Case Digest (G.R. No. 184461-62)
Facts:
Lt. Col. Rogelio Boac, Lt. Col. Felipe Anotado and Lt. Francis Mirabelle Samson, petitioners, vs. Erlinda T. Cadapan and Concepcion E. Empeno, respondents; Erlinda T. Cadapan and Concepcion E. Empeno, petitioners, vs. Gen. Hermogenes Esperon, P/Dir.Gen. Avelino Razon, (Ret.) Gen. Romeo Tolentino, (Ret.) Gen. Jovito Palparan, Lt. Col. Rogelio Boac, Lt. Col. Felipe Anotado, et al., respondents; G.R. Nos. 184461-62, 184495 and 187109, May 31, 2011, Supreme Court En Banc, Carpio Morales, J., writing for the Court.At about 2:00 a.m. on June 26, 2006, three persons—Sherlyn Cadapan, Karen Empeno and Manuel Merino—were abducted from a house in San Miguel, Hagonoy, Bulacan and loaded into a stainless jeep said to bear plate RTF 597. Their families searched police and military stations but could not locate them. On July 17, 2006, spouses Asher and Erlinda Cadapan and Concepcion Empeno filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus (docketed G.R. No. 173228), impleading several military officers including Gen. Jovito Palparan, Lt. Col. Rogelio Boac, Arnel Enriquez and Lt. Francis Mirabelle Samson. The Supreme Court issued a writ of habeas corpus on July 19, 2006 returnable to the Court of Appeals (docketed CA-G.R. SP No. 95303).
Respondents filed a Return on July 21, 2006 denying custody; an LTO certification stated plate RTF 597 had not been manufactured as of July 26, 2006. The Court of Appeals conducted hearings: witnesses who testified for petitioners included Wilfredo Ramos (eyewitness to the abduction), Alberto Ramirez (who identified a jeep with plate RTF 597 and recounted an encounter with “Enriquez”), and Oscar Leuterio (who testified he saw Sherlyn and Karen detained in Fort Magsaysay). The respondents produced denials and certifications; Lt. Col. Boac and others testified but denied custody or knowledge.
By Decision of March 29, 2007 the Court of Appeals dismissed the habeas corpus petition, holding habeas corpus inappropriate where the missing persons’ custody by respondents was not shown and recommending criminal investigations by other agencies. Petitioners moved for reconsideration and proffered newly discovered witnesses.
While that motion was pending, Erlinda Cadapan and Concepcion Empeno filed an action for writ of amparo on October 24, 2007 (G.R. No. 179994), impleading many of the same respondents plus additional officials; the Supreme Court issued a writ of amparo on October 25, 2007 and consolidated it with the pending habeas corpus proceeding (CA-G.R. SP No. 002). Respondents filed a return on November 6, 2007 denying involvement; additional witnesses for petitioners included Adoracion Paulino (who testified Sherlyn briefly visited her home in 2007 accompanied by persons she believed were soldiers) and Raymond Manalo (who testified he saw Sherlyn, Karen and Merino detained, tortured and moved among military camps including Camp Tecson and Limay).
On September 17, 2008 the Court of Appeals granted the motion for reconsideration in the habeas corpus case and, relying heavily on Raymond Manalo’s testimony, ordered the immediate release of Sherlyn, Karen and Merino in both the habeas corpus and amparo cases and directed the PNP to resume investigation. Petitioners (Lt. Col. Boac et al.) filed petitions for review with the Supreme Court (G.R. Nos. 184461-62); Cadapan and Empeno filed a separate petition challenging the amparo aspect (redocketed as G.R. No. 184495). Meanwhile, petitioners moved in the appellate court to cite respondents in contempt for noncompliance with the release order; the CA denied the contempt motion on March 5, 2009 holding its decision was not ipso facto executory and that petitioners had not filed a motion for execution. Petitioners sought relief from the Supreme Court on that point (G.R. No. 187109). The three cases were consolidated by the Supreme Court on June 15, 2010.
During the Supreme Court proceedings the Court noted prior related rulings—most...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Do the petitioners have standing to file the writ of amparo on behalf of Manuel Merino under Section 2 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo?
- Is the testimony of Raymond Manalo credible and sufficient to support the Court of Appeals’ finding that Sherlyn Cadapan, Karen Empeno and Manuel Merino were detained by military elements?
- May the doctrine of command responsibility be applied in an amparo proceeding to hold military superiors responsible or accountable for the abduction and detention of the three missing persons?
- Must a motion for execution be filed to effectuate an amparo or habeas c...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)