G.R. No. 178497 - Burgos vs. Esperon, Jr.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 178497)

Resolution of Pending Incidents

The Court addresses two primary issues: the relevance and advisability of public disclosure of documents submitted by various military and police officials, and the Urgent Ex Parte Motion Ex Abundanti Cautela filed by petitioner Edita T. Burgos. The motion requests the Court to order the impleading of certain individuals, issue a writ of Amparo based on newly discovered evidence, and refer the cases to the Court of Appeals for further hearings.

Determination of relevance and advisability of public disclosure of documents.
Review of the Urgent Ex Parte Motion Ex Abundanti Cautela by Edita T. Burgos.
Requests include impleading individuals, issuing a writ of Amparo, and referral to the Court of Appeals.

Factual Antecedents: June 22, 2010 Resolution

The Court's June 22, 2010 Resolution referred the case of Jonas Joseph T. Burgos' abduction to the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) for further investigation due to inadequacies in prior investigations by the Philippine National Police (PNP) and the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP). The referral aimed to ensure a thorough investigation and report back to the Court.

Referral to CHR for investigation due to incomplete prior investigations.
Highlighted failures in identifying abductors and handling evidence.
Affirmed the dismissal of contempt petitions against President Macapagal-Arroyo.

CHR Report: March 15, 2011

The CHR submitted its investigation report, confirming the enforced disappearance of Jonas Burgos and violations of his constitutional rights. Eyewitnesses identified military personnel involved in the abduction, including Lt. Harry A. Baliaga, Jr. The report emphasized the need for further investigation into the military's involvement.

CHR confirmed enforced disappearance and rights violations.
Eyewitnesses identified military personnel as abductors.
Need for further investigation into military involvement highlighted.

Evidence and Identification of Abductors

Eyewitnesses Jeffrey Cabintoy and Elsa Agasang provided detailed accounts of the abduction, identifying Lt. Baliaga as a principal abductor. The CHR's investigation revealed significant evidence linking military personnel to the crime, despite attempts to suppress information.

Eyewitnesses provided clear identifications of Lt. Baliaga.
Evidence suggests military personnel's involvement in the abduction.
Suppression of evidence by military officials noted.

July 5, 2011 Resolution

In response to new evidence, the Court issued a Writ of Habeas Corpus and referred the case back to the Court of Appeals for further hearings. The Court also ordered the impleading of Lt. Baliaga and other military officials as parties to the case.

Issued Writ of Habeas Corpus and referred case to Court of Appeals.
Ordered impleading of Lt. Baliaga and military officials.
Dismissed contempt petition against President Arroyo.

August 23, 2011 Resolution

The Court limited the scope of documents to be submitted to those related to the 56th Infantry Battalion and required compliance within a specified timeframe. This aimed to ensure that relevant materials were provided for the ongoing investigation.

Limited document submission to those from the 56th Infantry Battalion.
Required compliance within ten days.
Aimed to gather relevant materials for investigation.

Respondents' Compliance: September 23, 2011

Respondents submitted documents in compliance with the Court's previous resolutions, including summaries of information regarding military personnel involved in the case. This compliance was part of the ongoing investigation into the abduction.

Respondents submitted required documents regarding military personnel.
Compliance with Court's directives noted.
Ongoing investigation into the abduction continued.

September 6, 2011 Resolution

The Court denied the petitioner's request to examine the documents submitted by the respondents, emphasizing the need to determine the relevance and advisability of public disclosure before allowing access.

Denied petitioner's request to examine submitted documents.
Emphasized need for relevance determination before disclosure.

October 11, 2011 Resolution

The Court required the CHR to secure an affidavit from witness Virgilio Eustaquio regarding his allegations related to the abduction. The CHR was directed to report on its ongoing investigation.

Required CHR to obtain affidavit from witness Eustaquio.
Directed CHR to report on ongoing investigation.

November 29, 2011 Resolution

The Court denied the CHR's request for documents due to their confidential nature and the lack of established relevance to the case. The Court maintained that documents would only be released for examination by the Court.

Denied CHR's request for confidential documents.
Maintained that documents would only be released for Court examination.

March 20, 2012 CHR Progress Report

The CHR submitted a progress report detailing efforts to secure Eustaquio's affidavit, which confirmed the resemblance of one of the abductors to those involved in the ERAP 5 incident. This affidavit provided crucial evidence linking the abduction to military personnel.

CHR reported efforts to secure Eustaquio's affidavit.
Affidavit confirmed resemblance of abductor to ERAP 5 incident participants.

March 18, 2013 CA Decision

The Court of Appeals recognized Jonas Burgos' abduction as an enforced disappearance and held Lt. Baliaga responsible. The AFP and PNP were found accountable for failing to conduct a thorough investigation.

CA recognized abduction as enforced disappearance.
Lt. Baliaga held responsible; AFP and PNP found accountable.

Respondents' Motion for Partial Reconsideration

The Solicitor General filed a motion for partial reconsideration, contesting the CA's findings regarding the PNP's investigation diligence and the classification of the case as an enforced disappearance.

Respondents contested CA's findings on investigation diligence.
Argued against classification of case as enforced disappearance.

May 23, 2013 CA Resolution

The CA denied the respondents' motion for partial reconsideration, reaffirming its findings on the lack of diligence in the PNP's investigation and the accountability of the AFP.

CA denied respondents' motion for partial reconsideration.
Reaffirmed findings on lack of diligence and accountability.

Petitioner's Urgent Ex Parte Motion Ex Abundanti Cautela

The petitioner filed a motion requesting the Court to issue a writ of Amparo based on newly discovered evidence, alleging military involvement in the abduction. The motion included various documents purportedly proving military actions.

Petitioner requested issuance of writ of Amparo based on new evidence.
Alleged military involvement in the abduction supported by documents.

Court's April 11, 2013 Resolution

The Court required respondents to comment on the petitioner's motion and mandated compliance with previous resolutions regarding document submission and investigation.

Required respondents to comment on petitioner's motion.
Mandated compliance with previous document submission directives.

Respondents' Comments on Petitioner's Motion

Respondents denied the existence of the documents submitted by the petitioner and argued that the motion was premature due to ongoing investigations by the NBI and CHR.

Respondents denied existence of petitioner's submitted documents.
Ar...continue reading