Case Summary (G.R. No. L-23399)
Factual Background of the Incident
On the evening of March 31, 2008, two uniformed security guards from Asian Land arrived at Lolita Lapore’s home and sought her son Enrique (“Bong”) and Benhur (“Ben”). Bong and Ben were taken to the Asian Land security office for investigation on an alleged complaint of removal of a lamp or electric wires. The security supervisor, petitioner Navia, later arrived. The parties’ accounts diverge as to whether Ben was invited voluntarily or apprehended and mistreated, and as to whether Ben was released thereafter.
Petitioners’ Version of Events
Petitioners state they received a report from a resident (identified in their logbook entry as “Mrs. Emphasis”) that Bong and Ben were removing a lamp. Following standard operating procedure, the guards confirmed the suspects, invited them to the security office, and interviewed them. Bong and Ben allegedly admitted removing a lamp but explained they were merely transferring it. Petitioners assert that, because the complainant declined to participate, Navia ordered the release of Bong and Ben. Logbook entries bearing signatures of Bong, Ben, and Lolita were tendered to show release and that the parties left unharmed. Petitioners complied with police invitations and informed Virginia during investigation that they released Ben and had no further information on his whereabouts.
Respondent’s Version of Events
Respondent Virginia and witnesses contend that Bong and Ben were not merely invited but were unlawfully arrested, forced into a security vehicle, and brought to the security office. Testimony attributed to Bong described physical assaults by Navia, including slaps and punches, and a threatening statement to kill Ben. Lolita alleges she was induced to sign logbook entries without reading them due to poor eyesight, and that the last she saw Ben was when she left him in petitioners’ custody at the security office. Ben’s subsequent disappearance prompted Virginia to report the matter to the police and to file an amparo petition.
Proceedings in the Regional Trial Court
Virginia filed a Petition for Writ of Amparo in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Malolos City. Finding the petition sufficient in form and substance, the RTC issued a writ of amparo and directed petitioners to produce the body of the aggrieved party and to file verified returns with supporting affidavits. The writ included a temporary protection order for the family and witnesses, and scheduled a summary hearing. The writ was served on petitioners, who filed a compliance and presented testimony. After a summary hearing, the RTC, by decision dated July 24, 2008, granted the writ of amparo and directed the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) to conduct an investigation into petitioners, to provide protection to the family and witnesses, and directed the provincial prosecutor to investigate the legality of Ben’s arrest. The trial court denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration.
Issues Raised in the Petition for Review
Petitioners sought relief in the Supreme Court contesting the RTC’s grant of the writ, raising principally: (1) whether the trial court erred in ruling that respondent was entitled to the writ of amparo; (2) whether respondent established that petitioners committed acts violating Ben’s rights to life, liberty, or security; (3) whether respondent sufficiently established the fact of Ben’s disappearance; and (4) whether respondent proved that petitioners were responsible for Ben’s alleged disappearance.
Petitioners’ Arguments Before the Supreme Court
Petitioners argued the amparo petition was deficient in specificity as to the unlawful acts or omissions constituting violations of Ben’s rights, and that respondent failed to prove Ben was missing or that petitioners caused his disappearance. They relied on logbook entries signed by Ben and Lolita, asserting such entries demonstrate Ben’s release around 10:30 p.m. on March 31, 2008. They urged that the writ of amparo requires clear factual and legal bases which they contend respondent did not establish.
Legal Framework Governing the Writ of Amparo and Enforced Disappearance
The Rule on the Writ of Amparo (A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC) was promulgated to address extralegal killings and enforced disappearances by providing an expeditious remedy for violations or threats to life, liberty, and security. The Rule itself does not define “enforced disappearance”; the Supreme Court in Razon, Jr. v. Tagitis adopted the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance definition, and Congress subsequently enacted RA No. 9851, which defines “enforced or involuntary disappearance of persons” as: arrest, detention, abduction, or any form of deprivation of liberty by, or with the authorization, support or acquiescence of, a State or a political organization, followed by a refusal to acknowledge that deprivation or to give information on the fate or whereabouts of those persons, with the intent to remove them from legal protection for a prolonged period. The constitutional protection against deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process (Article III, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution) and the ICCPR (Articles 6 and 9) undergird the Rule and RA No. 9851.
Elements of Enforced Disappearance as Articulated by the Court
From RA No. 9851 and jurisprudence, the Court distilled the elements required to establish enforced disappearance: (a) an arrest, detention, abduction, or other deprivation of liberty; (b) that the deprivation was carried out by, or with the authorization, support or acquiescence of, the State or a political organization; (c) a subsequent refusal by the State or political organization to acknowledge the deprivation or to give information on the fate or whereabouts of the person; and (d) the intention that such refusal remove the person from the protection of the law for a prolonged period. The Court emphasized that allegation and proof of disappearance alone are insufficient; the petitioner must also prove State participation by substantial evidence.
Court’s Application of the Law to the Present Case
The Supreme Court acknowledged uncontroverted facts establishing Ben’s identity and that he was summoned and questioned at petitioners
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-23399)
Citation and Court
- 688 Phil. 266 EN BANC; G.R. No. 184467; June 19, 2012.
- Decision penned by Justice Del Castillo, J.
- Parties: Petitioners — Edgardo Navia (also known and signs his name as Edgardo Nabia), Ruben Dio (also known and signs his name as Ruben Dio II), and Andrew Buising; Respondent — Virginia Pardico for and in behalf and in representation of Benhur V. Pardico (aggrieved party).
