondent's sufferings. Their 6-year-old son said that
herself and in behalf of her minor children, a verified petition 6 (Civil Case No. when he grows up, he would beat up his father because of his cruelty to
06-797) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bacolod City for the private respondent.11
issuance of a Temporary Protection Order (TPO) against her husband, Jesus
C. Garcia (petitioner), pursuant to R.A. 9262. She claimed to be a victim of All the emotional and psychological turmoil drove private respondent to the
physical abuse; emotional, psychological, and economic violence as a result brink of despair. On December 17, 2005, while at home, she attempted
of marital infidelity on the part of petitioner, with threats of deprivation of suicide by cutting her wrist. She was found by her son bleeding on the floor.
custody of her children and of financial support.7 Petitioner simply fled the house instead of taking her to the hospital. Private
respondent was hospitalized for about seven (7) days in which time petitioner
Private respondent's claims never bothered to visit, nor apologized or showed pity on her. Since then,
private respondent has been undergoing therapy almost every week and is
Private respondent married petitioner in 2002 when she was 34 years old taking anti-depressant medications.12
and the former was eleven years her senior. They have three (3) children,
namely: Jo-Ann J. Garcia, 17 years old, who is the natural child of petitioner When private respondent informed the management of Robinson's Bank that
but whom private respondent adopted; Jessie Anthone J. Garcia, 6 years old; she intends to file charges against the bank manager, petitioner got angry
and Joseph Eduard J. Garcia, 3 years old.8 with her for jeopardizing the manager's job. He then packed his things and
told private respondent that he was leaving her for good. He even told private
Private respondent described herself as a dutiful and faithful wife, whose life respondent's mother, who lives with them in the family home, that private
revolved around her husband. On the other hand, petitioner, who is of respondent should just accept his extramarital affair since he is not
Filipino-Chinese descent, is dominant, controlling, and demands absolute cohabiting with his paramour and has not sired a child with her. 13
obedience from his wife and children. He forbade private respondent to pray,
and deliberately isolated her from her friends. When she took up law, and Private respondent is determined to separate from petitioner but she is afraid
even when she was already working part time at a law office, petitioner that he would take her children from her and deprive her of financial support.
trivialized her ambitions and prevailed upon her to just stay at home. He was Petitioner had previously warned her that if she goes on a legal battle with
often jealous of the fact that his attractive wife still catches the eye of some him, she would not get a single centavo.14
men, at one point threatening that he would have any man eyeing her killed. 9
Petitioner controls the family businesses involving mostly the construction of
Things turned for the worse when petitioner took up an affair with a bank deep wells. He is the President of three corporations – 326 Realty Holdings,
manager of Robinson's Bank, Bacolod City, who is the godmother of one of Inc., Negros Rotadrill Corporation, and J-Bros Trading Corporation – of which
their sons. Petitioner admitted to the affair when private respondent he and private respondent are both stockholders. In contrast to the absolute
confronted him about it in 2004. He even boasted to the household help control of petitioner over said corporations, private respondent merely draws
about his sexual relations with said bank manager. Petitioner told private a monthly salary of ₱20,000.00 from one corporation only, the Negros
respondent, though, that he was just using the woman because of their Rotadrill Corporation. Household expenses amounting to not less than
accounts with the bank.10 ₱200,000.00 a month are paid for by private respondent through the use of
credit cards, which, in turn, are paid by the same corporation together with
Petitioner's infidelity spawned a series of fights that left private respondent the bills for utilities.15
physically and emotionally wounded. In one of their quarrels, petitioner
grabbed private respondent on both arms and shook her with such force that On the other hand, petitioner receives a monthly salary of ₱60,000.00 from
caused bruises and hematoma. At another time, petitioner hit private Negros Rotadrill Corporation, and enjoys unlimited cash advances and other
respondent forcefully on the lips that caused some bleeding. Petitioner benefits in hundreds of thousands of pesos from the corporations. 16 After
sometimes turned his ire on their daughter, Jo-Ann, who had seen the text private respondent confronted him about the affair, petitioner forbade her to
messages he sent to his paramour and whom he blamed for squealing on hold office at JBTC Building, Mandalagan, where all the businesses of the
him. He beat Jo-Ann on the chest and slapped her many times. When private corporations are conducted, thereby depriving her of access to full
respondent decided to leave petitioner, Jo-Ann begged her mother to stay for information about said businesses. Until the filing of the petition a quo,
fear that if the latter leaves, petitioner would beat her up. Even the small boys

Human Rights Law (Rights of Women) Page 72 of 174

petitioner has not given private respondent an accounting of the businesses d) To surrender all his firearms including a .9MM caliber firearm and
the value of which she had helped raise to millions of pesos. 17 a Walther PPK and ordering the Philippine National Police Firearms
and Explosives Unit and the Provincial Director of the PNP to cancel
Action of the RTC of Bacolod City all the Respondent's firearm licenses. He should also be ordered to
surrender any unlicensed firearms in his possession or control.
Finding reasonable ground to believe that an imminent danger of violence
against the private respondent and her children exists or is about to recur, e) To pay full financial support for the Petitioner and the children,
the RTC issued a TPO18 on March 24, 2006 effective for thirty (30) days, including rental of a house for them, and educational and medical
which is quoted hereunder: expenses.

Respondent (petitioner herein), Jesus Chua Garcia, is hereby: f) Not to dissipate the conjugal business.

a) Ordered to remove all his personal belongings from the conjugal g) To render an accounting of all advances, benefits, bonuses and
dwelling or family home within 24 hours from receipt of the other cash he received from all the corporations from 1 January 2006
Temporary Restraining Order and if he refuses, ordering that he be up to 31 March 2006, which himself and as President of the
removed by police officers from the conjugal dwelling; this order is corporations and his Comptroller, must submit to the Court not later
enforceable notwithstanding that the house is under the name of 236 than 2 April 2006. Thereafter, an accounting of all these funds shall
Realty Holdings Inc. (Republic Act No. 9262 states "regardless of be reported to the court by the Comptroller, copy furnished to the
ownership"), this is to allow the Petitioner (private respondent herein) Petitioner, every 15 days of the month, under pain of Indirect
to enter the conjugal dwelling without any danger from the Contempt of Court.
Respondent.
h) To ensure compliance especially with the order granting support
After the Respondent leaves or is removed from the conjugal pendente lite, and considering the financial resources of the
dwelling, or anytime the Petitioner decides to return to the conjugal Respondent and his threat that if the Petitioner sues she will not get
dwelling to remove things, the Petitioner shall be assisted by police a single centavo, the Respondent is ordered to put up a BOND TO
officers when re-entering the family home. KEEP THE PEACE in the amount of FIVE MILLION PESOS, in two
sufficient sureties.
The Chief of Police shall also give the Petitioner police assistance on
Sunday, 26 March 2006 because of the danger that the Respondent On April 24, 2006, upon motion 19 of private respondent, the trial court
will attempt to take her children from her when he arrives from issued an amended TPO,20 effective for thirty (30) days, which
Manila and finds out about this suit. included the following additional provisions:

b) To stay away from the petitioner and her children, mother and all i) The petitioners (private respondents herein) are given the
her household help and driver from a distance of 1,000 meters, and continued use of the Nissan Patrol and the Starex Van which they
shall not enter the gate of the subdivision where the Petitioner may are using in Negros Occidental.
be temporarily residing.
j) The petitioners are given the continued use and occupation of the
c) Not to harass, annoy, telephone, contact or otherwise house in Parañaque, the continued use of the Starex van in Metro
communicate with the Petitioner, directly or indirectly, or through Manila, whenever they go to Manila.
other persons, or contact directly or indirectly her children, mother
and household help, nor send gifts, cards, flowers, letters and the k) Respondent is ordered to immediately post a bond to keep the
like. Visitation rights to the children may be subject of a modified peace, in two sufficient sureties.
TPO in the future.
l) To give monthly support to the petitioner provisionally fixed in the
sum of One Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos (Php 150,000.00) per

Human Rights Law (Rights of Women) Page 73 of 174

 month plus rental expenses of Fifty Thousand Pesos (Php e) That respondent surrender his two firearms and all unlicensed
50,000.00) per month until the matter of support could be finally firearms to the Clerk of Court within 24 hours from receipt of the
resolved. Temporary Protection Order by his counsel;

Two days later, or on April 26, 2006, petitioner filed an Opposition to the f) That respondent shall pay petitioner educational expenses of the
Urgent Ex-Parte Motion for Renewal of the TPO 21 seeking the denial of the children upon presentation of proof of payment of such expenses. 23
renewal of the TPO on the grounds that it did not (1) comply with the three-
day notice rule, and (2) contain a notice of hearing. He further asked that the Claiming that petitioner continued to deprive them of financial support; failed
TPO be modified by (1) removing one vehicle used by private respondent to faithfully comply with the TPO; and committed new acts of harassment
and returning the same to its rightful owner, the J-Bros Trading Corporation, against her and their children, private respondent filed another
and (2) cancelling or reducing the amount of the bond from ₱5,000,000.00 to application24 for the issuance of a TPO ex parte. She alleged inter
a more manageable level at ₱100,000.00.
alia that petitioner contrived a replevin suit against himself by J-Bros Trading,
Subsequently, on May 23, 2006, petitioner moved 22 for the modification of the Inc., of which the latter was purportedly no longer president, with the end in
TPO to allow him visitation rights to his children. view of recovering the Nissan Patrol and Starex Van used by private
respondent and the children. A writ of replevin was served upon private
On May 24, 2006, the TPO was renewed and extended yet again, but subject respondent by a group of six or seven policemen with long firearms that
only to the following modifications prayed for by private respondent: scared the two small boys, Jessie Anthone and Joseph Eduard. 25

a) That respondent (petitioner herein) return the clothes and other While Joseph Eduard, then three years old, was driven to school, two men
personal belongings of Rosalie and her children to Judge Jesus allegedly attempted to kidnap him, which incident traumatized the boy
Ramos, co-counsel for Petitioner, within 24 hours from receipt of the resulting in his refusal to go back to school. On another occasion, petitioner
Temporary Protection Order by his counsel, otherwise be declared in allegedly grabbed their daughter, Jo-Ann, by the arm and threatened
Indirect Contempt of Court; her.26 The incident was reported to the police, and Jo-Ann subsequently filed
a criminal complaint against her father for violation of R.A. 7610, also known
b) Respondent shall make an accounting or list of furniture and as the "Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and
equipment in the conjugal house in Pitimini St., Capitolville Discrimination Act."
Subdivision, Bacolod City within 24 hours from receipt of the
Temporary Protection Order by his counsel; Aside from the replevin suit, petitioner's lawyers initiated the filing by the
housemaids working at the conjugal home of a complaint for kidnapping and
c) Ordering the Chief of the Women's Desk of the Bacolod City illegal detention against private respondent. This came about after private
Police Headquarters to remove Respondent from the conjugal respondent, armed with a TPO, went to said home to get her and her
dwelling within eight (8) hours from receipt of the Temporary children's belongings. Finding some of her things inside a housemaid's
Protection Order by his counsel, and that he cannot return until 48 (Sheryl Jamola) bag in the maids' room, private respondent filed a case for
hours after the petitioners have left, so that the petitioner Rosalie and qualified theft against Jamola.27
her representatives can remove things from the conjugal home and
make an inventory of the household furniture, equipment and other On August 23, 2006, the RTC issued a TPO, 28 effective for thirty (30) days,
things in the conjugal home, which shall be submitted to the Court. which reads as follows:

d) Deliver full financial support of Php200,000.00 and Php50,000.00 Respondent (petitioner herein), Jesus Chua Garcia, is hereby:
for rental and Php25,000.00 for clothes of the three petitioners (sic)
children within 24 hours from receipt of the Temporary Protection 1) Prohibited from threatening to commit or committing, personally or
Order by his counsel, otherwise be declared in indirect contempt of through another, acts of violence against the offended party;
Court;

Human Rights Law (Rights of Women) Page 74 of 174

 2) Prohibited from harassing, annoying, telephoning, contacting or 2," including properties covered by TCT Nos. T-186325 and T-
otherwise communicating in any form with the offended party, either 168814;
directly or indirectly;
9) Ordered that the Register of Deeds of Bacolod City and E.B.
3) Required to stay away, personally or through his friends, relatives, Magalona shall be served a copy of this TEMPORARY
employees or agents, from all the Petitioners Rosalie J. Garcia and PROTECTION ORDER and are ordered not to allow the transfer,
her children, Rosalie J. Garcia's three brothers, her mother Primitiva sale, encumbrance or disposition of these above-cited properties to
Jaype, cook Novelita Caranzo, driver Romeo Hontiveros, any person, entity or corporation without the personal presence of
laundrywoman Mercedita Bornales, security guard Darwin Gayona petitioner Rosalie J. Garcia, who shall affix her signature in the
and the petitioner's other household helpers from a distance of 1,000 presence of the Register of Deeds, due to the fear of petitioner
meters, and shall not enter the gate of the subdivision where the Rosalie that her signature will be forged in order to effect the
Petitioners are temporarily residing, as well as from the schools of encumbrance or sale of these properties to defraud her or the
the three children; Furthermore, that respondent shall not contact the conjugal partnership of gains.
schools of the children directly or indirectly in any manner including,
ostensibly to pay for their tuition or other fees directly, otherwise he In its Order29 dated September 26, 2006, the trial court extended the
will have access to the children through the schools and the TPO will aforequoted TPO for another ten (10) days, and gave petitioner a period of
be rendered nugatory; five (5) days within which to show cause why the TPO should not be
renewed, extended, or modified. Upon petitioner's manifestation, 30 however,
4) Directed to surrender all his firearms including .9MM caliber that he has not received a copy of private respondent's motion to
firearm and a Walther PPK to the Court; modify/renew the TPO, the trial court directed in its Order 31 dated October 6,
2006 that petitioner be furnished a copy of said motion. Nonetheless, an
5) Directed to deliver in full financial support of Php200,000.00 a Order32 dated a day earlier, October 5, had already been issued renewing the
month and Php50,000.00 for rental for the period from August 6 to TPO dated August 23, 2006. The pertinent portion is quoted hereunder:
September 6, 2006; and support in arrears from March 2006 to
August 2006 the total amount of Php1,312,000.00; xxxx

6) Directed to deliver educational expenses for 2006-2007 the x x x it appearing further that the hearing could not yet be finally terminated,
amount of Php75,000.00 and Php25,000.00; the Temporary Protection Order issued on August 23, 2006 is hereby
renewed and extended for thirty (30) days and continuously extended and
7) Directed to allow the continued use of a Nissan Patrol with Plate renewed for thirty (30) days, after each expiration, until further orders, and
No. FEW 508 and a Starex van with Plate No. FFD 991 and should subject to such modifications as may be ordered by the court.
the respondent fail to deliver said vehicles, respondent is ordered to
provide the petitioner another vehicle which is the one taken by J After having received a copy of the foregoing Order, petitioner no longer
Bros Tading; submitted the required comment to private respondent's motion for renewal
of the TPO arguing that it would only be an "exercise in futility." 33
8) Ordered not to dissipate, encumber, alienate, sell, lease or
otherwise dispose of the conjugal assets, or those real properties in Proceedings before the CA
the name of Jesus Chua Garcia only and those in which the conjugal
partnership of gains of the Petitioner Rosalie J. Garcia and During the pendency of Civil Case No. 06-797, petitioner filed before the
respondent have an interest in, especially the conjugal home located Court of Appeals (CA) a petition34 for prohibition (CA-G.R. CEB-SP. No.
in No. 14, Pitimini St., Capitolville Subdivision, Bacolod City, and 01698), with prayer for injunction and temporary restraining order,
other properties which are conjugal assets or those in which the challenging (1) the constitutionality of R.A. 9262 for being violative of the due
conjugal partnership of gains of Petitioner Rosalie J. Garcia and the process and the equal protection clauses, and (2) the validity of the modified
respondent have an interest in and listed in Annexes "I," "I-1," and "I- TPO issued in the civil case for being "an unwanted product of an invalid
law."

Human Rights Law (Rights of Women) Page 75 of 174

On May 26, 2006, the appellate court issued a 60-day Temporary V.
Restraining Order36 (TRO) against the enforcement of the TPO, the amended
TPOs and other orders pursuant thereto. THE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED IN NOT DECLARING R.A.
No. 9262 AS INVALID AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE IT ALLOWS
Subsequently, however, on January 24, 2007, the appellate court AN UNDUE DELEGATION OF JUDICIAL POWER TO THE BARANGAY
dismissed36 the petition for failure of petitioner to raise the constitutional issue OFFICIALS.38
in his pleadings before the trial court in the civil case, which is clothed with
jurisdiction to resolve the same. Secondly, the challenge to the validity The Ruling of the Court

of R.A. 9262 through a petition for prohibition seeking to annul the protection Before delving into the arguments propounded by petitioner against the
orders issued by the trial court constituted a collateral attack on said law. constitutionality of R.A. 9262, we shall first tackle the propriety of the
dismissal by the appellate court of the petition for prohibition (CA-G.R. CEB-
His motion for reconsideration of the foregoing Decision having been denied SP. No. 01698) filed by petitioner.
in the Resolution37 dated August 14, 2007, petitioner is now before us
alleging that – As a general rule, the question of constitutionality must be raised at the
earliest opportunity so that if not raised in the pleadings, ordinarily it may not
The Issues be raised in the trial, and if not raised in the trial court, it will not be
considered on appeal.39 Courts will not anticipate a question of constitutional
I. law in advance of the necessity of deciding it.40

THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN DISMISSING THE PETITION ON In defending his failure to attack the constitutionality of R.A. 9262 before the
THE THEORY THAT THE ISSUE OF CONSTITUTIONALITY WAS NOT RTC of Bacolod City, petitioner argues that the Family Court has limited
RAISED AT THE EARLIEST OPPORTUNITY AND THAT, THE PETITION authority and jurisdiction that is "inadequate to tackle the complex issue of
CONSTITUTES A COLLATERAL ATTACK ON THE VALIDITY OF THE constitutionality."41
LAW.
We disagree.
II.
Family Courts have authority and jurisdiction to consider the constitutionality
THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED SERIOUS ERROR IN FAILING of a statute.
TO CONCLUDE THAT R.A. 9262 IS DISCRIMINATORY, UNJUST, AND
VIOLATIVE OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE. At the outset, it must be stressed that Family Courts are special courts, of the
same level as Regional Trial Courts. Under R.A. 8369, otherwise known as
III. the "Family Courts Act of 1997," family courts have exclusive original
jurisdiction to hear and decide cases of domestic violence against women
and children.42 In accordance with said law, the Supreme Court designated
THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE MISTAKE IN NOT
from among the branches of the Regional Trial Courts at least one Family
FINDING THAT R.A. 9262 RUNS COUNTER TO THE DUE PROCESS
Court in each of several key cities identified. 43 To achieve harmony with the
CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION.
first mentioned law, Section 7 of R.A. 9262 now provides that Regional Trial
Courts designated as Family Courts shall have original and exclusive
IV. jurisdiction over cases of VAWC defined under the latter law, viz:

THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT THE LAW SEC. 7. Venue. – The Regional Trial Court designated as a Family Court
DOES VIOLENCE TO THE POLICY OF THE STATE TO PROTECT THE shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction over cases of violence against
FAMILY AS A BASIC SOCIAL INSTITUTION. women and their children under this law. In the absence of such court in the
place where the offense was committed, the case shall be filed in the

Human Rights Law (Rights of Women) Page 76 of 174

Regional Trial Court where the crime or any of its elements was committed at SEC. 20. Opposition to petition. – (a) The respondent may file an opposition
the option of the complainant. (Emphasis supplied) to the petition which he himself shall verify. It must be accompanied by the
affidavits of witnesses and shall show cause why a temporary or permanent
Inspite of its designation as a family court, the RTC of Bacolod City remains protection order should not be issued.
possessed of authority as a court of general original jurisdiction to pass upon
all kinds of cases whether civil, criminal, special proceedings, land (b) Respondent shall not include in the opposition any counterclaim, cross-
registration, guardianship, naturalization, admiralty or insolvency. 44 It is claim or third-party complaint, but any cause of action which could be the
settled that RTCs have jurisdiction to resolve the constitutionality of a subject thereof may be litigated in a separate civil action. (Emphasis
statute,45 "this authority being embraced in the general definition of the supplied)
judicial power to determine what are the valid and binding laws by the
criterion of their conformity to the fundamental law." 46The Constitution vests We cannot subscribe to the theory espoused by petitioner that, since a
the power of judicial review or the power to declare the constitutionality or counterclaim, cross-claim and third-party complaint are to be excluded from
validity of a law, treaty, international or executive agreement, presidential the opposition, the issue of constitutionality cannot likewise be raised therein.
decree, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation not only in this Court, but A counterclaim is defined as any claim for money or other relief which a
in all RTCs.47 We said in J.M. Tuason and Co., Inc. v. CA 48 that, "plainly the defending party may have against an opposing party. 50 A cross-claim, on the
Constitution contemplates that the inferior courts should have jurisdiction in other hand, is any claim by one party against a co-party arising out of the
cases involving constitutionality of any treaty or law, for it speaks of appellate transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter either of the original
review of final judgments of inferior courts in cases where such action or of a counterclaim therein.51Finally, a third-party complaint is a claim
constitutionality happens to be in issue." Section 5, Article VIII of the 1987 that a defending party may, with leave of court, file against a person not a
Constitution reads in part as follows: party to the action for contribution, indemnity, subrogation or any other relief,
in respect of his opponent's claim.52As pointed out by Justice Teresita J.
SEC. 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers: Leonardo-De Castro, the unconstitutionality of a statute is not a cause of
action that could be the subject of a counterclaim, cross-claim or a third-party
xxx complaint. Therefore, it is not prohibited from being raised in the opposition in
view of the familiar maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius.
2. Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the
law or the Rules of Court may provide, final judgments and orders of lower Moreover, it cannot be denied that this issue affects the resolution of the
courts in: case a quo because the right of private respondent to a protection order is
founded solely on the very statute the validity of which is being attacked 53 by
petitioner who has sustained, or will sustain, direct injury as a result of its
a. All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international
enforcement. The alleged unconstitutionality of R.A. 9262 is, for all intents
or executive agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order,
and purposes, a valid cause for the non-issuance of a protection order.
instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in question.

That the proceedings in Civil Case No. 06-797 are summary in nature should
xxxx
not have deterred petitioner from raising the same in his Opposition. The
question relative to the constitutionality of a statute is one of law which does
Thus, contrary to the posturing of petitioner, the issue of constitutionality of not need to be supported by evidence. 54 Be that as it may, Section 25 of A.M.
R.A. 9262 could have been raised at the earliest opportunity in his No. 04-10-11-SC nonetheless allows the conduct of a hearing to determine
Opposition to the petition for protection order before the RTC of Bacolod City, legal issues, among others, viz:
which had jurisdiction to determine the same, subject to the review of this
Court.
SEC. 25. Order for further hearing. - In case the court determines the need
for further hearing, it may issue an order containing the following:
Section 20 of A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC, the Rule on Violence Against Women
and Their Children, lays down a new kind of procedure requiring the
(a) Facts undisputed and admitted;
respondent to file an opposition to the petition and not an answer. 49 Thus:

Human Rights Law (Rights of Women) Page 77 of 174

 (b) Factual and legal issues to be resolved; Federal injunctions against state criminal statutes, either in their entirety or
with respect to their separate and distinct prohibitions, are not to be granted
(c) Evidence, including objects and documents that have been as a matter of course, even if such statutes are unconstitutional. No citizen or
marked and will be presented; member of the community is immune from prosecution, in good faith, for his
alleged criminal acts. The imminence of such a prosecution even though
alleged to be unauthorized and, hence, unlawful is not alone ground for relief
(d) Names of witnesses who will be ordered to present their direct
in equity which exerts its extraordinary powers only to prevent irreparable
testimonies in the form of affidavits; and
injury to the plaintiff who seeks its aid. (Citations omitted)
(e) Schedule of the presentation of evidence by both parties which
The sole objective of injunctions is to preserve the status quo until the trial
shall be done in one day, to the extent possible, within the 30-day
court hears fully the merits of the case. It bears stressing, however, that
period of the effectivity of the temporary protection order issued.
protection orders are granted ex parte so as to protect women and their
(Emphasis supplied)
children from acts of violence. To issue an injunction against such orders will
defeat the very purpose of the law against VAWC.
To obviate potential dangers that may arise concomitant to the conduct of a
hearing when necessary, Section 26 (b) of A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC provides
Notwithstanding all these procedural flaws, we shall not shirk from our
that if a temporary protection order issued is due to expire, the trial court may
obligation to determine novel issues, or issues of first impression, with far-
extend or renew the said order for a period of thirty (30) days each time until
reaching implications. We have, time and again, discharged our solemn duty
final judgment is rendered. It may likewise modify the extended or renewed
as final arbiter of constitutional issues, and with more reason now, in view of
temporary protection order as may be necessary to meet the needs of the
private respondent's plea in her Comment 59 to the instant Petition that we
parties. With the private respondent given ample protection, petitioner could
should put the challenge to the constitutionality of R.A. 9262 to rest. And so
proceed to litigate the constitutional issues, without necessarily running afoul
we shall.
of the very purpose for the adoption of the rules on summary procedure.

Intent of Congress in enacting R.A. 9262.

In view of all the foregoing, the appellate court correctly dismissed the
petition for prohibition with prayer for injunction and temporary restraining
order (CA-G.R. CEB - SP. No. 01698). Petitioner may have proceeded upon Petitioner claims that since R.A. 9262 is intended to prevent and criminalize
an honest belief that if he finds succor in a superior court, he could be spousal and child abuse, which could very well be committed by either the
granted an injunctive relief. However, Section 22(j) of A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC husband or the wife, gender alone is not enough basis to deprive the
expressly disallows the filing of a petition for certiorari, mandamus or husband/father of the remedies under the law.60
prohibition against any interlocutory order issued by the trial court. Hence,
the 60-day TRO issued by the appellate court in this case against the A perusal of the deliberations of Congress on Senate Bill No. 2723, 61 which
enforcement of the TPO, the amended TPOs and other orders pursuant became R.A. 9262, reveals that while the sponsor, Senator Luisa Pimentel-
thereto was improper, and it effectively hindered the case from taking its Ejercito (better known as Senator Loi Estrada), had originally proposed what
normal course in an expeditious and summary manner. she called a "synthesized measure" 62 – an amalgamation of two measures,
namely, the "Anti-Domestic Violence Act" and the "Anti-Abuse of Women in
As the rules stand, a review of the case by appeal or certiorari before Intimate Relationships Act"63 – providing protection to "all family members,
judgment is prohibited. Moreover, if the appeal of a judgment granting leaving no one in isolation" but at the same time giving special attention to
permanent protection shall not stay its enforcement, 55 with more reason that women as the "usual victims" of violence and abuse, 64 nonetheless, it was
a TPO, which is valid only for thirty (30) days at a time, 56 should not be eventually agreed that men be denied protection under the same measure.
enjoined. We quote pertinent portions of the deliberations:

The mere fact that a statute is alleged to be unconstitutional or invalid, does Wednesday, December 10, 2003
not of itself entitle a litigant to have the same enjoined. 57 In Younger v. Harris,
Jr.,58 the Supreme Court of the United States declared, thus: Senator Pangilinan. I just wanted to place this on record, Mr. President.
Some women's groups have expressed concerns and relayed these

Human Rights Law (Rights of Women) Page 78 of 174

concerns to me that if we are to include domestic violence apart from against women or their spouses, then it would not equalize the already difficult
women as well as other members of the household, including children or the situation for women, Mr. President.
husband, they fear that this would weaken the efforts to address domestic
violence of which the main victims or the bulk of the victims really are the I think that the sponsor, based on our earlier conversations, concurs with this
wives, the spouses or the female partners in a relationship. We would like to position. I am sure that the men in this Chamber who love their women in
place that on record. How does the good Senator respond to this kind of their lives so dearly will agree with this representation. Whether we like it or
observation? not, it is an unequal world. Whether we like it or not, no matter how
empowered the women are, we are not given equal opportunities especially
Senator Estrada. Yes, Mr. President, there is this group of women who call in the domestic environment where the macho Filipino man would always
themselves "WIIR" Women in Intimate Relationship. They do not want to feel that he is stronger, more superior to the Filipino woman.
include men in this domestic violence. But plenty of men are also being
abused by women. I am playing safe so I placed here members of the family, xxxx
prescribing penalties therefor and providing protective measures for victims.
This includes the men, children, live-in, common-law wives, and those The President Pro Tempore. What does the sponsor say?
related with the family.65
Senator Estrada. Mr. President, before accepting this, the committee came
xxx up with this bill because the family members have been included in this
proposed measure since the other members of the family other than women
Wednesday, January 14, 2004 are also possible victims of violence. While women are most likely the
intended victims, one reason incidentally why the measure focuses on
xxxx women, the fact remains that in some relatively few cases, men also stand to
be victimized and that children are almost always the helpless victims of
The President Pro Tempore. x x x violence. I am worried that there may not be enough protection extended to
other family members particularly children who are excluded. Although
Republic Act No. 7610, for instance, more or less, addresses the special
Also, may the Chair remind the group that there was the discussion whether
needs of abused children. The same law is inadequate. Protection orders for
to limit this to women and not to families which was the issue of the AWIR
one are not available in said law.
group. The understanding that I have is that we would be having a broader
scope rather than just women, if I remember correctly, Madam sponsor.
I am aware that some groups are apprehensive about granting the same
protection to men, fearing that they may use this law to justify their abusive
Senator Estrada. Yes, Mr. President.
behavior against women. However, we should also recognize that there are
established procedures and standards in our courts which give credence to
As a matter of fact, that was brought up by Senator Pangilinan during the evidentiary support and cannot just arbitrarily and whimsically entertain
interpellation period. baseless complaints.

I think Senator Sotto has something to say to that. Mr. President, this measure is intended to harmonize family relations and to
protect the family as the basic social institution. Though I recognize the
Senator Legarda. Mr. President, the reason I am in support of the measure. unequal power relations between men and women in our society, I believe
Do not get me wrong. However, I believe that there is a need to protect we have an obligation to uphold inherent rights and dignity of both husband
women's rights especially in the domestic environment. and wife and their immediate family members, particularly children.

As I said earlier, there are nameless, countless, voiceless women who have While I prefer to focus mainly on women, I was compelled to include other
not had the opportunity to file a case against their spouses, their live-in family members as a critical input arrived at after a series of
partners after years, if not decade, of battery and abuse. If we broaden the consultations/meetings with various NGOs, experts, sports groups and other
scope to include even the men, assuming they can at all be abused by the affected sectors, Mr. President.

Human Rights Law (Rights of Women) Page 79 of 174

Senator Sotto. Mr. President. The President Pro Tempore. To the amendment.

The President Pro Tempore. Yes, with the permission of the other senators. Senator Sotto. – more than the women, the children are very much abused.
As a matter of fact, it is not limited to minors. The abuse is not limited to
Senator Sotto. Yes, with the permission of the two ladies on the Floor. seven, six, 5-year-old children. I have seen 14, 15-year-old children being
abused by their fathers, even by their mothers. And it breaks my heart to find
out about these things.
The President Pro Tempore. Yes, Sen. Vicente C. Sotto III is recognized.

Because of the inadequate existing law on abuse of children, this particular

Senator Sotto. I presume that the effect of the proposed amendment of
measure will update that. It will enhance and hopefully prevent the abuse of
Senator Legarda would be removing the "men and children" in this particular
children and not only women.
bill and focus specifically on women alone. That will be the net effect of that
proposed amendment. Hearing the rationale mentioned by the distinguished
sponsor, Sen. Luisa "Loi" Ejercito Estrada, I am not sure now whether she is SOTTO-LEGARDA AMENDMENTS
inclined to accept the proposed amendment of Senator Legarda.
Therefore, may I propose an amendment that, yes, we remove the aspect of
I am willing to wait whether she is accepting this or not because if she is the men in the bill but not the children.
going to accept this, I will propose an amendment to the amendment rather
than object to the amendment, Mr. President. Senator Legarda. I agree, Mr. President, with the Minority Leader.

xxxx The President Pro Tempore. Effectively then, it will be women AND
CHILDREN.
Senator Estrada. The amendment is accepted, Mr. President.
Senator Sotto. Yes, Mr. President.
The President Pro Tempore. Is there any objection?
Senator Estrada. It is accepted, Mr. President.
xxxx
The President Pro Tempore. Is there any objection? [Silence] There being
Senator Sotto. x x x May I propose an amendment to the amendment. none, the amendment, as amended, is approved.66

The President Pro Tempore. Before we act on the amendment? It is settled that courts are not concerned with the wisdom, justice, policy, or
expediency of a statute.67 Hence, we dare not venture into the real
motivations and wisdom of the members of Congress in limiting the
Senator Sotto. Yes, Mr. President.
protection against violence and abuse under R.A. 9262 to women and
children only. No proper challenge on said grounds may be entertained in
The President Pro Tempore. Yes, please proceed. this proceeding. Congress has made its choice and it is not our prerogative
to supplant this judgment. The choice may be perceived as erroneous but
Senator Sotto. Mr. President, I am inclined to believe the rationale used by even then, the remedy against it is to seek its amendment or repeal by the
the distinguished proponent of the amendment. As a matter of fact, I tend to legislative. By the principle of separation of powers, it is the legislative that
agree. Kung may maaabuso, mas malamang iyong babae kaysa sa lalake. determines the necessity, adequacy, wisdom and expediency of any
At saka iyong mga lalake, puwede na talagang magulpi iyan. Okey lang iyan. law.68 We only step in when there is a violation of the Constitution. However,
But I cannot agree that we remove the children from this particular measure. none was sufficiently shown in this case.

So, if I may propose an amendment – R.A. 9262 does not violate the guaranty of equal protection of the laws.

Human Rights Law (Rights of Women) Page 80 of 174

Equal protection simply requires that all persons or things similarly situated succinctly states, "the accommodation of differences ... is the essence of true
should be treated alike, both as to rights conferred and responsibilities equality."70
imposed. The oft-repeated disquisition in the early case of Victoriano v.
Elizalde Rope Workers' Union69 is instructive: A. Unequal power relationship between men and women

The guaranty of equal protection of the laws is not a guaranty of equality in According to the Philippine Commission on Women (the National Machinery
the application of the laws upon all citizens of the state. It is not, therefore, a for Gender Equality and Women's Empowerment), violence against women
requirement, in order to avoid the constitutional prohibition against inequality, (VAW) is deemed to be closely linked with the unequal power relationship
that every man, woman and child should be affected alike by a statute. between women and men otherwise known as "gender-based violence".
Equality of operation of statutes does not mean indiscriminate operation on Societal norms and traditions dictate people to think men are the leaders,
persons merely as such, but on persons according to the circumstances pursuers, providers, and take on dominant roles in society while women are
surrounding them. It guarantees equality, not identity of rights. The nurturers, men's companions and supporters, and take on subordinate roles
Constitution does not require that things which are different in fact be treated in society. This perception leads to men gaining more power over women.
in law as though they were the same. The equal protection clause does not With power comes the need to control to retain that power. And VAW is a
forbid discrimination as to things that are different. It does not prohibit form of men's expression of controlling women to retain power. 71
legislation which is limited either in the object to which it is directed or by the
territory within which it is to operate. The United Nations, which has long recognized VAW as a human rights
issue, passed its Resolution 48/104 on the Declaration on Elimination of
The equal protection of the laws clause of the Constitution allows Violence Against Women on December 20, 1993 stating that "violence
classification. Classification in law, as in the other departments of knowledge against women is a manifestation of historically unequal power relations
or practice, is the grouping of things in speculation or practice because they between men and women, which have led to domination over and
agree with one another in certain particulars. A law is not invalid because of discrimination against women by men and to the prevention of the full
simple inequality. The very idea of classification is that of inequality, so that it advancement of women, and that violence against women is one of the
goes without saying that the mere fact of inequality in no manner determines crucial social mechanisms by which women are forced into subordinate
the matter of constitutionality. All that is required of a valid classification is positions, compared with men."72
that it be reasonable, which means that the classification should be based on
substantial distinctions which make for real differences; that it must be Then Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno traced the historical and social context
germane to the purpose of the law; that it must not be limited to existing of gender-based violence and developments in advocacies to eradicate
conditions only; and that it must apply equally to each member of the class. VAW, in his remarks delivered during the Joint Launching of R.A. 9262 and
This Court has held that the standard is satisfied if the classification or its Implementing Rules last October 27, 2004, the pertinent portions of which
distinction is based on a reasonable foundation or rational basis and is not are quoted hereunder:
palpably arbitrary. (Emphasis supplied)
History reveals that most societies sanctioned the use of violence against
Measured against the foregoing jurisprudential yardstick, we find that R.A. women. The patriarch of a family was accorded the right to use force on
9262 is based on a valid classification as shall hereinafter be discussed and, members of the family under his control. I quote the early studies:
as such, did not violate the equal protection clause by favoring women over
men as victims of violence and abuse to whom the State extends its
protection. Traditions subordinating women have a long history rooted in patriarchy – the
institutional rule of men. Women were seen in virtually all societies to be
naturally inferior both physically and intellectually. In ancient Western
I. R.A. 9262 rests on substantial distinctions. societies, women whether slave, concubine or wife, were under the authority
of men. In law, they were treated as property.
The unequal power relationship between women and men; the fact that
women are more likely than men to be victims of violence; and the The Roman concept of patria potestas allowed the husband to beat, or even
widespread gender bias and prejudice against women all make for real kill, his wife if she endangered his property right over her. Judaism,
differences justifying the classification under the law. As Justice McIntyre

Human Rights Law (Rights of Women) Page 81 of 174

Christianity and other religions oriented towards the patriarchal family Association] views these figures as "marked underestimates," because the
strengthened the male dominated structure of society. nature of these incidents discourages women from reporting them, and
because surveys typically exclude the very poor, those who do not speak
English feudal law reinforced the tradition of male control over women. Even English well, and women who are homeless or in institutions or hospitals
the eminent Blackstone has been quoted in his commentaries as saying when the survey is conducted. According to the AMA, "researchers on family
husband and wife were one and that one was the husband. However, in the violence agree that the true incidence of partner violence is probably double
late 1500s and through the entire 1600s, English common law began to limit the above estimates; or four million severely assaulted women per year."
the right of husbands to chastise their wives. Thus, common law developed
the rule of thumb, which allowed husbands to beat their wives with a rod or Studies on prevalence suggest that from one-fifth to one-third of all women
stick no thicker than their thumb. will be physically assaulted by a partner or ex-partner during their lifetime...
Thus on an average day in the United States, nearly 11,000 women are
In the later part of the 19th century, legal recognition of these rights to severely assaulted by their male partners. Many of these incidents involve
chastise wives or inflict corporeal punishment ceased. Even then, the sexual assault... In families where wife beating takes place, moreover, child
preservation of the family was given more importance than preventing abuse is often present as well.
violence to women.
Other studies fill in the rest of this troubling picture. Physical violence is only
The metamorphosis of the law on violence in the United States followed that the most visible form of abuse. Psychological abuse, particularly forced
of the English common law. In 1871, the Supreme Court of Alabama became social and economic isolation of women, is also common.
the first appellate court to strike down the common law right of a husband to
beat his wife: Many victims of domestic violence remain with their abusers, perhaps
because they perceive no superior alternative...Many abused women who
The privilege, ancient though it may be, to beat one's wife with a stick, to pull find temporary refuge in shelters return to their husbands, in large part
her hair, choke her, spit in her face or kick her about the floor, or to inflict because they have no other source of income... Returning to one's abuser
upon her like indignities, is not now acknowledged by our law... In person, can be dangerous. Recent Federal Bureau of Investigation statistics disclose
the wife is entitled to the same protection of the law that the husband can that 8.8 percent of all homicide victims in the United States are killed by their
invoke for himself. spouses...Thirty percent of female homicide victims are killed by their male
partners.
As time marched on, the women's advocacy movement became more
organized. The temperance leagues initiated it. These leagues had a simple Finally in 1994, the United States Congress enacted the Violence Against
focus. They considered the evils of alcoholism as the root cause of wife Women Act.
abuse. Hence, they demonstrated and picketed saloons, bars and their
husbands' other watering holes. Soon, however, their crusade was joined by In the International front, the women's struggle for equality was no less
suffragette movements, expanding the liberation movement's agenda. They successful. The United States Charter and the Universal Declaration of
fought for women's right to vote, to own property, and more. Since then, the Human Rights affirmed the equality of all human beings. In 1979, the UN
feminist movement was on the roll. General Assembly adopted the landmark Convention on the Elimination of all
Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). In 1993, the UN General
The feminist movement exposed the private invisibility of the domestic Assembly also adopted the Declaration on the Elimination of Violence
violence to the public gaze. They succeeded in transforming the issue into an Against Women. World conferences on the role and rights of women have
important public concern. No less than the United States Supreme Court, in been regularly held in Mexico City, Copenhagen, Nairobi and Beijing. The
1992 case Planned Parenthood v. Casey, noted: UN itself established a Commission on the Status of Women.

In an average 12-month period in this country, approximately two million

women are the victims of severe assaults by their male partners. In a 1985
survey, women reported that nearly one of every eight husbands had
assaulted their wives during the past year. The [American Medical

Human Rights Law (Rights of Women) Page 82 of 174

Reported 200 200 200 200 200 200 201
2011
Cases 4 5 6 7 8 9 0
The Philippines has been in cadence with the half – and full – steps of all
1,04 these women's movements. No less than Section 14, Article II of our 1987
Rape 997 927 659 837 811 770 832 Constitution mandates the State to recognize the role of women in nation
2
building and to ensure the fundamental equality before the law of women and
men. Our Senate has ratified the CEDAW as well as the Convention on the
Incestuou Rights of the Child and its two protocols. To cap it all, Congress, on March 8,
38 46 26 22 28 27 19 23
s Rape 2004, enacted Rep. Act No. 9262, entitled "An Act Defining Violence Against
Women and Their Children, Providing for Protective Measures for Victims,
Attempted Prescribing Penalties therefor and for other Purposes." (Citations omitted)
194 148 185 147 204 167 268 201
Rape
B. Women are the "usual" and "most likely"
Acts of
victims of violence.
Lascivious 580 536 382 358 445 485 745 625
ness
At the time of the presentation of Senate Bill No. 2723, official statistics on
violence against women and children show that –
Physical 3,5 2,3 1,8 1,5 1,3 1,4 2,01 1,58
Injuries 53 35 92 05 07 98 8 8 x x x physical injuries had the highest number of cases at 5,058 in 2002
representing 55.63% of total cases reported (9,903). And for the first
Sexual semester of 2003, there were 2,381 reported cases out of 4,354 cases which
Harassme 53 37 38 46 18 54 83 63 represent 54.31%. xxx (T)he total number of women in especially difficult
nt circumstances served by the Department of Social Welfare and Development
(DSWD) for the year 2002, there are 1,417 physically abused/maltreated
cases out of the total of 5,608 cases. xxx (T)here are 1,091 DSWD cases out
1,2 2,3 3,5 5,2 9,97 9,02 of a total number of 3,471 cases for the first semester of 2003. Female
RA 9262 218 924
69 87 99 85 4 1 violence comprised more than 90% of all forms of abuse and violence and
more than 90% of these reported cases were committed by the women's
Threats 319 223 199 182 220 208 374 213 intimate partners such as their husbands and live-in partners. 73

Recently, the Philippine Commission on Women presented comparative

Seduction 62 19 29 30 19 19 25 15 statistics on violence against women across an eight-year period from 2004
to August of 2011 with violations under R.A. 9262 ranking first among the
Concubin different VAW categories since its implementation in 2004, 74 thus:
121 102 93 109 109 99 158 128
age
Table 1. Annual Comparative Statistics on Violence Against Women, 2004 -
2011*
RA 9208 17 11 16 24 34 152 190 62
*2011 report covers only from January to August
Abduction
/Kidnappin 16 34 23 28 18 25 22 Source: Philippine National Police – Women and Children Protection Center
g 29 (WCPC)

Unjust On the other hand, no reliable estimates may be obtained on domestic abuse
90 50 59 59 83 703 183 155
Vexation and violence against men in the Philippines because incidents thereof are
relatively low and, perhaps, because many men will not even attempt to
6,2 5,3 4,8 5,7 6,9 9,4 15,1 12,9
Total
Human Rights Law (Rights of Women) Page 83 of 174
71 74 81 29 05 85 04 48
report the situation. In the United Kingdom, 32% of women who had ever them to "double victimization" – first at the hands of the offender and then of
experienced domestic violence did so four or five (or more) times, compared the legal system.79
with 11% of the smaller number of men who had ever experienced domestic
violence; and women constituted 89% of all those who had experienced 4 or Our own Senator Loi Estrada lamented in her Sponsorship Speech for
more incidents of domestic violence.75Statistics in Canada show that spousal Senate Bill No. 2723 that "(w)henever violence occurs in the family, the
violence by a woman against a man is less likely to cause injury than the police treat it as a private matter and advise the parties to settle the conflict
other way around (18 percent versus 44 percent). Men, who experience themselves. Once the complainant brings the case to the prosecutor, the
violence from their spouses are much less likely to live in fear of violence at latter is hesitant to file the complaint for fear that it might later be withdrawn.
the hands of their spouses, and much less likely to experience sexual This lack of response or reluctance to be involved by the police and
assault. In fact, many cases of physical violence by a woman against a prosecution reinforces the escalating, recurring and often serious nature of
spouse are in self-defense or the result of many years of physical or domestic violence."80
emotional abuse.76
Sadly, our own courts, as well, have exhibited prejudices and biases against
While there are, indeed, relatively few cases of violence and abuse our women.
perpetrated against men in the Philippines, the same cannot render R.A.
9262 invalid. In a recent case resolved on March 9, 2011, we fined RTC Judge Venancio
J. Amila for Conduct Unbecoming of a Judge. He used derogatory and
In a 1960 case involving the violation of a city ordinance requiring drivers of irreverent language in reference to the complainant in a petition for TPO and
animal-drawn vehicles to pick up, gather and deposit in receptacles the PPO under R.A. 9262, calling her as "only a live-in partner" and presenting
manure emitted or discharged by their vehicle-drawing animals in any public her as an "opportunist" and a "mistress" in an "illegitimate relationship."
highways, streets, plazas, parks or alleys, said ordinance was challenged as Judge Amila even called her a "prostitute," and accused her of being
violative of the guaranty of equal protection of laws as its application is motivated by "insatiable greed" and of absconding with the contested
limited to owners and drivers of vehicle-drawing animals and not to those property.81 Such remarks betrayed Judge Amila's prejudices and lack of
animals, although not utilized, but similarly pass through the same streets. gender sensitivity.

