G.R. No. 186640 - Yano vs. Sanchez

Case Summary (G.R. No. 186640)

Initial Filing of the Amparo Petition and the Court’s Early Action

On December 28, 2007, Cleofas Sanchez filed before the Court a petition for issuance of a Writ of Amparo, with a Motion for Production and Inspection, directed against Gen. Hermogenes Esperon. On January 2, 2008, the Court resolved to issue the Writ of Amparo and ordered Gen. Esperon to file a verified return before Court of Appeals Justice Edgardo Sundiam, who was designated to hear and decide the case, which was later redocketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 00010 WR/A.

On January 14, 2008, Cleofas amended her petition. The amendment added Marciana Medina as co-respondent, while also impleading additional military respondents, including Lt. Ali Sumangil and Sgt. Gil Villalobos.

The Allegations of Enforced Disappearance and the Searches Conducted

In the Amended Petition, respondents alleged that at around 8:00 p.m. on September 17, 2006, their respective sons, Nicolas Sanchez and Heherson Medina, were catching frogs outside their home in Sitio Dalin, Barangay Bueno, Capas, Tarlac. They further claimed that at around 1:00 a.m. on September 18, 2006, Nicolas’s wives, Lourdez and Rosalie Sanchez, heard gunshots and saw armed men in soldiers’ uniforms passing by. At around 4:00 a.m. the same day, Lourdez and Rosalie went out to check and allegedly found only the victims’ caps, slippers, pana, an airgun for catching frogs, and bloodstains, after which they reported the incident to barangay officials.

Respondents stated that on September 19, 2006, they proceeded to the Capas Station of the Philippine National Police (PNP). With officials of the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP), they also tried to search for the victims at the Camp Detachment of the 71st Infantry Battalion in Barangay Burgos, San Jose, Tarlac, and at the camp of the Bravo Company of that battalion inside Hacienda Luisita, Tarlac City, but were allegedly unable to locate them.

Respondents also relied on information from Josephine Galang Victoria, also known as Antonina Galang. They alleged that Josephine later informed them that she had seen two men inside Camp Servillano Aquino of the Northern Luzon Command (Nolcom) in San Miguel, Tarlac City on September 21, 2006, whom Josephine later identified as Nicolas and Heherson after respondents had shown her their photographs. Josephine allegedly informed them that she saw the victims again on September 24, 2006 and November 1, 2006, this time at the camp of the Bravo Company inside Hacienda Luisita, where she claimed to have talked to Lt. Sumangil and Sgt. Villalobos.

CHR Endorsement and the Reliefs Sought in the Amparo Petition

Respondents filed a case on December 21, 2006 before the Commission on Human Rights (CHR). The CHR endorsed the matter to the Ombudsman for appropriate action. They contended that the victims’ life, liberty, and security were being violated and continued to be violated due to forced disappearance, and thus prayed for a Writ of Amparo. They also sought production of the victims’ bodies during the hearing, inspection of military camps, temporary and permanent protection orders, and judgment under Section 18 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo.

The Verified Return and the Military Officers’ Denials

A consolidated Return of the Writ, verified by Gen. Esperon, Lt. Sumangil, Sgt. Villalobos, Maj. Gen. Juanito Gomez (Commander of the Army’s 7th Infantry Division), and Lt. Col. Victor Bayani (Camp Commander of Camp Servillano Aquino of the Nolcom in Tarlac City), was filed with the appellate court on January 24, 2008. Lt. Gen. Alexander Yano later filed a return upon his return from an official trip abroad.

The military officers denied custody of the victims. They argued that respondents’ proper remedy was habeas corpus because respondents’ ultimate objective was the production of the bodies of victims allegedly abducted and illegally detained by military personnel. They further asserted that the Amparo petition failed to indicate matters required under paragraphs (c), (d) and (e), Section 5 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo, making the allegations incomplete and, in any event, based on hearsay and speculation. They also maintained that respondents failed to present affidavits of other competent persons to validate claims that military personnel violated the victims’ right to life, liberty, or security by abducting or detaining them. They likewise argued that the petition did not allege specific acts or omissions attributable to the officers, did not show that respondents filed formal complaints or visited the camps to verify Josephine’s claimed sightings, and did not show efforts to follow up on the PNP complaint.