Core Relief Sought and Nature of the Petition
- Petition for review on certiorari filed in relation to Section 19 of A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC (The Rule on the Writ of Amparo).
- Underlying remedy sought: Writ of Amparo in an alleged enforced disappearance / missing person case.
Factual Antecedents (Chronology of Events)
- On March 31, 2008, at around 8:30 p.m., an Asian Land Strategies Corporation vehicle arrived at the house of Lolita M. Lapore, 7A Lot 9, Block 54, Grand Royale Subdivision, Barangay Lugam, Malolos City, awakening her son Enrique Lapore (Bong) and Benhur Pardico (Ben), both then staying in the house.
- Two uniformed guards disembarked; one immediately asked Lolita where her son Bong was and then told Bong and Ben to go with them to the Asian Land security office because of an alleged complaint of theft of electric wires and lamps.
- Bong, Lolita and Ben were taken to the Asian Land security office located in Grand Royale Subdivision; supervisor Edgardo Navia also arrived.
- Events at the security office are contested and give rise to diverging versions between petitioners and respondent.
- After the office visit, there are logbook entries indicating times and signatures; subsequent invitations by Malolos City Police Station requested petitioners to appear regarding Virginia’s complaint about missing husband Ben (initial meeting reset from April 17 to April 22, 2008).
- Virginia filed a Petition for Writ of Amparo before the RTC of Malolos City following Ben’s disappearance and related events.
Petitioners’ Version of Events (Security Guards’ Account)
- Petitioners allege they were acting on a report from a certain Mrs. Emphasis, a resident who reportedly saw Bong and Ben removing a lamp from a post in the subdivision; report relayed by radio to Ruben Dio and Andrew Buising.
- Following standard operating procedure, Dio and Buising recorded the report in the logbook, proceeded to Mrs. Emphasis’s house to confirm suspects, then invited Bong and Ben to the security office; Bong and Ben voluntarily accompanied them.
- At the security office, Bong and Ben admitted they had taken the lamp but said they were only transferring it to a post nearer Lolita’s house.
- Navia arrived and, because the complainant was not keen to participate, Navia ordered the release of Bong and Ben.
- Bong signed a statement that he was released without harm; Lolita signed the logbook entry stating she would never again harbor or entertain Ben; Ben also signed the logbook affirming his release without injury.
- Petitioners received a police invitation to appear and they informed Virginia at the April 22, 2008 investigation that they released Ben and had no information as to his whereabouts, and that they would cooperate in the investigation.
- Petitioners rely on logbook entries and signatures as proof that Ben was released on March 31, 2008 at around 10:30 p.m.
Respondent’s Version of Events (Claims by Virginia and Witnesses)
- Respondent asserts Bong and Ben were unlawfully arrested, shoved into the Asian Land vehicle and brought to the security office for investigation.
- At the security office, Navia allegedly angrily addressed Ben, slapped him, and inflicted multiple punches; Navia then allegedly took hold of his gun, told Bong “Wala kang nakita at wala kang narinig, papatayin ko na si Ben.”
- Bong admitted taking a lamp but explained he reinstalled it because it was not working; the lamp-taking was to provide illumination near their house.
- Lolita was instructed to sign the guard logbook; she has poor eyesight and signed at Navia’s or Buising’s assurances without reading, later realizing she had been made to sign entries she did not actually witness.
- After Lolita and Bong left the security office, Ben remained; Lolita and Bong left because they were afraid of Navia; Ben was reportedly left in petitioners’ custody and thereafter was not found.
- The next morning Virginia was told by the security office that petitioners had released Ben together with Bong the night before; she thereafter searched, went to the barangay, and reported Ben’s disappearance to police.
- Virginia filed the Petition for Writ of Amparo based on Ben’s disappearance and the circumstances surrounding his detention at the security office.
Procedural History and Writ of Amparo in the RTC
- The RTC of Malolos City found the petition sufficient in form and substance and issued an Order dated June 26, 2008 directing, among others, issuance of a writ of amparo and production of Ben’s body before the court on June 30, 2008.
- The RTC’s order, inter alia:
- Ordered the petitioners to produce the body of Benhur Pardico on June 30, 2008 at 10:30 a.m.
- Ordered a summary hearing and directed petitioners to personally appear.
- Commanded the petitioners to file, within 72 hours of service, a verified written return with supporting affidavits containing lawful defenses, steps taken to determine the fate/whereabouts of the aggrieved party and persons responsible, and all relevant information in their possession.
- Motu proprio granted a Temporary Protection Order (TPO) prohibiting petitioners and persons acting for them from threatening, harassing or inflicting harm to respondent, her immediate family and household members.
- A Writ of Amparo was issued and served on petitioners on June 27, 2008.
- Petitioners filed their Compliance on June 30, 2008, praying for denial of the petition for lack of merit; a summary hearing was conducted with testimony from Buising for petitioners and sworn statements and testimony from Lolita and Enrique for respondent.
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court (Trial Court Disposition)
- On July 24, 2008, the RTC granted the Petition for Writ of Amparo and directed:
- The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) to immediately conduct a deep and thorough investigation of petitioners in connection with the disappearance of Benhur Pardico, utilizing the records of the case.
- The NBI to extend protection to the family of Benhur Pardico and the witnesses who testifi