The ordinance was upheld as a valid classification for the reason that, while The enactment of R.A. 9262 aims to address the discrimination brought
there may be non-vehicle-drawing animals that also traverse the city roads, about by biases and prejudices against women. As emphasized by the
"but their number must be negligible and their appearance therein merely CEDAW Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women,
occasional, compared to the rig-drawing ones, as not to constitute a menace addressing or correcting discrimination through specific measures focused
to the health of the community."77 The mere fact that the legislative on women does not discriminate against men. 82Petitioner's
classification may result in actual inequality is not violative of the right to 83
contention,  therefore, that R.A. 9262 is discriminatory and that it is an "anti-
equal protection, for every classification of persons or things for regulation by male," "husband-bashing," and "hate-men" law deserves scant consideration.
law produces inequality in some degree, but the law is not thereby rendered As a State Party to the CEDAW, the Philippines bound itself to take all
invalid.78 appropriate measures "to modify the social and cultural patterns of conduct
of men and women, with a view to achieving the elimination of prejudices and
C. Gender bias and prejudices customary and all other practices which are based on the idea of the
inferiority or the superiority of either of the sexes or on stereotyped roles for
From the initial report to the police through prosecution, trial, and sentencing, men and women."84 Justice Puno correctly pointed out that "(t)he paradigm
crimes against women are often treated differently and less seriously than shift changing the character of domestic violence from a private affair to a
other crimes. This was argued by then United States Senator Joseph R. public offense will require the development of a distinct mindset on the part of
Biden, Jr., now Vice President, chief sponsor of the Violence Against Women the police, the prosecution and the judges." 85
Act (VAWA), in defending the civil rights remedy as a valid exercise of the
U.S. Congress' authority under the Commerce and Equal Protection Clauses. II. The classification is germane to the purpose of the law.
He stressed that the widespread gender bias in the U.S. has institutionalized
historic prejudices against victims of rape or domestic violence, subjecting

Human Rights Law (Rights of Women) Page 84 of 174

The distinction between men and women is germane to the purpose of R.A. family abode, which result in or is likely to result in physical, sexual,
9262, which is to address violence committed against women and children, psychological harm or suffering, or economic abuse including threats of such
spelled out in its Declaration of Policy, as follows: acts, battery, assault, coercion, harassment or arbitrary deprivation of liberty.
It includes, but is not limited to, the following acts:
SEC. 2. Declaration of Policy. – It is hereby declared that the State values
the dignity of women and children and guarantees full respect for human A. "Physical Violence" refers to acts that include bodily or physical harm;
rights. The State also recognizes the need to protect the family and its
members particularly women and children, from violence and threats to their B. "Sexual violence" refers to an act which is sexual in nature, committed
personal safety and security. against a woman or her child. It includes, but is not limited to:

Towards this end, the State shall exert efforts to address violence committed a) rape, sexual harassment, acts of lasciviousness, treating
against women and children in keeping with the fundamental freedoms a woman or her child as a sex object, making demeaning
guaranteed under the Constitution and the provisions of the Universal and sexually suggestive remarks, physically attacking the
Declaration of Human Rights, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms sexual parts of the victim's body, forcing her/him to watch
of Discrimination Against Women, Convention on the Rights of the Child and obscene publications and indecent shows or forcing the
other international human rights instruments of which the Philippines is a woman or her child to do indecent acts and/or make films
party. thereof, forcing the wife and mistress/lover to live in the
conjugal home or sleep together in the same room with the
In 1979, the U.N. General Assembly adopted the CEDAW, which the abuser;
Philippines ratified on August 5, 1981. Subsequently, the Optional Protocol to
the CEDAW was also ratified by the Philippines on October 6, 2003. 86 This b) acts causing or attempting to cause the victim to engage
Convention mandates that State parties shall accord to women equality with in any sexual activity by force, threat of force, physical or
men before the law87 and shall take all appropriate measures to eliminate other harm or threat of physical or other harm or coercion;
discrimination against women in all matters relating to marriage and family
relations on the basis of equality of men and women. 88 The Philippines c) Prostituting the woman or child.
likewise ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child and its two
protocols.89 It is, thus, bound by said Conventions and their respective
protocols. C. "Psychological violence" refers to acts or omissions causing or likely to
cause mental or emotional suffering of the victim such as but not limited to
intimidation, harassment, stalking, damage to property, public ridicule or
III. The classification is not limited to existing humiliation, repeated verbal abuse and marital infidelity. It includes causing
or allowing the victim to witness the physical, sexual or psychological abuse
conditions only, and apply equally to all members of a member of the family to which the victim belongs, or to witness
pornography in any form or to witness abusive injury to pets or to unlawful or
Moreover, the application of R.A. 9262 is not limited to the existing conditions unwanted deprivation of the right to custody and/or visitation of common
when it was promulgated, but to future conditions as well, for as long as the children.
safety and security of women and their children are threatened by violence
and abuse. D. "Economic abuse" refers to acts that make or attempt to make a woman
financially dependent which includes, but is not limited to the following:
R.A. 9262 applies equally to all women and children who suffer violence and
abuse. Section 3 thereof defines VAWC as: 1. withdrawal of financial support or preventing the victim
from engaging in any legitimate profession, occupation,
x x x any act or a series of acts committed by any person against a woman business or activity, except in cases wherein the other
who is his wife, former wife, or against a woman with whom the person has spouse/partner objects on valid, serious and moral grounds
or had a sexual or dating relationship, or with whom he has a common child, as defined in Article 73 of the Family Code;
or against her child whether legitimate or illegitimate, within or without the

Human Rights Law (Rights of Women) Page 85 of 174

 2. deprivation or threat of deprivation of financial resources latter upon the allegation that they and their son (Go-Tan's husband) had
and the right to the use and enjoyment of the conjugal, community of design and purpose in tormenting her by giving her insufficient
community or property owned in common; financial support; harassing and pressuring her to be ejected from the family
home; and in repeatedly abusing her verbally, emotionally, mentally and
3. destroying household property; physically.

4. controlling the victims' own money or properties or solely R.A. 9262 is not violative of the
controlling the conjugal money or properties. due process clause of the Constitution.

It should be stressed that the acts enumerated in the aforequoted provision Petitioner bewails the disregard of R.A. 9262, specifically in the issuance of
are attributable to research that has exposed the dimensions and dynamics POs, of all protections afforded by the due process clause of the
of battery. The acts described here are also found in the U.N. Declaration on Constitution. Says he: "On the basis of unsubstantiated allegations, and
the Elimination of Violence Against Women.90 Hence, the argument practically no opportunity to respond, the husband is stripped of family,
advanced by petitioner that the definition of what constitutes abuse removes property, guns, money, children, job, future employment and reputation, all in
the difference between violent action and simple marital tiffs is tenuous. a matter of seconds, without an inkling of what happened."95

There is nothing in the definition of VAWC that is vague and ambiguous that A protection order is an order issued to prevent further acts of violence
will confuse petitioner in his defense. The acts enumerated above are easily against women and their children, their family or household members, and to
understood and provide adequate contrast between the innocent and the grant other necessary reliefs. Its purpose is to safeguard the offended parties
prohibited acts. They are worded with sufficient definiteness that persons of from further harm, minimize any disruption in their daily life and facilitate the
ordinary intelligence can understand what conduct is prohibited, and need opportunity and ability to regain control of their life. 96
not guess at its meaning nor differ in its application. 91 Yet, petitioner
insists92that phrases like "depriving or threatening to deprive the woman or "The scope of reliefs in protection orders is broadened to ensure that the
her child of a legal right," "solely controlling the conjugal or common money victim or offended party is afforded all the remedies necessary to curtail
or properties," "marital infidelity," and "causing mental or emotional anguish" access by a perpetrator to the victim. This serves to safeguard the victim
are so vague that they make every quarrel a case of spousal abuse. from greater risk of violence; to accord the victim and any designated family
However, we have stressed that the "vagueness" doctrine merely requires a or household member safety in the family residence, and to prevent the
reasonable degree of certainty for the statute to be upheld – not absolute perpetrator from committing acts that jeopardize the employment and support
precision or mathematical exactitude, as petitioner seems to suggest. of the victim. It also enables the court to award temporary custody of minor
Flexibility, rather than meticulous specificity, is permissible as long as the children to protect the children from violence, to prevent their abduction by
metes and bounds of the statute are clearly delineated. An act will not be the perpetrator and to ensure their financial support."97
held invalid merely because it might have been more explicit in its wordings
or detailed in its provisions.93 The rules require that petitions for protection order be in writing, signed and
verified by the petitioner98 thereby undertaking full responsibility, criminal or
There is likewise no merit to the contention that R.A. 9262 singles out the civil, for every allegation therein. Since "time is of the essence in cases of
husband or father as the culprit. As defined above, VAWC may likewise be VAWC if further violence is to be prevented,"99 the court is authorized to
committed "against a woman with whom the person has or had a sexual or issue ex parte a TPO after raffle but before notice and hearing when the life,
dating relationship." Clearly, the use of the gender-neutral word "person" who limb or property of the victim is in jeopardy and there is reasonable ground to
has or had a sexual or dating relationship with the woman encompasses believe that the order is necessary to protect the victim from the immediate
even lesbian relationships. Moreover, while the law provides that the offender and imminent danger of VAWC or to prevent such violence, which is about to
be related or connected to the victim by marriage, former marriage, or a recur.100
sexual or dating relationship, it does not preclude the application of the
principle of conspiracy under the Revised Penal Code (RPC). Thus, in the There need not be any fear that the judge may have no rational basis to
case of Go-Tan v. Spouses Tan,94 the parents-in-law of Sharica Mari L. Go- issue an ex parte order. The victim is required not only to verify the
Tan, the victim, were held to be proper respondents in the case filed by the

Human Rights Law (Rights of Women) Page 86 of 174

allegations in the petition, but also to attach her witnesses' affidavits to the It should be recalled that petitioner filed on April 26, 2006 an Opposition to
petition.101 the Urgent Ex-Parte Motion for Renewal of the TPO that was granted only
two days earlier on April 24, 2006. Likewise, on May 23, 2006, petitioner filed
The grant of a TPO ex parte cannot, therefore, be challenged as violative of a motion for the modification of the TPO to allow him visitation rights to his
the right to due process. Just like a writ of preliminary attachment which is children. Still, the trial court in its Order dated September 26, 2006, gave him
issued without notice and hearing because the time in which the hearing will five days (5) within which to show cause why the TPO should not be
take could be enough to enable the defendant to abscond or dispose of his renewed or extended. Yet, he chose not to file the required comment arguing
property,102 in the same way, the victim of VAWC may already have suffered that it would just be an "exercise in futility," conveniently forgetting that the
harrowing experiences in the hands of her tormentor, and possibly even renewal of the questioned TPO was only for a limited period (30 days) each
death, if notice and hearing were required before such acts could be time, and that he could prevent the continued renewal of said order if he can
prevented. It is a constitutional commonplace that the ordinary requirements show sufficient cause therefor. Having failed to do so, petitioner may not now
of procedural due process must yield to the necessities of protecting vital be heard to complain that he was denied due process of law.
public interests,103among which is protection of women and children from
violence and threats to their personal safety and security. Petitioner next laments that the removal and exclusion of the respondent in
the VAWC case from the residence of the victim, regardless of ownership of
It should be pointed out that when the TPO is issued ex parte, the court shall the residence, is virtually a "blank check" issued to the wife to claim any
likewise order that notice be immediately given to the respondent directing property as her conjugal home.108
him to file an opposition within five (5) days from service. Moreover, the court
shall order that notice, copies of the petition and TPO be served immediately The wording of the pertinent rule, however, does not by any stretch of the
on the respondent by the court sheriffs. The TPOs are initially effective for imagination suggest that this is so. It states:
thirty (30) days from service on the respondent.104
SEC. 11. Reliefs available to the offended party. -- The protection order shall
Where no TPO is issued ex parte, the court will nonetheless order the include any, some or all of the following reliefs:
immediate issuance and service of the notice upon the respondent requiring
him to file an opposition to the petition within five (5) days from service. The xxxx
date of the preliminary conference and hearing on the merits shall likewise
be indicated on the notice.105 (c) Removing and excluding the respondent from the residence of the
offended party, regardless of ownership of the residence, either temporarily
The opposition to the petition which the respondent himself shall verify, must for the purpose of protecting the offended party, or permanently where no
be accompanied by the affidavits of witnesses and shall show cause why a property rights are violated. If the respondent must remove personal effects
temporary or permanent protection order should not be issued. 106 from the residence, the court shall direct a law enforcement agent to
accompany the respondent to the residence, remain there until the
It is clear from the foregoing rules that the respondent of a petition for respondent has gathered his things and escort him from the residence;
protection order should be apprised of the charges imputed to him and
afforded an opportunity to present his side. Thus, the fear of petitioner of xxxx
being "stripped of family, property, guns, money, children, job, future
employment and reputation, all in a matter of seconds, without an inkling of Indubitably, petitioner may be removed and excluded from private
what happened" is a mere product of an overactive imagination. The essence respondent's residence, regardless of ownership, only temporarily for the
of due process is to be found in the reasonable opportunity to be heard and purpose of protecting the latter. Such removal and exclusion may be
submit any evidence one may have in support of one's defense. "To be permanent only where no property rights are violated. How then can the
heard" does not only mean verbal arguments in court; one may be heard also private respondent just claim any property and appropriate it for herself, as
through pleadings. Where opportunity to be heard, either through oral petitioner seems to suggest?
arguments or pleadings, is accorded, there is no denial of procedural due
process.107
The non-referral of a VAWC case
to a mediator is justified.

Human Rights Law (Rights of Women) Page 87 of 174

Petitioner argues that "by criminalizing run-of-the-mill arguments, instead of The parties may be accompanied by a non-lawyer advocate in any
encouraging mediation and counseling, the law has done violence to the proceeding before the Punong Barangay.
avowed policy of the State to "protect and strengthen the family as a basic
autonomous social institution."109 Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual
controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable,
Under Section 23(c) of A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC, the court shall not refer the and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion
case or any issue thereof to a mediator. The reason behind this provision is amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
well-explained by the Commentary on Section 311 of the Model Code on instrumentality of the Government. 112 On the other hand, executive power "is
Domestic and Family Violence as follows:110 generally defined as the power to enforce and administer the laws. It is the
power of carrying the laws into practical operation and enforcing their due
This section prohibits a court from ordering or referring parties to mediation in observance."113
a proceeding for an order for protection. Mediation is a process by which
parties in equivalent bargaining positions voluntarily reach consensual As clearly delimited by the aforequoted provision, the BPO issued by the
agreement about the issue at hand. Violence, however, is not a subject for Punong Barangay or, in his unavailability, by any available Barangay
compromise. A process which involves parties mediating the issue of Kagawad, merely orders the perpetrator to desist from (a) causing physical
violence implies that the victim is somehow at fault. In addition, mediation of harm to the woman or her child; and (2) threatening to cause the woman or
issues in a proceeding for an order of protection is problematic because the her child physical harm. Such function of the Punong Barangay is, thus,
petitioner is frequently unable to participate equally with the person against purely executive in nature, in pursuance of his duty under the Local
whom the protection order has been sought. (Emphasis supplied) Government Code to "enforce all laws and ordinances," and to "maintain
public order in the barangay."114
There is no undue delegation of
judicial power to barangay officials. We have held that "(t)he mere fact that an officer is required by law to inquire
into the existence of certain facts and to apply the law thereto in order to
Petitioner contends that protection orders involve the exercise of judicial determine what his official conduct shall be and the fact that these acts may
power which, under the Constitution, is placed upon the "Supreme Court and affect private rights do not constitute an exercise of judicial powers." 115
such other lower courts as may be established by law" and, thus, protests the
delegation of power to barangay officials to issue protection orders. 111 The In the same manner as the public prosecutor ascertains through a
pertinent provision reads, as follows: preliminary inquiry or proceeding "whether there is reasonable ground to
believe that an offense has been committed and the accused is probably
SEC. 14. Barangay Protection Orders (BPOs); Who May Issue and How. – guilty thereof," the Punong Barangay must determine reasonable ground to
Barangay Protection Orders (BPOs) refer to the protection order issued by believe that an imminent danger of violence against the woman and her
the Punong Barangay ordering the perpetrator to desist from committing acts children exists or is about to recur that would necessitate the issuance of a
under Section 5 (a) and (b) of this Act.1âwphi1 A Punong Barangay who BPO. The preliminary investigation conducted by the prosecutor is,
receives applications for a BPO shall issue the protection order to the concededly, an executive, not a judicial, function. The same holds true with
applicant on the date of filing after ex parte determination of the basis of the the issuance of a BPO.
application. If the Punong Barangay is unavailable to act on the application
for a BPO, the application shall be acted upon by any available Barangay We need not even belabor the issue raised by petitioner that since barangay
Kagawad. If the BPO is issued by a Barangay Kagawad, the order must be officials and other law enforcement agencies are required to extend
accompanied by an attestation by the Barangay Kagawad that the Punong assistance to victims of violence and abuse, it would be very unlikely that
Barangay was unavailable at the time of the issuance of the BPO. BPOs they would remain objective and impartial, and that the chances of acquittal
shall be effective for fifteen (15) days. Immediately after the issuance of an are nil. As already stated, assistance by barangay officials and other law
ex parte BPO, the Punong Barangay or Barangay Kagawad shall personally enforcement agencies is consistent with their duty to enforce the law and to
serve a copy of the same on the respondent, or direct any barangay official maintain peace and order.
to effect its personal service.
Conclusion

Human Rights Law (Rights of Women) Page 88 of 174

Before a statute or its provisions duly challenged are voided, an unequivocal
breach of, or a clear conflict with the Constitution, not merely a doubtful or
argumentative one, must be demonstrated in such a manner as to leave no
doubt in the mind of the Court. In other words, the grounds for nullity must be
beyond reasonable doubt.116 In the instant case, however, no concrete
evidence and convincing arguments were presented by petitioner to warrant
a declaration of the unconstitutionality of R.A. 9262, which is an act of
Congress and signed into law by the highest officer of the co-equal executive
department. As we said in Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, 117 courts must
assume that the legislature is ever conscious of the borders and edges of its
plenary powers, and passed laws with full knowledge of the facts and for the
purpose of promoting what is right and advancing the welfare of the majority.

We reiterate here Justice Puno's observation that "the history of the women's
movement against domestic violence shows that one of its most difficult
struggles was the fight against the violence of law itself. If we keep that in
mind, law will not again be a hindrance to the struggle of women for equality
but will be its fulfillment."118 Accordingly, the constitutionality of R.A. 9262 is,
as it should be, sustained.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition for review on certiorari is hereby DENIED

for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED

Human Rights Law (Rights of Women) Page 89 of 174

[1] homeless citizens; uplift the conditions of the underprivileged and homeless citizens
in urban areas by making available decent housing at affordable cost; optimize the
G.R. No. 169263               September 21, 2011 use and productivity of land and urban resources; reduce urban dysfunctions which
affect public health, safety and ecology; and improve the capability of local
CITY OF MANILA, Petitioner,  governments in undertaking urban development and housing programs and projects,
vs. among others. Accordingly, all city and municipal governments are mandated to
MELBA TAN TE, Respondent. inventory all lands and improvements within their respective locality and identify
lands which may be utilized for socialized housing and as resettlement sites for
acquisition and disposition to qualified beneficiaries. Section 10 thereof authorizes
DECISION local government units to exercise the power of eminent domain to carry out the
objectives of the law, but subject to the conditions stated therein and in Section 9.
Eminent Domain; Public Use; Socialized Housing; Words and Phrases; The concept
of socialized housing, whereby housing units are distributed and/or sold to qualified Same; Expropriation; Pleadings, Practice and Procedure; The present state of Rule
beneficiaries on much easier terms, has already been included in the expanded 67 dispenses with the filing of an extraordinary motion to dismiss such as that
definition of “public use or purpose” in the context of the State’s exercise of the required before in response to a complaint for expropriation—the present rule
power of eminent domain; The term “public use” has acquired a more requires the filing of an answer as responsive pleading to the complaint; The
comprehensive coverage—to the literal import of the term signifying strict use or defendant in an expropriation case who has objections to the taking of his property is
employment by the public has been added the broader notion of indirect public now required to file an answer and in it raise all his available defenses against the
benefit or advantage.— Prefatorily, the concept of socialized housing, whereby allegations in the complaint for eminent domain; Failure to file the answer does not
housing units are distributed and/or sold to qualified beneficiaries on much easier produce all the disastrous consequences of default in ordinary civil actions, because
terms, has already been included in the expanded definition of “public use or the defendant may still present evidence on just compensation.—The Supreme
purpose” in the context of the State’s exercise of the power of eminent domain. Said Court, in its en banc Resolution in Bar Matter No. 803 dated April 8, 1997, has
the Court in Sumulong v. Guerrero, 154 SCRA 461 (1987), citing the earlier case of provided that the revisions made in the Rules of Court were to take effect on July 1,
Heirs of Juancho Ardona v. Reyes, 125 SCRA 220 (1983): The public use 1997. Thus, with said amendments, the present state of Rule 67 dispenses with the
requirement for a valid exercise of the power of eminent domain is a flexible and filing of an extraordinary motion to dismiss such as that required before in response
evolving concept influenced by changing conditions. The taking to be valid must be to a com plaint for expropriation. The present rule requires the filing of an answer as
for public use. There was a time where it was felt that a literal meaning should be responsive pleading to the complaint. Section 3 thereof provides: x x x The
attached to such a requirement. Whatever project is undertaken must be for the defendant in an expropriation case who has objections to the taking of his property is
public to enjoy, as in the case of streets or parks. Otherwise, expropriation is not now required to file an answer and in it raise all his available defenses against the
allowable. It is not anymore. As long as the purpose of the taking is public, then the allegations in the complaint for eminent domain. While the answer is bound by the
power of eminent domain comes into play. x x x The constitution in at least two omnibus motion rule under Section 8, Rule 15, much leeway is nevertheless afforded
cases, to remove any doubt, determines what is public use. One is the expropriation to the defendant because amendments may be made in the answer within 10 days
of lands to be divided into small lots for resale at cost to individuals. The other is in from its filing. Also, failure to file the answer does not produce all the disastrous
the transfer, through the exercise of this power, of utilities and other enterprise to the consequences of default in ordinary civil actions, because the defendant may still
government. It is accurate to state then that at present whatever may be beneficially present evidence on just compensation.
employed for the general welfare satisfies the requirement of public use. The term
“public use” has acquired a more comprehensive coverage. To the literal import of
the term signifying strict use or employment by the public has been added the Same; Same; Same; Statutes which regulate procedure in the courts apply to actions
broader notion of indirect public benefit or advantage. x x x pending and undetermined at the time those statutes were passed.—At the inception
of the case at bar with the filing of the complaint on November 16, 2000, the
amended provisions of Rule 67 have already been long in force. Borre v. Court of
Same; Same; Same; Statutes; Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992; Appeals, 158 SCRA 560 (1988), teaches that statutes which regulate procedure in the
Republic Act No. 7279; Congress passed R.A. No. 7279, to provide a comprehensive courts apply to actions pending and undetermined at the time those statutes were
and continuing urban development and housing program as well as access to land passed. And in Laguio v. Gamet, 171 SCRA 392 (1989), it is said that new court
and housing by the underprivileged and homeless citizens.—Congress passed R.A. rules apply to proceedings which take place after the date of their effectivity.
No. 7279, to provide a comprehensive and continuing urban development and
housing program as well as access to land and housing by the underprivileged and

Human Rights Law (Rights of Urban Poor) Page 90 of 174

Same; Same; Same; Whether a property owner has observed the provisions of said sale. In 1998, respondent had sought before the Metropolitan Trial Court
Sections 9 and 10 of R.A. No. 7279 before resorting to expropriation, and whether of Manila, Branch 15 the ejectment of these occupants from the premises.
he or she owns other properties than the one sought to be expropriated, and whether The favorable ruling in that case evaded execution; hence, the court, despite
he or she is actually a small property owner beyond the reach of the expropriator’s opposition of the City of Manila, issued a Writ of Demolition at respondent’s
eminent domain powers are issues in the nature of affirmative defenses which instance.7 It appears that in the interim between the issuance of the writ of
require the presentation of evidence aliunde.—The trial court in this case should execution and the order of demolition, the City of Manila had instituted an
have denied respondent’s motion to dismiss and required her to submit in its stead an expropriation case8 affecting the same property. Respondent had moved for
answer within the reglementary period. This, because whether petitioner has the dismissal of that first expropriation case for lack of cause of action, lack
observed the provisions of Sections 9 and 10 of R.A. No. 7279 before resorting to of showing of an ordinance authorizing the expropriation, and non-
expropriation, and whether respondent owns oth,er properties than the one sought to compliance with the provisions of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7279, otherwise
be expropriated, and whether she is actually a small property owner beyond the reach known as the Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992.9 The trial court
of petitioner’s eminent domain powers, are indeed issues in the nature of affirmative found merit in the motion and dismissed the complaint without prejudice. 10
defenses which require the presentation of evidence aliunde. Besides, Section 1, Rule
16 of the Rules of Court does not consider these matters grounds for a motion to On November 16, 2000, petitioner11 filed this second Complaint12 for
dismiss, and an action can be dismissed only on the grounds authorized by this expropriation before the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 24. 13 This
provision. time, it attached a copy of Ordinance No. 7951 and alleged that pursuant
thereto, it had previously offered to purchase the subject property from
PERALTA, J.: respondent for ₱824,330.00.14 The offer was contained in a letter sent to
respondent by the City Legal Officer on May 21, 1999, 15 but respondent
In this Petition for Review, 1 the City of Manila assails the April 29, 2005 allegedly failed to retrieve it despite repeated notices, 16 thereby compelling
Decision2 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 71894, as well as the petitioner to institute the present expropriation proceedings after depositing in
August 12, 2005 Resolution,3 in the said case denying reconsideration. trust with the Land Bank of the Philippines ₱1,000,000.00 cash, representing
the just compensation required by law to be paid to respondent. 17
The assailed decision affirmed the June 13, 2001 Order 4 of the Regional Trial
Court of Manila, Branch 24 issued in Civil Case No. 00-99264 – one for Respondent did not file an answer and in lieu of that, she submitted a Motion
expropriation filed by petitioner, the City of Manila. The said Order, in turn, to Dismiss18 and raised the following grounds: that Ordinance No. 7951 was
granted the motion to dismiss the complaint that was filed by respondent an invalid expropriation measure because it violated the rule against taking
Melba Tan Te, in lieu of an answer. private property without just compensation; that petitioner did not comply with
the requirements of Sections 9 19 and 1020 of R.A. No. 7279; and that she
qualified as a small property owner and, hence, exempt from the operation of
The facts follow.
R.A. No. 7279, the subject lot being the only piece of realty that she owned.
On March 15, 1998, then Manila City Mayor Joselito L. Atienza approved
Petitioner moved that it be allowed to enter the property, but before it could
Ordinance No. 7951 – an expropriation measure enacted on February 3,
be resolved, the trial court issued its June 13, 2001 Order 21 dismissing the
1998 by the city council – authorizing him to acquire by negotiation or
complaint. First, the trial court held that while petitioner had deposited with
expropriation certain pieces of real property along Maria Clara and Governor
the bank the alleged ₱1M cash in trust for respondent, petitioner
Forbes Streets where low-cost housing units could be built and then awarded
nevertheless did not submit any certification from the City Treasurer’s Office
to bona fide residents therein. For this purpose, the mayor was also
of the amount needed to justly compensate respondent for her
empowered to access the city’s funds or utilize funding facilities of other
property. Second, it emphasized that the provisions of Sections 9 and 10 of
government agencies.5 In the aggregate, the covered property measures
R.A. No. 7279 are mandatory in character, yet petitioner had failed to show
1,425 square meters, and includes the 475-square-meter lot owned by
that it exacted compliance with them prior to the commencement of this
respondent Melba Tan Te.6
suit. Lastly, it conceded that respondent had no other real property except
the subject lot which, considering its total area, should well be considered a
The records bear that respondent had acquired the property from the heirs of small property exempted by law from expropriation. In view of the dismissal
Emerlinda Dimayuga Reyes in 1996, and back then it was being occupied by of the complaint, petitioner’s motion to enter was rendered moot and
a number of families whose leasehold rights had long expired even prior to academic.22

Human Rights Law (Rights of Urban Poor) Page 91 of 174

Petitioner interposed an appeal to the Court of Appeals which, finding no already been included in the expanded definition of "public use or purpose" in
merit therein, dismissed the same.23Petitioner sought reconsideration,24 but it the context of the State’s exercise of the power of eminent domain. Said the
was denied.25 Court in Sumulong v. Guerrero, 32citing the earlier case of Heirs of Juancho
Ardona v. Reyes:33
In this Petition,26 petitioner posits that the trial court’s dismissal of its
complaint was premature, and it faults the Court of Appeals for having failed The public use requirement for a valid exercise of the power of eminent
to note that by such dismissal it has been denied an opportunity to show domain is a flexible and evolving concept influenced by changing conditions.
previous compliance with the requirements of Sections 9 and 10 of R.A. No.
7279 as well as to establish that respondent actually owns other realty apart The taking to be valid must be for public use. There was a time where it was
from the subject property. Besides, continues petitioner, whether or not it had felt that a literal meaning should be attached to such a requirement.
truly complied with the requirements of the law is a matter which can be Whatever project is undertaken must be for the public to enjoy, as in the case
determined only after a trial of the case on the merits and not, as what of streets or parks. Otherwise, expropriation is not allowable. It is not
happened in this case, at the hearing of the motion to dismiss. 27 anymore. As long as the purpose of the taking is public, then the power of
eminent domain comes into play. x x x The constitution in at least two cases,
Respondent, for her part, points out that Ordinance No. 7951 is an invalid to remove any doubt, determines what is public use. One is the expropriation
expropriation measure as it does not even contain an appropriation of funds of lands to be divided into small lots for resale at cost to individuals. The
in its implementation. In this respect, respondent believes that the ₱1M cash other is in the transfer, through the exercise of this power, of utilities and
deposit certified by the bank seems to be incredible, since petitioner has not other enterprise to the government. It is accurate to state then that at present
shown any certification from the City Treasurer’s Office on the amount whatever may be beneficially employed for the general welfare satisfies the
necessary to implement the expropriation measure. More importantly, she requirement of public use.
believes that the dismissal of the complaint must be sustained as it does not
allege previous compliance with Sections 9 and 10 of R.A. No. 7279 and, The term "public use" has acquired a more comprehensive coverage. To the
hence, it does not present a valid cause of action. 28 She theorizes that the literal import of the term signifying strict use or employment by the public has
expropriation for socialized housing must abide by the priorities in land been added the broader notion of indirect public benefit or advantage. x x x
acquisition and the available modes of land acquisition laid out in the law,
and that expropriation of privately-owned lands avails only as the last The restrictive view of public use may be appropriate for a nation which
resort.29 She also invokes the exemptions provided in the law. She professes circumscribes the scope of government activities and public concerns and
herself to be a small property owner under Section 3 (q), 30 and claims that which possesses big and correctly located public lands that obviate the need
the subject property is the only piece of land she owns where she, as of yet, to take private property for public purposes. Neither circumstance applies to
has not been able to build her own home because it is still detained by illegal the Philippines. We have never been a laissez-faire state. And the
occupants whom she had already successfully battled with in the ejectment necessities which impel the exertion of sovereign power are all too often
court.31 found in areas of scarce public land or limited government resources.

In its Reply, petitioner adopts a different and bolder theory. It claims that by Specifically, urban renewal or development and the construction of low-cost
virtue of the vesture of eminent domain powers in it by its charter, it is housing are recognized as a public purpose, not only because of the
thereby not bound by the requirements of Sections 9 and 10 of R.A. No. expanded concept of public use but also because of specific provisions in the
7279. It also asserts its right to immediately enter the subject property Constitution. x x x The 1987 Constitution [provides]:
because not only is its complaint supposedly sufficient in form and substance
but also because it has already deposited ₱1M cash with the bank in trust for
respondent. It reiterates that the dismissal of its complaint constitutes a The State shall promote a just and dynamic social order that will ensure the
denial of due process because all the issues propounded by respondent, prosperity and independence of the nation and free the people from poverty
initially in her motion to dismiss and all the way in the present appeal, must through policies that provide adequate social services, promote full
be resolved in a full-blown trial. employment, a rising standard of living and an improved quality of life for all.
(Article II, Section 9)
Prefatorily, the concept of socialized housing, whereby housing units are
distributed and/or sold to qualified beneficiaries on much easier terms, has

Human Rights Law (Rights of Urban Poor) Page 92 of 174

The State shall, by law and for the common good, undertake, in cooperation It is precisely this aspect of the law which constitutes the core of the present
with the private sector, a continuing program for urban land reform and controversy, yet this case presents a serious procedural facet – overlooked
housing which will make available at affordable cost decent housing and by both the trial court and the Court of Appeals – which needs foremost
basic services to underprivileged and homeless citizens in urban centers and attention ahead of the issues propounded by the parties.
resettlement areas. x xx In the implementation of such program the State
shall respect the rights of small property owners. (Article XIII, Section 9) Expropriation is a two-pronged proceeding: first,  the determination of the
authority of the plaintiff to exercise the power and the propriety of its exercise
Housing is a basic human need. Shortage in housing is a matter of state in the context of the facts which terminates in an order of dismissal or an
concern since it directly and significantly affects public health, safety, the order of condemnation affirming the plaintiff's lawful right to take the property
environment and in sum, the general welfare. The public character of for the public use or purpose described in the complaint and second,  the
housing measures does not change because units in housing projects cannot determination by the court of the just compensation for the property sought to
be occupied by all but only by those who satisfy prescribed qualifications. A be expropriated.39
beginning has to be made, for it is not possible to provide housing for all who
need it, all at once. Expropriation proceedings are governed by Rule 67 of the Rules of Court.
Under the Rules of Court of 1940 and 1964, where the defendant in an
Population growth, the migration to urban areas and the mushrooming of expropriation case conceded to the plaintiff’s right to expropriate (or where
crowded makeshift dwellings is a worldwide development particularly in the trial court affirms the existence of such right), the court-appointed
developing countries. So basic and urgent are housing problems that the commissioners would then proceed to determine the just compensation to be
United Nations General Assembly proclaimed 1987 as the "International Year paid.40 Otherwise, where the defendant had objections to and defenses
of Shelter for the Homeless" "to focus the attention of the international against the expropriation of his property, he was required to file a single
community on those problems." The General Assembly is seriously motion to dismiss containing all such objections and defenses. 41
concerned that, despite the efforts of Governments at the national and local
levels and of international organizations, the driving conditions of the majority This motion to dismiss was not covered by Rule 15 which governed ordinary
of the people in slums and squatter areas and rural settlements, especially in motions, and was then the required responsive pleading, taking the place of
developing countries, continue to deteriorate in both relative and absolute an answer, where the plaintiff’s right to expropriate the defendant’s property
terms." [G.A. Res. 37/221, Yearbook of the United Nations 1982, Vol. 36, p. could be put in issue.42 Any relevant and material fact could be raised as a
1043-4] defense, such as that which would tend to show that the exercise of the
power to condemn was unauthorized, or that there was cause for not taking
In light of the foregoing, the Court is satisfied that "socialized housing" defendant’s property for the purpose alleged in the petition, or that the
falls within the confines of "public use."34 purpose for the taking was not public in character. With that, the hearing of
the motion and the presentation of evidence would follow. The rule is based
Congress passed R.A. No. 7279,35 to provide a comprehensive and on fundamental constitutional provisions affecting the exercise of the power
continuing urban development and housing program as well as access to of eminent domain, such as those that seek to protect the individual property
land and housing by the underprivileged and homeless citizens; uplift the owner from the aggressions of the government. 43 However, the rule, which
conditions of the underprivileged and homeless citizens in urban areas by was derived from the practice of most American states, proved indeed to be
making available decent housing at affordable cost; optimize the use and a source of confusion because it likewise permitted the filing of another
productivity of land and urban resources; reduce urban dysfunctions which motion to dismiss, such as that referred to in Rule 16, where the defendant
affect public health, safety and ecology; and improve the capability of local could raise, in addition, the preliminary objections authorized under it. 44
governments in undertaking urban development and housing programs and
projects, among others.36 Accordingly, all city and municipal governments are The Supreme Court, in its en banc Resolution in Bar Matter No. 803 dated
mandated to inventory all lands and improvements within their respective April 8, 1997, has provided that the revisions made in the Rules of Court
locality and identify lands which may be utilized for socialized housing and as were to take effect on July 1, 1997. Thus, with said amendments, the present
resettlement sites for acquisition and disposition to qualified state of Rule 67 dispenses with the filing of an extraordinary motion to
beneficiaries.37 Section 10 thereof authorizes local government units to dismiss such as that required before in response to a complaint for
exercise the power of eminent domain to carry out the objectives of the law, expropriation. The present rule requires the filing of an answer as responsive
but subject to the conditions stated therein and in Section 9. 38 pleading to the complaint. Section 3 thereof provides:

Human Rights Law (Rights of Urban Poor) Page 93 of 174

Sec. 3. Defenses and objections. — If a defendant has no objection or certain jurisdictional defects as well as issues on the impropriety of the
defense to the action or the taking of his property, he may and serve a notice expropriation measure being imposed on the property. The trial court in that
or appearance and a manifestation to that effect, specifically designating or case denied the motion inasmuch as the issues raised therein should be
identifying the property in which he claims to be interested, within the time dealt with during the trial proper. On petition for certiorari, the Court of
stated in the summons. Thereafter, he shall be entitled to notice of all Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of the motion to dismiss. On appeal,
proceedings affecting the same. the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals, but declared that under
the amended provisions of Section 3, Rule 67, which were already in force at
If a defendant has any objection to the filing of or the allegations in the about the time the motion to dismiss had been submitted for resolution, all
complaint, or any objection or defense to the taking of his property, he shall objections and defenses that could be availed of to defeat the expropriator’s
serve his answer within the time stated in the summons. The answer shall exercise of the power of eminent domain must be contained in an answer
specifically designate or identify the property in which he claims to have an and not in a motion to dismiss because these matters require the
interest, state the nature and extent of the interest claimed, and adduce all presentation of evidence. Accordingly, while the Court in that case sustained
his objections and defenses to the taking of his property. No counterclaim, the setting aside of the motion to dismiss, it nevertheless characterized the
cross-claim or third-party complaint shall be alleged or allowed in the answer order of dismissal as a nullity. Hence, it referred the case back to the trial
or any subsequent pleading. court and required the NPC to submit its answer to the complaint within 10
days from the finality of the decision.
A defendant waives all defenses and objections not so alleged but the court,
in the interest of justice, may permit amendments to the answer to be made Thus, the trial court in this case should have denied respondent’s motion to
not later than ten (10) days from the filing thereof. However, at the trial of the dismiss and required her to submit in its stead an answer within the
issue of just compensation, whether or not a defendant has previously reglementary period. This, because whether petitioner has observed the
appeared or answered, he may present evidence as to the amount of the provisions of Sections 9 and 10 of R.A. No. 7279 before resorting to
compensation to be paid for his property, and he may share in the expropriation, and whether respondent owns other properties than the one
distribution of the award.45 sought to be expropriated, and whether she is actually a small property
owner beyond the reach of petitioner’s eminent domain powers, are indeed
issues in the nature of affirmative defenses which require the presentation of
The defendant in an expropriation case who has objections to the taking of
evidence aliunde.51 Besides, Section 1, Rule 16 of the Rules of Court does
his property is now required to file an answer and in it raise all his available
not consider these matters grounds for a motion to dismiss, and an action
defenses against the allegations in the complaint for eminent domain. While
can be dismissed only on the grounds authorized by this provision. 52
the answer is bound by the omnibus motion rule under Section 8, 46 Rule 15,
much leeway is nevertheless afforded to the defendant because
amendments may be made in the answer within 10 days from its The Court declared in Robern Development Corporation, thus:
filing.1âwphi1 Also, failure to file the answer does not produce all the
disastrous consequences of default in ordinary civil actions, because the Accordingly, Rule 16, Section 1 of the Rules of Court, does not consider as
defendant may still present evidence on just compensation. 47 grounds for a motion to dismiss the allotment of the disputed land for another
public purpose or the petition for a mere easement of right-of-way in the
At the inception of the case at bar with the filing of the complaint on complaint for expropriation. The grounds for dismissal are exclusive to those
November 16, 2000, the amended provisions of Rule 67 have already been specifically mentioned in Section 1, Rule 16 of the Rules of Court, and an
long in force. Borre v. Court of Appeals 48 teaches that statutes which regulate action can be dismissed only on a ground authorized by this provision.
procedure in the courts apply to actions pending and undetermined at the
time those statutes were passed. And in Laguio v. Gamet, 49 it is said that To be exact, the issues raised by the petitioner are affirmative defenses that
new court rules apply to proceedings which take place after the date of their should be alleged in an answer, since they require presentation of
effectivity. evidence aliunde. Section 3 of Rule 67 provides that "if a defendant has any
objection to the filing of or the allegations in the complaint, or any objection or
In the case of Robern Development Corporation v. Quitain, 50 a similar motion defense to the taking of his property," he should include them in his answer.
to dismiss was filed by the private property owner, petitioner therein, in an Naturally, these issues will have to be fully ventilated in a full-blown trial and
expropriation case filed by the National Power Corporation (NPC), alleging hearing. It would be precipitate to dismiss the Complaint on such grounds as
claimed by the petitioner. Dismissal of an action upon a motion to dismiss

Human Rights Law (Rights of Urban Poor) Page 94 of 174

constitutes a denial of due process if, from a consideration of the pleadings, it
appears that there are issues that cannot be decided without a trial of the
case on the merits.

Inasmuch as the 1997 Rules had just taken effect when this case arose, we
believe that in the interest of substantial justice, the petitioner should be
given an opportunity to file its answer to the Complaint for expropriation in
accordance with Section 3, Rule 67 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.x x
x53

WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby GRANTED. The Order of the Regional

Trial Court of Manila, Branch 24 in Civil Case No. 00-99264 dated June 13,
2001, as well as the April 29, 2005 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-
G.R. CV No. 71894 affirming said order, and the August 12, 2005 Resolution
therein which denied reconsideration, are hereby SET ASIDE. The case is
hereby REMANDED to the trial court for further proceedings. Respondent is
DIRECTED to file her Answer to the complaint within ten (10) days from the
finality of this Decision.

SO ORDERED.

Human Rights Law (Rights of Urban Poor) Page 95 of 174

[2] the law either that compels them to undertake such task on a mandatory basis,
otherwise, such obligation should have been included in the provision, either
CRISANTA GALAY, ET AL., petitioners,  expressly or impliedly. Thus, petitioners attempt to further burden private respondent
vs. with their relocation is unwarranted.
COURT OF APPEALS and VIRGINIA WONG, represented by her
Administrator, ATTY. REYNALDO B. HERNANDEZ, respondents. Same; Social Justice; The policy of social justice is not intended to countenance
wrongdoing simply because it is committed by the underprivileged—at best it may
Compromise Agreements; Judgments; Words and Phrases; Compromise, Defined; A mitigate the penalty but it certainly will not condone the offense.—Equally
judgment upon a compromise is a judgment embodying a compromise agreement unpersuasive is petitioners’ plea for social justice. In previous cases, this Court has
entered into by the parties in which they make reciprocal concessions in order to emphasized that “never is it justified to prefer the poor simply because they are poor,
terminate a litigation already instituted.—A compromise is a bilateral act or or to reject the rich simply because they are rich, for justice must always be served,
transaction that is expressly acknowledged as a juridical agreement by the Civil for poor and rich alike, according to the mandate of the law.” In the same vein, it has
Code. It is defined in Article 2208 of the Code, as “a contract whereby the parties by been held that “the policy of social justice is not intended to countenance
making reciprocal concessions, avoid a litigation or put an end to one already wrongdoing simply because it is committed by the underprivileged. At best it may
commenced.” Thus, a judgment upon a compromise is a judgment embodying a mitigate the penalty but it certainly will not condone the offense. Compassion for the
compromise agreement entered into by the parties in which they make reciprocal poor is an imperative of every humane society but only when the recipient is not a
concessions in order to terminate a litigation already instituted rascal claiming an undeserved privilege.”

