Case Digest (G.R. No. 242257) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Vivian A. Sanchez v. PSupt. Marc Anthony D. Darroca, et al. (G.R. No. 242257, October 15, 2019), petitioner Vivian A. Sanchez learned on August 16, 2018 that her estranged husband, Eldie Labinghisa, was among seven alleged New People’s Army members killed by the Philippine National Police (PNP) in San Jose, Antique. When she went to St. Peter’s Funeral Home to identify his body, police officers took her photograph without consent. Fearing retribution, she left before confirming the corpse. Later, Police Officer 2 Nerissa De la Cruz warned Sanchez that her image was being circulated in police stations and urged her to cooperate or risk suspicion. The next day, three officers threatened to charge her with obstruction of justice if she did not answer questions. Subsequently, two officers confirmed the corpse as her husband’s and, in the following days, Sanchez and her daughters experienced frequent police drive-bys, surveillance by an unmarked vehicle, and being tailed during a Case Digest (G.R. No. 242257) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Military-police encounter and deaths
- On August 15, 2018, members of PNP-Region VI engaged alleged NPA rebels in Barangay Atabay, San Jose, Antique, resulting in seven fatalities, including petitioner’s estranged husband Eldie Labinghisa.
- The corpses were brought to St. Peter’s Funeral Home for identification.
- Initial contact and photograph incident
- August 16, 2018: Petitioner Vivian A. Sanchez went to the funeral home to verify her husband’s death; police officers there took her photograph without her consent.
- That evening, PO2 Nerissa A. De la Cruz informed Sanchez her photo was being circulated at the police station and warned that failure to name her husband would draw surveillance and suspicion.
- Intimidation and threats
- August 17, 2018: Sanchez returned to the funeral home; three police officers threatened to charge her with obstruction of justice unless she answered their questions, prompting her to flee.
- Later that day, two officers visited Sanchez’s home with a cadaver photo, and she confirmed the body as Labinghisa’s.
- Ongoing surveillance and family impact
- In subsequent days, Sanchez observed frequent drive-bys by police patrol cars near her residence and an unmarked vehicle tailing her family on a trip to Iloilo.
- Her 15-year-old daughter Scarlet testified that repeated patrol passes and tailing caused anxiety, sleeplessness, and fear for their safety.
- Proceedings before the Regional Trial Court
- August 24, 2018: Sanchez filed a Petition for Writ of Amparo against PSupt. Darroca, PSSupt. Agpangan, PCSupt. Bulalacao, and subordinate officers, alleging threats and constant surveillance.
- August 28, 2018: RTC Branch 12 issued a writ of amparo and a Temporary Protection Order (TPO) enjoining respondents from approaching within 1 km and from conducting surveillance; respondents were directed to file a verified return.
- Respondents’ Verified Return denied violations, attributing allegations to baseless assumptions and hearsay.
- September 4, 2018: A summary hearing was conducted.
- September 13, 2018: RTC denied the petition and lifted the TPO, finding petitioner failed to present specific acts or corroborative evidence of threat.
- Review by the Supreme Court
- Sanchez filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari, maintaining that she and her children were under unlawful surveillance and that her right to privacy was violated.
- Respondents filed a Comment reiterating lawful investigative purpose, denial of surveillance, and lack of proof.
- Sanchez did not file a further reply.
- The Supreme Court took up the sole issue of whether petitioner proved entitlement to the writ of amparo by substantial evidence.
Issues:
- Main issue
- Whether petitioner Vivian A. Sanchez presented substantial evidence of actual or threatened violation of her and her children’s right to life, liberty, and security by respondents.
- Whether respondents’ unauthorized taking and distribution of Sanchez’s photograph and subsequent surveillance constituted actionable invasions of privacy and grounds for amparo relief.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)