G.R. No. 191416 - Mamba vs. Bueno

Robbery and Task Force Investigation
On June 13, 2009, the canteen owned by Emelita N. Mamba in Tuao, Cagayan was robbed. Emelita is the mother of Mayor William N. Mamba and Atty. Francisco N. Mamba, Jr.
The Sangguniang Bayan of Tuao created the Task Force Lingkod Bayan—composed of Ariel Malana, Narding Aggangan, Jomari Sagalon, Jun Cinabre, Rommel Encollado, and others—to assist the local police in investigating the robbery.

On June 14, 2009, Task Force members invited then-minor respondent Leomar Bueno for questioning at the Tuao police station. No police investigators or SWD representatives were present, so the investigation stalled. An eyewitness, Raymund Rodriguez, pointed to respondent, who allegedly threatened to kill him.
Custody of the respondent remained with the Task Force until June 18, 2009, when it was transferred to the PNP Cagayan Regional Office. The respondent was released to the local SWD office later that day.

On June 14, 2009, members of the Task Force fetched the respondent from the police station and brought him to Mayor Mamba’s house, where Ariel Malana beat him with a gun and threatened his life.
On June 15, 2009, the respondent and co-accused Lorenzo Haber were tortured: beaten with a cue stick, made to roll on the ground, dripped with hot wax, blindfolded and interrogated by Atty. Mamba, suffocated with plastic bags, and subjected to electric torture. They were held until June 18 and released only after intervention by P/Supt. Joselito Buenaobra of the PNP Cagayan Regional Office.

Respondent filed a petition for a writ of amparo on August 25, 2009. The CA gave due course and issued the writ on September 14, 2009.
A summary hearing was held; respondent presented testimony and medical evidence, while petitioners denied the allegations. By Decision dated January 18, 2010, the CA granted the writ, enjoined petitioners from further threats or violence, ordered the PNP Cagayan Regional Office to investigate with extraordinary diligence, required Mayor Mamba’s assistance, and mandated periodic reports. A motion for reconsideration was denied on March 2, 2010.

Petitioners filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court on March 12, 2010, challenging (a) the timeliness of their appeal and (b) the propriety of the writ of amparo.
Respondent opposed, arguing the petition was timely and that amparo was the proper remedy for the alleged enforced disappearance, torture, and threats to his life, liberty, and security.

Timeliness of the Petition
Was the petition for review on certiorari filed within the reglementary period under Section 19 of A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC?

Propriety of Granting the Writ of Amparo
Did the Court of Appeals err in granting the writ of amparo in favor of respondent Leomar Bueno?