Same; Same; Where it appears that nowhere in the judgment did it appear, nor can Same; Same; Social justice cannot condone the violation of law nor does it consider
it be inferred therefrom, that the court’s disposition took into account any agreement that very wrong to be a justification for priority in the enjoyment of a right.—In
or concessions made by the parties, the judgment is not based on a compromise closing, we find it fitting to advert to the following pronouncements made in the case
agreement but a decision rendered entirely on the merits.—In the present suit, the of Martires vs. Court of Appeals: “While we sympathize with the millions of our
assailed decision, far from being a judgment based on a compromise agreement, is people who are unable to afford the basic necessity of shelter, let alone the comforts
undoubtedly a decision rendered entirely on the merits. Contrary to petitioners’ of a decent home, this sympathy cannot extend to squatting, which is a criminal
assertion, the dispositive portion of the decision is very explicit in exclusively offense. Social justice cannot condone the violation of law nor does it consider that
adverting to RA 7279 as the basis for the judgment. Nowhere did it appear nor can it very wrong to be a justification for priority in the enjoyment of a right. This is what
be inferred therefrom that respondent court’s disposition took into account any the petitioner wants us to grant him. But we cannot heed his unjust plea because the
agreement or concessions made by the parties that is indicative of a judgment on a rule of law rings louder in our ears.”
compromise. A scrutiny of the assailed portions of the decision allegedly embodying
the compromise agreement revealed that the same are nothing but admissions made FRANCISCO, J.:
by the parties intended to clarify the applicable provisions of RA 7279. In fact the
said admissions are expressly laid out in Section 28(c)(8) of RA 7279 and thus could In an effort to uplift the living conditions in the poorer sections of the
not have been the subject of any compromise agreement as the same are already communities in urban areas, the legislature enacted Republic Act No. 7279
provided in the law. otherwise known as the "Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992",
envisioned to be the antidote to the pernicious problem of squatting in the
Squatting; Statutes; R.A. 7279; Although private individuals are not prohibited from metropolis. Nevertheless, the courts continue to be swamped with cases
taking part in the relocation of squatters, there is nothing in the law either that arising from disputes in the proper implementation of the aforementioned
compels them to undertake such task on a mandatory basis.—Anent petitioners’ legislation, particularly on matters involving the eviction, demolition and
claim that private respondent must also share the responsibility of relocating resettlement of squatters. The present suit is among such cases.
petitioners, the same is also without any basis. The aforecited provision is very
explicit that the task of relocating the homeless and the underprivileged shall be the The instant petition for review on certiorari seeks to annul the decision of
responsibility of the local government unit concerned and the National Housing respondent Court of Appeals dated September 20, 1994 in CA-G.R. SP No.
33761 entitled "Crisanta Galay, et al. vs. Judge Mariano I. Bacalla and
Authority with the assistance of the other government agencies. Although private
Virginia Wong, represented by her Administrator, Atty. Reynaldo B.
individuals are not prohibited from taking part in the relocation, there is nothing in

Human Rights Law (Writ of Habeas Data) Page 96 of 174

Hernandez". Petitioners claim that the assailed decision was based on an In its order dated April 5, 1994, 6 the lower court denied the prayer for the
unauthorized compromise agreement to which they never consented nor had issuance of a restraining order as the act sought to be enjoined was pursuant
any knowledge thereof. to a lawful order of the court.

Material hereto are the following antecedents: Thereafter, petitioners again sought recourse from the Court of Appeals via
Petition for Certiorari  with Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining
Private respondent Virginia Wong, as represented by her Administrator and Order, claiming that the latter order was tainted with grave abuse of
Attorney-in fact, Reynaldo B. Hernandez filed an ejectment suit (Civil Case discretion for being arbitrary, unjust and oppressive, and reiterating that they
No. 38-5830) against herein petitioners, who were alleged to have been cannot be evicted unless there is compliance with Section 28(c) of R.A.
illegally occupying private respondents' 405 square meter lot located in 7279.7
Quezon City which is covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 51589 of
the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City. On April 28, 1994, respondent Court of Appeals gave due course to the
petition and granted petitioners' prayer for preliminary injunction, enjoining
Although petitioners do not claim ownership over the subject premises, they the ejection of petitioners until further orders from the court. 8
however disputed private respondents' claim of ownership and alleged that
they have been in possession of the property in question since 1972 by virtue On July 18, 1994, counsel for private respondent filed a Motion To Lift
of the tolerance and permission of the alleged real owner, Dr. Alejo Lopez. And/Or Dissolve Preliminary Injunction, contending among others that the
Urban Poor Affairs Office [People's Bureau] has already been notified, as
On August 3, 1992, judgment was rendered by the Metropolitan Trial Court of mandated by RA 7279, and that more than 45 days had already lapsed since
Quezon City, Branch 38, ordering the ejectment of the petitioners from the the notice was made in April, 1994. Thus, private respondent has
disputed premises.1 substantially complied with the requirements of RA 7279 and therefore the
enforcement of the final judgment and ejectment of petitioners is in
order.9 Objecting to private respondent's motion, petitioners argued that RA
Upon appeal to the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 83, the
7279 requires not only the 45-day notice, but also the relocation of petitioners
decision of the Metropolitan Trial Court was affirmed in toto.2
and the grant of financial assistance to them prior to their relocation.
Furthermore, petitioners maintain that there is no extreme urgency for
Still not satisfied, petitioners proceeded to the Court of Appeals and filed a petitioners' eviction on account of private respondent's affluence. 10
petition for review, but the petition was dismissed outright for failure to state
the material dates to show that the petition was filed on time and for not
The case was subsequently set for hearing and oral argument, after which,
being accompanied by certified true copies of the disputed decision. 3
respondent court rendered the assailed decision on September 20, 1994
ordering as follows:
No further appeal was interposed by petitioner, hence, the judgment became
final. This prompted private respondent to file a Motion for Issuance of an
WHEREFORE, pursuant to RA 7279, the People's Bureau is hereby
Alias Writ of Execution which was granted by the Metropolitan Trial Court in
ordered to relocate the herein petitioners from subject lot of private
its order dated March 25, 1994,4 taking into account that the judgment has
respondent not later than October 30, 1994. Should the relocation of
already become final and executory.
petitioners be not finished on or before October 30, 1994, the
People's Bureau shall pay petitioners a daily allowance of P145.00
In an attempt to prevent the execution of the judgment and their consequent for every day of delay of relocation but in no case shall such
eviction, petitioners filed a complaint for Injunction with Preliminary Injunction allowance last for more than sixty (60) days.
and Temporary Restraining Order before the Regional Trial Court at Quezon
City, Branch 216,5 alleging that herein private respondent must first comply
Petitioners are hereby ordered to vacate the premises in question
with the mandatory requirements of Section 28(c) of R.A. 7279 regarding
not later than October 30, 1994, on which date the private
eviction and demolition by court order.
respondent shall have the right to take over possession thereof and,
if necessary, to ask for a writ of execution for the implementation of
this disposition. No pronouncement as to costs.

Human Rights Law (Writ of Habeas Data) Page 97 of 174

 SO ORDERED. 11 Hence, the instant petition.

On October 25, 1994, a new counsel entered his appearance for petitioners Petitioners adamantly argue that the decision of respondent court dated
and filed a motion to set aside the aforequoted decision. 12 As initially September 20, 1994 was based on an unauthorized compromise agreement,
mentioned, petitioners assert that the assailed decision was rendered based sans their knowledge, consent and authority. Additionally, petitioners
on a compromise agreement to which they never gave their consent nor interpose the following issues: 1) whether there can be eviction and
authorized their former counsel to enter into, and for which reason said demolition without actual relocation; 2) can the petitioners be considered as
former counsel has withdrawn his appearance as counsel of record. homeless and underprivileged?; and 3) whose duty is it to relocate them?

Petitioners contend that the judgment of respondent Court of Appeals was A compromise is a bilateral act or transaction that is expressly acknowledged
indeed based on a compromise agreement which is evident from the as a juridical agreement by the Civil Code. It is defined in Article 2208 of the
following portions of the decision: Code as "a contract whereby the parties by making reciprocal concessions,
avoid a litigation or put an end to one already commenced". 15 Thus, a
xxx xxx xxx judgment upon a compromise is a judgment embodying a compromise
agreement entered into by the parties in which they make reciprocal
concessions in order to terminate a litigation already instituted. 16
When the case was called for hearing on September 14, 1994, as
scheduled, both parties were represented. Atty. Rogelio Directo
stood up for the People's Bureau (Urban Poor Affairs Office). And In the present suit, the assailed decision, far from being a judgment based on
the parties, including the said representative of the People's Bureau, a compromise agreement, is undoubtedly a decision rendered entirely on the
agreed that petitioners herein are all qualified to avail of the merits. Contrary to petitioners' assertion, the dispositive portion of the
protection and benefits under RA 7279 and through counsel, decision is very explicit in exclusively adverting to RA 7279 as the basis for
manifested their willingness and readiness to be relocated in the judgment. Nowhere did it appear nor can it be inferred therefrom that
accordance with said law. It was likewise agreed by all concerned respondent court's disposition took into account any agreement or
that should petitioners be not relocated within the period of 45 days, concessions made by the parties that is indicative of a judgment on a
from September 15 to October 30, 1994, the People's Bureau shall compromise. A scrutiny of the assailed portions of the decision allegedly
pay them an allowance of P145.00, equivalent to the minimum wage, embodying the compromise agreement revealed that the same are nothing
per day of delay of relocation, until their actual transfer to the but admissions made by the parties intended to clarify the applicable
relocation site to be designated for them. It is understood, however, provisions of RA 7279. In fact the said admissions are expressly laid out in
that the daily allowance for petitioners shall be for a period not Section 28(c) (8) of RA 7279 and thus could not have been the subject of any
exceeding sixty (60) days, starting October 31, 1994. In other words, compromise agreement as the same are already provided in the law.
should the delay of relocation of petitioners be for more than sixty
(60) days, they shall only be entitled to the daily allowance of Further negating petitioners' contention are the following ratiocinations made
P145.00 per day of delay of relocation for not more than sixty (60) by respondent court in denying the Motion to Set Aside Decision, with which
days. we are in complete accord:

It was likewise agreed that on October 31, 1994, whether petitioners After a careful study, We find movant's stance barren of merit. Our
shall have been relocated or not, the private respondent shall then Decision promulgated on September 20, 1994 in this case was not
be entitled to the execution and implementation of this judgment, and rendered as a Judgment by Compromise. It resolved the petition on
to cause the ejectment of petitioners from subject property litigated the merits, after the lawyers of the parties and the representative of
upon. (Emphasis supplied).13 the Urban Poor Affairs Office agreed on the applicability of Rep. Act
No. 7279 to petitioner's situation. As a result of such development of
In its Resolution dated May 4, 1995, respondent Court of Appeals denied the case, Our judgment granted petitioners more than what they
petitioners' Motion to Set Aside Decision 14and reiterated that the assailed have came here for. All they prayed for was to hold in abeyance
decision dated September 20, 1994 was a decision based on the merits and execution of subject final and executory Decision of the Quezon
not upon a compromise agreement. Metropolitan Trial Court, ordering their ejectment; until after the

Human Rights Law (Writ of Habeas Data) Page 98 of 174

 expiration of forty-five (45) days from date of notice of their ejectment assistance of the other government agencies. Although private individuals
to the Urban Poor Affairs Office. But the judgment in question has are not prohibited from taking part in the relocation, there is nothing in the
recognized not only petitioner's right not to be ejected sans the 45- law either that compels them to undertake such task on a mandatory basis,
day notice to the Urban Poor Affairs Office, but also the right to a otherwise, such obligation should have been included in the provision, either
daily allowance of P145.00 for each day of delay or relocation, for a expressly or impliedly. Thus, petitioners attempt to further burden private
period of not more than sixty (60) days, should there be a delay in respondent with their relocation is unwarranted.
their relocation, as mandated by law.17
Equally unpersuasive is petitioners' plea for social justice. In previous cases,
Finally, in a desperate move to prolong the execution of the decision ordering this Court has emphasized that "never is it justified to prefer the poor simply
their eviction, petitioners invoke the principle of social justice and plead that because they are poor, or to reject the rich simply because they are rich, for
as underprivileged and homeless citizen, their eviction and demolition of their justice must always be served, for poor and rich alike, according to the
homes cannot be effected unless there is adequate relocation. Moreover, mandate of the law." 18 In the same vein, it has been held that "the policy of
petitioners maintain that private respondent is also duty bound to share in the social justice is not intended to countenance wrongdoing simply because it is
task of relocating them. committed by the underprivileged. At best it may mitigate the penalty but it
certainly will not condone the offense. Compassion for the poor is an
The contentions are without merit. It is beyond dispute that the ejectment suit imperative of every humane society but only when the recipient is not a
against petitioners has already been resolved with finality way back on rascal claiming an undeserved privilege." 19
February 16, 1994 when the petitioners' appeal was dismissed outright by
the Court of Appeals and they did not interpose any further appeal therefrom. Further militating against petitioners' appeal for compassion is the fact that
The subsequent proceedings merely sought to enforce the decision ordering only recently, President Ramos himself, in the exercise of his veto power,
their ejectment from the disputed premises, which petitioners however, vetoed a congress-approved measure 20 intended to extend the moratorium
repeatedly tried to thwart by invoking non-compliance with Section 28(c) of on the demolition of squatter colonies throughout the country. The
RA 7279. Thus, upon compliance by private respondent with the President's action was intended to curtail the negative influences to general
requirements of the aforesaid law, particularly on the notice to the People's growth and development in urban areas brought about by the problem of
Bureau (Urban Poor Affairs Office) and the expiration of 45 days from said squatting and to prevent the legitimate landowners from being unduly
notice, petitioners' right to remain in the subject lot ceased. Resultingly, deprived of the immediate use of their properties.
petitioners' eviction must now proceed in accordance with Section 28(c) (8),
to wit: In closing, we find it fitting to advert to the following pronouncements made in
the case of Martires vs. Court of Appeals 21 :
. . . Provided, however, That in cases of eviction and demolition
pursuant to a court order involving underprivileged and homeless While we sympathize with the millions of our people who are unable
citizens, relocation shall be undertaken by the local government unit to afford the basic necessity of shelter, let alone the comforts of a
concerned and the National Housing Authority with the assistance of decent home, this sympathy cannot extend to squatting, which is a
other government agencies within forty-five (45) days from service of criminal offense. Social justice cannot condone the violation of law
notice of final judgment by the court, after which period the said nor does it consider that very wrong to be a justification for priority in
order shall be executed: Provided, further, That should relocation not the enjoyment of a right. This is what the petitioner wants us to grant
be possible within the said period, financial assistance in the amount him. But we cannot heed his unjust plea because the rule of law
equivalent to the prevailing minimum daily wage multiplied by sixty rings louder in our ears.
(60) days shall be extended to the affected families by the local
government unit concerned. WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing considerations, the instant petition is
hereby DENIED for lack of merit.
Anent petitioners' claim that private respondent must also share the
responsibility of relocating petitioners, the same is also without any basis. SO ORDERED.
The aforecited provision is very explicit that the task of relocating the
homeless and the underprivileged shall be the responsibility of the local
government unit concerned and the National Housing Authority with the [14]

Human Rights Law (Writ of Habeas Data) Page 99 of 174

 Republic of the Philippines Filipino experience of the martial law detention or abduction of a person by
Supreme Court regime; The Amparo Rule was a government official or organized Same; Purposes of the Writ of
Manila intended to address the intractable groups or private individuals acting Amparo; In Latin American
  problem of “extralegal killings” and with the direct or indirect countries, except Cuba, the writ of
EN BANC “enforced disappearances”; acquiescence of the government; the Amparo has been constitutionally
  “Extralegal killings” are “killings refusal of the State to disclose the fate adopted to protect against human
  committed without due process of or whereabouts of the person rights abuses especially committed in
THE SECRETARY OF NATIONAL law, i.e., without legal safeguards or concerned or a refusal to countries under military juntas.—The
DEFENSE, THE CHIEF OF judicial proceedings,” while enforced acknowledge the deprivation of writ of amparo then spread
STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF disappearances” are “attended by liberty which places such persons throughout the Western Hemisphere,
THE PHILIPPINES, the following char acteristics: an outside the protection of law.” gradually evolving into various
Petitioners, arrest, detention or abduction of a forms, in response to the particular
  person by a government official or Same; Words and Phrases; The writ needs of each country. It became, in
  organized groups or private of Amparo originated in Mexico and the words of a justice of the Mexican
  individuals acting with the direct or “Amparo” literally means Federal Supreme Court, one piece of
  indirect acquiescence of the “protection” in Spanish.— The writ Mexico’s self-attributed “task of
  government; the refusal of the State of Amparo originated in Mexico. conveying to the world’s legal
  to disclose the fate or whereabouts of “Amparo” literally means heritage that institution which, as a
- versus - the person concerned or a refusal to “protection” in Spanish. In 1837, de shield of human dignity, her own
  acknowledge the deprivation of Tocqueville’s Democracy in America painful history conceived.” What
  liberty which places such persons became available in Mexico and began as a protection against acts or
  outside the protection of law.”— On stirred great interest. Its description of omissions of public authorities in
  October 24, 2007, the Court the practice of judicial review in the violation of constitutional rights later
  promulgated the Amparo Rule “in U.S. appealed to many Mexican evolved for several purposes: (1)
  light of the prevalence of extralegal jurists. One of them, Manuel amparo libertad for the protection of
RAYMOND MANALO and killing and enforced disappearances.” Crescencio Rejón, drafted a personal freedom, equivalent to the
REYNALDO MANALO, It was an exercise for the first time of constitutional provision for his native habeas corpus writ; (2) amparo contra
Respondents. the Court’s expanded power to state, Yucatan, which granted judges leyes for the judicial review of the
promulgate rules to protect our the power to protect all persons in the constitutionality of statutes; (3)
x- - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - people’s constitutional rights, which enjoyment of their constitutional and amparo casacion for the judicial
------------------------- made its maiden appearance in the legal rights. This idea was review of the constitutionality and
- -x 1987 Constitution in response to the incorporated into the national legality of a judicial decision; (4)
  Filipino experience of the martial law constitution in 1847, viz.: The federal amparo administrativo for the judicial
DECISION regime. As the Amparo Rule was courts shall protect any inhabitant of review of administrative actions; and
intended to address the intractable the Republic in the exercise and (5) amparo agrario for the protection
Writ of Amparo; Supreme Court; problem of “extralegal killings” and preservation of those rights granted to of peasants’ rights derived from the
Words and Phrases; “Extralegal “enforced disappearances,” its him by this Constitution and by laws agrarian reform process. In Latin
Killings” and “Enforced coverage, in its present form, is enacted pursuant hereto, against American countries, except Cuba, the
Disappearances,” Defined; The confined to these two instances or to attacks by the Legislative and writ of Amparo has been
promulgation of the Amparo Rule threats thereof. “Extralegal killings” Executive powers of the federal or constitutionally adopted to protect
was an exercise for the first time of are “killings committed without due state governments, limiting against human rights abuses
the Supreme Court’s expanded power process of law, i.e., without legal themselves to granting protection in especially committed in countries
to promulgate rules to protect our safeguards or judicial proceedings.” the specific case in litigation, making under military juntas. In general,
people’s constitutional rights, which On the other hand, “enforced no general declaration concerning the these countries adopted an
made its maiden appearance in the disappearances” are “attended by the statute or regulation that motivated allencompassing writ to protect the
1987 Constitution in response to the following characteristics: an arrest, the violation. whole gamut of constitutional rights,

Human Rights Law (Writ of Habeas Data) Page 100 of 174

including socio-economic rights. problem of extralegal killings and and the torture perpetrated on the their written and/or oral statements.
Other countries like Colombia, Chile, enforced disappearances. However, victim during detention, it logically Their statements can be corroborated
Germany and Spain, however, have with the swiftness required to resolve holds that much of the information by other evidence such as physical
chosen to limit the protection of the a petition for a writ of Amparo and evidence of the ordeal will come evidence left by the torture they
writ of amparo only to some through summary proceedings and from the victims themselves, and the suffered or landmarks they can
constitutional guarantees or the availability of appropriate interim veracity of their account will depend identify in the places where they were
fundamental rights. and permanent reliefs under the on their credibility and candidness in detained. Where powerful military
Amparo Rule, this hybrid writ of the their written and/or oral statements. officers are implicated, the hesitation
Same; Grave Abuse Clause; Habeas common law and civil law traditions —In Ortiz v. Guatemala, Case of witnesses to surface and testify
Corpus; While constitutional rights —borne out of the Latin American 10.526, Report No. 31/96, against them comes as no surprise.
can be protected under the Grave and Philippine experience of human InterAm.C.H.R.,OEA/Ser.L/V/II.95
Abuse Clause through remedies of rights abuses—offers a better remedy Doc. 7 rev. at 332 (1997), a case Same; Right to Security; Searches
injunction or prohibition under Rule to extralegal killings and enforced decided by the Inter-American and Seizures; The right to security or
65 of the Rules of Court and a disappearances and threats thereof. Commission on Human Rights, the the right to security of person finds a
petition for habeas corpus under Rule The remedy provides rapid judicial Commission considered similar textual hook in Article III, Section 2
102, these remedies may not be relief as it partakes of a summary evidence, among others, in finding of the 1987 Constitution, and at the
adequate to address the pestering proceeding that requires only that complainant Sister Diana Ortiz core of this guarantee is the immunity
problem of extralegal killings and substantial evidence to make the was abducted and tortured by agents of one’s person, including the
enforced disappearances—the appropriate reliefs available to the of the Guatemalan government. In extensions of his/her person—houses,
swiftness required to resolve a petitioner; it is not an action to this case, Sister Ortiz was kidnapped papers, and effects—against
petition for a writ of amparo through determine criminal guilt requiring and tortured in early November 1989. government intrusion.—Let us put
summary proceedings and the proof beyond reasonable doubt, or The Commission’s findings of fact this right to security under the lens to
availability of appropriate interim and liability for damages requiring were mostly based on the consistent determine if it has indeed been
permanent reliefs under the Amparo preponderance of evidence, or and credible statements, written and violated as respondents assert. The
Rule offers a better remedy to administrative responsibility oral, made by Sister Ortiz regarding right to security or the right to
extralegal killings and enforced requiring substantial evidence that her ordeal. These statements were security of person finds a textual
disappearances and threats thereof; will require full and exhaustive supported by her recognition of hook in Article III, Section 2 of the
The writ of amparo serves both proceedings. The writ of Amparo portions of the route they took when 1987 Constitution which provides,
preventive and curative roles in serves both preventive and curative she was being driven out of the viz.: Sec. 2. The right of the people to
addressing the problem of extralegal roles in addressing the problem of military installation where she was be secure in their persons, houses,
killings and enforced disappearances extralegal killings and enforced detained. She was also examined by a papers and effects against
— preventive in that it breaks the disappearances. It is preventive in medical doctor whose findings unreasonable searches and seizures of
expectation of impunity in the that it breaks the expectation of showed that the 111 circular second whatever nature and for any purpose
commission of these offenses, and, impunity in the commission of these degree burns on her back and shall be inviolable, and no search
curative in that it facilitates the offenses; it is curative in that it abrasions on her cheek coincided warrant or warrant of arrest shall
subsequent punishment of facilitates the subsequent punishment with her account of cigarette burning issue except upon probable cause to
perpetrators as it will inevitably yield of perpetrators as it will inevitably and torture she suffered while in be determined personally by the
leads to subsequent investigation and yield leads to subsequent detention. With the secret nature of judge. . . At the core of this guarantee
action.—While constitutional rights investigation and action. In the long an enforced disappearance and the is the immunity of one’s person,
can be protected under the Grave run, the goal of both the preventive torture perpetrated on the victim including the extensions of his/her
Abuse Clause through remedies of and curative roles is to deter the during detention, it logically holds person—houses, papers, and effects
injunction or prohibition under Rule further commission of extralegal that much of the information and —against government intrusion.
65 of the Rules of Court and a killings and enforced disappearances. evidence of the ordeal will come from Section 2 not only limits the state’s
petition for habeas corpus under Rule the victims themselves, and the power over a person’s home and
102, these remedies may not be Same; Evidence; With the secret veracity of their account will depend possessions, but more importantly,
adequate to address the pestering nature of an enforced disappearance on their credibility and candidness in protects the privacy and sanctity of

Human Rights Law (Writ of Habeas Data) Page 101 of 174

the person himself. The purpose of existing, and it is invaded not only by person is a guarantee of bodily and persons because they are an affront to
this provision was enunciated by the a deprivation of life but also of those psychological integrity or security, the bodily integrity or security of a
Court in People v. CFI of Rizal, things which are necessary to the and, Third, the right to security of person. Third, the right to security of
Branch IX, Quezon City, 101 SCRA enjoyment of life according to the person is a guarantee of protection of person is a guarantee of protection of
86 (1980), viz.: The purpose of the nature, temperament, and lawful one’s rights by the government.—A one’s rights by the government. In the
constitutional guarantee against desires of the individual.”— While closer look at the right to security of context of the writ of Amparo, this
unreasonable searches and seizures is the right to life under Article III, person would yield various right is built into the guarantees of the
to prevent violations of private Section 1 guarantees essentially the permutations of the exercise of this right to life and liberty under Article
security in person and property and right to be alive—upon which the right. First, the right to security of III, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution
unlawful invasion of the security of enjoyment of all other rights is person is “freedom from fear.” In its and the right to security of person (as
the home by officers of the law acting preconditioned—the right to security “whereas” clauses, the Universal freedom from threat and guarantee of
under legislative or judicial sanction of person is a guarantee of the secure Declaration of Human Rights bodily and psychological integrity)
and to give remedy against such quality of this life, viz.: “The life to (UDHR) enunciates that “a world in under Article III, Section 2. The right
usurpation when attempted. (Adams which each person has a right is not a which human beings shall enjoy to security of person in this third
v. New York, 192 U.S. 858; Alvero v. life lived in fear that his person and freedom of speech and belief and sense is a corollary of the policy that
Dizon, 76 Phil. 637 [1946]). The right property may be unreasonably freedom from fear and want has been the State “guarantees full respect for
to privacy is an essential condition to violated by a powerful ruler. Rather, proclaimed as the highest aspiration human rights” under Article II,
the dignity and happiness and to the it is a life lived with the assurance of the common people.” (emphasis Section 11 of the 1987 Constitution.
peace and security of every that the government he established supplied) Some scholars postulate As the government is the chief
individual, whether it be of home or and consented to, will protect the that “freedom from fear” is not only guarantor of order and security, the
of persons and correspondence. security of his person and property. an aspirational principle, but Constitutional guarantee of the rights
(Tañada and Carreon, Political Law The ideal of security in life and essentially an individual international to life, liberty and security of person
of the Philippines, Vol. 2, 139 property. . . pervades the whole human right. It is the “right to is rendered ineffective if government
[1962]). The constitutional history of man. It touches every security of person” as the word does not afford protection to these
inviolability of this great fundamental aspect of man’s existence.” In a broad “security” itself means “freedom rights especially when they are under
right against unreasonable searches sense, the right to security of person from fear.” Article 3 of the UDHR threat. Protection includes conducting
and seizures must be deemed absolute “emanates in a person’s legal and provides, viz.: Everyone has the right effective investigations, organization
as nothing is closer to a man’s soul uninterrupted en joyment of his life, to life, liberty and security of person. of the government apparatus to
than the serenity of his privacy and his limbs, his body, his health, and his (emphasis supplied) Second, the right extend protection to victims of
the assurance of his personal security. reputation. It includes the right to to security of person is a guarantee of extralegal killings or enforced
Any interference allowable can only exist, and the right to enjoyment of bodily and psychological integrity or disappearances (or threats thereof)
be for the best causes and reasons. life while existing, and it is invaded security. Article III, Section II of the and/or their families, and bringing
not only by a deprivation of life but 1987 Constitution guarantees that, as offenders to the bar of justice.
Same; Due Process Clause; While also of those things which are a general rule, one’s body cannot be
the right to life under Article III, necessary to the enjoyment of life searched or invaded without a search Same; Same; Words and Phrases; In
Section 1 of the Constitution according to the nature, temperament, warrant. Physical injuries inflicted in the Amparo context, it is more
gurantees essentially the right to be and lawful desires of the individual.” the context of extralegal killings and correct to say that the “right to
alive, the right to security of person enforced disappearances constitute security” is actually the “freedom
is a guarantee of the secure quality of Same; Right to Security; more than a search or invasion of the from threat”—“freedom from fear”
this life; In a broad sense, the right to Permutations of the Right to Security; body. It may constitute is the right and any threat to the
security of person “emanates in a A closer look at the right to security dismemberment, physical disabilities, rights to life, liberty or security is the
person’s legal and uninterrupted of person would yield various and painful physical intrusion. As the actionable wrong.—In the context of
enjoyment of his life, his limbs, his permutations of the exercise of this degree of physical injury increases, Section 1 of the Amparo Rule,
body, his health, and his reputation, right: First, the right to security of the danger to life itself escalates. “freedom from fear” is the right and
including the right to exist, and the person is “freedom from fear,” Notably, in criminal law, physical any threat to the rights to life, liberty
right to enjoyment of life while Second, the right to security of injuries constitute a crime against or security is the actionable wrong.

Human Rights Law (Writ of Habeas Data) Page 102 of 174

Fear is a state of mind, a reaction; Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution— guns and prisoners behind secret petitioners) on August 23, 2007 to
threat is a stimulus, a cause of action. this Constitutional provision is a walls.—In blatant violation of our stop herein petitioners (therein
Fear caused by the same stimulus can protection of the people from the hard-won guarantees to life, liberty respondents) and/or their officers
range from being baseless to well- unreasonable intrusion of the and security, these rights are snuffed and agents from depriving them of
founded as people react differently. government, not a protection of the out from victims of extralegal killings their right to liberty and other
The degree of fear can vary from one government from the demand of the and enforced disappearances. The basic rights. Therein petitioners
person to another with the variation people such as respondents; The writ of amparo is a tool that gives also sought ancillary remedies,
of the prolificacy of their amparo production order may be voice to preys of silent guns and Protective Custody Orders,
imagination, strength of character or likened to the production of prisoners behind secret walls. Appointment of Commissioner,
past experience with the stimulus. documents or things under Section 1,   Inspection and Access Orders,
Thus, in the Amparo context, it is Rule 27 of the Rules of Civil PUNO, C.J.: and all other legal and equitable
more correct to say that the “right to Procedure.—In the case at bar, reliefs under Article VIII, Section
security” is actually the “freedom however, petitioners point out that While victims of enforced 5(5)[3] of the 1987 Constitution and
from threat.” Viewed in this light, the other than the bare, selfserving and disappearances are separated Rule 135, Section 6 of the Rules
“threatened with violation” Clause in vague allegations made by respondent from the rest of the world behind of Court. In our Resolution dated
the latter part of Section 1 of the Raymond Manalo in his unverified secret walls, they are not August 24, 2007, we (1) ordered
Amparo Rule is a form of violation of declaration and affidavit, the separated from the constitutional the Secretary of the Department
the right to security mentioned in the documents respondents seek to be protection of their basic of National Defense and the Chief
earlier part of the provision. produced are only mentioned rights. The constitution is an of Staff of the AFP, their agents,
generally by name, with no other overarching sky that covers all in representatives, or persons acting
Same; Same; There need not supporting details. They also argue its protection. The case at bar in their stead, including but not
necessarily be a depravation of that the relevancy of the documents to involves the rights to life, liberty limited to the Citizens Armed
liberty for the right to security of be produced must be apparent, but and security in the first petition for Forces Geographical Unit
person to be invoked.—This third this is not true in the present case as a writ of amparo filed before this (CAFGU) to submit their
sense of the right to security of the involvement of petitioners in the Court. Comment; and (2) enjoined them
person as a guarantee of government abduction has not been shown. from causing the arrest of therein
This is an appeal via Petition for petitioners, or otherwise
protection has been interpreted by the Petitioners’ arguments do not hold
Review under Rule 45 of the restricting, curtailing, abridging, or
United Nations’ Human Rights water. The production order under the
Rules of Court in relation to depriving them of their right to life,
Committee in not a few cases Amparo Rule should not be confused
Section 19[1] of the Rule on the liberty, and other basic rights as
involving Article 9 of the ICCPR. with a search warrant for law
Writ of Amparo, seeking to guaranteed under Article III,
While the right to security of person enforcement under Article III,
reverse and set aside on both Section 1[4] of the 1987
appears in conjunction with the right Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution.
questions of fact and law, the Constitution.[5]
to liberty under Article 9, the This Constitutional provision is a
Decision promulgated by the
Committee has ruled that the right to protection of the people from the
Court of Appeals in C.A. G.R.
security of person can exist unreasonable intrusion of the While the August 23,
AMPARO No. 00001, entitled
independently of the right to liberty. government, not a protection of the 2007 Petition was pending, the
Raymond Manalo and Reynaldo
In other words, there need not government from the demand of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo took
Manalo, petitioners, versus The
necessarily be a deprivation of liberty people such as respondents. Instead, effect on October 24,
Secretary of National Defense, the
for the right to security of person to the Amparo production order may be 2007. Forthwith, therein
Chief of Staff, Armed Forces of
be invoked. likened to the production of petitioners filed a Manifestation
the Philippines, respondents.
documents or things under Section 1, and Omnibus Motion to Treat
Same; Production Orders; Searches Rule 27 of the Rules of Civil Existing Petition
This case was originally a Petition as Amparo Petition, to Admit
and Seizures; The production order Procedure.
for Prohibition, Injunction, and Supporting Affidavits, and to Grant
under the Amparo Rule should not be
Temporary Restraining Order Interim and
confused with a search warrant for Same; The writ of amparo is a tool
(TRO)[2] filed before this Court by Final Amparo Reliefs. They
law enforcement under Article III, that gives voice to preys of silent
herein respondents (therein

Human Rights Law (Writ of Habeas Data) Page 103 of 174

prayed that: (1) the petition be summary hearing those already five days from
considered a Petition for the Writ on the petition on file herein; notice of this
of Amparo under Sec. 26[6]of on November 8, decision.
the Amparo Rule; (2) the Court 2007 at 2:00 2.      To confirm
issue the writ commanding therein p.m. and decide in writing the The compliance
respondents to make a verified the petition in present with this decision
return within the period provided accordance with places of shall be made
by law and containing the specific the Rule on the official under the
matter required by law; (3) they be Writ of Amparo.[9] assignment of signature and
granted the interim reliefs allowed On December 26, 2007, M/Sgt oath of
by the Amparo Rule and all other the Court of Appeals rendered a Hilario aka Ro respondent AFP
reliefs prayed for in the petition decision in favor of therein llie Castillo Chief of Staff or
but not covered by petitioners (herein respondents), and Donald his duly
the Amparo  Rule; (4) the Court, the dispositive portion of which Caigas within authorized deputy,
after hearing, render judgment as reads, viz: five days from the latters
required in Sec. 18[7] of notice of this authority to be
ACCORDINGLY,
the Amparo Rule; and (5) all other decision. express and made
the PRIVILEGE OF
just and equitable reliefs.[8] apparent on the
THE WRIT OF
3.      To cause to face of the sworn
AMPARO is GRAN
On October 25, 2007, the Court be produced compliance with
TED.
resolved to treat the August 23, to this Court this directive.
2007 Petition as a petition under all medical
The
the Amparo Rule and further reports, SO ORDERED.[10]
respondents SECR
resolved, viz: records and Hence, this appeal. In
ETARY OF
charts, reports resolving this appeal, we first
WHEREFORE, NATIONAL
of any unfurl the facts as alleged by
let a WRIT OF DEFENSE and AF
treatment herein respondents:
AMPARO be P CHIEF OF
given or
issued to STAFF are hereby
recommended Respondent Raymond Manalo
respondents REQUIRED:
and recounted that about one or two
requiring them to
medicines weeks before February 14, 2006,
file with the CA 1.      To furnish to
prescribed, if several uniformed and armed
(Court of the petitioners
any, to the soldiers and members of the
Appeals) a and to this
petitioners, to CAFGU summoned to a meeting
verified written Court within
include a list all the residents of
return within five five days from
of medical their barangay in San Idelfonso,
(5) working days notice of this
and (sic) Bulacan. Respondents were not
from service of decision all
personnel able to attend as they were not
the writ. We official and
(military and informed of the gathering, but
REMAND the unofficial
civilian) who Raymond saw some of the
petition to the CA reports of the
attended to soldiers when he passed by
and designate the investigation
them from the barangay hall.[11]
Division of undertaken in
February 14,
Associate Justice connection
2006 until On February 14, 2006, Raymond
Lucas P. with their
August 12, was sleeping in their house in
Bersamin to case, except
2007 within Buhol na Mangga, San Ildefonso,
conduct the

Human Rights Law (Writ of Habeas Data) Page 104 of 174

Bulacan. At past noon, several in his 18 months of captivity, he In the next days, Raymonds Reynaldo to the same ordeal in
armed soldiers wearing white learned their names. The one who interrogators appeared to be high another room. Before their
shirts, fatigue pants and army drove the van was Rizal Hilario officials as the soldiers who beat torturers left, they warned
boots, entered their house and alias Rollie Castillo, whom he him up would salute them, call Raymond that they would come
roused him. They asked him if he estimated was about 40 years of them sir, and treat them with back the next day and kill him.[18]
was Bestre, but his mother, Ester age or older. The leader of the respect. He was in blindfolds
Manalo, replied that he was team who entered his house and when interrogated by the high The following night, Raymond
Raymond, not Bestre. The armed abducted him was Ganata. He officials, but he saw their faces attempted to escape. He waited
soldier slapped him on both was tall, thin, curly-haired and a when they arrived and before the for the guards to get drunk, then
cheeks and nudged him in the bit old. Another one of his blindfold was put on. He noticed made noise with the chains put on
stomach. He was then abductors was George who was that the uniform of the high him to see if they were still
handcuffed, brought to the rear of tall, thin, white-skinned and about officials was different from those awake. When none of them came
his house, and forced to the 30 years old.[14] of the other soldiers. One of those to check on him, he managed to
ground face down. He was kicked officials was tall and thin, wore free his hand from the chains and
on the hip, ordered to stand and The van drove off, then came to a white pants, tie, and leather jumped through the window. He
face up to the light, then forcibly stop. A person was brought inside shoes, instead of combat passed through a helipad and
brought near the road. He told his the van and made to sit beside boots. He spoke in Tagalog and firing range and stopped near a
mother to follow him, but three Raymond. Both of them were knew much about his parents and fishpond where he used stones to
soldiers stopped her and told her beaten up.On the road, he family, and a habeas corpus case break his chains. After walking
to stay.[12] recognized the voice of the person filed in connection with the through a forested area, he came
beside him as his brother respondents abduction.[16] While near a river and an Iglesia ni
Among the men who came to take Reynaldos. The van stopped these officials interrogated him, Kristo church. He talked to some
him, Raymond recognized several times until they finally Raymond was not women who were doing the
brothers Michael de la Cruz, arrived at a house. Raymond and manhandled. But once they had laundry, asked where he was and
Madning de la Cruz, Puti de la Reynaldo were each brought to a left, the soldier guards beat him the road to Gapan. He was told
Cruz, and Pula de la Cruz, who all different room. With the doors of up. When the guards got drunk, that he was in Fort Magsaysay.
acted as lookout. They were all their rooms left open, Raymond they also manhandled [19]
 He reached the highway, but
members of the CAFGU and saw several soldiers continuously respondents. During this time, some soldiers spotted him, forcing
residing in Manuzon, San hitting his brother Reynaldo on the Raymond was fed only at night, him to run away. The soldiers
Ildefonso, Bulacan. He also head and other parts of his body usually with left-over and rotten chased him and caught up with
recognized brothers Randy with the butt of their guns for food.[17] him. They brought him to another
Mendoza and Rudy Mendoza, about 15 minutes. After which, place near the entrance of what
also members of the Reynaldo was brought to his On the third week of respondents he saw was Fort Magsaysay. He
CAFGU. While he was being (Raymonds) room and it was his detention, two men arrived while was boxed repeatedly, kicked,
forcibly taken, he also saw outside (Raymonds) turn to be beaten up Raymond was sleeping and beat and hit with chains until his back
of his house in the other room. The soldiers him up. They doused him with bled. They poured gasoline on
two barangay councilors, Pablo asked him if he was a member of urine and hot water, hit his him. Then a so-called Mam or
Cunanan and Bernardo Lingasa, the New Peoples Army. Each time stomach with a piece of wood, Madam suddenly called, saying
with some soldiers and armed he said he was not, he was hit slapped his forehead twice with a . that she wanted to see Raymond
men.[13] with the butt of their guns. He was 45 pistol, punched him on the before he was killed. The soldiers
questioned where his comrades mouth, and burnt some parts of ceased the torture and he was
The men forced Raymond into a were, how many soldiers he had his body with a burning returned
white L300 van. Once inside, he killed, and how many NPA wood. When he could no longer inside Fort Magsaysay where
was blindfolded. Before being members he had helped. Each endure the torture and could Reynaldo was detained.[20]
blindfolded, he saw the faces of time he answered none, they hit hardly breathe, they
the soldiers who took him. Later, him.[15] stopped. They then subjected

Human Rights Law (Writ of Habeas Data) Page 105 of 174

For some weeks, the respondents respondents and gave them respondents. He began by asking kayo. Sabihin sa
had a respite from all the medicines, including orasol, if respondents felt well already, to magulang at
torture. Their wounds were amoxicillin and mefenamic which Raymond replied in the lahat sa bahay
treated. When the wounds were acid. They brought with them the affirmative. He asked Raymond if na huwag
almost healed, the torture results of respondents urine test he knew him. Raymond lied that paloko
resumed, particularly when and advised them to drink plenty he did not. He then asked doon. Tulungan
respondents guards got drunk.[21] of water and take their Raymond if he would be scared if kami na
medicine. The two ladies returned he were made to face Gen. kausapin si
Raymond recalled that sometime a few more times. Thereafter, Palparan. Raymond responded Bestre na
in April until May 2006, he was medicines were sent through the that he would not be because he sumuko na sa
detained in a room enclosed by master of the DTU, Master Del did not believe that Gen. Palparan gobyerno.[28]
steel bars. He stayed all the time Rosario alias Carinyoso at was an evil man.[27] Respondents agreed to
in that small room measuring 1 x 2 Puti. Respondents were kept in do as Gen. Palparan told them as
meters, and did everything there, the DTU for about two Raymond narrated his they felt they could not do
including urinating, removing his weeks. While there, he met a conversation with Gen. Palparan otherwise. At about 3:00 in the
bowels, bathing, eating and soldier named Efren who said that in his affidavit, viz: morning, Hilario, Efren and the
sleeping. He counted that Gen. Palparan ordered him to formers men - the same group
Tinanong ako ni
eighteen people[22] had been monitor and take care of them.[25] that abducted them - brought
Gen. Palparan,
detained in that bartolina, them to their parents
Ngayon na
including his brother Reynaldo One day, Rizal Hilario fetched house. Raymond was shown to
kaharap mo na
and himself.[23] respondents in a Revo his parents while Reynaldo stayed
ako, di ka ba
vehicle. They, along with Efren in the Revo because he still could
natatakot sa
For about three and a half and several other armed men not walk. In the presence of
akin?
months, the respondents were wearing fatigue suits, went to a Hilario and other soldiers,
detained in Fort Magsaysay. They detachment in Pinaud, San Raymond relayed to his parents
Sumagot akong, what Gen. Palparan told him. As
were kept in a small house with Ildefonso, Bulacan. Respondents
Siyempre po, they were afraid, Raymonds
two rooms and a kitchen. One were detained for one or two
natatakot din parents acceded. Hilario
room was made into weeks in a big two-storey
the bartolina. The house was near house. Hilario and Efren stayed threatened Raymonds parents
with them. While there, Raymond Sabi ni Gen. that if they continued to join
the firing range, helipad and
was beaten up by Hilarios men.[26] Palparan: Sige, human rights rallies, they would
mango trees. At dawn, soldiers
bibigyan ko kayo never see their children
marched by their house. They
ng isang again. The respondents were then
were also sometimes detained in From Pinaud, Hilario and Efren
pagkakataon na brought back to Sapang.[29]
what he only knew as the DTU.[24] brought respondents to Sapang,
mabuhay, bastat
San Miguel, Bulacan on board the
sundin nyo ang When respondents
At the DTU, a male doctor came Revo. They were detained in a big
lahat ng arrived back in Sapang, Gen.
to examine respondents. He unfinished house inside the
sasabihin ko Palparan was about to leave. He
checked their body and eyes, took compound of Kapitan for about
sabihin mo sa was talking with the four masters
their urine samples and marked three months. When they arrived
magulang mo who were there: Arman, Ganata,
them. When asked how they were in Sapang, Gen. Palparan talked
huwag pumunta Hilario and Cabalse.[30] When
feeling, they replied that they had to them. They were brought out of
sa mga rali, sa Gen. Palparan saw Raymond, he
a hard time urinating, their the house to a basketball court in
hearing, sa called for him. He was in a big
stomachs were aching, and they the center of the compound and
Karapatan at sa white vehicle. Raymond stood
felt other pains in their body. The made to sit. Gen. Palparan was
Human Right outside the vehicle as Gen.
next day, two ladies in white already waiting, seated. He was
dahil niloloko Palparan told him to gain back his
arrived. They also examined about two arms length away from
lang