Gen. Esperon specifically asserted that, in compliance with the Defense Secretary’s directive relating to writs of amparo against the AFP, he issued directives to commanders to investigate reported disappearances, including the possibility of involvement of military units, and undertook to bring personnel to justice if warranted by evidence. Maj. Gen. Gomez denied custody or knowledge of the victims’ whereabouts, stating that it was not army policy to abduct civilians in his area of responsibility and that he was away on official business during the alleged disappearance. Lt. Col. Bayani stated he had been designated camp commander only on September 1, 2007, and thus had no personal knowledge of the alleged September 2006 disappearance, and that his predecessor reported that no individuals were detained in the camp since it allegedly had no detention facilities. He stated that investigations were ongoing to verify the petition’s allegations.

Lt. Sumangil denied speaking to Josephine inside the camp on September 24, 2006, when, he asserted, civilians were barred from entering except on official missions or when authorized. He concluded Josephine lied about seeing the victims inside the Bravo Company camp on September 24, 2006 or any time thereafter. He recounted that on September 24, 2006, he spoke at the camp gate for the first and only time with a person who introduced herself as “Antonina Galang,” who allegedly reported the disappearance since September 18, 2006 and warned him that the men were members of the NPA, advising him not to entertain queries or complaints.

Sgt. Villalobos echoed that he had no custody of the victims, had not met Josephine Victoria, and had not allowed her to enter the camp kitchen. Lt. Gen. Yano stated that upon returning from his overseas functions, he inquired on actions taken, and he denied having participated in or sanctioned any illegal military operations.

Court of Appeals Decision: Partial Accountability and Reliefs Granted Despite Lack of Link

After hearing, the appellate court absolved Gen. Esperon, Lt. Gen. Yano, Maj. Gen. Gomez, and Lt. Col. Bayani for lack of evidence linking them to the disappearances. It further ruled that respondents had not adequately and convincingly established a direct or indirect link between the individual military officers and the disappearances. Nevertheless, the appellate court found that the relevant army units had not exerted fully their efforts to investigate and unearth the truth and bring culprits before the bar of justice. It directed “extraordinary diligence” to follow possible leads and reminded the army of its constitutional mandate as protector of the people and the State.

The appellate court then granted equitable reliefs. It ordered inspections of Camp Servillano Aquino and other 7th Infantry Division camps located in Aqua Farm, Hacienda Luisita, subject to reasonable working hours and excluding periods when camps were on red alert. It also ordered a thorough and impartial investigation, for the appropriate investigating units within the Philippine Army at Camp Servillano Aquino and the 7th Infantry Division in Fort Magsaysay, to investigate all angles, file charges against those found guilty, and submit a written report within three (3) months from notice.

The military officers filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration, arguing principally that respondents failed to prove allegations by substantial evidence, and thus the reliefs should not have been granted. The appellate court denied the motion in a March 3, 2009 resolution.

Petitioners’ Review: Alleged Error in Granting Reliefs Despite Finding of Insufficient Substantial Evidence

Petitioners—Gen. Alexander Yano, Lt. Gen. Victor Ibrado, and Maj. Gen. Ralph Villanueva—filed the present petition for review, challenging the appellate court’s action on the ground that the appellate court effectively did not categorically deny the privilege of the writ, even though it found respondents failed to prove allegations by substantial evidence. They assailed the appellate court’s directives for camp inspections and for investigation and filing of charges.

Supreme Court’s Assessment of the Evidence and the Appellate Court’s Evidentiary Basis

The Supreme Court noted that the appellate court’s findings as to Lt. Sumangil and Sgt. Villalobos relied heavily on the credibility of Josephine as a witness. The appellate court discussed Josephine’s claims that she saw the victims inside Camp Servillano Aquino, later at Aqua Farm within Hacienda Luisita, and that she provided a cellphone to them upon advice of Lt. Sumangil through a supposed transfer arranged via Tech. Sgt. Villalobos. It also recounted that Josephine claimed she observed the victims being supervised by soldiers, including an episode where Sumangil allegedly kicked Nicolas and, after that, Josephine allegedly did not see the victims again.

However, the Supreme Court emphasized that the appellate court’s determination of credibility had been challenged by testimony from respondents’ witnesses attacking Josephine’s reputation for truthfulness and integrity. The appellate court, in turn, stated that it gave credence to Josephine’s relatives who attested to negative reputations for telling the truth and for inventing stories for money.

