Title
Sanchez vs. Darroca
Case
G.R. No. 242257
Decision Date
Oct 15, 2019
A woman sought a writ of amparo after police surveillance, threats, and unauthorized actions following her husband's death, violating her family's rights.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 242257)

Procedural History

• Aug. 24, 2018: Petition for Writ of Amparo filed in RTC Branch 12, San Jose, Antique; seeks protection from unlawful threats and surveillance.
• Aug. 28, 2018: RTC issues writ of amparo, temporary protection order (TPO), directs verified return.
• Sept. 4, 2018: Summary hearing conducted.
• Sept. 13, 2018: RTC denies amparo; lifts TPO, finds petitioner’s evidence uncorroborated and speculative.
• Oct. 15, 2019: SC grants petition for review on certiorari, reverses RTC.

Standard for Writ of Amparo

• Writ of Amparo protects rights to life, liberty, security against unlawful acts or threats by public officials.
• Summary proceeding requiring “substantial evidence” (more than scintilla; reasonable mind could accept as adequate).
• Hearsay and circumstantial evidence admissible under “totality of circumstances” approach when consistent with other evidence.

Assessment of Surveillance and Threats

• Unauthorized photography at funeral home linked to subsequent monitoring.
• Daughter’s consistent, detailed account of police drive-bys and tailing establishes credible fear.
• Totality of evidence indicates focused surveillance tied to petitioner’s spousal connection with a suspected insurgent.

Spousal and Privacy Rights

• Spousal privilege and marital communications protected by Constitution and Rules of Court, barring compulsion to testify.
• Privacy rights under Const. Art. III, Secs. 2-3 and Civil Code Art. 26 violated by nonconsensual photography and display.
• Proper investigative protocol requires formal advisements of rights, nonintimidating environment, access to counsel—absent here.

Respondents’ Defenses and Duty of Diligence

• Respondents’ verified return: general denials, reliance on “logical investigation” rationale.
• Rule on Amparo Sec. 17 demands public officials prove “extraordinary diligence” in performance of duty; presumption of regularity inapplicable.
• Officers failed to produce detailed affidavits showing exhaustive efforts to verify or dispel alleged threats (e.g., full LTO inquiries).

Power Dynamics and Gender Considerations

• Two tiers of imbalance—law enforcer vs. civilian and male vs. female—heightened petitioner’s vulnerability.
• RTC’s failure to account for

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.