Human Rights Law (Writ of Habeas Data) Page 106 of 174

strength and be healthy and to with them. Raymond was then were threatened that if they camp. They were all made to
take the medicine he left for him blindfolded. After a 30-minute ride, escaped, their families would all clean, cook, and help in raising
and Reynaldo. He said the his blindfold was removed. Chains be killed.[37] livestock.[39]
medicine was expensive at were put on him and he was kept
Php35.00 each, and would make in the barracks.[35] On or about October 6, 2006, Raymond recalled that when
them strong. He also said that Hilario arrived Operation Lubog was launched,
they should prove that they are on The next day, Raymonds chains in Camp Tecson. He told the Caigas and some other soldiers
the side of the military and warned were removed and he was detainees that they should be brought him and Manuel with
that they would not be given ordered to clean outside the thankful they were still alive and them to take and kill all
another chance.[31] During his barracks. It was then he learned should continue along their sympathizers of the NPA. They
testimony, Raymond identified that he was in a detachment of the renewed life. Before the hearing of were brought to Barangay Bayan-
Gen. Palparan by his picture.[32] Rangers. There were many November 6 or 8, 2006, bayanan, Bataan where he
soldiers, hundreds of them were respondents were brought to their witnessed the killing of an old man
One of the soldiers named Arman training. He was also ordered to parents to instruct them not to doing kaingin. The soldiers said
made Raymond take the medicine clean inside the barracks. In one attend the hearing. However, their he was killed because he had a
left by Gen. Palparan. The of the rooms therein, he met parents had already left son who was a member of the
medicine, named Alive, was green Sherlyn Cadapan from for Manila. Respondents were NPA and he coddled NPA
and yellow. Raymond and Laguna. She told him that she brought back members in his house.[40]Another
Reynaldo were each given a box was a student of the University of to Camp Tecson. They stayed in time, in another Operation Lubog,
of this medicine and instructed to the Philippines and was abducted that camp from September 2006 Raymond was brought to
take one capsule a day. Arman in Hagonoy, Bulacan. She to November 2006, and Raymond Barangay Orion in a house where
checked if they were getting their confided that she had been was instructed to continue using NPA men stayed. When they
dose of the medicine. The Alive subjected to severe torture and the name Oscar and holding arrived, only the old man of the
made them sleep each time they raped. She was crying and himself out as a military house who was sick was
took it, and they felt heavy upon longing to go home and be with trainee. He got acquainted with there. They spared him and killed
waking up.[33] her parents. During the day, her soldiers of the 24th Infantry only his son right before
chains were removed and she Battalion whose names and Raymonds eyes.[41]
After a few days, Hilario arrived was made to do the laundry.[36] descriptions he stated in his
again. He took Reynaldo and left affidavit.[38] From Limay, Raymond, Reynaldo,
Raymond at Sapang. Arman After a week, Reynaldo was also Sherlyn, Karen, and Manuel were
instructed Raymond that while in brought to Camp Tecson. Two On November 22, 2006, transferred to Zambales, in a
Sapang, he should introduce days from his arrival, two other respondents, along with Sherlyn, safehouse near the sea. Caigas
himself as Oscar, a military captives, Karen Empeo and Karen, and Manuel, were and some of his men stayed with
trainee from Sariaya, Quezon, Manuel Merino, arrived. Karen transferred to a camp of the them. A retired army soldier was
assigned in Bulacan. While there, and Manuel were put in the room 24th Infantry Battalion in in charge of the house. Like in
he saw again Ganata, one of the with Allan whose name they later Limay, Bataan. There were many Limay, the five detainees were
men who abducted him from his came to know as Donald Caigas, huts in the camp. They stayed in made to do errands and
house, and got acquainted with called master or commander by that camp until May 8, chores. They stayed in Zambales
other military men and civilians.[34] his men in the 24th Infantry 2007. Some soldiers of the from May 8 or 9, 2007 until June
Battalion. Raymond and Reynaldo battalion stayed with them. While 2007.[42]
After about three months in were put in the adjoining room. At there, battalion soldiers whom
Sapang, Raymond was brought times, Raymond and Reynaldo Raymond knew as Mar and Billy In June 2007, Caigas brought the
to Camp Tecson under the were threatened, and Reynaldo beat him up and hit him in the five back to the camp in
24th Infantry Battalion. He was was beaten up. In the daytime, stomach with their guns. Sherlyn Limay. Raymond, Reynaldo, and
fetched by three unidentified men their chains were removed, but and Karen also suffered Manuel were tasked to bring food
in a big white vehicle. Efren went were put back on at night. They enormous torture in the to detainees brought to the

Human Rights Law (Writ of Habeas Data) Page 107 of 174

camp. Raymond narrated what he Makalipas ang isa sa Bataan. Iyong sundalo kung
witnessed and experienced in the o dalawang lingo, gabi, inilabas sila papatayin kami o
camp, viz: may dinukot sila na at hindi ko na sila hindi.
dalawang Ita. Itinali nakita.
Isang gabi,
sila sa labas ng Tinanggal ang
sinabihan kami ni
kubo, piniringan, xxx xxx xxx aming
Donald (Caigas) na
ikinadena at labis kadena. Kinausap
matulog na
na Ikinadena kami kami ni
kami. Nakita ko si
binugbog. Nakita ng 3 araw. Sa Donald. Tinanong
Donald na inaayos
kong nakatakas ikatlong araw, kami kung ano
ang kanyang baril,
ang isa sa kanila at nilabas ni Lat si ang sabi ni
at nilagyan ng
binaril siya ng Manuel dahil Manuel sa
silenser. Sabi ni
sundalo ngunit kakausapin daw amin. Sabi ni
Donald na kung
hindi siya siya ni Gen. Donald huwag na
mayroon man
tinamaan. Iyong Palparan. Nakapir raw naming
kaming makita o
gabi nakita kong ing si Manuel, hanapin ang
marinig, walang
pinatay nila iyong wala siyang suot dalawang babae
nangyari. Kinauma
isang Ita malapit sa pang-itaas, at si Manuel, dahil
gahan, nakita
Post 3; sinilaban pinosasan. Nilaka magkakasama na
naming ang
ang bangkay at san ng mga yung tatlo. Sabi
bangkay ng isa sa
ibinaon ito. sundalo ang pa ni Donald na
mga bihag na
tunog na galing kami ni Reynaldo
dinala sa
Pagkalipas ng sa istiryo ng ay magbagong
kampo. Mayroong
halos 1 buwan, 2 sasakyan. Di buhay at ituloy
binuhos sa
pang bangkay ang nagtagal, narinig namin ni
kanyang katawan
dinala sa ko ang hiyaw o Reynaldo ang
at itoy
kampo. Ibinaba ungol ni trabaho. Sa gabi,
sinunog. Masansa
ang mga bangkay Manuel. Sumilip hindi na kami
ng ang amoy.
mula sa pick up ako sa isang kinakadena.[43]
trak, dinala ang haligi ng kamalig On or about June 13,
Makaraan ang
mga bangkay sa at nakita kong 2007, Raymond and Reynaldo
isang lingo,
labas ng sinisilaban si were brought to Pangasinan,
dalawang bangkay
bakod. Kinaumaga Manuel. ostensibly to raise poultry for
and ibinaba ng
han nakita kong Donald (Caigas).Caigas told
mga unipormadong
mayroong Kinaumagahan, respondents to also farm his land,
sundalo mula sa 6
sinilaban, at naka-kadena pa in exchange for which, he would
x 6 na trak at
napakamasangsan kami. Tinanggal take care of the food of their
dinala sa loob ng
g ang amoy. ang mga kadena family. They were also told that
kampo. May
mga 3 o 4 na they could farm a small plot
naiwang mga
May nakilala rin araw adjoining his land and sell their
bakas ng dugo
akong 1 retiradong pagkalipas. Sinab produce. They were no longer put
habang hinihila nila
koronel at 1 i sa amin na kaya in chains and were instructed to
ang mga
kasama kami nakakadena use the names Rommel (for
bangkay. Naamoy
niya. Pinakain ko ay dahil Raymond) and Rod (for Reynaldo)
ko iyon nang
sila. Sabi nila sa pinagdedesisyuna and represent themselves as
nililinis ang bakas.
akin na dinukot sila n pa ng mga cousins from Rizal, Laguna.[44]

Human Rights Law (Writ of Habeas Data) Page 108 of 174

Respondents started to plan their related to matters they witnessed by Fort Magsaysay and Camp Tec Reynaldo Manalo
escape. They could see the together.Reynaldo added that son where Reynaldo saw the sign were not at any
highway from where they when they were taken from their board, Welcome to Camp Tecson. time arrested,
[46]
stayed. They helped farm house on February 14, 2006, he forcibly abducted,
adjoining lands for which they saw the faces of his abductors detained, held
were paid Php200.00 or before he was blindfolded with his Dr. Benito Molino, M.D., incommunicado,
Php400.00 and they saved their shirt. He also named the soldiers corroborated the accounts of disappeared or
earnings. When they had saved he got acquainted with in the 18 respondents Raymond and under the custody
Php1,000.00 each, Raymond months he was detained. When Reynaldo Manalo. Dr. Molino by the
asked a neighbor how he could Raymond attempted to escape specialized in forensic medicine military. This is a
get a cellular phone as he wanted from Fort Magsaysay, Reynaldo and was connected with the settled issue laid
to exchange text messages with a was severely beaten up and told Medical Action Group, an to rest in
girl who lived nearby. A phone that they were indeed members of organization handling cases of the habeas
was pawned to him, but he kept it the NPA because Raymond human rights violations, corpus case filed
first and did not use it. They escaped. With a .45 caliber pistol, particularly cases where torture in their behalf by
earned some more until they had Reynaldo was hit on the back and was involved. He was requested petitioners
saved Php1,400.00 between punched in the face until he could by an NGO to conduct medical parents before
them. no longer bear the pain. examinations on the respondents the Court of
after their escape. He first asked Appeals in C.A.-
There were four houses in the At one point during their detention, them about their ordeal, then G.R. SP No.
compound. Raymond and when Raymond and Reynaldo proceeded with the physical 94431 against
Reynaldo were housed in one of were in Sapang, Reynaldo was examination. His findings showed M/Sgt. Rizal
them while their guards lived in separated from Raymond and that the scars borne by Hilario aka Rollie
the other three.Caigas entrusted brought to Pinaud by Rizal respondents were consistent with Castillo, as head
respondents to Nonong, the head Hilario. He was kept in the house their account of physical injuries of the 24th Infantry
of the guards. Respondents house of Kapitan, a friend of Hilario, in a inflicted upon them. The Battalion; Maj.
did not have electricity. They used mountainous area. He was examination was conducted Gen. Jovito
a lamp. There was no television, instructed to use the name Rodel on August 15, 2007, two days Palparan, as
but they had a radio. In the and to represent himself as a after respondents escape, and the Commander of
evening of August 13, 2007, military trainee from Meycauayan, results thereof were reduced into the 7th Infantry
Nonong and his cohorts had a Bulacan. Sometimes, Hilario writing. Dr. Molino took Division in Luzon;
drinking session. At about 1:00 brought along Reynaldo in his photographs of the scars. He Lt. Gen.
a.m., Raymond turned up the trips. One time, he was brought to testified that he followed the Hermogenes
volume of the radio. When none of a market in San Jose, del Monte, Istanbul Protocol in conducting the Esperon, in his
the guards awoke and took notice, Bulacan and made to wait in the examination.[47] capacity as the
Raymond and Reynaldo vehicle while Hilario was Commanding
proceeded towards the highway, buying. He was also brought to Petitioners dispute respondents General of the
leaving behind their sleeping Tondo, Manila where Hilario account of their alleged abduction Philippine Army,
guards and barking dogs. They delivered boxes of Alive in and torture. In compliance with and members of
boarded a bus bound different houses. In these trips, the October 25, 2007 Resolution the Citizens
for Manila and were thus freed Hilario drove a black and red of the Court, they filed a Return of Armed Forces
from captivity.[45] vehicle.Reynaldo was blindfolded the Writ of Amparo admitting the Geographical Unit
while still in Bulacan, but allowed abduction but denying any (CAFGU),
Reynaldo also executed an to remove the blindfold once involvement therein, viz: namely: Michael
affidavit affirming the contents of outside the province. In one of dela Cruz, Puti
13. Petitioners dela Cruz,
Raymonds affidavit insofar as they their trips, they passed
Raymond and

Human Rights Law (Writ of Habeas Data) Page 109 of 174

 Madning dela M/Sgt. Rizal way of such
Cruz, Pula dela Hilario aka Rollie micromanage compliance
Cruz, Randy Castillo for lack of the AFP Likewise, in a
Mendoza and evidence operations. Th Memorandum
Rudy establishing his e principal Directive also
Mendoza. The involvement in responsibility dated October
respondents any capacity in of the 31, 2007, I
therein submitted the Secretary of have issued a
a return of the writ disappearance of National policy
On July 4, 2006, the Manalo Defense is directive
the Court of brothers, although focused in addressed to
Appeals dropped it held that the providing the Chief of
as party remaining strategic Staff, AFP
respondents Lt. respondents were policy that the AFP
Gen. illegally detaining direction to should adopt
Hermogenes C. the Manalo the the following
Esperon, Jr., then brothers and Department rules of action
Commanding ordered them to (bureaus and in the event
General of the release the latter. agencies) the Writ
[48]
Philippine Army, including the of Amparo is
and on Armed Forces issued by a
September 19, Attached to the Return of of competent
2006, Maj. (sic) the Writ was the affidavit of the Philippine court against
Jovito S. therein respondent (herein s; any members
Palparan, then petitioner) Secretary of National   of the AFP:
Commanding Defense, which attested that he 8.     In
General, assumed office only on August 8, connection (1)  to verify
7th Infantry 2007 and was thus unaware of with the Writ the
Division, the Manalo brothers alleged of Amparo iss identity of
Philippine Army, abduction. He also claimed that: ued by the the
stationed at Fort Honorable aggrieve
Magsaysay, 7.     The Supreme d party;
Palayan City, Secretary of Court in this
Nueva Ecija, National case, I have (2)  to recover
upon a finding Defense does directed the and
that no evidence not engage in Chief of Staff, preserve
was introduced to actual military AFP to evidence
establish their directional institute related to
personal operations, immediate the death
involvement in the neither does action in or
taking of the he undertake compliance disappea
Manalo command with Section rance of
brothers. In a directions of 9(d) of the
Decision dated the AFP units the Amparo R person
June 27, 2007, it in the field, ule and to identified
exonerated nor in any submit report in the

Human Rights Law (Writ of Habeas Data) Page 110 of 174

 petition disappea circumstances of the alleged
which rance; the alleged disappearance of
may aid disappearance the persons in
in the (5)   to identify and the recent whose favor the
prosecuti and reappearance of Writ of Amparo
on of the apprehen the petitioners. has been sought
person or d the for as soon as the
persons person or 3.2. I have caused same has been
responsi persons the immediate furnished Higher
ble; involved investigation and headquarters.
in the submission of the
(3)   to identify death or result thereof to 3.4. A parallel
witnesse disappea Higher investigation has
s and rance; headquarters been directed to
obtain and and/or direct the the same units
statemen immediate relative to another
ts from (6)   to bring conduct of the Petition for the
them the investigation on Writ of Amparo
concerni suspecte the matter by the (G.R. No. 179994)
ng the d concerned unit/s, filed at the
death or offenders dispatching Radio instance of
disappea before a Message on relatives of a
rance; compete November 05, certain Cadapan
nt court. 2007, addressed and Empeo
(4)   to [49]
to the pending before
determin   Commanding the Supreme
e the Therein respondent AFP General, Court.
cause, Chief of Staff also submitted his Philippine Army
manner, own affidavit, attached to the (Info: 3.5. On the part of
location Return of the Writ, attesting that COMNOLCOM, the Armed Forces,
and time he received the above directive of CG, 71D PA and this respondent
of death therein respondent Secretary of CO 24 IB PA). A will exert earnest
or National Defense and that acting Copy of the Radio efforts to establish
disappea on this directive, he did the Message is the surrounding
rance as following: attached as circumstances of
well as ANNEX 3 of this the
3.1. As currently
any Affidavit. disappearances of
designated Chief
pattern the petitioners and
of Staff, Armed
or 3.3. We undertake to bring those
Forces of the
practice to provide result of responsible,
Philippines (AFP),
that may the investigations including any
I have caused to
have conducted or to be military personnel
be issued directive
brought conducted by the if shown to have
to the units of the
about the concerned unit participated or had
AFP for the
death or relative to the complicity in the
purpose of
circumstances of commission of the
establishing the

Human Rights Law (Writ of Habeas Data) Page 111 of 174

 complained acts, Merino in the Empeo and determine: (1) the veracity of the
to the bar of 24th IB in Merino.[51] abduction of Raymond and
justice, when Limay, Bataan;   Reynaldo Manalo by the alleged
warranted by the It was explained in the Return of elements of the CAFGU
findings and the 12) After going to the Writ that for lack of sufficient auxiliaries; and (2) the
competent the 24th IB in time, the affidavits of Maj. Gen administrative liability of said
evidence that may Limay, Bataan, Jovito S. Palparan (Ret.), M/Sgt. auxiliaries, if any.[57] Jimenez
be gathered in the we made further Rizal Hilario aka Rollie Castillo, testified that this particular
process.[50] inquiries with the and other persons implicated by investigation was initiated not by a
Also attached to the Philippine therein petitioners could not be complaint as was the usual
Return of the Writ was the affidavit National Police, secured in time for the procedure, but because the
of Lt. Col. Felipe Anontado, INF Limay, Bataan re submission of the Return and Commanding General saw news
(GSC) PA, earlier filed in G.R. No. garding the would be subsequently submitted. about the abduction of the Manalo
[52]
179994, another amparo case in alleged brothers on the television, and he
this Court, involving Cadapan, detentions or was concerned about what was
Empeo and Merino, which averred deaths and were Herein petitioners presented a happening within his territorial
among others, viz: informed that lone witness in the summary jurisdiction.[58]
none was hearings, Lt. Col. Ruben U.
10) Upon reading reported to their Jimenez, Provost Marshall, Jimenez summoned all six
the allegations in good office; 7th Infantry Division, Philippine implicated persons for the
the Petition Army, based purpose of having them execute
implicating the 13) I also directed in Fort Magsaysay, Palayan City, sworn statements and conducting
24th Infantry Company Nueva Ecija. The territorial an investigation on May 29, 2006.
[59]
Batallion Commander jurisdiction of this Division covers  The investigation started
detachment as 1st Lt. Romeo Nueva Ecija, Aurora, Bataan, at 8:00 in the morning and
detention area, I Publico to inquire Bulacan, Pampanga, Tarlac and a finished at 10:00 in the evening.
immediately went into the alleged portion of Pangasinan.[53] The [60]
 The investigating officer,
to the 24thIB beachhouse in 24th Infantry Battalion is part of the Technical Sgt. Eduardo Lingad,
detachment in Iba, Zambales 7th Infantry Division.[54] took the individual sworn
Limay, Bataan also alleged to be statements of all six persons on
and found no a detention place On May 26, 2006, Lt. Col. that day. There were no other
untoward where Sherlyn Jimenez was directed by the sworn statements taken, not even
incidents in the Cadapan, Karen Commanding General of the of the Manalo family, nor were
area nor any Empeo and 7th Infantry Division, Maj. Gen. there other witnesses summoned
detainees by the Manuel Merino Jovito Palaran,[55]through his and investigated[61] as according
name of Sherlyn were detained. As Assistant Chief of Staff,[56] to to Jimenez, the directive to him
Cadapan, Karen per the inquiry, investigate the alleged abduction was only to investigate the six
Empeo and however, no such of the respondents by CAFGU persons.[62]
Manuel Merino beachhouse was auxiliaries under his unit, namely:
being held used as a CAA Michael de la Cruz; CAA Jimenez was beside Lingad when
captive; detention place Roman de la Cruz, aka Puti; CAA the latter took the statements.
[63]
found to have Maximo de la Cruz, aka Pula;  The six persons were not
11) There was been used by CAA Randy Mendoza; ex-CAA known to Jimenez as it was in fact
neither any armed men to Marcelo de la Cruz aka Madning; his first time to meet them.
[64]
reports of any detain Cadapan, and a civilian named Rudy  During the entire time that he
death of Manuel Mendoza. He was directed to was beside Lingad, a subordinate

Human Rights Law (Writ of Habeas Data) Page 112 of 174

of his in the Office of the Provost Bulacan on 14 some neighbor Ildefonso,
Marshall, Jimenez did not February 2006 by thereat. He claims Bulacan and a
propound a single question to the unidentified that on 15 CAA member
six persons.[65] armed men and February 2006, based at Biak na
thereafter were he was being Bato Detachment,
Jimenez testified that all six forcibly informed by Brgy. San Miguel,
statements were taken on May 29, disappeared. Afte Kagawad Pablo Bulacan. He
2006, but Marcelo Mendoza and r the said Umayan about claims that
Rudy Mendoza had to come back incident, relatives the abduction of Raymond and
the next day to sign their of the victims filed the brothers Reynaldo Manalo
statements as the printing of their a case for Raymond and being his
statements was interrupted by a Abduction in the Reynaldo neighbors are
power failure. Jimenez testified civil court against Manalo. As to the active
that the two signed on May 30, the herein allegation that he members/sympat
2006, but the jurats of their suspects: Michael was one of the hizers of the
statements indicated that they dela Cruz, suspects, he CPP/NPA and he
were signed on May 29, 2006. Madning dela claims that they also knows their
[66]
 When the Sworn Statements Cruz, Puti Dela only implicated elder Rolando
were turned over to Jimenez, he Cruz, Pula Dela him because he Manalo @ KA
personally wrote his investigation Cruz, Randy was a CAFGU BESTRE of being
report. He began writing it in the Mendoza and and that they an NPA Leader
afternoon of May 30, 2006 and Rudy Mendoza as claimed that operating in their
finished it on June 1, 2006.[67] He alleged members those who province. That at
then gave his report to the Office of the Citizen abducted the the time of the
of the Chief of Personnel.[68] Armed Forces Manalo brothers alleged abduction
Geographical Unit are members of of the two (2)
As petitioners largely rely on (CAFGU). the Military and brothers and for
Jimenezs Investigation Report CAFGU. Subject accusing him to
dated June 1, 2006 for their a) Sworn vehemently be one of the
evidence, the report is herein statement of CAA denied any suspects, he
substantially quoted: Maximo F. dela participation or claims that on
Cruz, involvement on February 14,
III. BACKGROUND OF THE aka Pula dated 29 the abduction of 2006, he was one
CASE May 2006 in said victims. of those working
(Exhibit B) states at the concrete
4. This pertains to that he was at b) Sworn chapel being
the abduction of Sitio Mozon, statement of CAA constructed
RAYMOND Brgy. Bohol na Roman dela Cruz nearby his
MANALO and Mangga, San y Faustino Aka residence. He
REYNALDO Ildefonso, Puti dtd 29 May claims further that
MANALO who Bulacan doing the 2006 in (Exhibit he just came only
were forcibly concrete building C) states that he to know about the
taken from their of a church is a resident of incident on other
respective homes located nearby Sitio Muzon, day (15 Feb 06)
in Brgy. Buhol na his residence, Brgy. Buhol na when he was
Mangga, San together with Mangga, San being informed by
Ildefonso,

Human Rights Law (Writ of Habeas Data) Page 113 of 174

 Kagawad Pablo one of the E) states that he execution (killing)
Kunanan. That accused, he is a resident of done by their
subject CAA claims that on 14 Brgy. Marungko, brother @ KA
vehemently February 2006, Angat, Bestre Rolando
denied any he was at Brgy. Bulacan.He Manalo who is an
participation Magmarate, San claims that NPA leader. He
about the incident Miguel, Bulacan Raymond and claims further that
and claimed that in the house of Reynaldo Manalo it was their
they only his aunt and he are familiar to him brother @ KA
implicated him learned only being his BESTRE who
because he is a about the incident barriomate when killed his father
member of the when he arrived he was still and he was living
CAFGU. home in their unmarried and he witness to that
place. He claims knew them since incident. Subject
c) Sworn further that the childhood. Being civilian
Statement of CAA only reason why one of the vehemently
Randy Mendoza y they implicated accused, he denied any
Lingas dated 29 him was due to claims that on 14 involvement on
May 2006 in the fact that his February 2006, the abduction of
(Exhibit O) states mother has filed a he was at his the Manalo
that he is a criminal charge residence in Brgy. brothers.
resident of Brgy. against their Marungko, Angat,
Buhol na brother Rolando Bulacan. He e) Sworn
Mangga, San Manalo @ KA claims that he statement of Ex-
Ildefonso, BESTRE who is was being CAA Marcelo dala
Bulacan and a an NPA informed only Cruz dated 29
member of Commander who about the incident May 2006 in
CAFGU based killed his father lately and he was (Exhibit F) states
at Biak na Bato and for that not aware of any that he is a
Detachment. That reason they reason why the resident of Sitio
being a neighbor, implicated him in two (2) brothers Muzon, Brgy.
he was very much support of their were being Buhol na
aware about the brother. Subject abducted by Mangga, San
background of the CAA vehemently alleged members Ildefonso,
two (2) brothers denied any of the military and Bulacan, a farmer
Raymond and involvement on CAFGU. The only and a former CAA
Reynaldo as the abduction of reason he knows based at Biak na
active supporters said Manalo why they Bato, San Miguel,
of the CPP NPA brothers. implicated him Bulacan. He
in their Brgy. and was because claims that
he also knew their d) Sworn there are those Raymond and
elder brother Statement of people who are Reynaldo Manalo
KUMANDER Rudy Mendoza y angry with their are familiar to him
BESTRE TN: Lingasa family particularly being their barrio
Rolando dated May 29, victims of mate. He claims
Manalo. Being 2006 in (Exhibit summary further that they

Human Rights Law (Writ of Habeas Data) Page 114 of 174

 are active is a resident of which is the Mangga, San
supporters of Sitio Muzon, abduction of Ildefonso,
CPP/NPA and Brgy. Buhol na Raymond and Bulacan, is
that their brother Mangga, San Reynaldo Manalo unsubstantiated. 
Rolando Manalo Ildefonso, when one of the Their alleged
@ KA BESTRE is Bulacan, the Brgy. Kagawad in involvement
an NPA Chief of Brgy. the person of theretofore to that
leader. Being one Tanod and a Pablo Cunanan incident is
of the accused, CAFGU member informed him considered
he claims that based at Biak na about the doubtful, hence,
on 14 February Bato Detachment, matter. He claims no basis to indict
2006, he was in San Miguel, further that he is them as charged
his residence at Bulacan. He truly innocent of in this
Sitio Muzon, claims that he the allegation investigation.
Brgy. Buhol na knew very well against him as
Mangga, San the brothers being one of the Though there are
Ildefonso, Raymond and abductors and he previous grudges
Bulacan. That he Reynaldo Manalo considers between each
vehemently in their barangay everything families (sic) in
denied any for having been fabricated in order the past to quote:
participation of the Tanod Chief to destroy his the killing of the
the alleged for twenty (20) name that father of Randy
abduction of the years.He alleged remains loyal to and Rudy
two (2) brothers further that they his service to the Mendoza by @
and learned only are active government as a KA BESTRE TN:
about the incident supporters or CAA member. Rolando Manalo,
when rumors sympathizers of this will not suffice
reached him by the CPP/NPA and IV. DISCUSSION to establish a fact
his barrio whose elder that they were the
mates. He claims brother Rolando 5. Based on the ones who did the
that his Manalo @ KA foregoing abduction as a
implication is BESTRE is an statements of form of
merely fabricated NPA leader respondents in revenge. As it
because of his operating within this particular was also stated in
relationship to the area. Being case, the proof of the testimony of
Roman and one of the linking them to other accused
Maximo who are accused, he the alleged claiming that the
his brothers. claims that on 14 abduction and Manalos are
Feb 2006 he was disappearance of active
f) Sworn helping in the Raymond and sympathizers/sup
statement of construction of Reynaldo Manalo porters of the
Michael dela Cruz their concrete that transpired CPP/NPA, this
y Faustino chapel in their on 14 February would not also
dated 29 May place and he 2006 at Sitio mean, however,
2006 in (Exhibit learned only Muzon, Brgy. that in the first
G) states that he about the incident Buhol na place, they were

Human Rights Law (Writ of Habeas Data) Page 115 of 174

 in connivance concluded that TED, FILE WITH THE
with the they are innocent CONTRADICTED COURT; (B)
abductors. Being of the charge. , AND CONFIRM IN
their neighbors OBVIOUSLY WRITING THE
and as members VI.              RECO SCRIPTED, PRESENT
of CAFGUs, they MMENDA REHEARSED PLACES OF
ought to be TIONS AND SELF- OFFICIAL
vigilant in SERVING ASSIGNMENT
protecting their 7. That CAAs AFFIDAVIT/TEST OF M/SGT.
village from any Michael F. dela IMONY OF HILARIO aka
intervention by Cruz, Maximo F. HEREIN ROLLIE
the leftist group, Dela Cruz, RESPONDENT CASTILLO AND
hence inside their Roman dela Cruz, RAYMOND DONALD
village, they were Randy Mendoza, MANALO. CAIGAS; AND
fully aware of the and two (2)   (C) CAUSE TO
activities of civilians Maximo BE PRODUCED
II.
Raymond and F. Dela Cruz and TO THE COURT
Reynaldo Manalo Rudy L. Mendoza   OF APPEALS
in so far as their be exonerated THE COURT OF ALL MEDICAL
connection with from the case. APPEALS REPORTS,
the CPP/NPA is SERIOUSLY RECORDS AND
concerned. 8. Upon approval, AND CHARTS, AND
this case can be GRIEVOUSLY REPORTS OF
V.                 CON dropped and ERRED IN ANY
CLUSION closed.[69] REQUIRING TREATMENT
In this appeal under Rule RESPONDENTS GIVEN OR
6. Premises 45, petitioners question the (HEREIN RECOMMENDED
considered appellate courts assessment of PETITIONERS) AND MEDICINES
surrounding this the foregoing evidence and assail TO: (A) FURNISH PRESCRIBED, IF
case shows that the December 26, 2007 Decision TO THE ANY, TO THE
the alleged on the following grounds, viz: MANALO MANALO
charges of BROTHER(S) BROTHERS, TO
abduction I. AND TO THE INCLUDE A LIST
committed by the   COURT OF OF MEDICAL
above named THE COURT OF APPEALS ALL PERSONNEL
respondents has APPEALS OFFICIAL AND (MILITARY AND
not been SERIOUSLY UNOFFICIAL CIVILIAN) WHO
established in this AND REPORTS OF ATTENDED TO
investigation. Hen GRIEVOUSLY THE THEM FROM
ce, it lacks merit ERRED IN INVESTIGATION FEBRUARY 14,
to indict them for BELIEVING AND UNDERTAKEN 2006 UNTIL
any administrative GIVING FULL IN CONNECTION AUGUST 12,
punishment FAITH AND WITH THEIR 2007.[70]
and/or criminal CREDIT TO THE CASE, EXCEPT
 
liability. It is INCREDIBLE, THOSE
therefore UNCORROBORA ALREADY IN

Human Rights Law (Writ of Habeas Data) Page 116 of 174

The case at bar is the first these two instances or to threats exercise and enforce the constitution by
decision on the application of the thereof. Extralegal killings are preservation of protecting individual rights in
Rule on the Writ killings committed without due those rights particular cases, but prevents
of Amparo (Amparo Rule). Let us process of law, i.e., without legal granted to him by them from using this power to
hearken to its beginning. safeguards or judicial this Constitution make law for the entire nation.[82]
proceedings.[75] On the other and by laws
The adoption of the Amparo Rule hand, enforced disappearances enacted pursuant The writ of amparo then spread
surfaced as a recurring are attended by the following hereto, against throughout the Western
proposition in the characteristics: an arrest, attacks by the Hemisphere, gradually evolving
recommendations that resulted detention or abduction of a person Legislative and into various forms, in response to
from a two-day National by a government official or Executive powers the particular needs of each
Consultative Summit on organized groups or private of the federal or country.[83] It became, in the words
Extrajudicial Killings and Enforced individuals acting with the direct or state of a justice of the Mexican Federal
Disappearances sponsored by the indirect acquiescence of the governments, Supreme Court, one piece
Court on July 16-17, government; the refusal of the limiting of Mexicos self-attributed task of
2007. The Summit was envisioned State to disclose the fate or themselves to conveying to the worlds legal
to provide a broad and fact-based whereabouts of the person granting heritage that institution which, as
perspective on the issue of concerned or a refusal to protection in the a shield of human dignity, her own
extrajudicial killings and enforced acknowledge the deprivation of specific case in painful history conceived.[84]What
disappearances,[71] hence liberty which places such persons litigation, making began as a protection against acts
representatives from all sides of outside the protection of law.[76] no general or omissions of public authorities
the political and social spectrum, declaration in violation of constitutional rights
as well as all the stakeholders in The writ of amparo originated concerning the later evolved for several purposes:
the justice system[72] participated in Mexico. Amparo literally means statute or (1) amparo libertad for the
in mapping out ways to resolve protection in Spanish.[77] In 1837, regulation that protection of personal freedom,
the crisis. de Tocquevilles Democracy in motivated the equivalent to the habeas
Americabecame available violation.[80] corpus writ; (2) amparo contra
On October 24, 2007, the Court in Mexico and stirred great Since then, the protection leyes for the judicial review of the
promulgated the Amparo Rule in interest. Its description of the has been an important part of constitutionality of statutes;
light of the prevalence of practice of judicial review in Mexican constitutionalism.[81] If, (3) amparo casacion for the
extralegal killing and enforced the U.S. appealed to many after hearing, the judge judicial review of the
disappearances.[73] It was an Mexican jurists.[78] One of determines that a constitutional constitutionality and legality of a
exercise for the first time of the them, Manuel Crescencio Rejn, right of the petitioner is being judicial decision; (4) amparo
Courts expanded power to drafted a constitutional provision violated, he orders the official, or administrativo for the judicial
promulgate rules to protect our for his native state, Yucatan, the officials superiors, to cease review of administrative actions;
peoples constitutional rights, [79]
 which granted judges the the violation and to take the and (5) amparo agrario for the
which made its maiden power to protect all persons in the necessary measures to restore protection of peasants rights
appearance in the 1987 enjoyment of their constitutional the petitioner to the full enjoyment derived from the agrarian reform
Constitution in response to the and legal rights. This idea was of the right in process.[85]
Filipino experience of the martial incorporated into the national question. Amparo thus combines
law regime.[74] As the AmparoRule constitution in 1847, viz: the principles of judicial review In Latin American countries,
was intended to address the derived from the U.S. with the except Cuba, the writ
The federal
intractable problem of extralegal limitations on judicial power of amparo has been
courts shall
killings and enforced characteristic of the civil law constitutionally adopted to protect
protect any
disappearances, its coverage, in tradition which prevails against human rights abuses
inhabitant of the
its present form, is confined to in Mexico. It enables courts to especially committed in countries
Republic in the

Human Rights Law (Writ of Habeas Data) Page 117 of 174

under military juntas. In general, injunction or prohibition under punishment of perpetrators as it The Court of
these countries adopted an all- Rule 65 of the Rules of Court and will inevitably yield leads to Appeals seriously
encompassing writ to protect the a petition for habeas corpus under subsequent investigation and and grievously
whole gamut of constitutional Rule 102,[90] these remedies may action. In the long run, the goal of erred in believing
rights, including socio-economic not be adequate to address the both the preventive and curative and giving full
rights.[86] Other countries pestering problem of extralegal roles is to deter the further faith and credit to
like Colombia, Chile, Germany an killings and enforced commission of extralegal killings the incredible
d Spain, however, have chosen to disappearances. However, with and enforced disappearances. uncorroborated,
limit the protection of the writ the swiftness required to resolve a contradicted, and
of amparo only to some petition for a writ In the case at bar, respondents obviously
constitutional guarantees or of amparo through summary initially filed an action for scripted,
fundamental rights.[87] proceedings and the availability of Prohibition, Injunction, and rehearsed and
appropriate interim and Temporary Restraining Order[92] to self-serving
In the Philippines, while the 1987 permanent reliefs under stop petitioners and/or their affidavit/testimony
Constitution does not explicitly the Amparo Rule, this hybrid writ officers and agents from depriving of herein
provide for the writ of amparo, of the common law and civil law the respondents of their right to respondent
several of the traditions - borne out of the Latin liberty and other basic rights on Raymond
above amparo protections are American and Philippine August 23, 2007,[93] prior to the Manalo.[94]
guaranteed by our charter. The experience of human rights promulgation of  
second paragraph of Article VIII, abuses - offers a better remedy to the Amparo  Rule. They also In delving into the
Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution, extralegal killings and enforced sought ancillary remedies veracity of the evidence, we need
the Grave Abuse Clause, provides disappearances and threats including Protective Custody to mine and refine the ore of
for the judicial power to determine thereof. The remedy provides Orders, Appointment of petitioners cause of action, to
whether or not there has been a rapid judicial relief as it partakes Commissioner, Inspection and determine whether the evidence
grave abuse of discretion of a summary proceeding that Access Orders and other legal presented is metal-strong to
amounting to lack or excess of requires only substantial evidence and equitable remedies under satisfy the degree of proof
jurisdiction on the part of any to make the appropriate reliefs Article VIII, Section 5(5) of the required.
branch or instrumentality of the available to the petitioner; it is not 1987 Constitution and Rule 135,
Government. The Clause accords an action to determine criminal Section 6 of the Rules of Section 1 of the Rule on
a similar general protection to guilt requiring proof beyond Court. When the Amparo Rule the Writ of Amparo provides for
human rights extended by reasonable doubt, or liability for came into effect on October 24, the following causes of action, viz:
the amparo contra leyes, amparo damages requiring preponderance 2007, they moved to have their
casacion, and amparo of evidence, or administrative petition treated as Section
administrativo. Amparo libertad is responsibility requiring substantial an amparo petition as it would be 1. Petition. The
comparable to the remedy evidence that will require full and more effective and suitable to the petition for a writ
of habeas corpus found in several exhaustive proceedings.[91] circumstances of the Manalo of amparo is a
provisions of the 1987 brothers enforced remedy available
Constitution.[88] The Clause is an The writ of amparo serves both disappearance. The Court granted to any person
offspring of the U.S. common law preventive and curative roles in their motion. whose right to
tradition of judicial review, which addressing the problem of life, liberty and
finds its roots in the 1803 case extralegal killings and enforced With this backdrop, we now come security is
of Marbury v. Madison.[89] disappearances. It is preventive in to the arguments of the violated or
that it breaks the expectation of petitioner. Petitioners first threatened with
While constitutional rights can be impunity in the commission of argument in disputing the violation by an
protected under the Grave Abuse these offenses; it is curative in Decision of the Court of Appeals unlawful act or
Clause through remedies of that it facilitates the subsequent states, viz: omission of a

Human Rights Law (Writ of Habeas Data) Page 118 of 174

 public official or rwise, the tanggalin ang mga kadena. Mendoza, also
[99]
employee, or of a privilege shall  Tinanong ko sa isang kapit- CAFGU members,
private individual be denied. bahay kung paano ako served as lookouts
or entity. (emphases makakakuha ng cell phone; sabi during the
  supplied) ko gusto kong i-text ang isang abduction. Raymo
The writ shall   babae na nakatira sa malapit na nd was sure that
cover extralegal Substantial evidence has been lugar.[100] three of the six
killings defined as such relevant evidence military men were
and enforced as a reasonable mind might We affirm the factual findings of Ganata, who
disappearances accept as adequate to support a the appellate court, largely based headed the
or threats conclusion.[95] on respondent Raymond Manalos abducting team,
thereof. affidavit and testimony, viz: Hilario, who drove
(emphasis After careful perusal of the the van, and
the abduction was
supplied) evidence presented, we affirm the George. Subseque
perpetrated by
  findings of the Court of Appeals nt incidents of their
armed men who
that respondents were abducted long captivity, as
were sufficiently
Sections 17 and 18, on the other from their houses in Sito Muzon, narrated by the
identified by the
hand, provide for the degree of Brgy. Buhol na Mangga, San petitioners,
petitioners (herein
proof required, viz: Ildefonso, Bulacan on February validated their
respondents) to be
14, 2006 and were continuously assertion of the
Sec. 17. Burden military personnel
detained until they escaped participation of the
of Proof and and CAFGU
on August 13, 2007. The elements of the
Standard of auxiliaries. Raymo
abduction, detention, torture, and 7th Infantry
Diligence nd recalled that the
escape of the respondents were Division, Philippine
Required. The six armed men
narrated by respondent Raymond Army, and their
parties shall who barged into
Manalo in a clear and convincing CAFGU auxiliaries.
establish their his house through
manner. His account is dotted
claims the rear door were
with countless candid details of We are convinced,
by substantial military men based
respondents harrowing too, that the reason
evidence. on their attire of
experience and tenacious will to for the abduction
fatigue pants and
  escape, captured through his was the suspicion
army boots, and
xxx xxx xxx different senses and etched in his that the petitioners
the CAFGU
Sec. memory. A few examples are the were either
auxiliaries, namely:
18. Judgment. If following: Sumilip ako sa isang members or
Michael de la Cruz,
the allegations in haligi ng kamalig at nakita kong sympathizers of
Madning de la
the petition are sinisilaban si Manuel. the NPA,
[96] Cruz, Puti de la
proven by  (N)ilakasan ng mga sundalo considering that
Cruz and Pula de
substantial ang tunog na galing sa istiryo ng the abductors were
la Cruz, all
evidence, the sasakyan. Di nagtagal, narinig ko looking for Ka
members of the
court ang hiyaw o ungol ni Manuel. Bestre, who turned
[97] CAFGU and
shall grant the  May naiwang mga bakas ng out to be Rolando,
residents of
privilege of the dugo habang hinihila nila ang the brother of
Muzon, San
writ and such mga bangkay. Naamoy ko iyon petitioners.
Ildefonso, Bulacan,
reliefs as may be nang nililinis ang bakas.[98] Tumigil
and the brothers
proper and ako sa may palaisdaan kung saan The efforts exerted
Randy Mendoza
appropriate; othe ginamit ko ang bato para by the Military
and Rudy

Human Rights Law (Writ of Habeas Data) Page 119 of 174

 Command to look (Gen. Palparan) convincing board a Revo and
into the abduction met them in person evidence to conveyed them to
were, at best, in a safehouse in establish that a detachment in
merely Bulacan and told M/Sgt. Rizal Hilario Pinaud, San
superficial. The them what he had anything to do Ildefonso, Bulacan
investigation of the wanted them and with the abduction where they were
Provost Marshall of their parents to do or the detained for at
the 7th Infantry or not to be detention. Hilarios least a week in a
Division focused doing. Gen. involvement could house of strong
on the one-sided Palparans direct not, indeed, be materials (Exhibit
version of the and personal role then established D, rollo, p. 205)
CAFGU auxiliaries in the abduction after Evangeline and then Hilario
involved. This one- might not have Francisco, who (along with Efren)
sidedness might be been shown but his allegedly saw brought them to
due to the fact that knowledge of the Hilario drive the Sapang, San
the Provost dire situation of the van in which the Miguel, Bulacan on
Marshall could petitioners during petitioners were board the Revo, to
delve only into the their long captivity boarded and an unfinished
participation of at the hands of ferried following house inside the
military personnel, military personnel the abduction, did compound
but even then the under his not testify. (See the of Kapitan where
Provost Marshall command bespoke decision of the they were kept for
should have of his indubitable habeas more or less three
refrained from command policy proceedings months. (Exhibit
outrightly that unavoidably at rollo, p. 52) D, rollo, p. 205) It
exculpating the encouraged and was there where
CAFGU auxiliaries not merely However, in this the petitioners
he perfunctorily tolerated the case, Raymond came face to face
investigated abduction of attested that Hilario with Gen.
civilians without drove the white L- Palparan. Hilario
Gen. Palparans due process of law 300 van in which and Efren also
participation in the and without the petitioners brought the
abduction was also probable cause. were brought away petitioners one
established. At the from their houses early morning to
very least, he was In on February 14, the house of the
aware of the the habeas  procee 2006. Raymond petitioners parents,
petitioners captivity dings, the Court, also attested that where only
at the hands of through the Former Hilario participated Raymond was
men in uniform Special Sixth in subsequent presented to the
assigned to his Division (Justices incidents during parents to relay the
command. In fact, Buzon, chairman; the captivity of the message from
he or any other Santiago-Lagman, petitioners, one of Gen. Palparan not
officer tendered no Sr., member; and which was when to join anymore
controversion to Romilla-Lontok, Jr., Hilario fetched rallies. On that
the firm claim of member/ponente.) them from Fort occasion, Hilario
Raymond that he found no clear and Magsaysay on warned the parents