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 186640)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Respondent Cleofas Sanchez filed a petition for a Writ of Amparo before the Supreme Court on December 28, 2007, docketed as G.R. No. 180839, initially directed against Gen. Hermogenes Esperon.
The Court issued a Writ of Amparo and ordered the issuance of a verified return before a designated Court of Appeals Justice, with the case eventually redocketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 00010 WR/A.
Respondent Cleofas Sanchez amended the petition on January 14, 2008 to include Marciana Medina as co-petitioner and to implead additional military respondents.
The petition was heard in the Court of Appeals after a consolidated verified return was filed by several military officers.
The Court of Appeals rendered a decision that absolved some impleaded officers for lack of evidence linking them to the disappearances but nonetheless granted specified reliefs in the interest of human rights and justice.
The respondents did not appeal the Court of Appeals decision.
The military officers filed a petition for review on the ground that the Court of Appeals should not have granted reliefs despite its finding that the petitioners failed to prove the allegations by substantial evidence.
The Supreme Court granted the petition and set aside the assailed reliefs.

Key Factual Allegations

Respondents alleged that on September 17, 2006 at around 8:00 p.m., their sons, Nicolas Sanchez and Heherson Medina, were catching frogs outside their home in Sitio Dalin, Barangay Bueno, Capas, Tarlac.
Respondents alleged that around 1:00 a.m. of September 18, 2006, the victims’ “wives,” Lourdez and Rosalie Sanchez, heard gunshots and saw armed men in soldiers’ uniforms passing by.
Respondents alleged that around 4:00 a.m. on September 18, 2006, Lourdez and Rosalie saw bloodstains and items associated with catching frogs but did not locate the victims.
Respondents alleged they immediately reported the matter to barangay officials.
Respondents narrated that on September 19, 2006 they went to the PNP Capas Station, and with NCIP officials they tried to search for the victims at Camp Detachment of the 71st Infantry Battalion and at the Bravo Company camp inside Hacienda Luisita, but did not find them.
Respondents alleged that Josephine Galang Victoria, also known as Antonina Galang, later informed them that she saw two men inside Camp Servillano Aquino of the Nolcom on September 21, 2006 and identified them as the victims after respondents showed her photographs.
Respondents alleged that Josephine claimed she saw the victims again on September 24, 2006 and on November 1, 2006 at the Bravo Company camp inside Hacienda Luisita.
Respondents alleged Josephine had interactions with Lt. Ali Sumangil and Sgt. Gil Villalobos at the camp.

Parties’ Positions

Respondents pursued the amparo relief on the theory that the victims’ life, liberty, and security were being violated due to forced disappearance, and sought issuance of the writ, production of the bodies during proceedings, inspection of military camps, temporary and permanent protection orders, and final judgment under Section 18 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo.
The impleaded military officers, in their consolidated verified return, denied having custody of the victims and disputed any involvement or connection with their disappearance.
The military officers argued that the proper remedy was habeas corpus because respondents’ objective was allegedly the production of the bodies of the victims.
The military officers asserted that the amparo petition failed to allege the matters required under Section 5 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo, making the allegations incomplete, speculative, and partially based on hearsay.
The military officers argued that respondents failed to present affidavits from other competent persons to substantiate violations and failed to allege specific acts or omissions attributable to each officer.
The military officers argued that respondents did not allege concrete efforts to follow up, such as formal complaint filing or visits to verify Josephine’s claims about sightings inside camps.
Gen. Esperon asserted that he issued directives for investigation and promised that personnel would be brought to justice when warranted by evidence.
Maj. Gen. Gomez denied army custody or involvement and emphasized that it was not army policy to abduct civilians in his area of responsibility.
Lt. Col. Bayani denied personal knowledge based on his assignment start date and stated that the command conducted further investigation to verify the allegations.
Lt. Sumangil denied speaking with Josephine inside the camp on September 24, 2006 and claimed civilians were not allowed entry unless duly authorized, while acknowledging that he spoke at the gate with a person identifying herself as “Antonina Galang” and was warned the victims were allegedly members of the New People’s Army (NPA).
Sgt. Villalobos echoed denial of custody or any meeting with Josephine in the camp context described by Josephine.
Lt. Gen. Yano stated he inquired upon his return and denied participation, consent, or sanction of illegal operations, and he claimed a policy of respecting human rights and upholding the rule of law.

Court of Appeals Ruling

The Court of Appeals found that petitioners for amparo failed to establish any direct or indirect link between specific impleaded military officers and the disappearances of Nicolas and Heherson.
The Court of Appeals ruled that the Philippine Army units with jurisdiction should exercise extraor