Case Summary (G.R. No. 222226)
Petitioner
Fe J. Morada sought a writ of amparo to compel respondents to acknowledge or disclose the fate and whereabouts of her son Johnson and to determine whether respondents violated or threatened his rights to life, liberty, and security.
Respondents
Barangay officials and tanods of Barangay 176, Caloocan City (Randy Rias, Rolly Cebu, Romy Donaldo, Fernando Domingo and unnamed John Does) who detained Johnson for an alleged theft and thereafter maintained that he was released the same day.
Key Dates
Alleged arrest and release: October 14, 2015. Petition for writ of amparo filed in the RTC: January 25, 2016 (docketed SP. PROC CASE NO. C-5159). RTC Order denying the amparo: January 26, 2016. Supreme Court decision on petition for review: February 14, 2022.
Applicable Law and Constitutional Framework
Primary statutory and procedural authorities invoked: Republic Act No. 9851 (defining enforced disappearance), A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC Rule on the Writ of Amparo (including Section 19 permitting review under Rule 45), and the standards of substantial evidence. The 1987 Philippine Constitution is the governing constitutional framework applicable to this decision.
Antecedent Facts
On October 14, 2015 petitioner received notice via text that Johnson had been arrested by barangay tanods for allegedly stealing a mobile phone from Randy Rias’s house. Morada went to the barangay hall that evening and was told by respondent Rolly that Johnson had already been released by either Fernando or Romy, supported by an entry in the barangay blotter signed by Johnson. Rumors later circulated in the barangay alleging Johnson had been extrajudicially killed and his body mixed in cement. Petitioner reported Johnson missing to the Northern Police District (NPD) in December 2015; the NPD investigation was terminated due to lack of witnesses and in view of the barangay’s statement that Johnson had been released.
Procedural History
Petitioner filed a Petition for Issuance of Writ of Amparo in the RTC (January 25, 2016). The RTC denied the petition the next day (January 26, 2016), holding that while arrest/detention and State involvement were present, there was no evidence of refusal by respondents to acknowledge or give information on Johnson’s fate or whereabouts nor an intention to remove him from the protection of the law for a prolonged period (elements three and four of enforced disappearance). Petitioner sought review in the Supreme Court by a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.
Issue Presented
Whether the RTC gravely erred in denying due course to the petition for a writ of amparo despite the evidence proffered by petitioner establishing enforced disappearance.
Supreme Court Ruling — Disposition
The Supreme Court denied the petition for review and affirmed the RTC Order denying the writ of amparo. The Court found no reversible error in the RTC’s factual findings and held that petitioner failed to establish the third and fourth elements of enforced disappearance by substantial evidence.
Legal Standard for Enforced Disappearance
The Court reiterated the elements of enforced disappearance under RA 9851: (a) an arrest, detention, abduction or deprivation of liberty; (b) carried out by or with the authorization, support or acquiescence of the State or a political organization; (c) followed by the State’s refusal to acknowledge or give information on the fate or whereabouts of the person; and (d) an intention that such refusal remove the person from the protection of the law for a prolonged period. The Court noted that under the Rule on the Writ of Amparo (Sec. 19) questions of fact and law are reviewable in a Rule 45 petition, but substantial evidence is still required.
Analysis of Evidence and Court’s Reasoning
The Court accepted that the first two elements (deprivation of liberty and State involvement) were present but concluded the third and fourth elements were not established. The barangay blotter entry signed by Johnson, and respondents’ testimony that he had been released on October 14, 2015, constituted documentary and testimonial evidence that he was no longer in barangay custody. Petitioner did not refute the blotter and offered m
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 222226)
Case Caption, Court and Date
- G.R. No. 222226; Decision rendered February 14, 2022 by the Second Division of the Supreme Court of the Philippines.
- Captioned FE J. MORADA, PETITIONER, VS. RANDY RIAS, EX-O ROLLY CEBU, DESK OFFICER ROMY DONALDO, DESK OFFICER FERNANDO DOMINGO AND OTHER JOHN DOES OF BARANGAY 176, CALOOCAN CITY, RESPONDENTS.
- Decision authored by Justice Hernando; concurrence by Perlas-Bernabe, S.A.J. (Chairperson), Inting, Gaerlan, and Dimaampao, JJ.
Nature of the Case and Relief Sought
- Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court from the RTC Order dated January 26, 2016 (Regional Trial Court, Caloocan City, Branch 123).
- Relief sought: issuance of the writ of amparo for the alleged enforced disappearance of petitioner’s son, Johnson J. Morada, to determine whether respondents violated or threatened Johnson’s right to life, liberty and security, and to compel respondents to disclose Johnson’s whereabouts and the person(s) responsible.
Antecedent Facts (Factual Background)
- October 14, 2015, around 8:00 a.m.: Petitioner Fe J. Morada received a text message from her daughter Jennilyn informing her that Johnson was arrested and detained by barangay tanods of Barangay 176 for alleged theft of a mobile phone in the house of barangay tanod Randy Rias.
- October 14, 2015, about 7:00 p.m.: Morada went to the barangay hall. Respondent Rolly Cebu informed her that Johnson had already been released by either respondent Fernando Domingo or respondent Romy Donaldo, as evidenced by an entry in the barangay blotter signed by Johnson himself.
- December 2015: Morada reported Johnson’s disappearance to the Northern Police District (NPD). An NPD investigation was conducted but terminated due to lack of a witness and because barangay desk officers insisted Johnson was already released from custody.
- Rumors circulated within Barangay 176 alleging Johnson had been extrajudicially killed and that his body had been mixed in cement to conceal the incident.
- January 25, 2016: Morada filed before the RTC a Petition for Issuance of Writ of Amparo, docketed as SP. PROC CASE NO. C-5159.
RTC Proceedings and Order
- January 26, 2016: The RTC denied the Petition for Issuance of Writ of Amparo and dismissed the case. The RTC’s reasoning focused on the absence of two essential elements of enforced disappearance: (1) refusal to acknowledge or give information on the fate or whereabouts of the missing person, and (2) intention to remove the person from the protection of the law for a prolonged period.
- Decretal portion of the RTC Order: "Premises considered, the petition is hereby DENIED DUE COURSE and is accordingly DISMISSED. SO ORDERED."
Issue Presented to the Supreme Court
- Whether the RTC gravely erred in denying due course to the petition for issuance of the writ of amparo despite substantial evidence submitted by petitioner to establish the enforced disappearance of Johnson.
Legal Standards and Governing Law
- Rule on the Writ of Amparo (A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC), Section 19: a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 may raise questions of fact or law or both.
- Statutory definition of enforced disappearance under Republic Act No. 9851 (elements enumerated by the Court):
- (a) an arrest, detention, abduction or any form of deprivation of liberty;
- (b) that it be carried out by, or with the authorization, support or acquiescence of, the State or a politi