Human Rights Law (Writ of Habeas Data) Page 120 of 174

 that they would not Caigas, among In Ortiz v. Guatemala,[105] a case were detained. Where powerful
again see their others, was decided by the Inter-American military officers are implicated, the
sons should they similarly Commission on Human Rights, hesitation of witnesses to surface
join any rallies to established. the Commission considered and testify against them comes as
denounce human similar evidence, among others, no surprise.
rights violations. xxx xxx xxx in finding that complainant Sister
(Exhibit D, rollo, Diana Ortiz was abducted and We now come to the right
pp. 205- As to the CAFGU tortured by agents of the of the respondents to the privilege
206) Hilario was auxiliaries, Guatemalan government.In this of the writ of amparo. There is no
also among four the habeas Court case, Sister Ortiz was kidnapped quarrel that the enforced
Master Sergeants found them and tortured in early November disappearance of both
(the others being personally involved 1989. The Commissions findings respondents Raymond and
Arman, Ganata in the of fact were mostly based on the Reynaldo Manalo has now
and Cabalse) with abduction. We also consistent and credible passed as they have escaped
whom Gen. do, for, indeed, the statements, written and oral, from captivity and surfaced. But
Palparan evidence of their made by Sister Ortiz regarding while respondents admit that they
conversed on the participation is her ordeal.[106] These statements are no longer in detention and are
occasion when overwhelming.[101] were supported by her recognition physically free, they assert that
Gen. Palparan We reject the claim of petitioners of portions of the route they took they are not free in every sense of
required Raymond that respondent Raymond when she was being driven out of the word[109] as their movements
to take the Manalos statements were not the military installation where she continue to be restricted for fear
medicines for his corroborated by other was detained.[107] She was also that people they have named in
health. (Exhibit independent and credible pieces examined by a medical doctor their Judicial Affidavits and
D, rollo, p. of evidence.[102] Raymonds whose findings showed that the testified against (in the case of
206) There were affidavit and testimony were 111 circular second degree burns Raymond) are still at large and
other occasions corroborated by the affidavit of on her back and abrasions on her have not been held accountable
when the respondent Reynaldo cheek coincided with her account in any way. These people are
petitioners saw that Manalo. The testimony and of cigarette burning and torture directly connected to the Armed
Hilario had a direct medical reports prepared by she suffered while in detention.[108] Forces of the Philippines and are,
hand in their forensic specialist Dr. Molino, and thus, in a position to threaten
torture. the pictures of the scars left by With the secret nature of an respondents rights to life,
the physical injuries inflicted on enforced disappearance and the liberty and security.
[110]
It is clear, respondents,[103] also corroborate torture perpetrated on the victim  (emphasis supplied)
therefore, that the respondents accounts of the during detention, it logically holds Respondents claim that they are
participation of torture they endured while in that much of the information and under threat of being once
Hilario in the detention. Respondent Raymond evidence of the ordeal will come again abducted, kept captive or
abduction and Manalos familiarity with the from the victims themselves, and even killed, which constitute a
forced facilities in Fort Magsaysay such the veracity of their account will direct violation of their right to
disappearance of as the DTU, as shown in his depend on their credibility and security of person.[111]
the petitioners was testimony and confirmed by Lt. candidness in their written and/or
established. The Col. Jimenez to be the Division oral statements. Their statements Elaborating on the right
participation of Training Unit,[104] firms up can be corroborated by other to security, in
other military respondents story that they were evidence such as physical general, respondents point out
personnel like detained for some time in said evidence left by the torture they that this right is often associated
Arman, Ganata, military facility. suffered or landmarks they can with liberty; it is also seen as an
Cabalse and identify in the places where they expansion of rights based on the

Human Rights Law (Writ of Habeas Data) Page 121 of 174

prohibition against torture and respondents assert. The right guarantee against unreasonable
cruel and unusual to securityor the right to unreasonable searches and
punishment. Conceding that there security of person finds a textual searches and seizures must be
is no right to security expressly hook in Article III, Section 2 of the seizures is deemed absolute
mentioned in Article III of the 1987 Constitution which to prevent as nothing is
1987 Constitution, they submit provides, viz: violations of closer to a mans
that their rights to be kept free private security in soul than the
Sec. 2. The right
from torture and person and serenity of his
of the people to
from incommunicado detention property and privacy and the
be secure in
and solitary detention unlawful invasion assurance of his
their persons,
places[112] fall under the general of the security of personal
houses, papers
coverage of the right to security of the home by security. Any
and effects
person under the writ of officers of the law interference
against
Amparo. They submit that the acting under allowable can only
unreasonable
Court ought to give an expansive legislative or be for the best
searches and
recognition of the right to security judicial sanction causes and
seizures of
of person in view of the State and to give remedy reasons.[119] 
whatever nature
Policy under Article II of the 1987 against such (emphases
and for any
Constitution which enunciates usurpation when supplied)
purpose shall
that, The State values the dignity attempted. While the right to life
be inviolable,
of every human person and (Adams v. New under Article III, Section
and no search
guarantees full respect for human York, 1[120] guarantees essentially the
warrant or
rights. Finally, to justify a liberal 192 U.S. 858; right to be alive[121] - upon which
warrant of arrest
interpretation of the right to Alvero v. Dizon, 76 the enjoyment of all other rights is
shall issue except
security of person, respondents Phil. 637 [1946]). preconditioned - the right to
upon probable
cite the teaching in Moncupa v. The right to privacy security of person is a guarantee
cause to be
Enrile[113] that the right to liberty is an essential of the secure quality of this
determined
may be made more meaningful condition to the life, viz: The life to which each
personally by the
only if there is no undue restraint dignity and person has a right is not a life
judge
by the State on the exercise of happiness and to lived in fear that his person and
At the core of this
that liberty[114] such as a the peace and property may be unreasonably
guarantee is the immunity of ones
requirement to report under security of every violated by a powerful
person, including the extensions
unreasonable restrictions that individual, ruler. Rather, it is a life lived with
of his/her person houses, papers,
amounted to a deprivation of whether it be of the assurance that the
and effects against government
liberty[115] or being put under home or of government he established and
intrusion. Section 2 not only limits
monitoring and surveillance.[116] persons and consented to, will protect the
the states power over a persons
correspondence. security of his person and
home and possessions, but more
In sum, respondents assert that (Taada and property. The ideal of security in
importantly, protects the privacy
their cause of action consists in Carreon, Political life and property pervades the
and sanctity of the person
the threat to their right to life Law of the whole history of man. It touches
himself.[117] The purpose of this
and liberty, and a violation of Philippines, Vol. 2, every aspect of mans existence.
provision was enunciated by the [122]
their right to security. 139 [1962]). The  In a broad sense, the right to
Court in People v. CFI of Rizal,
constitutional security of person emanates in a
Branch IX, Quezon City, viz: [118]
Let us put this right to security inviolability of this persons legal and uninterrupted
under the lens to determine if it great fundamental enjoyment of his life, his limbs, his
The purpose of the
has indeed been violated as right against body, his health, and his
constitutional

Human Rights Law (Writ of Habeas Data) Page 122 of 174

reputation. It includes the right to 1. Everyone has mentioned in the earlier part of the intimidation, or
exist, and the right to enjoyment the right to liberty provision.[127] any other means
of life while existing, and it is and security of which vitiate the
invaded not only by a deprivation person. No one Second, the right to free will shall be
of life but also of those things shall be subjected security of person is a guarantee used against him
which are necessary to the to arbitrary arrest of bodily and psychological (any person
enjoyment of life according to the or detention. No integrity or security. Article III, under
nature, temperament, and lawful one shall be Section II of the 1987 Constitution investigation for
desires of the individual.[123] deprived of his guarantees that, as a general rule, the commission of
liberty except on ones body cannot be searched or an
A closer look at the right to such grounds and invaded without a search warrant. offense). Secret
security of person would yield in accordance [128]
 Physical injuries inflicted in the detention places,
various permutations of the with such context of extralegal killings and solitary, incommu
exercise of this right. procedure as are enforced disappearances nicado or other
established by constitute more than a search or similar forms of
First, the right to security of law. (emphasis invasion of the body. It may detention are
person is freedom from fear. In supplied) constitute dismemberment, prohibited.
its whereas clauses, The Philippines is a physical disabilities, and painful  
the Universal Declaration of signatory to both the UDHR and physical intrusion. As the degree of Parenthetically, under this
Human Rights (UDHR) the ICCPR. physical injury increases, the provision, threat and intimidation
enunciates that a world in which danger to life itself that vitiate the free will - although
human beings shall enjoy In the context of Section 1 escalates. Notably, in criminal law, not involving invasion of bodily
freedom of speech and belief of the Amparo Rule, freedom from physical injuries constitute a crime integrity - nevertheless constitute a
and freedom from fear and want fear is the right and any threat to against persons because they are violation of the right to security in
has been proclaimed as the the rights to life, liberty or an affront to the bodily integrity or the sense of freedom from threat
highest aspiration of the common security is the actionable security of a person.[129] as afore-discussed.
people. (emphasis supplied) wrong. Fear is a state of mind, a
Some scholars postulate reaction; threat is a stimulus, Physical torture, force, and Article III, Section 12
that freedom from fear is not only a cause of action. Fear caused by violence are a severe invasion of guarantees freedom from
an aspirational principle, but the same stimulus can range from bodily integrity. When employed dehumanizing abuses of persons
essentially an individual being baseless to well-founded as to vitiate the free will such as to under investigation for the
international human right.[124] It is people react differently. The force the victim to admit, reveal or commission of an offense.Victims
the right to security of person as degree of fear can vary from one fabricate incriminating of enforced disappearances who
the word security itself means person to another with the variation information, it constitutes an are not even under such
freedom from fear.[125] Article 3 of of the prolificacy of their invasion of both bodily and investigation should all the more be
the UDHR provides, viz: imagination, strength of character psychological integrity as the protected from these degradations.
or past experience with the dignity of the human person
Everyone has the right to stimulus. Thus, in includes the exercise of free An overture to an
life, liberty and security the amparo context, it is more will. Article III, Section 12 of the interpretation of the right to
of person.[126] (emphasis correct to say that the right to 1987 Constitution more security of person as a right
supplied) security is actually the freedom specifically proscribes bodily and against torture was made by the
In furtherance of this right from threat. Viewed in this light, psychological invasion, viz: European Court of Human Rights
declared in the UDHR, Article 9(1) the threatened with violation (ECHR) in the recent case
of the International Covenant on Clause in the latter part of Section (2) No torture, of Popov v. Russia.[130] In this
Civil and Political 1 of the Amparo Rule is a form of force, violence, case, the claimant, who was
Rights (ICCPR) also provides for violation of the right to security threat or lawfully detained, alleged that the
the right to security of person, viz:

Human Rights Law (Writ of Habeas Data) Page 123 of 174

state authorities had physically his security in and security of (The duty to
abused him in prison, thereby custody or to person.[132] investigate) must
violating his right to security of comply with the Third, the right to be undertaken in
person. Article 5(1) of the procedural security of person is a a serious
European Convention on Human obligation under guarantee of protection of ones manner and not
Rights provides, viz: Everyone Art.3 to conduct rights by the government. In the as a mere
has the right to liberty an effective context of the writ of amparo, this formality
and security of person. No one investigation into right is built into the guarantees preordained to
shall be deprived of his liberty his allegations. of the right to life and be
[131]
save in the following cases and in  (emphasis liberty under Article III, Section 1 ineffective. An
accordance with a procedure supplied) of the 1987 Constitution and the investigation must
prescribed by law ... (emphases   right to security of person (as have an objective
supplied) Article 3, on the other freedom from threat and and be assumed
hand, provides that (n)o one shall The U.N. Committee on the guarantee of bodily and by the State as
be subjected to torture or to Elimination of Discrimination psychological integrity) under its own legal
inhuman or degrading treatment against Women has also made a Article III, Section 2. The right to duty, not as a
or punishment. Although the statement that the protection of security of person in this third step taken by
application failed on the facts as the bodily integrity of women may sense is a corollary of the policy private interests
the alleged ill-treatment was found also be related to the right to that the State guarantees full that depends
baseless, the ECHR relied heavily security and liberty, viz: respect for human rights under upon the
on the concept of security in Article II, Section 11 of the 1987 initiative of the
holding, viz: gender-based Constitution.[133] As the victim or his
violence which government is the chief guarantor family or upon
...the impairs or nullifies of order and security, the their offer of
applicant did not the enjoyment by Constitutional guarantee of the proof, without an
bring his women of human rights to life, liberty and security of effective search
allegations to the rights and person is rendered ineffective if for the truth by
attention of fundamental government does not afford the government.
[135]
domestic freedoms under protection to these rights
authorities at the general especially when they are under  
time when they international law or threat. Protection includes This third sense of the
could reasonably under specific conducting effective right to security of person as a
have been human rights investigations, organization of the guarantee of government
expected to take conventions is government apparatus to extend protection has been interpreted by
measures in order discrimination protection to victims of extralegal the United Nations Human Rights
to ensure within the meaning killings or enforced Committee[136] in not a few cases
his security and of article 1 of the disappearances (or threats involving Article 9[137] of the
to investigate the Convention (on the thereof) and/or their families, and ICCPR. While the right to security
circumstances in Elimination of All bringing offenders to the bar of of person appears in conjunction
question. Forms of justice. The Inter-American Court with the right to liberty under
  Discrimination of Human Rights stressed the Article 9, the Committee has ruled
xxx xxx xxx Against Women). importance of investigation in that the right to security of
  These rights and the Velasquez Rodriguez Case, person can exist independently
[134]
... the freedoms  viz: of the right to liberty. In other
authorities failed include . . . the words, there need not necessarily
to ensure right to liberty be a deprivation of liberty for the

Human Rights Law (Writ of Habeas Data) Page 124 of 174

 [144]
right to security of person to be in separate and appropriate  involving an assassination
invoked. In Delgado Paez v. clauses in the measures to attempt on the chairman of an
Colombia,[138] a case involving Covenant. protect them. An opposition alliance.
death threats to a religion teacher Although in the interpretation of
at a secondary school Covenant the article 9 which Similarly, the European Court of
in Leticia, Colombia, whose social only reference to would allow a Human Rights (ECHR) has
views differed from those of the the right of State party to interpreted the right to security
Apostolic Prefect of Leticia, the security of ignore threats to not only as prohibiting the State
Committee held, viz: person is to be the personal from arbitrarily depriving liberty,
found in article security of non- but imposing a positive duty on
The first 9, there is no detained the State to afford protection of
sentence of evidence that it persons within the right to liberty.[145] The ECHR
article 9 does not was intended to its jurisdiction interpreted the right to security of
stand as a narrow the would render person under Article 5(1) of the
separate concept of the totally European Convention of Human
paragraph. Its right to security ineffective the Rights in the leading case on
location as a part only to guarantees of disappearance of persons, Kurt
of paragraph one situations of the Covenant. v. Turkey.[146] In this case,
[139]
could lead to the formal  (emphasis the claimants son had been
view that the right deprivation of supplied) arrested by state authorities and
to security arises liberty. At the The Paez ruling was had not been seen since. The
only in the context same time, reiterated in Bwalya v. Zambia, familys requests for information
[140]
of arrest and States parties  which involved a political and investigation regarding his
detention. have undertaken activist and prisoner of whereabouts proved futile. The
The travaux to guarantee the conscience who continued to be claimant suggested that this was
prparatoires indic rights enshrined intimidated, harassed, and a violation of her sons right to
ate that the in the restricted in his movements security of person. The ECHR
discussions of the Covenant. It following his release from ruled, viz:
first sentence did cannot be the detention. In a catena of cases,
... any
indeed focus on case that, as a the ruling of the Committee was
deprivation of
matters dealt with matter of law, of a similar import: Bahamonde
liberty must not
in the other States can v. Equatorial Guinea,
[141] only have been
provisions of ignore known  involving discrimination,
effected in
article 9. The threats to the life intimidation and persecution of
conformity with
Universal of persons opponents of the ruling party in
the substantive
Declaration of under their that state; Tshishimbi v. Zaire,
[142] and procedural
Human Rights, jurisdiction, just  involving the abduction of the
rules of national
in article 3, because that he complainants husband who was a
law but must
refers to the or she is not supporter of democratic reform in
equally be in
right to life, the arrested or Zaire; Dias v. Angola,
[143] keeping with the
right to liberty otherwise  involving the murder of
very purpose of
and the right to detained. States the complainants partner and the
Article 5, namely
security of the parties are harassment he (complainant)
to protect the
person. These under an suffered because of his
individual from
elements have obligation to investigation of the murder;
arbitrariness...
been dealt with take reasonable and Chongwe v. Zambia,
Having assumed

Human Rights Law (Writ of Habeas Data) Page 125 of 174

 control over that Raymonds narration, he was stared them in the eye while they failure of military elements to
individual it is tortured and poured with gasoline were in detention. With their provide protection to respondents
incumbent on the after he was caught the first time escape, this continuing threat to by themselves perpetrating the
authorities to he attempted to escape their life is apparent, moreso now abduction, detention, and torture,
account for his or from Fort Magsaysay. A call from that they have surfaced and they also miserably failed in
her a certain Mam, who wanted to implicated specific officers in the conducting an effective
whereabouts. For see him before he was killed, military not only in their own investigation of respondents
this spared him. abduction and torture, but also in abduction as revealed by the
reason, Article 5 those of other persons known to testimony and investigation report
must be seen as This time, respondents have have disappeared such as of petitioners own witness, Lt.
requiring the finally escaped. The condition of Sherlyn Cadapan, Karen Empeo, Col. Ruben Jimenez, Provost
authorities to the threat to be killed has come to and Manuel Merino, among Marshall of the 7th Infantry
take effective pass. It should be stressed that others. Division.
measures to they are now free from captivity
safeguard not because they were released Understandably, since their The one-day investigation
against the risk by virtue of a lawful order or escape, respondents have been conducted by Jimenez was very
of voluntarily freed by their under concealment and protection limited, superficial, and one-
disappearance abductors. It ought to be recalled by private citizens because of the sided. He merely relied on the
and to conduct a that towards the end of their threat to their life, liberty and Sworn Statements of the six
prompt effective ordeal, sometime in June 2007 security. The threat vitiates their implicated members of the
investigation when respondents were detained free will as they are forced to limit CAFGU and civilians whom he
into an arguable in a camp in Limay, Bataan, their movements or activities. met in the investigation for the
claim that a respondents captors even told [149]
 Precisely because first time. He was present at the
person has been them that they were still deciding respondents are being shielded investigation when his
taken into whether they should be from the perpetrators of their subordinate Lingad was taking
custody and has executed. Respondent Raymond abduction, they cannot be the sworn statements, but he did
not been seen Manalo attested in his expected to show evidence of not propound a single question to
since.[147]  affidavit, viz: overt acts of threat such as face- ascertain the veracity of their
(emphasis to-face intimidation or written statements or their credibility. He
Kinaumagahan,
supplied) threats to their life, liberty and did not call for other witnesses to
naka-kadena pa
Applying the foregoing security. Nonetheless, the test the alibis given by the six
kami. Tinanggal
concept of the right to security of circumstances of respondents implicated persons nor for the
ang mga kadena
person to the case at bar, we now abduction, detention, torture and family or neighbors of the
mga 3 o 4 na
determine whether there is a escape reasonably support a respondents.
araw
continuing violation of conclusion that there is an
pagkalipas. Sinab
respondents right to security. apparent threat that they will In his affidavit, petitioner
i sa amin na kaya
again be abducted, tortured, and Secretary of National Defense
kami nakakadena
First, the violation of the right this time, even executed. These attested that in a Memorandum
ay dahil
to security as freedom from constitute threats to their liberty, Directive dated October 31, 2007,
pinagdedesisyuna
threat to respondents life, security, and life, actionable he issued a policy directive
n pa ng mga
liberty and security. through a petition for a writ addressed to the AFP Chief of
sundalo kung
of amparo. Staff, that the AFP should adopt
papatayin kami o
While respondents were detained, rules of action in the event the
hindi.[148]
they were threatened that if they Next, the violation of the right writ of amparo is issued by a
 
escaped, their families, including to security as protection by the competent court against any
The possibility of
them, would be killed. In government. Apart from the members of the AFP, which
respondents being executed

Human Rights Law (Writ of Habeas Data) Page 126 of 174

should essentially include In sum, we conclude that by respondents partakes of the intrusion of the government, not a
verification of the identity of the respondents right to security as characteristics of a search protection of the government from
aggrieved party; recovery and freedom from threat is violated by warrant. Thus, they claim that the the demand of the people such as
preservation of relevant evidence; the apparent threat to their life, requisites for the issuance of a respondents.
identification of witnesses and liberty and security of search warrant must be complied
securing statements from them; person. Their right to security as a with prior to the grant of the Instead, the amparo production
determination of the cause, guarantee of protection by the production order, namely: (1) the order may be likened to the
manner, location and time of government is likewise violated by application must be under oath or production of documents or things
death or disappearance; the ineffective investigation and affirmation; (2) the search warrant under Section 1, Rule 27 of the
identification and apprehension of protection on the part of the must particularly describe the Rules of Civil Procedure which
the person or persons involved in military. place to be searched and the provides in relevant part, viz:
the death or disappearance; and things to be seized; (3) there
bringing of the suspected Finally, we come to exists probable cause with one Section 1. Motion
offenders before a competent the reliefs granted by the Court of specific offense; and (4) the for production or
court.[150] Petitioner AFP Chief of Appeals, which petitioners probable cause must be inspection order.
Staff also submitted his own question. personally determined by the
affidavit attesting that he received judge after examination under   Upon motion of
the above directive of respondent First, that petitioners furnish oath or affirmation of the any party showing
Secretary of National Defense respondents all official and complainant and the witnesses he good cause
and that acting on this directive, unofficial reports of the may produce.[152] In the case at therefor, the court
he immediately caused to be investigation undertaken in bar, however, petitioners point out in which an action
issued a directive to the units of connection with their case, except that other than the bare, self- is pending may (a)
the AFP for the purpose of those already in file with the court. serving and vague allegations order any party to
establishing the circumstances of made by respondent Raymond produce and permit
the alleged disappearance and Second, that petitioners confirm Manalo in his unverified the inspection and
the recent reappearance of the in writing the present places of declaration and affidavit, the copying or
respondents, and undertook to official assignment of M/Sgt. documents respondents seek to photographing, by
provide results of the Hilario aka Rollie Castillo and be produced are only mentioned or on behalf of the
investigations to respondents. Donald Caigas. generally by name, with no other moving party, of
[151]
 To this day, however, almost a supporting details. They also any designated
year after the policy directive was Third, that petitioners cause to be argue that the relevancy of the documents,
issued by petitioner Secretary of produced to the Court of Appeals documents to be produced must papers, books of
National Defense on October 31, all medical reports, records and be apparent, but this is not true in accounts, letters,
2007, respondents have not been charts, and reports of any the present case as the photographs,
furnished the results of the treatment given or involvement of petitioners in the objects or tangible
investigation which they now seek recommended and medicines abduction has not been shown. things, not
through the instant petition for a prescribed, if any, to the Manalo privileged, which
writ of amparo. brothers, to include a list of Petitioners arguments do not hold constitute or
medical personnel (military and water. The production order under contain evidence
Under these circumstances, there civilian) who attended to the Amparo Rule should not be material to any
is substantial evidence to warrant them from February 14, 2006 until confused with a search warrant for matter involved in
the conclusion that there is a August 12, 2007. law enforcement under Article III, the action and
violation of respondents right to Section 2 of the 1987 which are in his
security as a guarantee of With respect to the first and Constitution. This Constitutional possession,
protection by the government. second reliefs, petitioners argue provision is a protection of the custody or control
that the production order sought people from the unreasonable  

Human Rights Law (Writ of Habeas Data) Page 127 of 174

In Material Distributors (Phil.) military officers and even
Inc. v. Judge Natividad,[153] the unwittingly and unnecessarily
respondent judge, under authority expose them to threat of personal
of Rule 27, issued a subpoena injury or even death. SO ORDERED.
duces tecum for the production
and inspection of among others, On the contrary, the disclosure of
the books and papers of Material the present places of assignment
Distributors (Phil.) Inc. The of M/Sgt. Hilario aka Rollie
company questioned the issuance Castillo and Donald Caigas, whom
of the subpoena on the ground respondents both directly
that it violated the search and implicated as perpetrators behind
seizure clause. The Court struck their abduction and detention, is
down the argument and held that relevant in ensuring the safety of
the subpoena pertained to a civil respondents by avoiding their
procedure that cannot be areas of territorial
identified or confused with jurisdiction. Such disclosure would
unreasonable searches prohibited also help ensure that these
by the Constitution military officers can be served with
notices and court processes in
Moreover, in his affidavit, relation to any investigation and
petitioner AFP Chief of Staff action for violation of the
himself undertook to provide respondents rights. The list of
results of the investigations medical personnel is also relevant
conducted or to be conducted by in securing information to create
the concerned unit relative to the the medical history of respondents
circumstances of the alleged and make appropriate medical
disappearance of the persons in interventions, when applicable
whose favor the Writ and necessary.
of Amparohas been sought for as
soon as the same has been In blatant violation of our hard-
furnished Higher headquarters. won guarantees to life, liberty and
security, these rights are snuffed
With respect to the second and out from victims of extralegal
third reliefs, petitioners assert killings and enforced
that the disclosure of the present disappearances. The writ
places of assignment of M/Sgt. of amparo is a tool that gives
Hilario aka Rollie Castillo and voice to preys of silent guns and
Donald Caigas, as well as the prisoners behind secret walls.
submission of a list of medical
personnel, is irrelevant, improper, WHEREFORE, premises
immaterial, and unnecessary in considered, the petition
the resolution of the petition for a is DISMISSED. The Decision of
writ of amparo. They add that it the Court of Appeals dated
will unnecessarily compromise December 26, 2007 is affirmed.
and jeopardize the exercise of
official functions and duties of

Human Rights Law (Writ of Habeas Data) Page 128 of 174

 ultimate facts determinable from the supporting of habeasaffidavits data.—Section that 6detailof thethe Rule on
[2] circumstances of how and to what extent a threat following
to or violation
materialofallegations
the rights of to ultimate
life, fact
  liberty and security of the aggrieved party wasoforhabeas is being data:
committed.
“(a) The personal
The issuance circumstanc
EN of the writ of amparo in the present case is(b) anchored
The manner on the thefactual
right toallegations
privacy is violate
BAN RESOLUTION
heretofore quoted, that are essentially repeated in rightparagraph
to life, liberty
54 of the or petition.
security of the aggrieve
C taken by the petitioner to secure the data or in
  Same; If the petitioners wish to seek redressregisters and hold the alleged
or databases, theperpetrators
government office,
Forum Shopping; Forum shopping trifles with the courts, abuses their processes,
criminally accountable, the remedy may lie more or inincontrol
the realm of the of ordinary criminal if kn
data or information,
DANIEL MASANGKAY TAPUZ, AURORAdegrades the administration of justice and congest court dockets. Willful and
prosecution rather than on the use of the extraordinary remedy
may include the updating, rectification,of the writ of suppre
TAPUZ-MADRIAGA, LIBERTY M. deliberate violation of the rule against it is a ground for summary dismissal of the
ASUNCION, LADYLYN BAMOS amparo.—Under these legal and factual situations, we are far from satisfied
information or files kept by the respondent. with the In
case, it may also constitute direct contempt.—
MADRIAGA, EVERLY TAPUZ prima facie existence of the ultimate facts that would
a prayer justify
for the
an issuance
order of
enjoining a writ
the ofact comp
shopping is the institution of two or more actions or proceedings involving the same
MADRIAGA, EXCEL TAPUZ, IVAN amparo. Rather than acts of terrorism that posereliefs a continuing
as are just threat
andto the persons of
equitable.”
parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or successively, on the
TAPUZ AND MARIAN TIMBAS, the petitioners, the violent incidents alleged appear to us to be purely property-
supposition that one or the other court would make a favorable disposition. Forum
Petitioners, related and focused on the disputed land. Thus,Same; if the petitioners
Allegationswish obviously
to seeklackredress
what the Ru
shopping may be resorted to by any party against whom an adverse judgment or
  and hold the alleged perpetrators criminally accountable, a minimum, the remedy
thus rendering
may lie more the inpetition
order has been issued in one forum, in an attempt to seek a favorable opinion in
the realm of ordinary criminal prosecution rather obviously
than on the lackuse whatof the
the extraordinary
Rule on Writ of Hab
- versus - another, other than by appeal or a special civil action for certiorari. Forum shopping
remedy of the writ of amparo. rendering the petition fatally deficient. Specifi
trifles with the courts, abuses their processes, degrades the administration of justice
  unjustified or unlawful violation of the right
and congest court dockets. Willful and deliberate Same;violation of theof rule
The writ againstparticularly,
amparo, it is a should
libertynotor issuesecurity. when The applied
petitionforlikewise
as has
HONORABLE JUDGE ELMO DEL ground for summary dismissal of the case; it may also constitute
substitute for the appealdirectorcontempt.”
certiorari process, any or when it will inordinately interfere
need for information under the control o
ROSARIO, in his capacity as Presiding Additionally, the required verification and certification of nonforum shopping
with these processes—the situation is obtaining in hasthealready
presentset case.—Separately
forth as integralfrom annexes. T
Judge of RTC Br. 5 Kalibo, SHERIFF defective as one (1) of the seven (7) petitioners these—Ivan Tapuz—did
considerations, not sign,
we cannot fail in
but consider too at this point the based
indicators, clear
issuance of the writ, on the insufficien
NELSON DELA CRUZ, in his capacity asviolation of Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 7; Sectionand 3, Rule
patent46;toSection
us, that1,the
Rule 65; all in present recourse via the remedy of the writ of
petitioners’ information, has not also been shown. In sum,
Sheriff of the RTC, THE PHILIPPINE relation with Rule 56 of the Revised Rules of Court.
amparoOfis those
a mere who signed, only
subterfuge five the assailed orders that the petitioners sought
to negate
NATIONAL POLICE stationed habeas data is nothing more than the “fishin
(5) exhibited their postal identification cards with
andthe Notary
failed to Public.
nullify before the appellate courtcourse because
in BoracayIsland, represented by the of of the use
drafting theofRule
an improper
on habeas data
remedial measure. We discern this from the petitioners’ misrepresentations
purpose of a writ of habeas data pointed is not. In t
PNP STATION COMMANDER, THE Writ of Amparo; The Writ of Amparo, Explained.—
out above; from their obvious act of forum shopping; petitionand fromissuance
for the the recourse
of the itself
writ of to habeas d
HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS IN writ of amparo was originally conceived as a response to the extraordinary rise in the
th
CEBU 18 DIVISION, SPOUSES the extraordinary remedies of the writs of certiorari and amparo based on grounds
number of killings and enforced disappearances, and to the perceived lack of BRION, J.:
GREGORIO SANSON & that are far from forthright and sufficiently compelling. To be sure, when recourses
available and effective remedies to address these extraordinary concerns. It is
MA. LOURDES T. SANSON, in the ordinary course of law fail because of deficient legal representation or the use
intended to address violations of or threats to the rights to life, liberty or security, as Before us of for the
of improper remedial measures, neither the writ of certiorari nor that amparo—
Respondents. an extraordinary and independent remedy beyond those available under the determination of sufficiency of
extraordinary though they may be—will suffice to serve as a curative substitute. The
prevailing Rules, or as a remedy supplemental to these Rules. What it is not, is a writ form and substance (pursuant
writ of amparo, particularly, should not issue when applied for as a substitute for the
to protect concerns that are purely property or commercial. Neither is it a writ that to Sections 1 and 4 of Rule 65
appeal or certiorari process, or when it will inordinately interfere with these
we shall issue on amorphous and uncertain grounds. Consequently, the Rule on the of the Revised Rules of Court;
processes—the situation obtaining in the present Sections case. While 1 and we say 5 ofallthethese,
Rule we
Writ of Amparo—in line with the extraordinary character of the writ and the
note too that the Rule on the Writ of Amparo provides on the forWrit
rulesof  onAmparo;
the institution
[1]
 andof
reasonable certainty that its issuance demands—requires that every petition for the
separate actions, for the effect of earlier-filedSections criminal1 actions,and 6 ofand
the for
Rule the
issuance of the writ must be supported by justifying allegations of fact.
consolidation of petitions for the issuance of a writ on of theamparo
Writ ofwith Habeasa subsequently
Data [2])
filed criminal
Same; The writ shall issue if the Court is preliminary satisfiedand civil
with the action.
prima facieThese rules wereis adopted the petition to promote an orderly
for certiorari and
procedure for dealing with
existence of the ultimate facts determinable from the supporting affidavits that detailpetitions for the issuance for of
the the writ
issuance of amparo
of thewhen writs the
parties resort to other parallel
the circumstances of how and to what extent a threat to or violation of the rights to recourses. of amparo and habeas data
life, liberty and security of the aggrieved party was or is being committed.— filed by the above-named
Writ of Habeas Data; Section 6 of the Rule of thepetitioners Writ of Habeas against Data requiresthe the
shall issue if the Court is preliminarily satisfied with the prima facie existence of the
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ following material allegations of ultimate facts in a petition for
Honorable Judge Elmo delthe issuance of a writ

Human Rights Law (Writ of Habeas Data) Page 129 of 174

 Rosario [in his capacity as numbering about 120. The The MCTC, after due collaborated the
presiding judge of RTC Br. private respondents alleged in proceedings, rendered on 2 claim of the
5, Kalibo], Sheriff Nelson de la their complaint that: (1) they January 2007 a decision[5] in plaintiffs that after
Cruz [in his capacity as Sheriff are the registered owners the private respondents they acquired the
of the RTC], the Philippine under TCT No. 35813 of a favor. It found prior land in question
National Police stationed 1.0093-hectare parcel of land possession the key issue in on May 27, 1993
in Boracay Island, located forcible entry cases - in the through a Deed of
represented by the PNP at Sitio Pinaungon, Balabag,  private respondents favor, Sale (Annex A,
Station Commander, the Boracay, thus: Affidavit of
Honorable Court of Appeals in Malay, Aklan (the disputed The key Gregorio Sanson,
Cebu, 18th Division, and the land); (2) they were the that could unravel p. 276, rec.), they
spouses disputed lands prior the answer to this caused the
Gregorio Sanson and Ma. possessors when the question lies in construction of
Lourdes T. Sanson, petitioners armed with bolos the Amended the perimeter
respondents. and carrying suspected Commissioners fence sometime
  firearms and together with Report and in 1993 (Affidavit
The petition and its unidentified persons Sketch found on of
annexes disclose the numbering 120 - entered the pages 245 to 248 Gregorio Sanson,
following material disputed land by force and of the records and pp. 271-275,
antecedents: intimidation, without the the evidence the rec.).
  private respondents parties have  
The private permission and against the submitted. It is From the
respondents spouses objections of the private shown in the foregoing
Gregorio Sanson and Ma. respondents security men, Amended established facts,
Lourdes and built thereon a nipa and Commissioners it could be safely
T. Sanson (the private bamboo structure. Report and inferred that the
respondents), filed with the   Sketch that the plaintiffs were in
Fifth Municipal Circuit Trial In their land in question is actual physical
Court of Buruanga- Answer[4] dated 14 May 2006, enclosed by a possession of the
Malay, Aklan (the MCTC) a the petitioners denied the concrete and whole lot in
complaint[3] dated 24 April material allegations of the cyclone wire question since
2006 for forcible entry and complaint. They essentially perimeter fence in 1993 when it was
damages with a prayer for the claimed that: (1) they are the pink and green interrupted by the
issuance of a writ of actual and prior possessors of highlighter as defendants (sic)
preliminary mandatory the disputed land; (2) on the shown in the when on January
injunction against the contrary, the private Sketch Plan (p. 4, 2005 claiming
petitioners respondents are the intruders; 248). Said to (sic) the Heirs
Daniel Masangkay Tapuz, and (3) the private perimeter fence of
Aurora Tapuz-Madriaga, respondents certificate of title was constructed Antonio Tapuz en
Liberty M. to the disputed property is by the plaintiffs 14 tered a portion of
Asuncion, Ladylyn Bamos Ma spurious. They asked for the years ago. The the land in
driaga, Everly Tapuz Madriag dismissal of the complaint and foregoing findings question with
a, Excel Tapuz, interposed a counterclaim for of the view of inhabiting
Ivan Tapuz and damages. Commissioner in the same and
Marian Timbas (the petitioner   his report and building
s) and other John Does sketch structures therein

Human Rights Law (Writ of Habeas Data) Page 130 of 174

 prompting plaintiff 120 persons by prior to January 4, analogy the ruling
Gregorio Sanson  force and 2005, they were of the Honorable
to confront them intimidation already Supreme Court in
before BSPU, forcibly entered occupants of the the case of
Police Chief the premises property, being Molina, et al. vs.
Inspector Jack along the road indigenous De Bacud, 19
L. Wanky and Bar and built settlers of the SCRA 956, if the
angay Captain a nipa and same, under land were in the
Glenn Sacapao.  bamboo structure claim of possession of
As a result of their (Annex E, ownership by plaintiffs from
confrontation, the Complaint, p. 11) open continuous, 1993 to April 19,
parties signed an inside the lot in adverse 2006, defendants
Agreement question which possession to the claims to an older
(Annex D, incident was exclusion of other possession must
Complaint p. 20) promptly reported (sic). (Paragraph be rejected as
wherein they to the proper 4, Answer, p. 25). untenable
agreed to vacate authorities as   because
the disputed shown by The possession as a
portion of the land plaintiffs contention is fact cannot be
in question and Certification untenable. As recognized at the
agreed not to (Annex F, adverted earlier, same time in two
build any Complaint, p. 12) the land in different
structures of the entry in the question is personalities.
thereon. police blotter and enclosed by a  
  on same date perimeter fence Defendan
The April 19, 2006, constructed by ts likewise
foregoing is the the plaintiffs filed the plaintiffs contend that it
prevailing a complaint with sometime in 1993 was the plaintiffs
situation of the the Office of as noted by the who forcibly
parties after the the Lupong Taga Commissioner in entered the land
incident of pamayapa of Bar his Report and in question
January 4, 2005 angay Balabag, B reflected in his on April 18,
when the plaintiff oracay Island, Sketch, thus, it is 2006 at
posted security Malay, Aklan but safe to conclude about 3:00
guards, however, no settlement was that the plaintiffs oclock in the
sometime on or reached as where (sic) in afternoon as
about 6:30 A.M. shown in their actual physical shown in their
of April 19, 2006, Certificate to File possession of the Certification
the defendants Action (Annex G, land in question (Annex D,
some with bolos Complaint, p. 13); from 1993 up to Defendants
and one carrying hence the present April 19, 2006 Position Paper, p.
a sack suspected action. when they were 135, rec.).
to contain   ousted therefrom   
firearms with Defendan by the defendants The
other John Does ts (sic) contend in by means of contention is
numbering about their answer that force.Applying by untenable for

Human Rights Law (Writ of Habeas Data) Page 131 of 174

 being inconsistent armed men that these moved to reconsider the
with their threatened to structures are issuance of the writ; the
allegations made drive our said built and (sic) private respondents, on the
to the neighbors away situated outside other hand, filed a motion for
commissioner from their homes the premises of demolition.
who constituted but they refused the land in  
(sic) the land in to leave and question, The respondent
question that they resisted the accordingly, they Judge subsequently denied
built structures on intruding armed are irrelevant to the petitioners Motion for
the land in men. the instant case Reconsideration and to Defer
question only   and cannot be Enforcement of Preliminary
on April 19, From the considered as Mandatory Injunction in an
2006 (Par. D.4, foregoing, it could evidence of their Order dated 17 May 2007[8].
Commissioners be safely inferred actual possession  
Amended Report, that no incident of of the land in Meanwhile, the
pp. 246 to 247), forcible entry question prior to petitioners opposed the
after there (sic) happened April 19, 2006[6]. motion for demolition.[9] The
entry thereto on on April 18, The petitioners respondent Judge
even date. 2006 but it was appealed the MCTC decision nevertheless issued via a
  only on April 19, to the Regional Trial Court Special Order[10] a writ of
Likewise, 2006when the (RTC, Branch 6 demolition to be implemented
said contention is defendants of Kalibo, Aklan) then fifteen (15) days after the
contradicted by overpowered by presided over by Sheriffs written notice to the
the categorical their numbers the Judge Niovady M. Marin petitioners to voluntarily
statements of security guards (Judge Marin). demolish their house/s to
defendants posted by the   allow the private respondents
witnesses, plaintiffs prior to On appeal, Judge to effectively take actual
Rowena Onag, A the controversy. Marin granted the private possession of the land.
polsida Umambon   respondents motion for the  
g, Ariel Gac, Likewise, issuance of a writ of The petitioners
Darwin Alvarez defendants (sic) preliminary mandatory thereafter filed on 2 August
and Edgardo Pina alleged burnt and injunction through an Order 2007 with the Court of
randa, in their other structures dated 26 February 2007, with Appeals, Cebu City, a Petition
Joint Affidavit (pp. depicted in their the issuance conditioned on for Review[11] (under Rule 42
143- 144, rec.) pictures attached the private respondents of the 1997 Rules of Civil
[sic] categorically as annexes to posting of a bond. The Procedure) of the Permanent
stated that on or their position writ[7] authorizing the Mandatory Injunction and
about April 19, paper were not immediate implementation of Order of Demolition of the
2006, a group of noted and the MCTC decision was RTC of  Kalibo, Br. 6 in Civil
armed men reflected in the actually issued by respondent Case No. 7990.
entered the amended report Judge Elmo F. del Rosario  
property of our and sketch (the respondent Judge) on 12 Meanwhile,
said neighbors submitted by the March 2007 after the private respondent Sheriff Nelson
and built plastic Commissioner, respondents had complied R. dela Cruz issued the
roofed hence, it could be with the imposed Notice to Vacate and for
tents. These safely inferred condition. The petitioners

Human Rights Law (Writ of Habeas Data) Page 132 of 174

 Demolition on 19 March 2008. dispute]. They reducing them the private
[12]
were not in to ashes. [...] respondents Sans
  uniform. They onshave under
It was against this fired their   their employ
factual backdrop that the shotguns at the 32. These acts of armed men and
petitioners filed the present defendants. Later TERRORISM and they are
petition last 29 April the following day (heinous crime) influential with the
2008. The petition contains at 2:00 a.m. two of ARSON were police authorities
and prays for three remedies, houses of the reported by one owing to their
namely: a petition for certiorari defendants were of the HEIRS OF financial and
under Rule 65 of the Revised burned to ashes. ANTONIO political clout.
Rules of Court; the issuance TAPUZ [...]. The  
of a writ of habeas data under   35. The
terrorists trained
the Rule on the Writ of 30. These armed their shotguns actual prior
Habeas Data; and finally, the men [without and fired at occupancy, as
issuance of the writ uniforms] minors namely well as the
of amparo under the Rule on removed the IVAN GAJISAN ownership of the
the Writ of Amparo. barbed wire fence and MICHAEL lot in dispute by
  put up by MAGBANUA, defendants and
To support the defendants to who resisted the atrocities of
petition and the remedies protect their their the terrorists
prayed for, the petitioners property from intrusion.Their [introduced into
present factual positions intruders. Two of act is a blatant the property in
diametrically opposed to the armed men violation of the dispute by the
the MCTCsfindings and legal trained their law penalizing plaintiffs] are
reasons. Most importantly, the shotguns at the Acts of Violence attested by
petitioners maintain their defendants who against women witnesses who
claims of prior possession of resisted their and children, are persons not
the disputed land and intrusion. One of which is related to the
of intrusioninto this land by them aggravated by defendants are
the private respondents. The who was identifie the use of high- therefore
material factual allegations of d as SAMUEL powered disinterested
the petition bases as well of LONGNO y weapons. witnesses in the
the petition for the issuance of GEGANSO, 19 case namely:
the writ of amparo read: years old, single,   Rowena Onag, A
29. On April 29, and a resident polsida Umambon
2006 at [] g, Ariel Gac,
of Binun-an, Bata
about 9:20 d, Iloilo, fired Darwin Alvarez
 
a.m. armed twice. and Edgardo Pen
men sporting 34. That arada. Likewise,
12 gauge shot   the threats to the the affidavit
guns intruded life and security of of Nemia T.
into the property 31. The armed the poor indigent Carmen is
of the men torched two and unlettered submitted to
defendants [the houses of the petitioners prove that the
land in defendants continue because plaintiffs resorted

Human Rights Law (Writ of Habeas Data) Page 133 of 174

 to atrocious acts We conclude, based on the NOTICE TO VACATE AND FOR  
through hired outlined material antecedents that DEMOLITION not served to
men in their bid to led to the petition, that the petition counsel but to the petitioners who By the petitioners own
unjustly evict the for certiorari to nullify the assailed sent photo copy of the same admissions, they filed a petition
defendants.[13] RTC orders has been filed out of NOTICE to their counsel on April with the Court of Appeals
The petitioners posit as well that time. It is not lost on us that the 18, 2008 by LBC. To guard (docketed as CA G.R. SP No.
the MCTC has no jurisdiction over petitioners have a pending petition against any insidious argument 02859) for the review of the orders
the complaint for forcible entry with the Court of Appeals (the CA that the present petition is timely now also assailed in this petition,
that the private respondents filed petition) for the review of the filed because of this Notice to but brought the present recourse
below.Citing Section 33 of The same RTC orders now assailed in Vacate, we feel it best to declare to us, allegedly because the CA
Judiciary Reorganization Act of the present petition, although the now that the counting of the 60- did not act on the petition up to
1980, as amended by Republic petitioners never disclosed in the day reglementary period under this date and for the
Act No. 7691,[14] they maintain that body of the present petition the Rule 65 cannot start from the April petitioner (sic)  to seek relief in the
the forcible entry case in fact exact status of their pending CA 18, 2008 date cited by the CA would be a waste of time and
involves issues of title to or petition. The CA petition, however, petitioners counsel. The Notice to would render the case moot and
possession of real property or an was filed with the Court of Vacate and for Demolition is not academic since the CA refused to
interest therein, with the assessed Appeals on 2 August 2007, which an order that exists independently resolve pending urgent motions
value of the property involved indicates to us that the assailed from the RTC orders assailed in and the Sheriff is determined to
exceeding P20,000.00; thus, the orders (or at the very least, the this petition and in the previously enforce a writ of demolition
case should be originally latest of the interrelated assailed filed CA petition. It is merely a despite the defect of LACK OF
cognizable by the orders) were received on 1 notice, made in compliance with JURISDICTION.[18]
RTC. Accordingly, the petitioners August 2007 at the latest. The one of the assailed orders, and is  
reason out that the RTC - to present petition, on the other thus an administrative
where the MCTC decision was hand, was filed on April 29, enforcement medium that has no Interestingly, the petitioners
appealed equally has no 2008 or more than eight months life of its own separately from the counsel - while making this claim
jurisdiction to rule on the case on from the time the CA petition was assailed order on which it is in the body of the petition - at the
appeal and could not have validly filed. Thus, the present petition is based. It cannot therefore be the same time represented in his
issued the assailed orders. separated in point of time from the appropriate subject of an Certificate of Compliance[19] that:
assumed receipt of the assailed independent petition for certiorari
  RTC orders by at least eight (8) under Rule 65 in the context of x x x
OUR RULING months, i.e., beyond this case. The April 18, 2008 date
 
the reglementary period of sixty cannot likewise be the material
We find the petitions for (60) days[15] from receipt of the date for Rule 65 purposes as the (e) the petitioners
certiorari and issuance of a writ assailed order or orders or from above-mentioned Notice to went up to the
of habeas data fatally defective, notice of the denial of a Vacate is not even directly Court of Appeals
both in substance and in seasonably filed motion for assailed in this petition, as the to question the
form. The petition for the reconsideration. petitions Prayer patently shows.[17] WRIT OF
issuance of the writ of amparo, PRELIMINARY
on the other hand, is fatally    
INJUNCTION
defective with respect to We note in this regard that the Based on the same copy of the
content and substance. petitioners counsel stated in his material antecedents, we find too petition is
attached Certificate of Compliance that the petitioners have been attached (sic);
 
with Circular #1-88 of the guilty of willful and deliberate
 
The Petition for Certiorari Supreme Court[16] (Certificate of misrepresentation before this
Compliance) that in the meantime Court and, at the very least, of (f) the CA
the RTC and the Sheriff issued a forum shopping. initially issued a

Human Rights Law (Writ of Habeas Data) Page 134 of 174

 resolution that the CA did not act on the   In any event, we find the present
denying the petition up to this date  while petition for certiorari, on its face
PETITION stating the real Court of Appeals To restate the prevailing rules, and on the basis of the supporting
because it held action in the Certification of forum shopping is the institution of attachments, to be devoid of
that the ORDER Compliance -- the intent to hide two or more actions or merit. The MCTC correctly
TO VACATE the real state of the remedies the proceedings involving the same assumed jurisdiction over the
AND FOR petitioners sought below in order parties for the same cause of private respondents complaint,
DEMOLITION OF to mislead us into action on the action, either simultaneously or which specifically alleged a cause
THE HOMES OF RTC orders without frontally successively, on the supposition for forcible entry and not as
PETITIONERS is considering the action that the that one or the other court would petitioners may have misread
not capable of Court of Appeals had already make a favorable or misappreciated a case
being the undertaken. disposition.Forum shopping may involving title to or possession of
subject of a be resorted to by any party realty or an interest therein. Under
PETITION FOR   against whom an adverse Section 33, par. 2 of The Judiciary
RELIEF, copy of judgment or order has been Reorganization Act, as amended
At the very least, the petitioners issued in one forum, in an attempt
the resolution of are obviously seeking to obtain by Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7691,
the CA is to seek a favorable opinion in exclusive jurisdiction over forcible
from us, via the present petition, another, other than by appeal or a
attached the same relief that it could not entry and unlawful detainer cases
hereto; (undersco special civil action for lies with the Metropolitan Trial
wait for from the Court of Appeals certiorari. Forum shopping trifles
ring supplied) in CA-G.R. SP No. 02859. The Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and
with the courts, abuses their Municipal Circuit Trial
  petitioners act of seeking against processes, degrades the
the same parties the nullification Courts. These first-level courts
administration of justice and have had jurisdiction over these
(g) Petitioners of the same RTC orders before congest court dockets. Willful and
filed a motion for the appellate court and before cases
deliberate violation of the rule called accion interdictal even
reconsideration us at the same time,  although against it is a ground for summary
on August 7, made through different mediums before the R.A. 7691 amendment,
dismissal of the case; it may also based on the issue of
2007 but up to that are both improperly used, constitute direct contempt.[20]
this date the constitutes willful and deliberate pure physicalpossession (as
same had not forum shopping that can   opposed to the right of
been resolved sufficiently serve as basis for the possession). This jurisdiction is
copy of the MR is summary dismissal of the petition Additionally, the required regardless of the assessed value
attached (sic). under the combined application of verification and certification of of the property involved; the law
the fourth and penultimate non-forum shopping is defective established no distinctions based
  paragraphs of Section 3, Rule 46; as one (1) of the seven (7) on the assessed value of the
Section 5, Rule 7; Section 1, Rule petitioners - Ivan Tapuz- did not property forced into or unlawfully
x x x sign, in violation of Sections 4 and detained. Separately
65; and Rule 56, all of the Revised
Rules of Court. That a wrong 5 of Rule 7; Section 3, Rule 46; from accion  interdictalare accion 
 
remedy may have been used with Section 1, Rule 65; all in relation publiciana for the recovery of the
The difference between the above the Court of Appeals and possibly with Rule 56 of the Revised Rules right of possession as a plenary
representations on what with us will not save the petitioner of Court. Of those who signed, action,
transpired at the appellate court from a forum-shopping violation only five (5) exhibited their postal and accion  reivindicacion for the
level is replete with significance where there is identity of parties, identification cards with the Notary recovery of ownership.
[21]
regarding the petitioners involving the same assailed Public.  Apparently, these latter actions
intentions. We discern -- from the interlocutory orders, with the are the ones the petitioners refer
petitioners act of misrepresenting   to when they cite Section 33, par.
recourses existing side by side at
in the body of their petition the same time. 3, in relation with Section 19, par.

