Title
Mamba vs. Bueno
Case
G.R. No. 191416
Decision Date
Feb 7, 2017
A minor was illegally detained, tortured, and forced to confess to a robbery by local officials. The Supreme Court upheld the writ of amparo, affirming violations of his rights and ordering further investigation.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 191416)

Factual Background — Triggering Event

On June 13, 2009, the canteen owned by Emelita N. Mamba in Tuao, Cagayan was robbed. The municipal Task Force Lingkod Bayan, created by the Sangguniang Bayan of Tuao to assist local police in maintaining peace and order, investigated the robbery. Respondent Leomar Bueno was identified as a suspect and was taken to the Tuao police station after consenting, together with his mother, to be questioned.

Divergent Accounts of Custody and Conduct

The parties provided sharply different accounts of what transpired after the respondent arrived at the police station. The petitioners maintained that no police investigators or SWD representatives were present and that the respondent was merely invited for questioning; an eyewitness (Raymund) allegedly pointed to the respondent as a robber and the respondent threatened Raymund. The petitioners also asserted that Mayor Mamba and Atty. Mamba were absent from Tuao between June 10 and June 20, 2009.

Respondent’s Account of Apprehension and Abuse

The respondent alleged that members of the Task Force, acting under municipal authority, removed him from the police station and brought him to Mayor Mamba’s residence; that he was then beaten, threatened with death, transported in a van driven by Aggangan, and subjected to systematic torture (including beatings with a gun and cue stick, pouring of hot wax, suffocation with plastic bags, and insertion of a wire into the penis) to force a confession. Haber corroborated abuse allegations and both minors were reportedly held until June 18, 2009, when custody transferred to the PNP Cagayan Regional Office and the respondent was released to the local SWD office.

Post-incident Steps by Family and Authorities

Maritess Bueno sought assistance from Mayor Mamba and P/Supt. Buenaobra; she was initially denied access to her son at Mayor Mamba’s house and later coordinated with the PNP Cagayan Regional Office which prepared a habeas corpus case. The respondent and his mother also sought assistance from the regional office of the Commission on Human Rights (CHR). The respondent, assisted by CHR, filed a petition for a writ of amparo with the Court of Appeals on August 25, 2009.

Court of Appeals Proceedings and Evidence

The Court of Appeals gave due course to the amparo petition, ordered the issuance of the writ, and conducted a summary hearing. The respondent presented his testimony and witnesses including Haber, Dr. Tiangco (medical examiner who reported injuries and multiple second degree burns on examination dated June 18, 2009), Layus (provincial SWD officer who observed scars), and Maritess. Petitioners presented testimony of certain Task Force members and others who denied the abuse and asserted the respondent’s culpability in the robbery. P/Supt. Buenaobra was summoned and testified pursuant to CA subpoena.

Court of Appeals Decision and Reliefs

On January 18, 2010, the Court of Appeals granted the writ of amparo. The decretal orders enjoined the petitioners from committing physical or psychological violence against the respondent and his family; directed the Head of PNP Regional Office of Cagayan to continue an investigation with extraordinary diligence and to report; ordered Mayor Mamba to assist the investigation by providing identities and whereabouts of Task Force members involved; required periodic reports and completion of the investigation within one year; and made findings available to the respondent for possible subsequent criminal or civil actions. The CA found that the respondent’s rights to liberty and security were undermined by the invitation-apprehension and by the failure of local officials to take sufficient protective action.

Petition for Review to the Supreme Court and Procedural Challenge

The petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration with the CA which was denied in a March 2, 2010 resolution. They then filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court (Rule 45), challenging the CA’s issuance of the writ of amparo and asserting that the respondent was not illegally detained or tortured and that amparo was not the proper remedy. The respondent contested the timeliness of the petitioners’ Supreme Court appeal, arguing that Section 19 of A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC requires a five working-day appeal period and that filing a motion for reconsideration with the CA was dilatory.

Issue Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed two essential issues: (1) whether the petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court was filed within the reglementary period; and (2) whether the Court of Appeals erred in granting the writ of amparo in favor of the respondent.

Supreme Court Ruling — Timeliness

The Supreme Court held that the petitioners complied with the time requirements. Under Section 19 of A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC, a party has five working days from notice of an adverse judgment to appeal to the Supreme Court. The Rule on the Writ of Amparo does not prohibit motions for reconsideration of final judgments; Section 11 enumerates prohibited pleadings but does not bar motions for reconsideration of final orders. Applying the suppletory application of the Rules of Court, a motion for reconsideration of a final judgment must be filed within the same five working-day period, and a Rule 45 petition may be filed within five working days from notice of the denial of reconsideration. The petitioners received the CA decision on January 20, 2010, filed a motion for reconsideration on January 25, 2010, received denial on March 8, 2010, and filed the petition for review on March 12, 2010. The petition was thus timely.

Supreme Court Ruling — Nature and Scope of the Writ of Amparo

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that the writ of amparo is a protective remedy for violations or threats to constitutional rights to life, liberty, and security by unlawful acts or omissions of public officials or private actors. The Rule on the Writ of Amparo delimits its coverage to extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or threats thereof; enforced disappearance is defined as deprivation of liberty by state agents or persons acting with state acquiescence followed by refusal to acknowledge the deprivation or concealment of fate or whereabouts, placing the victim outside legal protection. In amparo actions, parties must prove claims by substantial evidence.

Evaluation of Evidence and Findings

The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ factual findings, concluding that the respondent met the substantial-evidence threshold. Testimony by Haber described severe torture methods; Dr. Tiangco’s medical examination documented injuries and multiple second degree burns; Layus observed scars; Maritess corroborated the sequence of custody and denials of access. Petitioners’ witnesses largely denied wrongdoing and relied on assertions of respondent’s culpability in the underlying robbery. The Court reiterated that denials unsupported by strong exculpatory evidence are weak and that guilt for an alleged crime, even if true, does not justify warrantless apprehension, illegal detention, or torture.

Legal Reasoning on Right to Security and Governmental Duty

The Court emphasized the separate but related constitutional protections: the right to life and the right to security of person under the 1987 Constitution (Article III). The right to security encompasses freedom from threat and guarantee of bodily and psychological integrity, and includes the State’s duty to protect, investigate, and prosecute violations. The writ of amparo serves both preventive and curative roles—preventing impunity and facilitating subsequent punishment and investigation. Given the involvement of Task Force members and the apparent failure of local officials to investigate or acknowledge irregularities, the Court found that the respondent’s r

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms