Title
Burgos vs. Esperon, Jr.
Case
G.R. No. 178497
Decision Date
Feb 4, 2014
Jonas Burgos, abducted in 2007, was a victim of enforced disappearance. Lt. Baliaga and military units were implicated; the Supreme Court upheld accountability, emphasizing extraordinary diligence in investigations.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 178497)

Facts:

Background of the Case

The case involves the enforced disappearance of Jonas Joseph T. Burgos, who was allegedly abducted on April 28, 2007, from the Hapag Kainan Restaurant in Quezon City. Eyewitnesses Jeffrey Cabintoy and Elsa Agasang identified Lt. Harry A. Baliaga, Jr. as one of the principal abductors. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court through petitions for the Writ of Amparo, Habeas Corpus, and Contempt.

Referral to the Commission on Human Rights (CHR)

On June 22, 2010, the Supreme Court referred the case to the CHR for investigation due to significant lapses in prior investigations by the PNP-CIDG and AFP Provost Marshal. The CHR found that Jonas’s constitutional rights to life, liberty, and security were violated and identified Lt. Baliaga as one of the abductors.

New Evidence and CHR Report

The CHR uncovered evidence linking the male abductor in the cartographic sketch to the “ERAP 5” incident, where Virgilio Eustaquio claimed one of the abductors resembled the individual in the sketch. The CHR requested documents related to military personnel involved in the ERAP 5 incident, but the AFP initially refused, citing irrelevance. The Supreme Court later ordered the submission of these documents for review.

Supreme Court Resolutions

The Supreme Court issued several resolutions, including:

  1. July 5, 2011 Resolution: Ordered the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, impleaded Lt. Baliaga as a respondent, and directed the AFP and PNP to continue investigations.
  2. August 23, 2011 Resolution: Limited the documents to be submitted to those assigned to the 56th Infantry Battalion from 2004 to 2007.
  3. November 29, 2011 Resolution: Denied the CHR’s request for access to confidential documents.
  4. March 20, 2012 CHR Progress Report: Included Eustaquio’s affidavit confirming the resemblance between one of Jonas’s abductors and the ERAP 5 abductors.

Court of Appeals Decision

On March 18, 2013, the CA ruled that Jonas was a victim of enforced disappearance, held Lt. Baliaga responsible, and declared the AFP and PNP accountable for failing to exercise extraordinary diligence in the investigation.

Petitioner’s Motion

On April 1, 2013, Edita Burgos filed an Urgent Ex Parte Motion Ex Abundanti Cautela, submitting newly discovered evidence alleging that an intelligence unit of the 7th Infantry Division and 56th Infantry Battalion captured Jonas. The respondents denied the existence of these documents.

Issue:

  1. Whether the documents submitted by the respondents to the Supreme Court are relevant and admissible.
  2. Whether the petitioner’s Urgent Ex Parte Motion Ex Abundanti Cautela should be granted, based on newly discovered evidence.
  3. Whether the Writ of Amparo should be reissued and the case referred back to the CA for further hearings.

Ruling:

  1. Relevance and Disclosure of Documents: The Supreme Court granted the CHR access to the requested documents to identify the abductors depicted in the cartographic sketches, emphasizing the sensitivity and confidentiality of the documents.
  2. Denial of Petitioner’s Motion: The Court denied the petitioner’s motion, stating that the beneficial purpose of the Writ of Amparo had been served, and further investigation was redundant.
  3. Referral to DOJ: The Court referred the case to the DOJ for further investigation and potential criminal prosecution, without prejudice to the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction if the case is cognizable by the Sandiganbayan.

Ratio:

  1. Extraordinary Diligence: The Court emphasized the need for extraordinary diligence in investigating enforced disappearances under the Writ of Amparo.
  2. Responsibility vs. Accountability: The Court distinguished between responsibility (direct involvement in the disappearance) and accountability (failure to exercise extraordinary diligence in the investigation).
  3. Confidentiality and Relevance: The Court balanced the need for thorough investigation with the confidentiality of sensitive military documents, allowing the CHR limited access to determine relevance.
  4. Finality of CA Decision: The Court upheld the CA’s final determination of the entities responsible and accountable for Jonas’s disappearance, making further proceedings redundant.


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.