Human Rights Law (Writ of Habeas Data) Page 135 of 174

2 of The Judiciary Reorganization Rules. What it is not, is a writ to threatened with responsible for
Act of 1980, as amended by protect concerns that are purely violation by an the threat, act or
Republic Act No. 7691, in which property or commercial. Neither unlawful act or omission; and
jurisdiction may either be with the is it a writ that we shall issue on omission of the
first-level courts or the regional amorphous and uncertain respondent, and  
trial courts, depending on the grounds. Consequently, the Rule how such threat (f) The
assessed value of the realty on the Writ of Amparo in line with or violation is relief prayed for.
subject of the litigation. As the the extraordinary character of the committed with
complaint at the MCTC was writ and the reasonable certainty the attendant  
patently for forcible entry, that that its issuance demands circumstances
court committed no jurisdictional requires that every petition for the detailed in The
error correctible by certiorari issuance of the Pwrit must be supporting petition may
under the present petition. supported by justifying allegations affidavits; include a general
of fact, to wit: prayer for other
    just and
  equitable reliefs.
In sum, the petition for (d) The [22]
certiorari should be dismissed (a) The p investigation
for the cited formal ersonal conducted, if  
deficiencies, for violation of the circumstances of any, specifying
non-forum shopping rule, for the petitioner; the names, The writ shall issue if the Court is
having been filed out of time, personal preliminarily satisfied with
and for substantive   circumstances, the prima facie existence of the
deficiencies. and addresses ultimate facts determinable from
(b) The the supporting affidavits that detail
name and of the
  investigating the circumstances of how and to
personal what extent a threat to or violation
  circumstances of authority or
individuals, as of the rights to life, liberty and
the respondent security of the aggrieved party
The Writ of Amparo responsible for well as the
manner and was or is being committed.
  the threat, act or
omission, or, if conduct of the
The issuance of the writ
the name is investigation,
To start off with the of amparo in the present case is
unknown or together with
basics, the writ of amparo was anchored on the factual
uncertain, the any report;
originally conceived as a response allegations heretofore quoted,
to the extraordinary rise in the respondent may  
[23]
 that are essentially repeated in
number of killings and enforced be described by paragraph 54 of the
disappearances, and to the an assumed (e) The petition. These allegations are
perceived lack of available and appellation; actions and supported by the following
effective remedies to address recourses taken documents:
these extraordinary concerns. It is   by the petitioner
intended to address violations of to determine the (a) Joint Affidavit
(c) The dated 23 May
or threats to the rights to life, right to life, fate or
liberty or security, as an whereabouts of 2006 of Rowena
liberty and B. Onag, Apolsida 
extraordinary and independent security of the the aggrieved
remedy beyond those available party and the Umambong,
aggrieved party Ariel Gac, Darwin
under the prevailing Rules, or as a violated or identity of the
remedy supplemental to these person Alvarez

Human Rights Law (Writ of Habeas Data) Page 136 of 174

 and EdgardoPinar garding the and unsworn - is the overriding petitioners factual claims. These
anda, supporting incident of involvement of property issues as findings are significantly complete
the factual petitioners the petition traces its roots to and detailed, as they were made
positions of the intrusion into the questions of physical possession under a full-blown judicial process,
petitioners, id., disputed land; of the property disputed by the i.e., after examination and
petitioners prior private parties. If at all, issues evaluation of the contending
possession,   relating to the right to life or to parties positions, evidence and
private (e) Certification liberty can hardly be discerned arguments and based on the
respondents dated 27 April except to the extent that the report of a court-appointed
intrusion and the 2006 issued by occurrence of past violence has commissioner.
illegal acts Police Officer been alleged. The right to
committed by the security, on the other hand, is  
Allan R. Otis,
private narrating the alleged only to the extent of the We preliminarily examine these
respondents and altercation threats and harassments implied conflicting factual positions under
their security between from the presence of armed men the backdrop of a dispute (with
guards on 19 the Tapuz family bare to the waist and the alleged incidents giving rise to allegations
April 2006; and the security pointing and firing of of violence or threat thereof) that
guards of the weapons. Notably, none of the was brought to and ruled upon
(b) Unsubscribed supporting affidavits
Affidavit private by the MCTC; subsequently
respondents, compellingly show that the brought to the RTC  on an appeal
of Nemia Carmen threat to the rights to life,
y Tapuz, alleging including the gun- that is still pending; still much later
poking and liberty and security of the brought to the appellate
the illegal acts petitioners is imminent or is
(firing of guns, shooting incident court without conclusive results;
involving one of continuing. and then brought to us on
etc.) committed
by a security the security   interlocutory incidents involving a
guard against guards; plea for the issuance of the writ
minors A closer look at the statements of amparo that, if decided as the
  shows that at least two of them petitioners advocate, may render
descendants of
Antonio Tapuz; (f) Certification issued by the statements the pending RTC appeal moot.
Police Officer of Nemia Carreon y Tapuz and
  Melanie Tapuz are practically  
Christopher R.
Mendoza, identical and unsworn. The Under these legal and factual
(c) Unsubscribed Certification by Police Officer
Affidavit of narrating that a situations, we are far from
house owned Jackson Jauod, on the other satisfied with the prima
Melanie Tapuz y  hand, simply narrates what had
Samindao, by Josiel Tapuz, facie existence of the ultimate
Jr., rented by a been reported by one facts that would justify the
essentially Danny Tapuz y Masangkay, and
corroborating Ne certain issuance of a writ
Jorge Buenavent even mentions that the burning of of amparo. Rather than acts of
mias affidavit; two residential houses was
e, terrorism that pose a continuing
  was accidentally accidental. threat to the persons  of the
burned by a fire.   petitioners, the violent incidents
(d) Certification alleged appear to us to be
dated 23 April   As against these allegations are purely property-related and
2006 issued by the cited MCTC factual findings in focused on the disputed
Police Officer On the whole, what is clear from
these statements - both sworn its decision in the forcible entry land. Thus, if the petitioners wish
Jackson Jauod re case which rejected all the to seek redress and hold the

Human Rights Law (Writ of Habeas Data) Page 137 of 174

alleged perpetrators criminally sure, when recourses in the is intended to protect - is secure the data
accountable, the remedy may lie ordinary course of law fail immediately in danger or or information;
more in the realm of ordinary because of deficient legal threatened, or that the danger or
criminal prosecution rather than representation or the use of threat is continuing. We see no
on the use of the extraordinary improper remedial measures, legal bar, however, to an (d) The location
remedy of the writ of amparo. neither the writ of certiorarinor that application for the issuance of the of the files,
of amparo - extraordinary though writ, in a proper case, by motion in registers or
  they may be - will suffice to serve a pending case on appeal or on databases, the
as a curative substitute. The writ certiorari, applying by analogy the government
Nor do we believe it appropriate at office, and the
this time to disturb the MCTC of amparo, particularly, should not provisions on the co-existence of
issue when applied for as a the writ with a separately filed person in
findings, as our action may carry charge, in
the unintended effect, not only of substitute for the appeal or criminal case.
certiorari process, or when it will possession or in
reversing the MCTC ruling   control of the
independently of the appeal to the inordinately interfere with these
processes the situation obtaining data or
RTC that is now in place, but also The Writ of Habeas Data information, if
of nullifying the ongoing appeal in the present case.
  known;
process. Such effect, though  
unintended, will obviously wreak Section 6 of the Rule on
havoc on the orderly While we say all these, we note the Writ of Habeas Data requires (e)
administration of justice, an too that the Rule on the Writ the following material allegations The reliefs  praye
overriding goal that the Rule on of Amparo provides for rules on of ultimate facts in a petition for d for, which may
the Writ of Amparo does not the institution of separate actions, the issuance of a writ of habeas include the
intend to weaken or negate. [24]
 for the effect of earlier-filed data: updating,
criminal actions,[25] and for the   rectification,
Separately from these consolidation of petitions for the suppression or
considerations, we cannot fail but issuance of a writ of amparo with (a) The personal destruction of the
consider too at this point the a subsequently filed criminal and circumstances of database or
indicators, clear and patent to us, civil action.[26] These rules were the petitioner and information or
that the petitioners present adopted to promote an orderly the respondent; files kept by the
recourse via the remedy of the procedure for dealing with respondent.
writ of amparo is a mere petitions for the issuance of the (b) The manner
subterfuge to negate the assailed writ of amparo when the parties the right to  
orders that the petitioners sought resort to other parallel recourses. privacy is
and failed to nullify before the In case of threats,
violated or the relief may
appellate court because of the use Where, as in this case, there is an threatened and
of an improper remedial ongoing civil process dealing include a prayer
how it affects for an order
measure. We discern this from the directly with the right to life,
petitioners misrepresentations the possessory dispute and the enjoining the act
liberty or complained of;
pointed out above; from their reported acts of violence and security of the
obvious act of forum shopping; harassment, we see no point in and
aggrieved party;
and from the recourse itself to the separately and directly intervening  
extraordinary remedies of the through a writ of amparo in the
writs of certiorari absence of any clear prima (c) The actions (f) Such other
and amparo based on grounds facie showing that the right to life, and recourses relevant reliefs as are just and
that are far from forthright and liberty or security taken by the equitable.
sufficiently compelling. To be the personal concern that the writ petitioner to
 

Human Rights Law (Writ of Habeas Data) Page 138 of 174

 Support for the habeas and likewise the substance patent from its
data aspect of the present petition investigation body and attachments.
only alleges that: report if an  
investigation was SO ORDERED.
  conducted by the
1. [ ] PNP.
Similarly, a  
petition for a
WRIT OF These allegations
HABEAS DATA is obviously lack what the Rule on
prayed for so that Writ of Habeas Data requires as a
the PNP may minimum, thus rendering the
release the report petition fatally
on the burning of deficient. Specifically, we see no
the homes of the concrete allegations of unjustified
petitioners and or unlawful violation of the right to
the acts of privacy related to the right to life,
violence liberty or security. The petition
employed against likewise has not alleged, much
them by the less demonstrated, any need for
private information under the control of
respondents, police authorities other than those
furnishing the it has already set forth as integral
Court and the annexes. The necessity or
petitioners with justification for the issuance of the
copy of the same; writ, based on the insufficiency of
previous efforts made to secure
  information, has not also been
[] shown. In sum, the prayer for the
issuance of a writ of habeas data
  is nothing more than the fishing
expedition that this Court - in the
66. course of drafting the Rule on
Petitioners apply habeas data - had in mind in
for a WRIT OF defining what the purpose of a
HABEAS DATA writ of habeas data is not. In these
commanding the lights, the outright denial of the
Philippine petition for the issuance of the writ
National Police of habeas data is fully in order.
[PNP] to produce
the police report  
pertaining to the WHEREFORE,
burning of the premises considered, we
houses of the hereby DISMISS the present
petitioners in the petition OUTRIGHT for
land in dispute deficiencies of form and

Human Rights Law (Writ of Habeas Data) Page 139 of 174

 x-------------------------------------------- an imputation of individual liability,
[3] IN THE MATTER OF THE --------------------------------------------- it is more aptly invoked in a full-
PETITION FOR THE WRIT ------ x blown criminal or administrative case
EN BANC OF AMPARO AND THE WRIT DECISION rather than in a summary amparo
OF HABEAS DATA IN FAVOR OF Writ of Amparo; Doctrine of proceeding. The obvious reason lies
MELISSA C. ROXAS, Command Responsibility; The in the nature of the writ itself:  The
  doctrine of command responsibility is writ of amparo is a protective remedy
  a rule of substantive law that aimed at providing judicial relief
  establishes liability and by this consisting of the appropriate remedial
MELISSA C. ROXAS, account, cannot be a proper legal measures and directives that may be
Petitioner, basis to implead a party-respondent crafted by the court, in order to
  in an amparo petition; The doctrine address specific violations or threats
  is used to pinpoint liability.—It must of violation of the constitutional
  be stated at the outset that the use by rights to life, liberty or security.
  the petitioner of the doctrine of While the principal objective of its
-versus- command responsibility as the proceedings is the initial
  justification in impleading the public determination of whether an enforced
  respondents in her amparo petition, is disappearance, extralegal killing or
  legally inaccurate, if not incorrect. threats thereof had transpired—the
  The doctrine of command writ does not, by so doing, fix
GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, responsibility is a rule of substantive liability for such disappearance,
GILBERT TEODORO, GEN. law that establishes liability and, by killing or threats, whether that may be
VICTOR S. IBRADO, P/DIR. GEN. this account, cannot be a proper legal criminal, civil or administrative under
JESUS AME VERZOSA, LT. GEN. basis to implead a party-respondent in the applicable substantive law.
DELFIN N. BANGIT, PC/SUPT. an amparo petition. The case of Rub
LEON NILO A. DELA CRUZ, MAJ. rico v. Arroyo (613 SCRA 233 Same; Same; The inapplicability of
GEN. RALPH VILLANUEVA, [2010]), which was the first to the doctrine of command
PS/SUPT. RUDY GAMIDO examine command responsibility in responsibility in an amparo
LACADIN, AND CERTAIN the context of an amparo proceeding, proceeding does not, by any measure,
PERSONS WHO GO BY THE observed that the doctrine is used to preclude impleading military or
NAME[S] DEX, RC AND ROSE, pinpoint liability. police commanders on the ground
Respondents. that the complained acts in the
  Same; Same; The doctrine is more petition were committed with their
aptly invoked in a fullblown criminal direct or indirect acquiescence;
or administrative case rather than in Commanders may be impleaded—
a summary amparo proceeding; The not actually on the basis of command
writ of amparo is a protective remedy responsibility—but rather on the
aimed at providing judicial relief ground of their responsibility, or at
consisting of the appropriate least accountability.—It must be
remedial measures and directives clarified, however, that the
that may be crafted by the court, in inapplicability of the doctrine of
order to address specific violations command responsibility in an amparo
or threats of violation of the proceeding does not, by any measure,
constitutional rights to life, liberty or preclude impleading military or
security.—Since the application of police commanders on the ground
command responsibility presupposes that the complained acts in the

Human Rights Law (Writ of Habeas Data) Page 140 of 174

petition were committed with their could otherwise clearly and directly Same; Same; Inspection Order; An The writ operates to protect a
direct or indirect acquiescence. In ascertain. inspection order is an interim relief person’s right to control information
which case, commanders may be designed to give support or regarding himself, particularly in the
impleaded—not actually on the basis Same; Same; An order directing the strengthen the claim of a petitioner in instances where such information is
of command responsibility—but public respondents to return the an amparo petition, in order to aid being collected through unlawful
rather on the ground of their personal belongings of the petitioner the court before making a decision.— means in order to achieve unlawful
responsibility, or at least is already equivalent to a conclusive An inspection order is an interim ends.—The writ of habeas data was
accountability. In Razon v. Tagitis pronouncement of liability.—To the relief designed to give support or conceptualized as a judicial remedy
(606 SCRA 598 [2009]), the distinct, mind of this Court, the prayer of the strengthen the claim of a petitioner in enforcing the right to privacy, most
but interrelated concepts of petitioner for the return of her an amparo petition, in order to aid the especially the right to informational
responsibility and accountability were belongings is doomed to fail court before making a decision. A privacy of individuals. The writ
given special and unique regardless of whether there is basic requirement before an amparo operates to protect a person’s right to
significations in relation to an amparo sufficient evidence to hold public court may grant an inspection order is control information regarding
proceeding. respondents responsible for the that the place to be inspected is himself, particularly in the instances
abduction of the petitioner. In the first reasonably determinable from the where such information is being
 Same; Same; In Amparo place, an order directing the public allegations of the party seeking the collected through unlawful means in
proceedings, the weight that may be respondents to return the personal order. While the Amparo Rule does order to achieve unlawful ends.
accorded to parallel circumstances belongings of the petitioner is already not require that the place to be Needless to state, an indispensable
as evidence of military involvement equivalent to a conclusive inspected be identified with clarity requirement before the privilege of
depends largely on the availability or pronouncement of liability. The order and precision, it is, nevertheless, a the writ may be extended is the
non-availability of other pieces of itself is a substantial relief that can minimum for the issuance of an showing, at least by substantial
evidence that has the potential of only be granted once the liability of inspection order that the supporting evidence, of an actual or threatened
directly proving the identity and the public respondents has been fixed allegations of a party be sufficient in violation of the right to privacy in
affiliation of the perpetrators; Direct in a full and exhaustive proceeding. itself, so as to make a prima facie life, liberty or security of the victim.
evidence of identity when obtainable As already discussed above, matters case. This, as was shown above, This, in the case at bench, the
must be preferred over mere of liability are not determinable in a petitioner failed to do. petitioner failed to do.
circumstantial evidence based on mere summary amparo proceeding.  
patterns and similarity.—In Amparo Same; Same; Same; An inspection PEREZ, J.:
proceedings, the weight that may be Same; Same; Section 1 of the Amparo order cannot issue on the basis of  
accorded to parallel circumstances as Rule, which defines the scope and allegations that are, in themselves,  
evidence of military involvement extent of the writ, clearly excludes the unreliable and doubtful.—Since the At bench is a Petition For Review
depends largely on the availability or protection of property rights.—But very estimates and observations of on Certiorari[1] assailing the
non-availability of other pieces of perhaps the more fundamental the petitioner are not strong enough to Decision[2] dated 26 August 2009
evidence that has the potential of reason in denying the prayer of the make out a prima facie case that she of the Court of Appeals in CA-
directly proving the identity and petitioner, lies with the fact that a was detained in Fort Magsaysay, an G.R. SP No. 00036-WRA a
affiliation of the perpetrators. Direct person’s right to be restituted of his inspection of the military camp petition that was commenced
evidence of identity, when obtainable, property is already subsumed under cannot be ordered. An inspection jointly under the Rules on the Writ
must be preferred over mere the general rubric of property rights order cannot issue on the basis of of Amparo (Amparo Rule)
circumstantial evidence based on —which are no longer protected by allegations that are, in themselves, and Habeas Data (Habeas
patterns and similarity, because the the writ of amparo. Section 1 of the unreliable and doubtful. Data Rule). In its decision, the
former indubitably offers greater Amparo Rule, which defines the Court of Appeals extended to the
certainty as to the true identity and scope and extent of the writ, clearly Writ of Habeas Data; The writ of petitioner, Melissa C. Roxas, the
affiliation of the perpetrators. An excludes the protection of property habeas data was conceptualized as a privilege of the writs
amparo court cannot simply leave to rights. judicial remedy enforcing the right to of amparo and habeas data but
remote and hazy inference what it privacy, most especially the right to denied the latters prayers for an
informational privacy of individuals. inspection order, production order

Human Rights Law (Writ of Habeas Data) Page 141 of 174

and return of specified personal merit. Although [5] RESOLUT
belongings. The fallo of the there is no Republic of the Philippines
decision reads: evidence that
  Respondents are Supreme Court Judges; Writ of Amparo; Had the respondent
WHEREF responsible for Manila Writ of Amparo more closely, he would have
ORE, the Petition the abduction, only applies to “extralegal killings and enfor
is PARTIALLY detention or   not to concerns that are purely property and
MERITORIOUS.  torture of the   the complainant that the respondent judge e
This Court hereby Petitioner, said THIRD Tanmalack’s favor. Had he read Section 1 o
grants Petitioner Respondents DIVISION closely, the respondent judge would have re
the privilege of pursuant to their  
only applies to “extralegal killings and enfo
the Writ of legally mandated
Amparo and duties are,   The present case involves concerns that are p
Habeas Data. nonetheless, —concerns that we have previously ruled are n
RUBEN N. SALCEDO,
  ordered to
Complainant, Same; Administrative Complaints; Only judic
According continue/complet
gross ignorance, bad faith, or deliberate
ly, Respondents e the investigation
are enjoined to of this incident administratively sanctioned—errors committ
refrain from with the end in adjudicative functions cannot be corrected
distributing or view of should instead be assailed through judicia
  respondent judge pertain to the exercise of h
causing the prosecuting those
distribution to the who are   policy, in the absence of fraud, dishonesty, a
public of any responsible. Resp official capacity are not subject to disciplin
records in ondents are also   liability—civil, criminal, or administrative—f
whatever form, ordered to erroneous, as long as he acts in good faith.
reports, provide protection  
dishonesty, gross ignorance, bad faith, or de
documents or to the Petitioner -       versus - administratively sanctioned. Settled is the rule
similar papers and her family
exercise of his adjudicative functions cann
relative to while in the  
proceedings, but should instead be assailed thr
Petitioners Philippines
Melissa C. Roxas, against any and  
Same; Same; Disciplinary proceedings agains
and/or Melissa all forms of or substitute judicial remedies, whether ord
 
Roxas; alleged harassment,
their administrative liability arising from jud
ties to the CPP- intimidation and  
NPA or coercion as may available remedies have been settled.—The
pertinently related be relevant to the JUDGE GIL G. BOLLOZOS, Amparo cannot be raised as an issue in the
to the complained grant of these recourse for the complainant should have
Respondent. judgment or order of the respondent judge, to
incident. Petitione reliefs.[3]
rs prayers for an   Court, pursuant to Section 19 of the Rule on
inspection order, 412 SCRA 573 (2003), we reiterated that di
production order x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
not complement, supplement, or substitute
and for the return   extraordinary; an inquiry into their administ
of the specified may be made only after other available remedi
personal
belongings are Same; Disqualification and Inhibition of Judg
denied for lack of respondent judge and a lawyer of a party are

Human Rights Law (Writ of Habeas Data) Page 142 of 174

 not justify or prove that the former acted withlegal bias principles
and partiality— and be aware of well-settled  authoritative doctrines. He owes to the  
can never be presumed and must be provedpublic with andcleartoand this convincing
Court the duty evidence;
to be proficient in the law. He is expected to keep
The complaint arose from a  
Likewise, bad faith or malice cannot be inferred abreastsimply
of lawsbecause
and prevailing
the judgment
jurisprudence.
is Judges must not only render just, correct,
verified handwritten petition for the
adverse to a party.—We note, too, that although andtheimpartial
respondent decisions,
judge resolutions,
erred in issuingand orders, but must do so in a manner free of any The complainant forthwith
Writ of Habeas Corpus and the
the Writ of Amparo, we find, as the OCA did, suspicion
that there as is to
notheir
evidence
fairness,
on record
impartiality,
that andWrit integrity, for good judges
of Amparo (the are men
petition) filedwho reported the incident to the nearby
supports the complainant’s allegation that the issuance
have mastery was tainted
of the withprinciples
manifestof law
biasand who discharge their duties
by Jose Tanmalack, Jr. against in accordance police station. The police promptly
and partiality, bad faith, or gross ignorance ofwith the law.
law.We Thementioned
fact that the all these
respondent
to emphasize theto the respondent
Police judge of
Officers the need
Policeto be responded and arrested
judge and Atty. Francis Ku are members of the more
Masonic
judicious fraternity
and circumspect
does not justify
in theorissuance of extraordinary
Precinct writs such
No. 3, Agora, as the Writ
Lapasan, Tanmalack and brought him in for
prove that the former acted with bias and partiality.
of Amparo. Bias and partiality can never be Cagayan de Oro City, and questioning. That same afternoon
presumed and must be proved with clear and convincing evidence. While palpable Inspector Wylen Rojo. The at around 4:45 p.m., Tanmalack,
Same; Administrative represented by his sister, Jocelyn
error may be inferred from respondent judge’s issuance of the Writ ofComplaints;
Amparo, there Whenis the complainant
complainant reliesallegedon mere
that he conjectures
is a
and suppositions, and fails to substantiate his claim,
co-owner the administrative
of a parcel complaint
of landmust Tanmalack Tan, filed the
no evidence on record that would justify a finding of partiality or bias. The
be dismissed for lack of merit.—We also reiterate that
(disputed in an administrative
property) coveredproceeding,
by petition[1] on his behalf while
complainant’s allegation of partiality will not suffice in the absence of a clear and Tanmalack was detained by the
convincing proof that will overcome the presumptionthe complainant that the has respondent
the burden judge of proving Original Certificateinofthe
the allegations Title No. O- by
complaint
substantial evidence. We cannot give credence740 to and registered
charges based oninmere
the name of or
suspicion police for employing self-help in
dispensed justice according to law and evidence, without fear or favor. Likewise, bad preventing squatters from putting
speculation. Hence, when the complainant Patricio
relies on mere Salcedo. The
conjectures and disputed
suppositions,
faith or malice cannot be inferred simply because the judgment is adverse to a party. up improvements in their titled
and fails to substantiate property is about 126,112 square
To hold a judge administratively accountable simply because he erred his claim,
in his as in this case,
judgment the administrative
meters wide and is situated in
complaint must be
property.
dismissed for lack of merit.
has never been the intent of the law; reasonable competence and good faith judgments,  
Lapasan, Cagayan de Oro City.  
not complete infallibility, are what the law requires.
  Clerk of Court Atty. Herlie Luis-
BRION, J.:
Same; Gross Ignorance of the Law; A patent disregard of simple, elementary and well-
Requerme narrated the
known rules constitutes gross ignorance of the  law.— On January 23, 2008 at circumstances surrounding the
case is the complainant’s charge of gross ignorance of the law against the respondent around 2:30 p.m., while the filing of the petition and how it
judge. A patent disregard of simple, elementary and well-known   rules constitutes gross complainant (together with his came to be referred to the
ignorance of the law. Judges are expected to exhibit more than just cursory niece Rebecca R. Lumbay and his respondent judges sala, as
We pass upon the verified Letter-
acquaintance with laws and procedural rules.Complaint,
They must know nephew Alan Jose P. Roa) was
datedthe Augustlaw and apply 29, it follows:
properly in good faith. They are likewise 2008, expected to by
keep abreast supervising an on-going
filed Ruben N. ofSalcedo
prevailing
jurisprudence. For, a judge who is plainly ignorant of the law taints theJudgenoble Gil
office construction over the disputed  
(complainant), charging
property, Tanmalack and heavily
and great privilege vested in him. We find that G. the respondent
Bollozos judge’s error
(respondent does not
judge), 1.                  In
armed men arrived and forced
rise to the level of gross ignorance of the law Presiding
that is defined Judge, Regional Trial
by jurisprudence. We take themselves inside the fenced the late afternoon
Court,theBranch
judicial notice of the fact that at the time he issued 21, Cagayan
Writ of Amparo on January de 23, of January 23,
premises of the disputed
2008, the Rule on the Writ of Amparo has been Oroeffective
City, with Gravethree
for barely Misconduct
months (The 2008, a query
property. The complainant averred
Rule on the Writ of Amparo became effectiveand Ignorance
on October 24, of the At
2007). Lawthatintime,
the the
that Tanmalack and his was received by
respondent judge cannot be said to have been handling
fully educated of SPEC.
and informed PROC. on theNo.novel companions harassed and the Office
aspects of the Writ of Amparo. Simply stated,2008-009, entitled Jose regarding the
the Rule on the Writ of Amparo at that threatened to kill and to harm him
Tanmalack, Jr., represented by procedure in filing
time cannot be said to be a simple, elementary, and well-known rule that its patent and his workers; that Tanmalack
Jocelyn Tanmalack Tan v. Police a petition for a
disregard would constitute gross ignorance of Officers
the law. of Police Precinct No. 3, uttered defamatory statements
and accused him of land- Writ of
Same; Same; Under Canon 1.01 of the Code of Agora,
Judicial Lapasan,
Conduct,Cagayana judge must De Oro
be “the Amparo. We gave
grabbing; and that Tanmalack and
City, and Insp. Wylen Rojo. the information
embodiment of competence, integrity and independence.”— his companions occupied the
however, to remind the respondent judge that under Canon 1.01  of the Code of Judicial property and destroyed building that the
materials such as G.I. sheets, established
Conduct, a judge must be “the embodiment of competence, integrity and
THE FACTUAL procedure is to
independence.” A judge is called upon to exhibit more than just aBACKGROUND
cursory acquaintance lumber and other construction
materials. assign cases to
with statutes and procedural rules; it is imperative that he be conversant with basic

Human Rights Law (Writ of Habeas Data) Page 143 of 174

 the different 3.                  That the Administrative insisting to refer
branches by I clarified from Officer Mary Lyn the case
raffling or in Judge Lucagbo Charisse immediately to a
urgent cases, by the procedure to Lagamon; judge since it is
a special raffle be adopted under already 5:00 P.M.
upon proper the Rule on the 7.                  That and considering
motions. But Writ of Amparo thinking I was no the novelty,
since the office (A.M. No. 07-9- longer around as urgency and
has not received 12-SC); the personnel to importance of the
any case of that whom I left the case, and fearing
nature yet, and as 4.                  That information that I that no judge will
the schedule of the issue if any was going to the be left to act on
raffling will still be judge can sala of 1st Vice the petition if they
in the afternoon of immediately act Executive Judge still discuss what
the next day, it on the petition Nery was not able to do, Mr.
will be referred to was not clearly to inform the Exclamador, with
the Executive stated in the Rule Admin. Officer of the concurrence
Judge for but if the case will my whereabouts, of Admin. Officer
instruction and or be referred to her Mr. Exclamador Lagamon,
appropriate as the 2nd Vice was instructed by referred the case
action; Executive Judge, her to refer the to you since your
she will be willing case to you sala was the
2.                  That to look at the [referring to the nearest to our
since the petition; respondent office, it being
Executive Judge judge]; adjacent to your
was on leave, I 5.                  That
when I went back 8.                  That court;
went to consult
the 1st Vice at the Office at a upon learning of 10.              That
Executive Judge little past 5:00 the fact, I there is nobody
Evelyn Gamotin P.M. already, immediately from this Office
Nery. Since direct from the called Mr. who brought the
Judge Nery was chamber of Judge Exclamador and handwritten
busy at that time, Lucagbo, I found Ms. Lagamon to petition to Judge
I went to see out that a Petition explain why they Lucagbo nor was
2nd Vice Executive for Writ of referred the case there any
Judge Ma. Anita Amparo was filed to your sala instruction from
Esguerra- at around 4:45 without any her to any of the
Lucagbo; P.M. as stamped instruction from personnel to have
in the petition; me; the petition
6.                  That 9.                  That conform to a form
since I was out of they said that acceptable to the
the office, the they are of the court, such fact
Docket Clerk in honest belief that was confirmed by
charge, Mr. Rudy I was no longer Judge Lucagbo;
Exclamador, refer around; that the 11.              That
red the case to lawyer was the office only

Human Rights Law (Writ of Habeas Data) Page 144 of 174

 acted what it   partiality, nor writ and the
deemed best did he said Sec. 3
under the In his complaint, the complainant consider that further states
circumstances questions the issuance of the Writ the petitioners that it can be
and was not of Amparo which he claims had counsel is a filed on any
motivated by any been unusually issued with fraternal day and at
ill motive or haste. The complainant claims brother any time;
malice.[2] that the handwritten petition did (Mason);
not give any ground to warrant the  
  issuance of the Writ of Amparo;  
that the respondent judge acted (d)   [T]he person
  with grave abuse of discretion, (b)   [A]lthough who filed the
bias, and obvious partiality, and in the petition is petition is the
Based on the petition and for the sister of Mr.
answers to the clarificatory grave disregard of the Rules and
the rule of law when he acted issuance of Tanmalack
questions propounded to both writ of who was
Tanmalacks representative and upon and granted the letter-
petition for the issuance of the amparo and detained at
counsel, the respondent judge writ of habeas the Agora
immediately issued a Writ Writ of Amparo. The complainant
also alleges that the respondent corpus, he Police
of Amparo dated January 23, deemed it Station,
2008,  directing the police officers judge accommodated the
issuance of the Writ more in Cagayan de
of Agora Police Station 3 or Insp. consonance Oro City; that
Wylen Rojo x x x to release of Amparo because he and Atty.
Francis Ku (Tanmalacks counsel) with the [Rule the issuance
immediately upon receipt of [the] on the Writ of of the writ
writ but not later than 6:00 P.M. are members of the Masonic
fraternity. Amparo]; was a matter
today, petitioner Jose Tanmalack, of great
Jr., to the custody of Atty. Francis     urgency
V. Ku. The respondent judge also because the
directed the police officers to file The respondent judge (c)    [I]t was not
improper alleged illegal
their verified return to the petition filed his Comment dated March deprivation of
within five (5) working days, 30, 2009, in compliance with the even if the x x
x petition was liberty was
together with supporting affidavits, directive of the Office of the Court made in the
in conformity with Section 9 of the Administrator (OCA). In his not raffled,
and was late afternoon
Rule on the Writ of Amparo. defense, he alleged: of January
immediately
    assigned to 23, 2008,
his sala by which was a
  (a)    [W]hen he the Office of Friday, and
received the the Clerk of that if the
Around 5:30 p.m., the Writ petition from Court would
of Amparo was served upon Court, since
the Office of Par. 2, Sec. 3 not act on the
SPO3 Aener O. Adajar, PNP the Clerk of petition, the
Chief Investigator. At six oclock in of A.M. No.
Court, he had 07-9-12-SC detainee
the evening of that same day, the no option but would
police released Tanmalack to the states that
to exercise any judge of a certainly
custody of Atty. Francis Ku. his judicial spend the
Regional Trial
duty without Court (RTC) night in jail;
 
any bias or can issue a

Human Rights Law (Writ of Habeas Data) Page 145 of 174

  (f)     [A]lthough wanted to afternoon
the Amparo fence the of
(e)    [T]he rules area and January
petition, mandate that put up 23, 2008
although in a judge shall improvem in order
handwritten immediately ents by to air his
form, is not order the constructi complaint
improper issuance of ng , the
because the writ if on shanties intruders
Section 5 of its face it thereon; came and
the SC ought to introduce
Circular (on issue, he   d
the Writ of propounded themselv
Amparo) only 2)      That
clarificatory when es as the
requires that questions on owners of
the same be petitioner
the petitioners Mr. the
signed and representativ property;
verified; that Tanmalac
e and their k
he found the counsel, thus,  
petition prevented
the following the 4)      That
sufficient in information
form and in intrusion when
were elicited: it resulted Police
substance;
  to heated Officer
  argument Rojo
1)      That the s and (Rojo)
property altercatio heard the
of ns which version of
petitioner prompted these
s family, him to go intruders
which is to the and
under police despite
their station to the
possessio report the protestati
n and incident ons of
Tanmalac and be petitioner
k blottered; and his
registered relatives,
under   the police
TCT No. 3)      That did not
T- when Mr. anymore
1627491, Tanmalac allow Mr.
was k arrived Tanmalac
intruded at the k to leave
by some police the police
persons station in station;
who the late and,

Human Rights Law (Writ of Habeas Data) Page 146 of 174

  directed to file a property; the have arrived into an
verified return conflict agreement that the
5)      That pursuant to the rules; between the writ be considered
petitioner during the summary petitioner and permanent.]
s counsel hearing of the petition the other
called up on 25 January 2008, it persons is on  
Rojo to was only Rojo who a property
secure  
appeared, the alleged dispute, of
the complainants which it was  
immediat (Salcedo, Lumbay petitioner who
e release and Roa) who caused is in THE REPORT OF THE
of his the detention of the possession; OCA
client petitioner were and
from  
absent; P/Insp. Rojo,
police when asked by the  
 
custody Court, gave the
but to no 3)      That he
following answers: The OCA informed the
avail; denied that
Court that the case was already
  he had
ripe for resolution in a Report
  arrested the
dated April 8, 2010, signed by
1)      That he petitioner and
(g)    [A]fter he Court Administrator Jose Midas P.
would no neither did he
assiduously evaluated Marquez and Deputy Court
longer file his detain him but
the aforestated facts, Administrator Raul Bautista
Answer only he could
as well as the Villanueva. The Report likewise
(which should not release
allegations in the presented a brief factual
be a verified the petitioner
petition, respondent background of the case.
return) on the because of
Judge, in the exercise complaint the complaint  
of his judicial function, considering and for further
found that the same that the evaluation. The OCA recommended that the
warranted the petitioner was administrative complaint against
issuance of the writ; already   the respondent judge be
the arrest of Mr. released; dismissed for lack of merit. The
Tanmalack was (i)      [H]e noted that the
recommendation was based on an
unlawful because   police blotter did not
evaluation which reads:
Rojo was not present state that petitioner
in the area where the 2)      That he brought heavily armed  
alleged incident confirmed men with him when
that it was the he allegedly harassed EVALUA
happened, so that the
petitioner who the complainant. TION: The
statements of the
came first to complaint is
complainants  
the police bereft of merit.
(Salcedo, Lumbay
and Roa) would be station to [(j) That in the summary  
hearsay; complain, hearing on January
followed by 25, 2008, the The
(h)    [I]n the Writ of the person petitioner as well as petition for a writ
Amparo the who wanted the respondent Rojo of amparo is a
respondents were to fence the

Human Rights Law (Writ of Habeas Data) Page 147 of 174

 remedy available Amparo (SC A.M. Judges act was We concur with the
to any person No. 07-9-12- tainted with grave OCAs recommendation that the 
whose right to life, SC). Also, the abuse of administrative complaint
liberty and petition was discretion and against the respondent judge
security is properly filed with authority, bias be dismissed for lack of merit.
violated or the Regional Trial and partiality, and
threatened with Court where the grave disregard of  
violation by an act or omission the rules,  
unlawful act or was committed or deserves scant
omission of a where any of its consideration. At the outset, we agree
public official or elements with the complainant that the
employee, as in occurred.   respondent judge erred in issuing
the instant case, This the Writ of Amparo in Tanmalacks
or of a private   favor. Had he read Section 1 of
Office agrees with
individual or Respond respondent the Rule on the Writ
entity. Whereas in ent Judge, in Judges of Amparo more closely, the
other jurisdictions whose sala the observation that respondent judge would have
the writ covers said petition was Rojos declaration realized that the writ, in its present
only actual assigned is not anymore to form, only applies to extralegal
violations, the deemed to have contest the killings and enforced
Philippine version complied with his petition and that disappearances or threats thereof.
is more protective oath and judicial he (Rojo) did not
[3]
 The present case involves
of the right to life, duty when he arrest nor detain concerns that are purely property
liberty and ordered the petitioner, but and commercial in nature
security because issuance of the admitted that he concerns that we have previously
it covers both writ of amparo could not release ruled are not covered by the Writ
actual upon the latter for of Amparo.[4] In Tapuz v. Del
and threatened vi determination that further evaluation Rosario,[5] we held:
olations of such the right to liberty because of the
rights. of Mr. Tanmalack complaint is an To start
was being admission that he off with the
 
violated or deprived [or basics, the writ of
Nowhere threatened to be threatened to amparo was
in the records of violated. These is deprive] Jose [Dy originally
the instant no showing that Tanmalack] of his conceived as a
complaint that the respondent liberty. response to the
issuance of the Judge, in granting extraordinary rise
writ of amparo the petition for a   in the number of
was attended by writ of amparo killings and
  enforced
irregularities. The was motivated by
detainees sister bad faith, OUR RULING disappearances,
who filed the ignominy or ill will, and to the
petition is allowed thus, herein   perceived lack of
under Section complainants available and
  effective
2(b) of the Rule allegation that
on the Writ of respondent remedies to
 

Human Rights Law (Writ of Habeas Data) Page 148 of 174

 address these [7] appeal cannot assign such errors as
extraordinary are designed to have the judgment
concerns. It is EN BANC modified. All that said appellee can
intended to   do is to make a counter-assignment of
address violations GEN. ALEXANDER B. YANO, Chief of errors
Staff, or to argue on issues raised at
of or threats to Armed Forces of the Philippines, LT. the
GEN.trial only for the purpose of
the rights to life, VICTOR S. IBRADO, Commanding General,sustaining the judgment in his favor,
liberty or security, Philippine Army, and MAJ. GEN. RALPH evenA.on grounds not included in the
as an VILLANUEVA, Commander, 7 decision of the court a quo or raised
extraordinary and Division, Philippine Army, in the appellant’s assignment of
independent Petitioners, errors or arguments.
remedy beyond    
those available   Same; Same; Since respondents did
under the   not avail of any remedy against the
prevailing Rules,   adverse judgment, the appellate
or as a remedy - versus - court’s decision is, insofar as it
supplemental to   concerns them, now beyond the ambit
these   of review.—To the appellate court,
Rules. What it is   the evidence adduced in the present
not, is a writ to   case failed to measure up to that
protect CLEOFAS SANCHEZ and MARCIANA standard—substantial evidence which
concerns that MEDINA, a reasonable mind might accept as
are purely Respondents. adequate to support a conclusion.
property or   Since respondents did not avail of any
commercial. Neit   remedy against the adverse judgment,
her is it a writ the appellate court’s decision is,
that we shall x------------------------ insofar as it concerns them, now
issue on ------------------------- beyond the ambit of review
amorphous and - -x
uncertain   Administrative Law; Public Officers;
grounds. Conseq DECISION Writ of Amparo; The failure to
uently, the Rule establish that the public official
on the Writ of Civil Procedure; Appeals; Effects of
observed extraordinary diligence in
Amparo in line Failure to Appeal; A party who did
the performance of duty does not
with the not appeal cannot assign such errors
result in the automatic grant of the
extraordinary as are designed to have the judgment
privilege of the amparo writ. It does
character of the modified. All that said appellee can
not relieve the peti tioner from
writ and the do is to make a counter-assignment
establishing his or her claim by
reasonable of errors or to argue on issues raised
substantial evidence. The omission or
certainty that its at the trial only for the purpose of
inaction on the part of the public
issuance sustaining the judgment in his favor,
official provides, however, some
demands requires even on grounds not included in the
basis for the petitioner to move and
that every petition decision of the court a quo or raised
for the court to grant certain interim
for the issuance in the appellant’s assignment of
reliefs.—The failure to establish that
of the writ must errors or arguments. —The
the public official observed
be supported by entrenched procedural rule in this
extraordinary diligence in the
jurisdiction is that a party who did not

Human Rights Law (Writ of Habeas Data) Page 149 of 174

performance of duty does not result in Gil Villalobos[4] (Sgt. Villalobos) as Hacienda Luisita, Tarlac City, but the rendition of judgment under
the automatic grant of the privilege of therein additional respondents. to no avail. Section 18 of the Rule on the Writ
the amparo writ. It does not relieve     of Amparo.[9]
the petitioner from establishing his or In the Amended Petition, Cleofas Furthermore, respondents  
her claim by substantial evidence. and Marciana (respondents) alleged that Josephine Galang Meanwhile, a
The omission or inaction on the part alleged that on September 17, Victoria, also known as Antonina consolidated Return of the Writ,
[10]
of the public official provides, 2006 at around 8:00 p.m., their Galang (Josephine), niece of a  verified by Gen. Esperon, Lt.
however, some basis for the petitioner respective sons Nicolas Sanchez neighbor, later informed them that Sumangil, Sgt. Villalobos, Maj.
to move and for the court to grant and Heherson Medina were she had seen two men inside Gen. Juanito Gomez (Maj. Gen.
certain interim reliefs. catching frogs outside their home Camp Servillano Aquino of the Gomez) as Commander of the
in Sitio Dalin, Barangay Bueno, Northern Luzon Command Armys 7th Infantry Division, and Lt.
Capas, Tarlac; that at around 1:00 (Nolcom) in San Miguel, Tarlac Col. Victor Bayani (Lt. Col.
CARPIO MORALES, J.: a.m. of the next day, September City on September 21, 2006, Bayani) as Camp Commander of
  18, 2006, Nicolas wives Lourdez whom Josephine later identified Camp Servillano Aquino of the
On December 28, 2007, and Rosalie Sanchez, who were as Nicolas and Heherson (the Nolcom in Tarlac City, was filed
respondent Cleofas Sanchez then at home, heard gunshots and victims) after respondents had with the appellate court on
(Cleofas) filed before this Court a saw armed men in soldiers shown her their photographs; and January 24, 2008. Lt. Gen.
petition docketed as G.R. No. uniforms passing by; that at that Josephine informed them that Alexander Yano (Lt. Gen. Yano),
180839 for issuance of a Writ around 4:00 a.m. of the same day, she saw the victims again on Commanding General of the
of Amparo with Motion for Lourdez and Rosalie went out to September 24, 2006 and Army, filed a Return of the Writ
Production and Inspection check on Nicolas and Heherson November 1, 2006,[6] this time at upon his return from an official trip
directed against Gen. but only saw their caps, the Camp of the Bravo Company abroad.
Hermogenes Esperon (Gen. slippers, pana and airgun for of the Armys 71st Infantry Batallion  
Esperon), the then Chief of Staff catching frogs, as well as inside Hacienda Luisita, where In their Return, the
of the Armed Forces of the bloodstains; and that they she had occasion to talk to Lt. military officers denied having
Philippines (AFP). immediately reported the matter to Sumangil and Sgt. custody of the victims. They
  the barangay officials. Villalobos. Respondents filed a posited that the proper remedy of
On January 2, 2008, the   case on December 21, 2006 respondents was to file a petition
Court[1] resolved to issue a Writ Respondents narrated that they, before the Commission on Human for the issuance of a Writ
of Amparo and ordered Gen. together with other family Rights (CHR), which of Habeas Corpus, since the
Esperon to make a verified return members, proceeded endorsed[7] the same to the petitions ultimate objective was
of the writ before Court of Appeals on September 19, 2006 to the Ombudsman for appropriate the production of the bodies of the
Justice Edgardo Sundiam, who Capas Station of the Philippine action. victims, as they were allegedly
was ordered to hear and decide National Police   abducted and illegally detained by
the case which was eventually (PNP). Accompanied by officials Contending that the military personnel;[11] that the
redocketed as CA-G.R. SP No. of the National Commission on victims life, liberty and security petition failed to indicate the
00010 WR/A. Indigenous Peoples (NCIP),[5] they had been and continued to be matters required by paragraphs
  also tried to search for Nicolas violated on account of their forced (c), (d) and (e), Section 5 of the
Cleofas amended her and Heherson at the Camp disappearance, respondents Rule on the Writ of Amparo, such
petition[2] on January 14, 2008 to Detachment of the 71st Infantry prayed for the issuance of a writ that the allegations were
include herein co-respondent Batallion of the Philippine Army of Amparo, the production of the incomplete to constitute a cause
Marciana Medina (Marciana) as (Army) in Barangay Burgos, San victims bodies during the hearing of action, aside from being based
therein additional petitioner, and Jose, Tarlac, and at the Camp of on the Writ, the inspection of on mere hearsay evidence, and
to implead other military the Bravo Company of the Armys certain military camps,[8] the are, at best, speculative; that
officers[3] including Lt. Ali 71st Infantry Batallion inside issuance of temporary and respondents failed to present the
Sumangil (Lt. Sumangil) and Sgt. permanent protection orders, and affidavits of some other competent

Human Rights Law (Writ of Habeas Data) Page 150 of 174

persons which would clearly his area of responsibility,[14] and that these men were members of from merely mentioning that she
validate their claim that the that he was away on official the New Peoples Army (NPA), saw Nicolas and Heherson on
military violated the victims right to business at the time of the alleged she advised him not to entertain board an army truck near the
life, liberty or security by disappearance of the victims.[15] any queries or complaints relative Nolcom gate and, days later,
abducting or detaining them; and   to their alleged disappearance.[17] inside the kitchen of the
that the petition did not allege any Lt. Col. Bayani attested   71st Infantry Battalion Camp inside
specific action or inaction that he was designated Camp Sgt. Villalobos echoed Hacienda Luisita and while
attributable to the military officers Commander only on September 1, Sumangils disclaimer about logging outside said camp,
with respect to their duties; or 2007 and thus had no personal having any of the victims in his Josephine had stated nothing
allege that respondents took any knowledge about the victims custody or meeting anyone more to ascertain the veracity of
action by filing a formal complaint alleged disappearance or named Josephine Victoria, or the places where she allegedly
or visiting the military camps abduction on September 18, about the latter having entered the saw Nicolas and Heherson.[18]
adverted to in order to verify 2006; that he was informed by his camps kitchen to drink water.  
Josephines claim that she saw the immediate predecessor that no   On whether the
victims on two different occasions individuals were detained in the Lt. Gen. Yano stated that impleaded military officers were
inside the camps, or that they took camp as it did not even have upon his return from his official either directly or indirectly
efforts to follow up on the PNP detention facilities; and that in functions overseas, he connected with the disappearance
Capas Stations further action on compliance with Gen. Esperons immediately inquired on the of the victims, the appellate court,
their complaint.[12] directive, their command was actions taken on the case.He after hearing, absolved, by the
  conducting further investigation to averred that he had never assailed Decision of September
Denying he violated the verify the allegations in the participated directly or indirectly; 17, 2008,[19] Gen. Esperon, Lt.
victims right to life, liberty and petition.[16] or consented, permitted or Gen. Yano, Maj. Gen. Gomez,
security, Gen. Esperon specifically   sanctioned any illegal or and Lt. Col. Bayani for lack of
asserted that, in compliance with Lt. Sumangil denied illegitimate military operations. He evidence linking them to the
the Defense Secretarys directive having spoken to Josephine inside declared that it had always been disappearances, and further ruled
in relation to cases of Writ the camp on September 24, 2006, his policy to respect human rights as follows:
of Amparo against the AFP, he on which date civilians were not and uphold the rule of law, and to  
issued directives to the Nolcom allowed to enter except on official bring those who violated the law All said,
Commander and the Armys missions or when duly authorized before the court of justice. this Court is
Commanding General to to conduct transactions inside the   convinced
investigate and establish the camp. He thus concluded that In opposing the request that petitioners
circumstances surrounding Josephine lied in claiming to have for issuance of inspection and have not
reported disappearances of seen the two victims inside the production orders, the military adequately and
victims insofar as the claim on the Camp of the Bravo Company of officers posited that apart from convincingly
possible involvement of the the 71st Infantry Batallion inside compromising national security established any
military units was concerned; and Hacienda Luisita on September should entry into these military direct or indirect
undertook to bring any military 24, 2006 or at any time camps/bases be allowed, these link between
personnel involved, when thereafter. He instead recounted orders partook of the nature of a respondents
warranted by the evidence, to the that on September 24, 2006, he search warrant, such that the individual military
bar of justice.[13] spoke for the first and only time, requisites for the issuance thereof officers and the
  but only at the gate of the camp, must be complied with prior to disappearances
Maj. Gen. Gomez likewise with a person who identified their issuance. They went on to of Nicolas and
denied having custody or herself as Antonina Galang, who argue that such request relied Heherson. Neithe
knowledge of the whereabouts of informed him about the solely on bare, self-serving and r did the
the victims, stating that it was not disappearance of the victims since vague allegations contained in concerned
army policy to abduct civilians in September 18, 2006. Warning him Josephines affidavit, for aside Philippine Army

Human Rights Law (Writ of Habeas Data) Page 151 of 174

 Units have respondents and the Philippine Villanueva[25](petitioners) filed the
exerted fully their individual military Army, 7th Infantry present petition for review of the
efforts to officers to the Division in Fort appellate courts assailed
investigate and disappearance of Magsaysay issuances, faulting it for
unearth the truth Nicolas and to conduct their . . . NOT
and bring the Heherson, respective CATEGORICALL
culprits before the nonetheless, the investigation of all Y DENYING THE
bar of justice. fact remains that angles pertaining PRIVILEGE OF
  the two men are to the THE WRIT OF
The still missing. disappearances AMPARO PURS
concerned Hence, We find it of Nicolas and UANT TO
Philippine Army equitable to grant Heherson and to SECTION 18 OF
units (such as the petitioners some immediately file THE RULE ON
Northern reliefs in the charges against THE WRIT OF
Command and interest of human those found AMPARO DESPI
the 7th Infantry rights and justice guilty and submit TE ITS FINDING
Division, which as follows: their written report THAT
had jurisdiction   to this Court RESPONDENTS
over the place of 1. Inspect within three (3) FAILED TO
disappearance of ions of the months from PROVE THEIR
Nicolas and following camps: notice. ALLEGATIONS
Heherson, should Camp Servillano   IN THEIR
exert Aquino, San SO PETITION FOR
extraordinary Miguel, Tarlac ORDERED.[20] (un AMPARO BY
diligence to follow City, any military derscoring SUBSTANTIAL
all possible leads camp of the supplied) EVIDENCE. . . .
to solve the 7th Infantry   [AND] . . . DIREC
disappearances Division located in   TING
of Nicolas and Aqua Farm, The military officers filed a PETITIONERS
Heherson. The Hacienda Luisita, Motion for Partial Reconsideration TO:
Philippine Army Tarlac City, within (Motion), arguing in the main that  
should be reasonable since respondents failed to prove (
reminded of its working hours of the allegations in their petition by A
constitutional any day except substantial evidence, the ) 
mandate as the when the military appellate court should not have A
protector of the camp is on red granted those reliefs.[21] L
people and the alert status.   L
State.   The appellate court O
  2. Thorou denied the Motion by the W
RELIEFS gh and Impartial assailed Resolution of March 3,
  Investigation for 2009.[22] R
While as the appropriate   E
We stated Investigating Unit Taking up the cudgels for S
hereinbefore that of the Philippine the military, Gen. Alexander Yano, P
[23]
We could not find Army at Camp  Lt. Gen. Victor Ibrado, O
[24]
any link between Servillano Aquino  and Maj. Gen. Ralph N

Human Rights Law (Writ of Habeas Data) Page 152 of 174

 D M IT R
E M A M
N A R ,
T N Y H
S D C A
T , A C
O P M I
I H P E
N IL O N
S I F D
P P T A
E P H L
C I E U
T  N 7 I
TH
C E   S
A A I IT
M R N A
P M F ,
S Y A T
E , N A
R S T R
V A R L
IL N Y A
L M D C
A I I C
N G V IT
O U I Y
A E S ;
Q L, I A
U T O N
I A N D
N R L .
O L O  
, A C (
N C A B
O C T ) 
R IT E C
T Y D O
H A I N
L N N D
U D A U
Z A Q C
O N U T
N Y A T
C M F H
O IL A O

Human Rights Law (Writ of Habeas Data) Page 153 of 174

 R [1] must meet the threshold requirement
O that their right to life, liberty and
U EN BANC security is violated or threatened with
G   an unlawful act or omission.—To
H P/SUPT. FELIXBERTO CASTILLO, POLICE
thus be covered by the privilege of
A OFFICERS ROMEO BAGTAS, RUPERTO the writs, respondents must meet the
N BORLONGAN, EDMUNDO DIONISIO, RONNIE
threshold requirement that their right
D MORALES, ARNOLD TRIA, and GILBERTOto life, liberty and security is violated
I PUNZALAN, ENGR. RICASOL P. MILLAN,or threatened with an unlawful act or
M ENGR. REDENTOR S. DELA CRUZ, MR.
omission. Evidently, the present
P ANASTACIO L. BORLONGAN, MR. ARTEMIO
controversy arose out of a property
A ESGUERRA, TISOY, and JOHN DOES, dispute between the Provincial
R Petitioners, Government and respondents. Absent
TI any considerable nexus between the
A acts complained of and its effect on
L respondents’ right to life, liberty and
I security, the Court will not delve on
N the propriety of petitioners’ entry into
V   the property.
E - versus -
S Same; Same; Absent any evidence or
TI even an allegation in the petition that
G   there is undue and continuing
A DR. AMANDA T. CRUZ, NIXON T. CRUZ, and on their liberty and/or that
restraint
TI FERDINAND T. CRUZ, there exists threat or intimidation
O Respondents. that destroys the efficacy of their
N    right to be secure in their persons,
O X----------------------- the issuance of the writ cannot be
F ------------------------- justified.—Although respondents’
T --x release from confinement does not
H   necessarily hinder supplication for the
E DECISION writ of amparo, absent any evidence
D or even an allegation in the petition
I Writ of Amparo; Writ of Habeas
that there is undue and continuing
S Data; The coverage of the writs is
restraint on their liberty, and/or that
A limited to the protection of rights to
there exists threat or intimidation that
P life, liberty and security; The writs
destroys the efficacy of their right to
P cover not only actual but also threats
be secure in their persons, the
E of unlawful acts or omissions.—The
issuance of the writ cannot be
A coverage of the writs is limited to the
justified.
R protection of rights to life, liberty and
A security. And the writs cover not only
Same; Same; Petitions for writs of
N actual but also threats of unlawful
amparo and habeas data are
C acts or omissions.
extraordinary remedies which cannot
E be used as tools to stall the execution
O  Same; Same; To be covered by the
of a final and executory decision in a
privilege of the writs, respondent

Human Rights Law (Writ of Habeas Data) Page 154 of 174

property dispute.— It need not be The factual antecedents. and executory judgment against premises subject
underlined that respondents’ petitions   them. matter of this
for writs of amparo and habeas data Respondent Amanda Cruz   case with
are extraordinary remedies which (Amanda) who, along with her By Order of July 19, 2005, the immediate
cannot be used as tools to stall the husband Francisco G. Cruz RTC, finding merit in the Spouses dispatch.
execution of a final and executory (Spouses Cruz), leased a parcel Cruzes allegation that subsequent Accordingly, REM
decision in a property dispute. of land situated at Barrio events changed the situation of AND the
Guinhawa, Malolos (the property), the parties to justify a suspension determination of
Same; Same; Validity of the arrest or refused to vacate the property, of the execution of the final and the issues raised
the proceedings conducted thereafter despite demands by the lessor executory judgment, issued a by the petitioners
is a defense that may be set up by Provincial Government of Bulacan permanent writ of injunction, the on the issued writ
respondents during trial and not (the Province) which intended to dispositive portion of which reads: of demolition to
before a petition for writs of amparo utilize it for local projects.   the MTC of
and habeas data.—At all events,   WHEREFORE, Bulacan, Bulacan.
respondents’ filing of the petitions for The Province thus filed a the foregoing SO ORDERED.
[4]
writs of amparo and habeas data complaint for unlawful detainer petitioners Motion  (Emphasis in
should have been barred, for criminal against the Spouses Cruz before for the
proceedings against them had the then Municipal Trial Court Reconsideration original; undersco
commenced after they were arrested (MTC) of Bulacan, Bulacan. of the Order ring supplied)
in flagrante delicto and proceeded   dated August 10,  
against in accordance with Section 6, By Decision of September 5, 2004 is  
Rule 112 of the Rules of Court. 1997, the MTC rendered judgment hereby GRANTE Finding that the fallo of the RTC
Validity of the arrest or the against the Spouses Cruz, which D. Order dated July 19, 2005 Order treats, as a
proceedings conducted thereafter is a judgment, following its affirmance August 10, 2004 suspensive condition for the lifting
defense that may be set up by by the RTC, became final and is of the permanent injunction, the
respondents during trial and not executory. hereby RECONSI determination of the boundaries of
before a petition for writs of amparo   DERED and SET the property, the Province
and habeas data. The reliefs afforded The finality of the decision in the ASIDE. Further, returned the issue for the
by the writs may, however, be made ejectment case notwithstanding, the verified consideration of the MTC. In a
available to the aggrieved party by the spouses Cruz refused to petition dated Geodetic Engineers Report
motion in the criminal proceedings. vacate the property. They November 05, submitted to the MTC on August
thereupon filed cases against the 2002 are 31, 2007, the metes and bounds
CARPIO MORALES, J. Province[2] and the judges who hereby REINSTA of the property were indicated.
  presided over the case.[3] Those TED and MADE  
  cases were PERMANENT unt The MTC, by Order of January 2,
Petitioners[1], employees and dismissed except  their petition for il the MTC- 2008, approved the Report and
members of the local police force annulment of judgment lodged Bulacan, Bulacan ruled that the permanent
of the City Government of before Branch 18 of the RTC of finally resolves injunction which the RTC issued is
Malolos, challenge the March 28, Malolos, and a civil the pending ineffective. On motion of the
2008 Decision of the Regional case for injunction 833-M-2004 l motions of Province, the MTC, by Order of
Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos, odged before Branch 10 of the petitioners with January 21, 2008, thus issued a
Branch 10 in a petition for same RTC Malolos. the same Second Alias Writ of Demolition.
issuance of writs The Spouses Cruz sought in the determines the On receiving notice of the
of amparo and habeas case for injunction the issuance of metes and January 2, 2008 MTC Order, the
data instituted by respondents. a permanent writ of injunction to bounds of 400 sq. Spouses Cruz filed a motion
  prevent the execution of the final meters leased before Branch 10 of the RTC for

Human Rights Law (Writ of Habeas Data) Page 155 of 174

the issuance of a temporary raffled to Branch 10 of the RTC before this Court by the media then
restraining order (TRO) which it Malolos. for alleged present, but at
set for hearing on January 25,   violation by the 8:00 a.m. to late
2008 on which date, however, the Respondents averred that despite respondents of in the afternoon of
demolition had, earlier in the day, the Permanent Injunction, the Preliminary February 21,
been implemented. Such petitioners unlawfully entered the Injunction Order 2008, zoomed in
notwithstanding, the RTC issued a property with the use of heavy dated July 16, on the petitioners,
TRO.[5] The Spouses Cruz, along equipment, tore down the barbed 2005 [sic] in Sp. subjecting them
with their sons-respondents Nixon wire fences and tents,[6] and Civil Action No. to bodily harm,
and Ferdinand, thereupon entered arrested them when they resisted 833-M-2002, mental torture,
the property, placed several petitioners entry; and that as early hearings were degradation, and
container vans and purportedly as in the evening of February 20, held on January the debasement
represented themselves as 2008, members of the Philippine 25, 2008, of a human being,
owners of the property which was National Police had already February 12 and reminiscent of the
for lease. camped in front of the property. 19, 2008, where martial law police
    the respondents brutality, sending
On February 21, 2008, petitioners On the basis of prayed for an chill in any
Police Superintendent Felixberto respondents allegations in their April 22, 2008 ordinary citizen,[8]
Castillo et al., who were deployed petition and the supporting continuance,  
by the City Mayor in compliance affidavits, the RTC, by Order of however, in the  
with a memorandum issued by March 4, 2008, issued writs pitch darkness of rendered judgment, by Decision of
Governor Joselito R. Mendoza of amparo and habeas data.[7] February 20, March 28, 2008, in favor of
instructing him to protect, secure   2008, police respondents, disposing as follows:
and maintain the possession of The RTC, crediting officers, some  
the property,entered the respondents version in this wise: personnel from WHEREFORE,
property.   the Engineering premises
  Petitioners have department, and considered, the
Amanda and her co-respondents shown by some civilians Commitment
refused to turn over the property, preponderant proceeded Orders and
however. Insisting that the RTC evidence that the purposely to the waivers in Crim.
July 19, 2005 Order of Permanent facts and Pinoy Compound, Cases Nos. 08-
Injunction enjoined the Province circumstances of converged therein 77 for Direct
from repossessing it, they shoved the alleged and with assault; Crim.
petitioners, forcing the latter to offenses continuing threats Case No. 08-
arrest them and cause their examined into on of bodily harm 77 for Other
indictment for direct assault, Writs of Amparo and danger and Forms of
trespassing and other forms of and Habeas Data stone-throwing of Trespass; and
light threats. that there have the roofs of the Crim. Case No.
  been an on-going homes thereat 08-78 for Light
Respondents later filed on March hearings on the from voices Threats are
3, 2008 a Respectful Motion- verified Petition around its hereby DECLAR
Petition for Writ of Amparo and for Contempt, premises, on a ED illegal, null
Habeas Data, docketed docketed as pretext of an and void, as
as Special Civil Action No. 53- Special ordinary police petitioners were
M-2008, which was coincidentally Proceedings No. operation when deprived of their
306-M-2006, enterviewed [sic] substantial rights,

Human Rights Law (Writ of Habeas Data) Page 156 of 174

 induced by been issued as petition for a writ or entity engaged
duress or a well- (1) the petition in of amparo is a in the gathering,
founded fear of [sic] insufficient in remedy available collecting or
personal violence. substance as the to any person storing of data
Accordingly, the same involves whose right to or
commitment property rights; life, liberty and information rega
orders and and (2) criminal security is rding the person,
waivers are cases had violated or family, home and
hereby SET already been filed threatened with correspondence
ASIDE. The and pending with violation by an of the aggrieved
temporary release the Municipal unlawful act or party. (Emphasis
of the petitioners Trial Court in omission of a and underscoring
is Cities, Branch 1, public official or supplied)
declared ABSOL City of employee, or of a  
UTE. Malolos. (Undersc private individual  
  oring supplied) or entity. The writ From the above-quoted
Without any   shall cover provisions, the coverage of the
pronouncement   extralegal killings writs is limited to the protection of
as to costs. The petition is impressed with and enforced rights to life,
SO ORDERED. merit. disappearances liberty and security. And the
[9]
 (Emphasis in   or threats thereof. writs cover not only actual but also
the The Court is, under the (Emphasis and threats of unlawful acts or
original; undersco Constitution, empowered to underscoring omissions.
ring supplied) promulgate rules for the protection supplied)  
  and enforcement of constitutional   Secretary of National Defense v.
  rights.[13] In view of the   Manalo[14] teaches:
Hence, the present petition for heightening prevalence of Section 1 of the Rule on the Writ  
review on certiorari, pursuant to extrajudicial killings and enforced of Habeas Data provides: As the Amparo
Section 19[10] of The Rule on the disappearances, the Rule on the   Rule was
Writ of Amparo (A.M. No. 07-9-12- Writ of Amparo was issued and Section intended to
SC),[11] which is essentially took effect on October 24, 2007 1. Habeas Data. address the
reproduced in the Rule on the Writ which coincided with the The writ of intractable
of Habeas Data  (A.M. No. 08-1- celebration of United Nations Day habeas data is a problem of
16-SC).[12] and affirmed the Courts remedy available extralegal killings
  commitment towards to any person and enforced
In the main, petitioners fault the internationalization of human whose right to disappearances,
RTC for rights. More than three months privacy in life, its coverage, in its
  later or on February 2, 2008, the liberty or present form, is
giving due course Rule on the Writ of Habeas security is confined to these
and issuing writs Data was promulgated. violated or two instances or
of amparo and   threatened by an to threats
habeas data Section 1 of the Rule on the Writ unlawful act or thereof. Extralega
when from the of Amparo provides: omission of a l killings are
allegations of the   public official or killings committed
petition, the same Section employee or of a without due
ought not to have 1. Petition. The private individual process of law,

Human Rights Law (Writ of Habeas Data) Page 157 of 174

 i.e., without legal unlawful act or omission. under the determinable from
safeguards or Evidently, the present controversy prevailing Rules, the supporting
judicial arose out of a property dispute or as a remedy affidavits that
proceedings. On between the Provincial supplemental to detail the
the other hand, Government and these circumstances of
enforced respondents. Absent any Rules. What it is how and to what
disappearances considerable nexus between the not, is a writ to extent a threat to
are attended by acts complained of and its effect protect or violation of the
the following on respondents right to life, liberty concerns that rights to life,
characteristics: an and security, the Court will not are purely liberty and
arrest, detention delve on the propriety of property or security of the
or abduction of a petitioners entry into the property. commercial. Neit aggrieved party
person by a   her is it a writ was or is being
government Apropos is the Courts ruling that we shall committed.[17] (Em
official or in Tapuz v. Del Rosario:[16] issue on phasis and italics
organized groups   amorphous and in the original,
or private To start off with uncertain citation omitted)
individuals acting the basics, the grounds. Conseq  
with the direct or writ of amparo uently, the Rule  
indirect was originally on the Writ of Tapuz also arose out of a property
acquiescence of conceived as a Amparo in line dispute, albeit between private
the government; response to the with the individuals, with the petitioners
the refusal of the extraordinary rise extraordinary therein branding as acts of
State to disclose in the number of character of the terrorism the therein respondents
the fate or killings and writ and the alleged entry into the disputed
whereabouts of enforced reasonable land with armed men in tow. The
the person disappearances, certainty that its Court therein held:
concerned or a and to the issuance  
refusal to perceived lack of demands requires On the
acknowledge the available and that every petition whole, what is
deprivation of effective for the issuance clear from these
liberty which remedies to of the writ must statements both
places such address these be supported by sworn and
persons outside extraordinary justifying unsworn is the
the protection of concerns. It is allegations of fact, overriding
law.[15] (Underscor intended to wit: involvement of
ing supplied, to address   property issues
citations omitted) violations of or xxxx as the petition
  threats to the   traces its roots to
  rights to life, The writ shall questions of
To thus be covered by the liberty or security, issue if the Court physical
privilege of the writs, respondents as an is preliminarily possession of the
must meet the threshold extraordinary and satisfied with the property disputed
requirement that their right independent prima facie by the private
to life, liberty and security is remedy beyond existence of the parties. If at all,
violated or threatened with an those available ultimate facts issues relating to

Human Rights Law (Writ of Habeas Data) Page 158 of 174

 the right to life or contempt of court, there and then INJUNCTION at data, or on February 22, 2008,
to liberty can willfully, forcibly and feloniously RTC ORDERS petitioners even instituted a
hardly be with the use of force and DATED February petition for habeas corpus which
discerned except intimidation entered and forcibly, 12, 17 at 19 was considered moot and
to the extent that physically manhandled the 2008) upang academic by Branch 14 of the
the occurrence of petitioners (respondents) and ipaglaban ang Malolos RTC and was accordingly
past violence has arrested the herein petitioners dignidad ng denied by Order of April 8, 2008.
been alleged. The (respondents)[19] will not suffice to kautusan ng  
right to security, prove entitlement to the remedy of korte, ipaglaban More. Respondent Amanda and
on the other the writ of amparo. No undue ang prinsipyo ng one of her sons, Francisco Jr.,
hand, is alleged confinement or detention was SELF-HELP at likewise filed a petition for writs
only to the extent present.In fact, respondents were batas ukol sa of amparo and habeas
of the treats and even able to post bail for the PROPERTY data before the Sandiganbayan,
harassments offenses a day after their arrest.[20] RIGHTS, Wala they alleging the commission of
implied from the   kaming continuing threats by petitioners
presence of Although respondents release nagawa ipagtang after the issuance of the writs by
armed men bare from confinement does not gol ang aming the RTC, which petition
to the waist and necessarily hinder supplication for karapatan sa lupa was dismissed for insufficiency
the alleged the writ of amparo, absent any na 45 years and forum shopping.
pointing and firing evidence or even an allegation in naming IN  
of the petition that there is undue POSSESSION. ( It thus appears that respondents
weapons. Notabl and continuing restraint on their Underscoring are not without recourse and have
y, none of the liberty, and/or that there exists supplied) in fact taken full advantage of the
supporting threat or intimidation that destroys   legal system with the filing of civil,
affidavits the efficacy of their right to be   criminal and administrative
compellingly secure in their persons, the Oddly, respondents also seek the charges.[23]
show that the issuance of the writ cannot be issuance of a writ of habeas  
threat to the justified. data when it is not even alleged It need not be underlined
rights to life,   that petitioners are gathering, that respondents petitions for writs
liberty and That respondents are merely collecting or storing data or of amparo and habeas data are
security of the seeking the protection of their information regarding their person, extraordinary remedies which
petitioners is property rights is gathered from family, home and cannot be used as tools to stall
imminent or their Joint Affidavit, viz: correspondence. the execution of a final and
continuing.[18] (E     executory decision in a property
mphasis in the xxxx As for respondents assertion of dispute.
original; undersco   past incidents[21] wherein the  
ring supplied) 11. Kami ay Province allegedly violated the AT ALL EVENTS, respondents
  humarang at Permanent Injunction order, these filing of the petitions for writs
  humiga sa harap incidents were already raised in of amparo and habeas
It bears emphasis that ng mga heavy the injunction proceedings on data should have been barred, for
respondents petition did not show equipment na account of which respondents criminal proceedings against them
any actual violation, imminent or hawak hawak ang filed a case for criminal contempt had commenced after they were
continuing threat to their life, nasabing against petitioners.[22] arrested in flagrante delicto and
liberty and security. Bare kautusan ng RTC   proceeded against in accordance
allegations that petitioners in Branch 10 Before the filing of the petition for with Section 6, Rule 112[24]of the
unison, conspiracy and in (PERMANENT writs of amparo and habeas Rules of Court. Validity of the

Human Rights Law (Writ of Habeas Data) Page 159 of 174

arrest or the proceedings [3] Memorandum directing her
conducted thereafter is a defense reassignment to the Alabang Sector,
that may be set up by Republic of the Philippines under the guise of a quest for
respondents during trial and not SUPREME COURT information or data allegedly in
before a petition for writs Manila possession of petitioners, does not fall
of amparo and habeas data. The within the province of a writ of
reliefs afforded by the writs may, habeas data. Section 1 of the Rule on
EN BANC
however, be made available to the the Writ of Habeas Data provides:
aggrieved party by motion in the Section 1. Habeas Data.—The writ of
criminal proceedings.[25] G.R. No. 184769               habeas data is a remedy available to
  October 5, 2010 any person whose right to privacy in
WHEREFORE, the petition is life, liberty or security is violated or
GRANTED. The challenged MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, threatened by an unlawful act or
March 4, 2008 Order of Branch 10 ALEXANDER S. omission of a public official or
of the Regional Trial Court of DEYTO and RUBEN A. employee or of a private individual or
Malolos is DECLARED NULL SAPITULA, Petitioners,  entity engaged in the gathering,
AND VOID, and its March 28, vs. collecting or storing of data or
2008 Decision ROSARIO GOPEZ information regarding the person,
is REVERSED and SET LIM, Respondent. family, home and correspondence of
ASIDE. Special Civil Action No. the aggrieved party. (emphasis and
53-M-2008 is DISMISSED. DECISION underscoring supplied) The habeas
  data rule, in general, is designed to
SO ORDERED. Writ of Habeas Data; Right to protect by means of judicial
Privacy; Labor Law; Transfers; An complaint the image, privacy, honor,
employee’s plea that she be spared information, and freedom of
from complying with her employer’s information of an individual. It is
Memorandum directing her meant to provide a forum to enforce
reassignment under the guise of a one’s right to the truth and to
quest for information or data informational privacy, thus
allegedly in possession of petitioners, safeguarding the constitutional
does not fall within the province of a guarantees of a person’s right to life,
writ of habeas data; The habeas data liberty and security against abuse in
rule, in general, is designed to this age of information technology.
protect by means of judicial
complaint the image, privacy, honor, Same; Same; Same; Like the writ of
information, and freedom of amparo, habeas data was conceived
information of an individual—it is as a response, given the lack of
meant to provide a forum to enforce effective and available remedies, to
one’s right to the truth and to address the extraordinary rise in the
informational privacy, thus number of killings and enforced
safeguarding the constitutional disappearances—its intent is to
guarantees of a person’s right to life, address violations of or threats to the
liberty and security against abuse in rights to life, liberty or security as a
this age of information technology.— remedy independently from those
Respondent’s plea that she be spared provided under prevailing Rules; The
from complying with MERALCO’s writs of amparo and habeas data will

Human Rights Law (Writ of Habeas Data) Page 160 of 174

NOT issue to protect purely property right to privacy is at best speculative. Rosario G. Lim (respondent), also unknown individuals and which
or commercial concerns nor when the —In another vein, there is no showing known as Cherry Lim, is an could possibly compromise [her]
grounds invoked in support of the from the facts presented that administrative clerk at the Manila safety and security."
petitions therefor are vague or petitioners committed any Electric Company (MERALCO).
doubtful— employment constitutes a unjustifiable or unlawful violation of Respondent, by letter of July 10,
property right under the context of the respondent’s right to privacy vis-à-vis On June 4, 2008, an anonymous 2008 addressed to petitioner
due process clause of the the right to life, liberty or security. To letter was posted at the door of Ruben A. Sapitula, Vice-President
Constitution.—It bears reiteration that argue that petitioners’ refusal to the Metering Office of the and Head of MERALCO’s Human
like the writ of amparo, habeas data disclose the contents of reports Administration building of Resource Administration,
was conceived as a response, given allegedly received on the threats to MERALCO Plaridel, Bulacan appealed her transfer and
the lack of effective and available respondent’s safety amounts to a Sector, at which respondent is requested for a dialogue so she
remedies, to address the extraordinary violation of her right to privacy is at assigned, denouncing respondent. could voice her concerns and
rise in the number of killings and best speculative. Respondent in fact The letter reads: misgivings on the matter, claiming
enforced disappearances. Its intent is trivializes these threats and that the "punitive" nature of the
to address violations of or threats to accusations from unknown Cherry Lim: transfer amounted to a denial of
the rights to life, liberty or security as individuals in her earlier-quoted due process. Citing the grueling
a remedy independently from those portion of her July 10, 2008 letter as travel from her residence in
provided under prevailing Rules. “highly suspicious, doubtful or are MATAPOS MONG LAMUNIN
Pampanga to Alabang and back
Castillo v. Cruz, 605 SCRA 628 just mere jokes if they existed at all.” LAHAT NG BIYAYA NG
entails, and violation of the
(2009), underscores the emphasis laid And she even suspects that her MERALCO, NGAYON NAMAN
provisions on job security of their
AY GUSTO MONG PALAMON
down in Tapuz v. del Rosario, 554 transfer to another place of work Collective Bargaining Agreement
ANG BUONG KUMPANYA SA
SCRA 768 (2008), that the writs of “betray[s] the real intent of (CBA), respondent expressed her
MGA BUWAYA NG GOBYERNO.
amparo and habeas data will NOT management]” and could be a thoughts on the alleged threats to
KAPAL NG MUKHA MO,
issue to protect purely property or “punitive move.” Her posture her security in this wise:
LUMAYAS KA RITO, WALANG
commercial concerns nor when the unwittingly concedes that the issue is
UTANG NA LOOB….1
grounds invoked in support of the labor-related. xxxx
petitions therefor are vague or
doubtful. Employment constitutes a Copies of the letter were also
CARPIO MORALES, J.: I feel that it would have been
property right under the context of the inserted in the lockers of
MERALCO linesmen. Informed better . . . if you could have
due process clause of the The Court is once again about it, respondent reported the intimated to me the nature of the
Constitution. It is evident that confronted with an opportunity to matter on June 5, 2008 to the alleged accusations and threats
respondent’s reservations on the real define the evolving metes and Plaridel Station of the Philippine so that at least I could have found
reasons for her transfer—a legitimate bounds of the writ of habeas data. National Police.2 out if these are credible or even
concern respecting the terms and May an employee invoke the serious. But as you stated, these
conditions of one’s employment — remedies available under such came from unknown individuals
are what prompted her to adopt the By Memorandum3 dated July 4,
writ where an employer decides to and the way they were handled,
extraordinary remedy of habeas data. 2008, petitioner Alexander Deyto,
transfer her workplace on the it appears that the veracity of
Jurisdiction over such concerns is Head of MERALCO’s Human
basis of copies of an anonymous these accusations and threats to
inarguably lodged by law with the Resource Staffing, directed the
letter posted therein ─ imputing to be [sic] highly suspicious, doubtful
NLRC and the Labor Arbiters transfer of respondent to
her disloyalty to the company and or are just mere jokes if they
MERALCO’s Alabang Sector in
calling for her to leave, which existed at all.
Same; Same; Same; To argue that the Muntinlupa as "A/F OTMS Clerk,"
imputation it investigated but fails
employer’s refusal to disclose the effective July 18, 2008 in light of
to inform her of the details Assuming for the sake of
contents of reports allegedly received the receipt of "… reports that there
thereof? argument only, that the alleged
on the threats to the employee’s were accusations and threats
directed against [her] from threats exist as the management
safety amounts to a violation of her
apparently believe, then my

Human Rights Law (Writ of Habeas Data) Page 161 of 174

transfer to an unfamiliar place and prayed for the issuance of a writ order; and the RTC lacked contend is clearly a labor dispute,
environment which will make me a commanding petitioners to file a jurisdiction over the case which petitioners argue that "although
"sitting duck" so to speak, seems written return containing the properly belongs to the National ingeniously crafted as a petition
to betray the real intent of following: Labor Relations Commission for habeas data, respondent is
management which is contrary to (NLRC).7 essentially questioning the
its expressed concern on my a) a full disclosure of the transfer of her place of work by
security and safety . . . Thus, it data or information about By Decision8 of September 22, her employer"11 and the terms and
made me think twice on the respondent in relation to 2008, the trial court granted the conditions of her
rationale for management’s the report purportedly prayers of respondent including employment which arise from an
initiated transfer. Reflecting received by petitioners on the issuance of a writ of employer-employee relationship
further, it appears to me the alleged threat to her preliminary injunction directing over which the NLRC and the
that instead of the management safety and security; the petitioners to desist from Labor Arbiters under Article 217 of
supposedly extending favor to me, nature of such data and implementing respondent’s the Labor Code have jurisdiction.
the net result and effect of the purpose for its transfer until such time that
management action would be a collection; petitioners comply with the Petitioners thus maintain that the
punitive one.4 (emphasis and disclosures required. RTC had no authority to restrain
underscoring supplied) the implementation of the
b) the measures taken by
petitioners to ensure the The trial court justified its ruling by Memorandum transferring
Respondent thus requested for confidentiality of such declaring that, inter alia, recourse respondent’s place of work which
the deferment of the data or information; and to a writ of habeas data should is purely a management
implementation of her transfer extend not only to victims of extra- prerogative, and that OCA-
pending resolution of the issues legal killings and political activists Circular No. 79-200312 expressly
c) the currency and
she raised. but also to ordinary citizens, like prohibits the issuance of TROs or
accuracy of such data or
respondent whose rights to life injunctive writs in labor-related
information obtained.
No response to her request and security are jeopardized by cases.
having been received, respondent petitioners’ refusal to provide her
Additionally, respondent prayed
filed a petition5 for the issuance of with information or data on the Petitioners go on to point out that
for the issuance of a Temporary
a writ of habeas data against reported threats to her person. the Rule on the Writ of Habeas
Restraining Order (TRO) enjoining
petitioners before the Regional Data directs the issuance of the
petitioners from effecting her
Trial Court (RTC) of Bulacan, Hence, the present petition for writ only against public officials or
transfer to the MERALCO
docketed as SP. Proc. No. 213-M- review under Rule 45 of 1997 employees, or private individuals
Alabang Sector.
2008. Rules of Civil Procedure and the or entities engaged in the
Rule on the Writ of Habeas gathering, collecting or storing of
By Order6 of August 29, 2008, data or information regarding an
By respondent’s allegation, Data9 contending that 1) the RTC
Branch 7 of the Bulacan RTC aggrieved party’s person, family or
petitioners’ unlawful act and lacked jurisdiction over the case
directed petitioners to file their home; and that MERALCO (or its
omission consisting of their and cannot restrain MERALCO’s
verified written return. And by officers) is clearly not engaged in
continued failure and refusal to prerogative as employer to
Order of September 5, 2008, the such activities.
provide her with details or transfer the place of work of its
trial court granted respondent’s
information about the alleged employees, and 2) the issuance of
application for a TRO.
report which MERALCO the writ is outside the parameters The petition is impressed with
purportedly received concerning expressly set forth in the Rule on merit.
threats to her safety and Petitioners moved for the the Writ of Habeas
security amount to a violation of dismissal of the petition and recall Data.101avvphi1 Respondent’s plea that she be
her right to privacy in life, liberty of the TRO on the grounds that,
spared from complying with
and security, correctible by inter alia, resort to a petition for
Maintaining that the RTC has no MERALCO’s Memorandum
habeas data. Respondent thus writ of habeas data was not in
jurisdiction over what they directing her reassignment to the

Human Rights Law (Writ of Habeas Data) Page 162 of 174

Alabang Sector, under the guise disappearances. Its intent is to individuals in her earlier-quoted
of a quest for information or data address violations of or threats to portion of her July 10, 2008 letter
allegedly in possession of the rights to life, liberty or security as "highly suspicious, doubtful or
petitioners, does not fall within the as a remedy independently from are just mere jokes if they existed
province of a writ of habeas data. those provided under prevailing at all."18 And she even suspects
Rules.13 that her transfer to another place
Section 1 of the Rule on the Writ of work "betray[s] the real intent of
of Habeas Data provides: Castillo v. Cruz14 underscores the management]" and could be a
emphasis laid down in Tapuz v. "punitive move." Her posture
del Rosario15 that the writs of unwittingly concedes that the
Section 1. Habeas Data. – The
amparo and habeas data will NOT issue is labor-related.
writ of habeas data is a remedy
available to any person issue to protect purely property or
whose right to privacy in life, commercial concerns nor when WHEREFORE, the petition is
liberty or security is violated or the grounds invoked in support of GRANTED. The assailed
threatened by an unlawful act the petitions therefor are vague or September 22, 2008 Decision of
or omission of a public official or doubtful.16 Employment the Bulacan RTC, Branch 7 in SP.
employee or of a private individual constitutes a property right under Proc. No. 213-M-2008 is hereby
or entity engaged in the the context of the due process REVERSED and SET ASIDE. SP.
gathering, collecting or storing clause of the Constitution.17 It is Proc. No. 213-M-2008 is,
of data or informationregarding evident that respondent’s accordingly, DISMISSED.
the person, family, home and reservations on the real reasons
correspondence of the aggrieved for her transfer - a legitimate No costs.
party. (emphasis and concern respecting the terms and
underscoring supplied) conditions of one’s employment - SO ORDERED
are what prompted her to adopt
the extraordinary remedy of
The habeas data rule, in general,
habeas data. Jurisdiction over
is designed to protect by means of
such concerns is inarguably
judicial complaint the image,
lodged by law with the NLRC and
privacy, honor, information, and
the Labor Arbiters.
freedom of information of an
individual. It is meant to provide a
forum to enforce one’s right to the In another vein, there is no
truth and to informational privacy, showing from the facts presented
thus safeguarding the that petitioners committed any
constitutional guarantees of a unjustifiable or unlawful violation
person’s right to life, liberty and of respondent’s right to
security against abuse in this age privacy vis-a-vis the right to life,
of information technology. liberty or security. To argue that
petitioners’ refusal to disclose the
contents of reports allegedly
It bears reiteration that like the writ
received on the threats to
of amparo, habeas data was
respondent’s safety amounts to a
conceived as a response, given
violation of her right to privacy is
the lack of effective and available
at best speculative. Respondent in
remedies, to address the
fact trivializes these threats and
extraordinary rise in the number of
accusations from unknown
killings and enforced

Human Rights Law (Writ of Habeas Data) Page 163 of 174

 privacy in life, liberty or security of Same; Same; Same; Nothing in the
[23] family, home and correspondence of the victim are indispensable before Rule would suggest that the habeas
the aggrieved party. It is an the privilege of the writ may be data protection shall be available
Republic of the Philippines independent and summary remedy extended. only against abuses of a person or
SUPREME COURT designed to protect the image, entity engaged in the business of
Manila privacy, honor, information, and Same; Same; Same; Informational gathering, storing, and collecting of
freedom of information of an Privacy; The writ of habeas data can data.—Nothing in the Rule would
individual, and to provide a forum to be availed of as an independent suggest that the habeas data
THIRD DIVISION protection shall be available only
enforce one’s right to the truth and to remedy to enforce one’s right to
informational privacy. It seeks to privacy, more specifically the right to against abuses of a person or entity
G.R. No. 202666               protect a person’s right to control informational privacy.—Had the engaged in the business of gathering,
September 29, 2014 information regarding oneself, framers of the Rule intended to storing, and collecting of data. As
particularly in instances in which narrow the operation of the writ only provided under Section 1 of the Rule:
RHONDA AVE S. VIVARES and such information is being collected to cases of extralegal killings or Section 1. Habeas Data.—The writ of
SPS. MARGARITA and DAVID through unlawful means in order to enforced disappearances, the above habeas data is a remedy available to
SUZARA, Petitioners,  achieve unlawful ends. underscored portion of Section 2, any person whose right to privacy in
vs. reflecting a variance of habeas data life, liberty or security is violated or
ST. THERESA'S COLLEGE, Same; Same; Same; The existence of situations, would not have been threatened by an unlawful act or
MYLENE RHEZA T. ESCUDERO, a person’s right to informational made. Habeas data, to stress, was omission of a public official or
and JOHN DOES, Respondents. privacy and a showing, at least by designed “to safeguard individual employee, or of a private individual
substantial evidence, of an actual or freedom from abuse in the or entity engaged in the gathering,
DECISION threatened violation of the right to information age.” As such, it is collecting or storing of data or
privacy in life, liberty or security of erroneous to limit its applicability to information regarding the person,
Constitutional Law; Habeas Data the victim are indispensable before extralegal killings and enforced family, home and correspondence of
Rule (A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC); Writ of the privilege of the writ may be disappearances only. In fact, the the aggrieved party.
Habeas Data; The writ of habeas extended.—In developing the writ of annotations to the Rule prepared by
data is a remedy available to any habeas data, the Court aimed to the Committee on the Revision of the Same; Same; Same; Habeas data is a
person whose right to privacy in life, protect an individual’s right to Rules of Court, after explaining that protection against unlawful acts or
liberty or security is violated or informational privacy, among others. the Writ of Habeas Data omissions of public officials and of
threatened by an unlawful act or A comparative law scholar has, in complements the Writ of Amparo, private individuals or entities
omission of a public official or fact, defined habeas data as “a pointed out that: The writ of habeas engaged in gathering, collecting, or
employee, or of a private individual procedure designed to safeguard data, however, can be availed of as an storing data about the aggrieved
or entity engaged in the gathering, individual freedom from abuse in the independent remedy to enforce one’s party and his or her
collecting or storing of data or information age.” The writ, however, right to privacy, more specifically the correspondences, or about his or her
information regarding the person, will not issue on the basis merely of right to informational privacy. The family.—The provision, when taken
family, home and correspondence of an alleged unauthorized access to remedies against the violation of such in its proper context, as a whole,
the aggrieved party.—The writ of information about a person. right can include the updating, irresistibly conveys the idea that
habeas data is a remedy available to Availment of the writ requires the rectification, suppression or habeas data is a protection against
any person whose right to privacy in existence of a nexus between the right destruction of the database or unlawful acts or omissions of public
life, liberty or security is violated or to privacy on the one hand, and the information or files in possession or officials and of private individuals or
threatened by an unlawful act or right to life, liberty or security on the in control of respondents. (emphasis entities engaged in gathering,
omission of a public official or other. Thus, the existence of a ours) Clearly then, the privilege of collecting, or storing data about the
employee, or of a private individual person’s right to informational the Writ of Habeas Data may also be aggrieved party and his or her
or entity engaged in the gathering, privacy and a showing, at least by availed of in cases outside of correspondences, or about his or her
collecting or storing of data or substantial evidence, of an actual or extralegal killings and enforced family. Such individual or entity need
information regarding the person, threatened violation of the right to disappearances. not be in the business of collecting or

Human Rights Law (Writ of Habeas Data) Page 164 of 174

storing data. To “engage” in model of the writ of habeas data, in going on in the world, and to share cyberspace through the utilization of
something is different from effect, recognized that, generally and express what matters to them.” the OSN’s privacy tools. In other
undertaking a business endeavour. To speaking, having an expectation of words, utilization of these privacy
“engage” means “to do or take part in informational privacy is not Same; Same; Same; Same; tools is the manifestation, in cyber
something.” It does not necessarily necessarily incompatible with Facebook; Facebook connections are world, of the user’s invocation of his
mean that the activity must be done in engaging in cyberspace activities, established through the process of or her right to informational privacy.
pursuit of a business. What matters is including those that occur in OSNs. “friending” another user.—
that the person or entity must be Facebook connections are established Same; Same; Same; Same; Same;
gathering, collecting or storing said Same; Same; Same; Online Social through the process of “friending” Considering that the default setting
data or information about the Networks; The purpose of an Online another user. By sending a “friend for Facebook posts is “Public,” it
aggrieved party or his or her family. Social Networks (OSN) is precisely to request,” the user invites another to can be surmised that the photographs
Whether such undertaking carries the give users the ability to interact and connect their accounts so that they in question were viewable to
element of regularity, as when one to stay connected to other members can view any and all “Public” and everyone on Facebook, absent any
pursues a business, and is in the of the same or different social media “Friends Only” posts of the other. proof that petitioners’ children
nature of a personal endeavour, for platform through the sharing of Once the request is accepted, the link positively limited the disclosure of the
any other reason or even for no statuses, photos, videos, among is established and both users are photograph.—Considering that the
reason at all, is immaterial and such others, depending on the services permitted to view the other user’s default setting for Facebook posts is
will not prevent the writ from getting provided by the site.—Briefly, the “Public” or “Friends Only” posts, “Public,” it can be surmised that the
to said person or entity. purpose of an OSN is precisely to among others. “Friending,” therefore, photographs in question were
give users the ability to interact and allows the user to form or maintain viewable to everyone on Facebook,
Same; Same; Same; The Court saw to stay connected to other members of one-to-one relationships with other absent any proof that petitioners’
the pressing need to provide for the same or different social media users, whereby the user gives his or children positively limited the
judicial remedies that would allow a platform through the sharing of her “Facebook friend” access to his or disclosure of the photograph. If such
summary hearing of the unlawful use statuses, photos, videos, among her profile and shares certain were the case, they cannot invoke the
of data or information and to remedy others, depending on the services information to the latter. protection attached to the right to
possible violations of the right to provided by the site. It is akin to informational privacy. The ensuing
privacy.—The Court saw the pressing having a room filled with millions of Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; pronouncement in US v. Gines-Perez,
need to provide for judicial remedies personal bulletin boards or “walls,” Informational Privacy; Before one 214 F. Supp. 2d, is most instructive:
that would allow a summary hearing the contents of which are under the can have an expectation of privacy in [A] person who places a photograph
of the unlawful use of data or control of each and every user. In his his or her Online Social Networks on the Internet precisely intends to
information and to remedy possible or her bulletin board, a user/owner (OSN) activity, it is first necessary forsake and renounce all privacy
violations of the right to privacy. In can post anything –– from text, to that said user, in this case the rights to such imagery, particularly
the same vein, the South African pictures, to music and videos –– children of petitioners, manifest the under circumstances such as here,
High Court, in its Decision in the access to which would depend on intention to keep certain posts where the Defendant did not employ
landmark case, H v. W, promulgated whether he or she allows one, some private, through the employment of protective measures or devices that
on January 30, 2013, recognized that or all of the other users to see his or measures to prevent access thereto or would have controlled access to the
“[t]he law has to take into account the her posts. Since gaining popularity, to limit its visibility.—Before one can Web page or the photograph itself.
changing realities not only the OSN phenomenon has paved the have an expectation of privacy in his
technologically but also socially or way to the creation of various social or her OSN activity, it is first Same; Same; Same; Same; Same;
else it will lose credibility in the eyes networking sites, including the one necessary that said user, in this case Messages sent to the public at large
of the people. x x x It is imperative involved in the case at bar, the children of petitioners, manifest in the chat room or e-mail that is
that the courts respond appropriately www.facebook.com (Facebook), the intention to keep certain posts forwarded from correspondent to
to changing times, acting cautiously which, according to its developers, private, through the employment of correspondent loses any semblance
and with wisdom.” Consistent with people use “to stay connected with measures to prevent access thereto or of privacy.— Also, United States v.
this, the Court, by developing what friends and family, to discover what’s to limit its visibility. And this Maxwell, 45 M.J. 406, held that
may be viewed as the Philippine intention can materialize in “[t]he more open the method of

Human Rights Law (Writ of Habeas Data) Page 165 of 174

transmission is, the less privacy one former. Also, when the post is shared a cyberspace community member, and must not be negligent in
can reasonably expect. Messages sent or when a person is tagged, the one has to be proactive in protecting protecting their rights.—It is, thus,
to the public at large in the chat room respective Facebook friends of the his or her own privacy. It is in this incumbent upon internet users to
or e-mail that is forwarded from person who shared the post or who regard that many OSN users, exercise due diligence in their online
correspondent to correspondent loses was tagged can view the post, the especially minors, fail. Responsible dealings and activities and must not
any semblance of privacy.” privacy setting of which was set at social networking or observance of be negligent in protecting their rights.
“Friends.” the “netiquettes” on the part of Equity serves the vigilant.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; teenagers has been the concern of Demanding relief from the courts, as
Setting a post’s or profile detail’s Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; many due to the widespread notion here, requires that claimants
privacy to “Friends” is no assurance There can be no quibbling that the that teenagers can sometimes go too themselves take utmost care in
that it can no longer be viewed by images in question, or to be more far since they generally lack the safeguarding a right which they
another user who is not Facebook precise, the photos of minor students people skills or general wisdom to allege to have been violated. These
friends with the source of the content. scantily clad, are personal in nature, conduct themselves sensibly in a are indispensable. We cannot afford
—That the photos are viewable by likely to affect, if indiscriminately public forum. protection to persons if they
“friends only” does not necessarily circulated, the reputation of the themselves did nothing to place the
bolster the petitioners’ contention. In minors enrolled in a conservative Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; matter within the confines of their
this regard, the cyber community is institution.—In sum, there can be no Considering the complexity of the private zone. OSN users must be
agreed that the digital images under quibbling that the images in question, cyber world and its pervasiveness, as mindful enough to learn the use of
this setting still remain to be outside or to be more precise, the photos of well as the dangers that these privacy tools, to use them if they
the confines of the zones of privacy minor students scantily clad, are children are wittingly or unwittingly desire to keep the information private,
in view of the following: (1) personal in nature, likely to affect, if exposed to in view of their and to keep track of changes in the
Facebook “allows the world to be indiscriminately circulated, the unsupervised activities in cyberspace, available privacy settings, such as
more open and connected by giving reputation of the minors enrolled in a the participation of the parents in those of Facebook, especially because
its users the tools to interact and share conservative institution. However, the disciplining and educating their Facebook is notorious for changing
in any conceivable way”; (2) A good records are bereft of any evidence, children about being a good digital these settings and the site’s layout
number of Facebook users “befriend” other than bare assertions that they citizen is encouraged by these often.
other users who are total strangers; utilized Facebook’s privacy settings institutions and organizations.—
(3) The sheer number of “Friends” to make the photos visible only to Considering the complexity of the VELASCO, JR., J.:
one user has, usually by the hundreds; them or to a select few. Without proof cyber world and its pervasiveness, as
and (4) A user’s Facebook friend can that they placed the photographs well as the dangers that these children The individual's desire for privacy
“share” the former’s post, or “tag” subject of this case within the ambit are wittingly or unwittingly exposed is never absolute, since
others who are not Facebook friends of their protected zone of privacy, to in view of their unsupervised participation in society is an
with the former, despite its being they cannot now insist that they have activities in cyberspace, the equally powerful desire. Thus
visible only to his or her own an expectation of privacy with respect participation of the parents in each individual is continually
Facebook friends. It is well to to the photographs in question. disciplining and educating their engaged in a personal adjustment
emphasize at this point that setting a children about being a good digital process in which he balances the
post’s or profile detail’s privacy to Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; As citizen is encouraged by these desire for privacy with the desire
“Friends” is no assurance that it can a cyberspace community member, institutions and organizations. In fact, for disclosure and communication
no longer be viewed by another user one has to be proactive in protecting it is believed that “to limit such risks, of himself to others, in light of the
who is not Facebook friends with the his or her own privacy.—It has been there’s no substitute for parental environmental conditions and
source of the content. The user’s own said that “the best filter is the one involvement and supervision.” social norms set by the society in
Facebook friend can share said between your children’s ears.” This which he lives.
content or tag his or her own means that self-regulation on the part Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; It
Facebook friend thereto, regardless of of OSN users and internet consumers is, thus, incumbent upon internet - Alan Westin, Privacy and
whether the user tagged by the latter in general is the best means of users to exercise due diligence in Freedom (1967)
is Facebook friends or not with the avoiding privacy rights violations. As their online dealings and activities

Human Rights Law (Writ of Habeas Data) Page 166 of 174

The Case Julienne, and Chloe Lourdes 3. Smoking and drinking it, Tan prayed that defendants
Taboada (Chloe), among others. alcoholicbeverages in therein be enjoined from
Before Us is a Petition for Review public places; implementing the sanction that
on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Using STC’s computers, precluded Angela from joining the
Rules of Court, in relation to Escudero’s students logged in to 4. Apparel that exposes commencement exercises.
Section 19 of A.M. No. 08-1-16- their respective personal the underwear;
SC,1 otherwise known as the Facebook accounts and showed On March 25, 2012,petitioner
"Rule on the Writ of Habeas her photos of the identified 5. Clothing that advocates Rhonda Ave Vivares (Vivares),
Data." Petitioners herein assail students, which include: (a) Julia unhealthy behaviour; the mother of Julia, joined the fray
the July 27, 2012 Decision2 of the and Julienne drinking hard liquor depicts obscenity; as an intervenor. On March 28,
Regional Trial Court, Branch 14 in and smoking cigarettes inside a contains sexually 2012, defendants inCivil Case No.
Cebu City (RTC) in SP. Proc. No. bar; and (b) Julia and Julienne suggestive messages, CEB-38594 filed their
19251-CEB, which dismissed their along the streets of Cebu wearing language or symbols; and memorandum, containing printed
habeas data petition. articles of clothing that show 6. Posing and uploading copies of the photographs in issue
virtually the entirety of their black pictures on the Internet as annexes. That same day, the
The Facts brassieres. What is more, that entail ample body RTC issued a temporary
Escudero’s students claimed that exposure. restraining order (TRO) allowing
there were times when access to the students to attend the
Nenita Julia V. Daluz (Julia) and
or the availability of the identified graduation ceremony, to which
Julienne Vida Suzara (Julienne), On March 1, 2012, Julia, Julienne,
students’ photos was not confined STC filed a motion for
both minors, were, during the Angela, and the other students in
to the girls’ Facebook friends,4but reconsideration.
period material, graduating high the pictures in question, reported,
were, in fact, viewable by any
school students at St. Theresa's as required, to the office of Sr.
Facebook user.5 Despite the issuance of the
College (STC), Cebu City. Celeste Ma. Purisima Pe (Sr.
Sometime in January 2012, while Purisima), STC’s high school TRO,STC, nevertheless, barred
changing into their swimsuits for a Upon discovery, Escudero principal and ICM6 Directress. the sanctioned students from
beach party they were about to reported the matter and, through They claimed that during the participating in the graduation
attend, Julia and Julienne, along one of her student’s Facebook meeting, they were castigated and rites, arguing that, on the date of
with several others, took digital page, showed the photosto verbally abused by the STC the commencement exercises, its
pictures of themselves clad only in Kristine Rose Tigol (Tigol), STC’s officials present in the conference, adverted motion for
their undergarments. These Discipline-in-Charge, for including Assistant Principal reconsideration on the issuance
pictures were then uploaded by appropriate action. Thereafter, Mussolini S. Yap (Yap), Roswinda ofthe TRO remained unresolved.
Angela Lindsay Tan (Angela) on following an investigation, STC Jumiller, and Tigol. What is more,
her Facebook3 profile. found the identified students to Sr. Purisima informed their Thereafter, petitioners filed before
have deported themselves in a parents the following day that, as the RTC a Petition for the
manner proscribed by the school’s part of their penalty, they are Issuance of a Writ of Habeas
Back at the school, Mylene Rheza
Student Handbook, to wit: barred from joining the Data, docketed as SP. Proc. No.
T. Escudero (Escudero), a
computer teacher at STC’s high commencement exercises 19251-CEB8 on the basis of the
school department, learned from 1. Possession of alcoholic scheduled on March 30, 2012. following considerations:
her students that some seniors at drinks outside the school
STC posted pictures online, campus; A week before graduation, or on 1. The photos of their
depicting themselves from the March 23, 2012, Angela’s mother, children in their
waist up, dressed only in 2. Engaging in immoral, Dr. Armenia M. Tan (Tan), filed a undergarments (e.g., bra)
brassieres. Escudero then asked indecent, obscene or lewd Petition for Injunction and were taken for posterity
her students if they knew who the acts; Damages before the RTC of Cebu before they changed into
girls in the photos are. In turn, City against STC, et al., docketed their swimsuits on the
they readily identified Julia, as Civil Case No. CEB-38594. 7In

Human Rights Law (Writ of Habeas Data) Page 167 of 174

 occasion of a birthday information, data, and In time, respondents complied to who may view them, lost their
beach party; digital images happened with the RTC’s directive and filed privacy in some way. Besides, the
at STC’s Computer their verified written return, laying RTC noted, STC gathered the
2. The privacy setting of Laboratory; and down the following grounds for the photographs through legal means
their children’s Facebook denial of the petition, viz: (a) and for a legal purpose, that is,
accounts was set at 6. All the data and digital petitioners are not the proper the implementation of the school’s
"Friends Only." They, images that were parties to file the petition; (b) policies and rules on discipline.
thus, have a reasonable extracted were boldly petitioners are engaging in forum
expectation of privacy broadcasted by shopping; (c) the instant case is Not satisfied with the outcome,
which must be respected. respondents through their not one where a writ of habeas petitioners now come before this
memorandum submitted data may issue;and (d) there can Court pursuant to Section 19 of
to the RTC in connection be no violation of their right to the Rule on Habeas Data.10
3. Respondents, being
with Civil Case No. CEB- privacy as there is no reasonable
involved in the field of
38594. To petitioners, the expectation of privacy on
education, knew or ought The Issues
interplay of the foregoing Facebook.
to have known of laws
that safeguard the right to constitutes an invasion of The main issue to be threshed out
privacy. Corollarily, their children’s privacy Ruling of the Regional Trial Court inthis case is whether or not a writ
respondents knew or and, thus, prayed that: (a) of habeas datashould be issued
ought to have known that a writ of habeas databe On July 27, 2012, the RTC given the factual milieu. Crucial in
the girls, whose privacy issued; (b) respondents rendered a Decision dismissing resolving the controversy,
has been invaded, are the be ordered to surrender the petition for habeas data. The however, is the pivotal point of
victims in this case, and and deposit with the court dispositive portion of the Decision whether or not there was indeed
not the offenders. Worse, all soft and printed copies pertinently states: an actual or threatened violation
after viewing the photos, of the subjectdata before of the right to privacy in the life,
the minors were called or at the preliminary WHEREFORE, in view of the liberty, or security of the minors
"immoral" and were hearing; and (c) after trial, foregoing premises, the Petition is involved in this case.
punished outright; judgment be rendered hereby DISMISSED.
declaring all information,
data, and digital images Our Ruling
4. The photos accessed The parties and media must
accessed, saved or
belong to the girls and, observe the aforestated
stored, reproduced, We find no merit in the petition.
thus, cannot be used and confidentiality.
spread and used, to have
reproduced without their
been illegally obtained Procedural issues concerning the
consent. Escudero,
inviolation of the xxxx availability of the Writ of Habeas
however, violated their
children’s right to privacy. Data
rights by saving digital
copies of the photos and SO ORDERED.9
by subsequently showing Finding the petition sufficient in The writ of habeas datais a
them to STC’s officials. form and substance, the RTC, To the trial court, petitioners failed remedy available to any person
Thus, the Facebook through an Order dated July 5, to prove the existence of an actual whose right to privacy in life,
accounts of petitioners’ 2012, issued the writ of habeas or threatened violation of the liberty or security is violated or
children were intruded data. Through the same Order, minors’ right to privacy, one of the threatened by an unlawful act or
upon; herein respondents were directed preconditions for the issuance of omission of a public official or
to file their verified written return, the writ of habeas data. Moreover, employee, or of a private
together with the supporting the court a quoheld that the individual or entity engaged in the
5. The intrusion into the
affidavits, within five (5) working photos, having been uploaded on gathering, collecting or storing of
Facebook accounts, as
days from service of the writ. Facebook without restrictions as data or information regarding the
well as the copying of

Human Rights Law (Writ of Habeas Data) Page 168 of 174

person, family, home and Without an actionable entitlement disappearances, the petition may independent remedy to enforce
correspondence of the aggrieved in the first place to the right to be filed by: one’s right to privacy, more
party.11 It is an independent and informational privacy, a habeas specifically the right to
summary remedy designed to datapetition will not prosper. (a) Any member of the informational privacy. The
protect the image, privacy, honor, Viewed from the perspective of immediate family of the remedies against the violation of
information, and freedom of the case at bar,this requisite begs aggrieved party, namely: such right can include the
information of an individual, and to this question: given the nature of the spouse, children and updating, rectification,
provide a forum to enforce one’s an online social network (OSN)–– parents; or suppression or destruction of the
right to the truth and to (1) that it facilitates and promotes database or information or files in
informational privacy. It seeks to real-time interaction among possession or in control of
(b) Any ascendant,
protect a person’s right to control millions, if not billions, of users, respondents.18 (emphasis Ours)
descendant or collateral
information regarding oneself, sans the spatial Clearly then, the privilege of the
relative of the aggrieved
particularly in instances in which barriers,16 bridging the gap Writ of Habeas Datamay also be
party within the fourth civil
such information is being collected created by physical space; and (2) availed of in cases outside of
degreeof consanguinity or
through unlawful means in order that any information uploaded in extralegal killings and enforced
affinity, in default of those
to achieve unlawful ends.12 OSNs leavesan indelible trace in disappearances.
mentioned in the
the provider’s databases, which preceding paragraph.
In developing the writ of habeas are outside the control of the end- b. Meaning of "engaged" in the
(emphasis supplied)
data, the Court aimed to protect users––is there a right to gathering, collecting or storing of
an individual’s right to informational privacy in OSN data or information
activities of its users? Before Had the framers of the Rule
informational privacy, among
addressing this point, We must intended to narrow the operation
others. A comparative law scholar Respondents’ contention that the
first resolve the procedural issues of the writ only to cases of
has, in fact, defined habeas habeas data writ may not issue
in this case. extralegal killings or enforced
dataas "a procedure designed to against STC, it not being an entity
disappearances, the above
safeguard individual freedom from engaged in the gathering,
underscored portion of Section 2,
abuse in the information a. The writ of habeas data is not collecting or storing of data or
reflecting a variance of habeas
age."13 The writ, however, will not only confined to cases of information regarding the person,
data situations, would not have
issue on the basis merely of an extralegal killings and enforced family, home and correspondence
been made.
alleged unauthorized access to disappearances of the aggrieved party, while valid
information about a to a point, is, nonetheless,
person.Availment of the writ Habeas data, to stress, was
Contrary to respondents’ erroneous.
requires the existence of a nexus designed "to safeguard individual
submission, the Writ of Habeas
between the right to privacy on the freedom from abuse in the
Datawas not enacted solely for To be sure, nothing in the Rule
one hand, and the right to life, information age."17 As such, it is
the purpose of complementing the would suggest that the habeas
liberty or security on the erroneous to limit its applicability
Writ of Amparoin cases of data protection shall be available
other.14 Thus, the existence of a to extralegal killings and enforced
extralegal killings and enforced only against abuses of a person or
person’s right to informational disappearances only. In fact, the
disappearances. entity engaged in the businessof
privacy and a showing, at least by annotations to the Rule
preparedby the Committee on the gathering, storing, and collecting
substantial evidence, of an actual Section 2 of the Rule on the Writ Revision of the Rules of Court, of data. As provided under
or threatened violation of the right of Habeas Data provides: after explaining that the Writ of Section 1 of the Rule:
to privacy in life, liberty or security
of the victim are indispensable Habeas Data complements the
before the privilege of the writ may Sec. 2. Who May File. – Any Writ of Amparo, pointed out that: Section 1. Habeas Data. – The
be extended.15 aggrieved party may file a petition writ of habeas datais a remedy
for the writ of habeas data. The writ of habeas data, however, available to any person whose
However, in cases of extralegal can be availed of as an right to privacy in life, liberty or
killings and enforced security is violated or threatened

Human Rights Law (Writ of Habeas Data) Page 169 of 174

by an unlawful act or omission of To agree with respondents’ above right of individuals to control wisdom." Consistent with this, the
a public official or employee, or of argument, would mean unduly information about themselves.23 Court, by developing what may be
a private individual or entity limiting the reach of the writ to a viewed as the Philippine model of
engaged in the gathering, very small group, i.e., private With the availability of numerous the writ of habeas data, in effect,
collecting or storing of data or persons and entities whose avenues for information gathering recognized that, generally
information regarding the person, business is data gathering and and data sharing nowadays, not to speaking, having an expectation
family, home and correspondence storage, and in the process mention each system’s inherent of informational privacy is not
of the aggrieved party. (emphasis decreasing the effectiveness of vulnerability to attacks and necessarily incompatible with
Ours) the writ asan instrument designed intrusions, there is more reason engaging in cyberspace activities,
to protect a right which is easily that every individual’s right to including those that occur in
The provision, when taken in its violated in view of rapid control said flow of information OSNs.
proper context, as a whole, advancements in the information should be protected and that each
irresistibly conveys the idea that and communications individual should have at least a The question now though is up to
habeas data is a protection technology––a right which a great reasonable expectation of privacy whatextent is the right to privacy
against unlawful acts or omissions majority of the users of technology in cyberspace. Several protected in OSNs? Bear in mind
of public officials and of private themselves are not capable of commentators regarding privacy that informational privacy involves
individuals or entities engaged in protecting. and social networking sites, personal information. At the same
gathering, collecting, or storing however, all agree that given the time, the very purpose of OSNs is
data about the aggrieved party Having resolved the procedural millions of OSN users, "[i]n this socializing––sharing a myriad of
and his or her correspondences, aspect of the case, We now [Social Networking] environment, information,27 some of which
or about his or her family. Such proceed to the core of the privacy is no longer grounded in would have otherwise remained
individual or entity need not be in controversy. reasonable expectations, but personal.
the business of collecting or rather in some theoretical protocol
storing data. The right to informational privacy better known as wishful b. Facebook’s Privacy Tools: a
on Facebook thinking."24 response to the clamor for privacy
To "engage" in something is in OSN activities
different from undertaking a a. The Right to Informational It is due to this notion that the
business endeavour. To "engage" Privacy Court saw the pressing need to Briefly, the purpose of an OSN is
means "to do or take part in provide for judicial remedies that precisely to give users the ability
something."19 It does not would allow a summary hearing of to interact and to stay connected
The concept of privacyhas,
necessarily mean that the activity the unlawful use of data or to other members of the same or
through time, greatly evolved, with
must be done in pursuit of a information and to remedy different social media platform
technological advancements
business. What matters is that the possible violations of the right to through the sharing of statuses,
having an influential part therein.
person or entity must be privacy.25 In the same vein, the photos, videos, among others,
This evolution was briefly
gathering, collecting or storing South African High Court, in its depending on the services
recounted in former Chief Justice
said data or information about the Decision in the landmark case, H provided by the site. It is akin to
Reynato S. Puno’s speech, The
aggrieved party or his or her v. W,26promulgated on January30, having a room filled with millions
Common Right to Privacy,20 where
family. Whether such undertaking 2013, recognized that "[t]he law of personal bulletin boards or
he explained the three strands of
carries the element of regularity, has to take into account the "walls," the contents of which are
the right to privacy, viz: (1)
as when one pursues a business, changing realities not only under the control of each and
locational or situational
and is in the nature of a personal technologically but also socially or every user. In his or her bulletin
privacy;21(2) informational privacy;
endeavour, for any other reason else it will lose credibility in the board, a user/owner can post
and (3) decisional privacy.22 Of the
or even for no reason at all, is eyes of the people. x x x It is anything––from text, to pictures,
three, what is relevant to the case
immaterial and such will not imperative that the courts respond to music and videos––access to
at bar is the right to informational
prevent the writ from getting to appropriately to changing times, which would depend on whether
privacy––usually defined as the
said person or entity. acting cautiously and with he or she allows one, some or all

Human Rights Law (Writ of Habeas Data) Page 170 of 174

of the other users to see his or her "customize their privacy settings," statuses, and photos, among Before one can have an
posts. Since gaining popularity, but did so with this caveat: others, from another user’s point expectation of privacy in his or her
the OSN phenomenon has paved "Facebook states in its policies of view. In other words, Facebook OSN activity, it is first necessary
the way to the creation of various that, although it makes every extends its users an avenue to that said user, in this case the
social networking sites, effort to protect a user’s make the availability of their children of petitioners,manifest the
includingthe one involved in the information, these privacy settings Facebook activities reflect their intention to keepcertain posts
case at bar, www.facebook.com are not foolproof."33 choice as to "when and to what private, through the employment
(Facebook), which, according to extent to disclose facts about of measures to prevent access
its developers, people use "to stay For instance, a Facebook user [themselves] – and to put others in thereto or to limit its
connected with friends and family, canregulate the visibility and the position of receiving such visibility.36 And this intention can
to discover what’s going on in the accessibility of digital confidences."34 Ideally, the materialize in cyberspace through
world, and to share and express images(photos), posted on his or selected setting will be based on the utilization of the OSN’s privacy
what matters to them."28 her personal bulletin or "wall," one’s desire to interact with tools. In other words, utilization of
except for the user’sprofile picture others, coupled with the opposing these privacy tools is the
Facebook connections are and ID, by selecting his or her need to withhold certain manifestation,in cyber world, of
established through the process of desired privacy setting: information as well as to regulate the user’s invocation of his or her
"friending" another user. By the spreading of his or her right to informational privacy.37
sending a "friend request," the personal information. Needless to
(a) Public - the default
user invites another to connect say, as the privacy setting Therefore, a Facebook user who
setting; every Facebook
their accounts so that they can becomes more limiting, fewer opts to make use of a privacy tool
user can view the photo;
view any and all "Public" and Facebook users can view that to grant or deny access to his or
"Friends Only" posts of the user’s particular post. her post orprofile detail should not
(b) Friends of Friends -
other.Once the request is be denied the informational
only the user’s Facebook
accepted, the link is established STC did not violate petitioners’ privacy right which necessarily
friends and their friends
and both users are permitted to daughters’ right to privacy accompanies said
can view the photo;
view the other user’s "Public" or choice.38Otherwise, using these
"Friends Only" posts, among Without these privacy settings, privacy tools would be a feckless
others. "Friending," therefore, (b) Friends - only the exercise, such that if, for instance,
respondents’ contention that there
allows the user to form or maintain user’s Facebook friends a user uploads a photo or any
is no reasonable expectation of
one-to-one relationships with can view the photo; personal information to his or her
privacy in Facebook would, in
other users, whereby the user context, be correct. However, Facebook page and sets its
gives his or her "Facebook friend" (c) Custom - the photo is such is not the case. It is through privacy level at "Only Me" or a
access to his or her profile and made visible only to the availability of said privacy custom list so that only the user or
shares certain information to the particular friends and/or tools that many OSN users are a chosen few can view it, said
latter.29 networks of the Facebook said to have a subjective photo would still be deemed public
user; and expectation that only those to by the courts as if the user never
To address concerns about whomthey grant access to their chose to limit the photo’s visibility
privacy,30 but without defeating its (d) Only Me - the digital profile will view the information and accessibility. Such position, if
purpose, Facebook was armed image can be viewed only they post or upload thereto.35 adopted, will not only strip these
with different privacy tools by the user. privacy tools of their function but it
designed to regulate the would also disregard the very
This, however, does not mean
accessibility of a user’s profile31 as The foregoing are privacy tools, intention of the user to keep said
thatany Facebook user
well as information uploaded by available to Facebook users, photo or information within the
automatically has a protected
the user. In H v. W,32 the South designed to set up barriers to confines of his or her private
expectation of privacy inall of his
Gauteng High Court recognized broaden or limit the visibility of his space.
or her Facebook activities.
this ability of the users to or her specific profile content,

Human Rights Law (Writ of Habeas Data) Page 171 of 174

We must now determine the Escudero, on the other hand, to viewthe allegedly private posts That the photos are viewable by
extent that the images in question stated in her affidavit41 that "my were ever resorted to by "friends only" does not necessarily
were visible to other Facebook students showed me some Escudero’s students,43 and that it bolster the petitioners’ contention.
users and whether the disclosure pictures of girls cladin brassieres. is reasonable to assume, In this regard, the cyber
was confidential in nature. In other This student [sic] of mine informed therefore, that the photos were, in community is agreed that the
words, did the minors limit the me that these are senior high reality, viewable either by (1) their digital images under this setting
disclosure of the photos such that school [students] of STC, who are Facebook friends, or (2) by the still remain to be outside the
the images were kept within their their friends in [F]acebook. x x x public at large. confines of the zones of privacy in
zones of privacy? This They then said [that] there are still view of the following:
determination is necessary in many other photos posted on the Considering that the default
resolving the issue of whether the Facebook accounts of these girls. setting for Facebook posts (1) Facebook "allows the
minors carved out a zone of At the computer lab, these is"Public," it can be surmised that world to be more open
privacy when the photos were students then logged into their the photographs in question were and connected by giving
uploaded to Facebook so that the Facebook account [sic], and viewable to everyone on its users the tools to
images will be protected against accessed from there the various Facebook, absent any proof that interact and share in any
unauthorized access and photographs x x x. They even told petitioners’ children positively conceivable way;"47
disclosure. me that there had been times limited the disclosure of the
when these photos were ‘public’ photograph. If suchwere the case, (2) A good number of
Petitioners, in support of their i.e., not confined to their friends in they cannot invoke the protection Facebook users
thesis about their children’s Facebook." attached to the right to "befriend" other users
privacy right being violated, insist informational privacy. The ensuing who are total strangers;48
that Escudero intruded upon their In this regard, We cannot give pronouncement in US v. Gines-
children’s Facebook accounts, muchweight to the minors’ Perez44 is most instructive: (3) The sheer number of
downloaded copies ofthe pictures testimonies for one key reason: "Friends" one user has,
and showed said photos to Tigol. failure to question the students’ [A] person who places a usually by the hundreds;
To them, this was a breach of the act of showing the photos to Tigol photograph on the Internet and
minors’ privacy since their disproves their allegation that the precisely intends to forsake and
Facebook accounts, allegedly, photos were viewable only by the renounce all privacy rights to such
were under "very private" or "Only five of them. Without any evidence (4) A user’s Facebook
imagery, particularly under
Friends" setting safeguarded with to corroborate their statement that friend can "share"49 the
circumstances suchas here,
a password.39 Ultimately, they the images were visible only to the former’s post, or
where the Defendant did not
posit that their children’s five of them, and without their "tag"50 others who are not
employ protective measures or
disclosure was only limited since challenging Escudero’s claim that Facebook friends with the
devices that would have controlled
their profiles were not open to the other students were able to former, despite its being
access to the Web page or the
public viewing. Therefore, view the photos, their statements visible only tohis or her
photograph itself.45
according to them, people who are, at best, self-serving, thus own Facebook friends.
are not their Facebook friends, deserving scant consideration.42 Also, United States v.
including respondents, are barred It is well to emphasize at this point
Maxwell46 held that "[t]he more
from accessing said post without It is well to note that not one of that setting a post’s or profile
open the method of transmission
their knowledge and consent. petitioners disputed Escudero’s detail’s privacy to "Friends" is no
is, the less privacy one can
Aspetitioner’s children testified, it sworn account that her students, assurance that it can no longer be
reasonably expect. Messages
was Angelawho uploaded the who are the minors’ Facebook viewed by another user who is not
sent to the public at large inthe
subjectphotos which were only "friends," showed her the photos Facebook friends with the source
chat room or e-mail that is
viewable by the five of using their own Facebook of the content. The user’s own
forwarded from correspondent to
them,40 although who these five accounts. This only goes to show Facebook friend can share said
correspondent loses any
are do not appear on the records. that no special means to be able content or tag his or her own
semblance of privacy."

Human Rights Law (Writ of Habeas Data) Page 172 of 174

Facebook friend thereto, As applied, even assuming that if indiscriminately circulated, the that many OSN users, especially
regardless of whether the user the photos in issue are visible only reputation of the minors enrolled minors, fail.Responsible social
tagged by the latter is Facebook to the sanctioned students’ in a conservative institution. networking or observance of the
friends or not with the former. Facebook friends, respondent However, the records are bereft of "netiquettes"56 on the part of
Also, when the post is shared or STC can hardly be taken to task any evidence, other than bare teenagers has been the concern
when a person is tagged, the for the perceived privacy invasion assertions that they utilized of many due to the
respective Facebook friends of the since it was the minors’ Facebook Facebook’s privacy settings to widespreadnotion that teenagers
person who shared the post or friends who showed the pictures make the photos visible only to can sometimes go too far since
who was tagged can view the to Tigol. Respondents were mere them or to a select few. Without they generally lack the people
post, the privacy setting of which recipients of what were posted. proof that they placed the skills or general wisdom to
was set at "Friends." They did not resort to any unlawful photographs subject of this case conduct themselves sensibly in a
means of gathering the within the ambit of their protected public forum.57
To illustrate, suppose A has 100 information as it was voluntarily zone of privacy, they cannot now
Facebook friends and B has 200. given to them by persons who had insist that they have an Respondent STC is clearly aware
A and B are not Facebook friends. legitimate access to the said expectation of privacy with respect of this and incorporating lessons
If C, A’s Facebook friend, tags B posts. Clearly, the fault, if any, lies to the photographs in question. on good cyber citizenship in its
in A’s post, which is set at with the friends of the minors. curriculum to educate its students
"Friends," the initial audience of Curiously enough, however, Had it been proved that the on proper online conduct may be
100 (A’s own Facebook friends) is neither the minors nor their access tothe pictures posted were mosttimely. Too, it is not only STC
dramatically increased to 300 (A’s parents imputed any violation of limited to the original uploader, but a number of schools and
100 friends plus B’s 200 friends or privacy against the students who through the "Me Only" privacy organizations have already
the public, depending upon B’s showed the images to Escudero. setting, or that the user’s contact deemed it important to include
privacy setting). As a result, the list has been screened to limit digital literacy and good cyber
audience who can view the post is Furthermore, petitioners failed to access to a select few, through citizenshipin their respective
effectively expanded––and to a prove their contention that the "Custom" setting, the result programs and curricula in view of
very large extent. respondents reproduced and may have been different, for in the risks that the children are
broadcasted the photographs. In such instances, the intention to exposed to every time they
This, along with its other features fact, what petitioners attributed to limit access to the particular post, participate in online
and uses, is confirmation of respondents as an act of offensive instead of being broadcasted to activities.58 Furthermore,
Facebook’s proclivity towards user disclosure was no more than the the public at large or all the user’s considering the complexity of the
interaction and socialization rather actuality that respondents friends en masse, becomes more cyber world and its
than seclusion or privacy, as it appended said photographs in manifest and palpable. pervasiveness,as well as the
encourages broadcasting of their memorandum submitted to dangers that these children are
individual user posts. In fact, it has the trial court in connection with On Cyber Responsibility wittingly or unwittingly exposed to
been said that OSNs have Civil Case No. CEB- in view of their unsupervised
facilitated their users’ self-tribute, 38594.52 These are not activities in cyberspace, the
It has been said that "the best
thereby resulting into the tantamount to a violation of the participation of the parents in
filter is the one between your
"democratization of fame."51Thus, minor’s informational privacy disciplining and educating their
children’s ears."53 This means that
it is suggested, that a profile, or rights, contrary to petitioners’ children about being a good digital
self-regulation on the part of OSN
even a post, with visibility set at assertion. citizen is encouraged by these
users and internet consumers
"Friends Only" cannot easily, institutions and organizations. In
ingeneral is the best means of
more so automatically, be said to In sum, there can be no quibbling fact, it is believed that "to limit
avoiding privacy rights
be "very private," contrary to that the images in question, or to such risks, there’s no substitute
violations.54 As a cyberspace
petitioners’ argument. be more precise, the photos of for parental involvement and
communitymember, one has to be
minor students scantily clad, are supervision."59
proactive in protecting his or her
personal in nature, likely to affect, own privacy.55 It is in this regard

Human Rights Law (Writ of Habeas Data) Page 173 of 174

As such, STC cannot be faulted themselves take utmost care in
for being steadfast in its duty of safeguarding a right which they
teaching its students to allege to have been violated.
beresponsible in their dealings These are indispensable. We
and activities in cyberspace, cannot afford protection to
particularly in OSNs, whenit persons if they themselves did
enforced the disciplinary actions nothing to place the matter within
specified in the Student the confines of their private zone.
Handbook, absenta showing that, OSN users must be mindful
in the process, it violated the enough to learn the use of privacy
students’ rights. tools, to use them if they desire to
keep the information private, and
OSN users should be aware of the to keep track of changes in the
risks that they expose themselves available privacy settings, such as
to whenever they engage those of Facebook, especially
incyberspace because Facebook is notorious for
activities.1âwphi1 Accordingly, changing these settings and the
they should be cautious enough to site's layout often.
control their privacy and to
exercise sound discretion In finding that respondent STC
regarding how much information and its officials did not violate the
about themselves they are willing minors' privacy rights, We find no
to give up. Internet consumers cogent reason to disturb the
ought to be aware that, by findings and case disposition of
entering or uploading any kind of the court a quo.
data or information online, they
are automatically and inevitably In light of the foregoing, the Court
making it permanently available need not belabor the other
online, the perpetuation of which assigned errors.
is outside the ambit of their
control. Furthermore, and more WHEREFORE, premises
importantly, information, otherwise considered, the petition is hereby
private, voluntarily surrendered by DENIED. The Decision dated July
them can be opened, read, or 27, 2012 of the Regional Trial
copied by third parties who may or Court, Branch 14 in Cebu City in
may not be allowed access to SP. Proc. No. 19251-CEB is
such. hereby AFFIRMED.

It is, thus, incumbent upon internet No pronouncement as to costs.

users to exercise due diligence in
their online dealings and activities
and must not be negligent in SO ORDERED.
protecting their rights. Equity
serves the vigilant. Demanding
relief from the courts, as here,
requires that claimants

Human Rights Law (Writ of Habeas Data) Page 174 of 174