Burgos v Esperon

FACTS: These incidents stemmed from our June 22, 2010 Resolution referring the present case to the CHR as the
Court’s directly commissioned agency, tasked with the continuation of the investigation of Jonas Joseph T. Burgos’
abduction with the obligation to report its factual ndings and recommendations to this Court. This referral was
necessary as the investigation by the PNP-CIDG, by AFP Provost Marshal, and even the initial CHR investigation,
had been less than complete. In all of them, there were signi cant lapses in the handling of the investigation. In
particular, we highlighted the PNP-CIDG’s failure to identify the cartographic sketches of two (one male and one
female) of the ve abductors of Jonas, based on their interview with the eyewitnesses to the abduction. On March
15, 2011, the CHR submitted to the Court its Investigation Report on the Enforced Disappearance of Jonas Burgos
(CHR Report), in compliance with our June 22, 2010 Resolution. On July 5, 2011, in light of the new evidence and
leads the CHR uncovered, we issued a Resolution: (1) issuing a new a Writ of Habeas Corpus and referring the
habeas corpus petition to the CA; (2) holding in abeyance our ruling on the merits of the Amparo aspect of the
case; referring back the same to the CA in order to allow Lt. Harry A. Baliaga, Jr. and the present Amparo
respondents to le their Comments on the CHR Report; and ordering Lt. Baliaga to be impleaded as a party to the
Amparo petition; and (3) af rming the dismissal of the petitioner’s petition for Contempt, without prejudice to the
re- ling of the contempt charge as may be warranted by the results of the subsequent CHR investigation. On
August 23, 2011, we issued a Resolution requiring submission of certain documents. On September 23, 2011, the
respondents submitted a Manifestation and Motion in compliance with the Court’s August 23, 2011 Resolution.
Attached to this Manifestation and Motion are the following documents: a) The Summary of Information (SOI) of
the of cers and enlisted personnel of the 56th IB, 7th ID from January 1, 2004 to June 30, 2007; b) The Summary
of Information (SOI) of the intelligence operatives who were involved in the ERAP 5 incident; and c) The Summary
of Information (SOI) of 2Lt. Fernando, who was a member of the 56th IB, 7th ID. On August 19, 2011, the petitioner
led a Manifestation and a Motion for Clari catory Order praying among others that she be allowed to examine
the documents submitted to the Court pursuant to paragraph III (i) of the Court’s July 5, 2011 Resolution. In our
September 6, 2011 Resolution, we resolved, among others, to deny the petitioner’s request to be allowed to
examine the documents submitted to this Court per paragraph (i) of the fallo of our July 5, 2011 Resolution,
without prejudice to our later determination of the relevance and of the advisability of public disclosure of those
documents/materials. On October 11, 2011, we issued a Resolution requiring the CHR to secure Virgilio
Eustaquio’s af davit, and to submit a report of its ongoing investigation of Jonas’ abduction. On November 2,
2011, we received a letter dated October 28, 2011 from Commissioner Jose Manuel S. Mamauag, Team Leader,
CHR Special Investigation Team, requesting photocopies of the following documents: a) SOI of the of cers and
enlisted personnel of the 56th IB, 7th ID from January 1, 2004 to June 30, 2007; b) SOI of the intelligence
operatives who were involved in the ERAP 5 incident; and c) SOI of 2Lt. Fernando who was a member of the 56th
IB, 7th ID. In our November 29, 2011 Resolution, we denied the CHR's request considering the con dential nature
of the requested documents and because the relevance of these documents to the present case had not been
established. On March 20, 2012, the CHR submitted its Progress Report detailing its efforts to secure the af davit
of witness Eustaquio in relation with his allegation that one of the male abductors of Jonas, appearing in the
cartographic sketch, was among the raiders who abducted him and four others, identi ed as Jim Cabauatan, Jose
Curament, Ruben Dionisio and Dennis Ibona (otherwise known as the "ERAP FIVE"). Attached to this Report is
Eustaquio’s sworn af davit dated March 16, 2012. On March 18, 2013, the CA issued its decision pursuant to the
Court’s July 5, 2011 Resolution referring the Amparo and Habeas Corpus aspects of the case to the CA for
appropriate hearings and ruling on the merits of the petitions. The CA held that the issue in the petition for habeas
corpus is not the illegal con nement or detention of Jonas, but his enforced disappearance. Considering that
Jonas was a victim of enforced disappearance, the present case is beyond the ambit of a petition for habeas
corpus. Based on its nding that Jonas was a victim of enforced disappearance, the CA concluded that the present
case falls within the ambit of the Writ of Amparo. The CA found that the totality of the evidence supports the
petitioner’s allegation that the military was involved in the enforced disappearance of Jonas. The CA took note of
Jeffrey Cabintoy’s positive identi cation of Lt. Baliaga as one of the abductors who approached him and told him
not to interfere because the man being arrested had been under surveillance for drugs; he also remembered the
face of Lt. Baliaga – the face he identi ed in the pictures because he resembles his friend Raven. The CA also held
that Lt. Baliaga’s alibi and corroborative evidence cannot prevail over Cabintoy’s positive identi cation,
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi

fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
 considering especially the absence of any indication that he was impelled by hatred or any improper motive to
testify against Lt. Baliaga. Thus, the CA held that Lt. Baliaga was responsible and the AFP and the PNP were
accountable for the enforced disappearance of Jonas. The Solicitor General, in behalf of the public respondents
(the AFP Chief of Staff and the PNP Director General), led a motion for partial reconsideration of the March 18,
2013 CA decision.

On May 23, 2013, the CA issued its resolution denying the respondents’ motion for partial reconsideration. The CA
ruled that as far as the PNP was concerned, its failure to elicit leads and information from Cabintoy who witnessed
Jonas’ abduction is eloquent proof of its failure to exercise extraordinary diligence in the conduct of its
investigation. As far as the AFP was concerned, the CA held that the fact that Lt. Baliaga of the Philippine Army was
positively identi ed as one of the abductors of Jonas, coupled with the AFP’s lack of serious effort to conduct
further investigation, spoke loudly of the AFP leadership’s accountability. To date, the respondents have not
appealed to this Court, as provided under Section 19 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo. On April 1, 2013, the
petitioner led an Ex Parte Motion Ex Abundanti Cautela asking the Court to: (1) order the persons named in the
sealed documents to be impleaded in CA-G.R. SP No. 00008-WA and G.R. No. 183713; (2) issue a writ of Amparo
on the basis of the newly discovered evidence (the sealed attachment to the motion); and (3) refer the cases to the
CA for further hearing on the newly discovered evidence. The petitioner alleged that she received from a source
(who requested to remain anonymous) documentary evidence proving that an intelligence unit of the 7th Infantry
Division of the Philippine Army and 56th Infantry Battalion, operating together, captured Jonas on April 28, 2007
at Ever Gotesco Mall, Commonwealth Avenue, Quezon City. This documentary evidence consists of: (1) After
Apprehension Report dated April 30, 2007; (2) Psycho Social Processing Report dated April 28, 2007; and (3)
Autobiography of Jonas. The petitioner also claimed that these are copies of con dential of cial reports on le
with the Philippine Army.

ISSUE: Whether a Writ of Amparo should be issued anew in light of newly discovered evidence?

HELD: We note and conclude, based on the developments highlighted above, that the bene cial purpose of the
Writ of Amparo has been served in the present case. As we held in Razon, Jr. v. Tagitis, the writ merely embodies
the Court’s directives to police agencies to undertake speci ed courses of action to address the enforced
disappearance of an individual. The Writ of Amparo serves both a preventive and a curative role. It is curative as it
facilitates the subsequent punishment of perpetrators through the investigation and remedial action that it directs.
The focus is on procedural curative remedies rather than on the tracking of a speci c criminal or the resolution of
administrative liabilities. The unique nature of Amparo proceedings has led us to de ne terms or concepts speci c
to what the proceedings seek to achieve. In Razon Jr., v. Tagitis, we de ned what the terms "responsibility" and
"accountability" signify in an Amparo case. We said: Responsibility refers to the extent the actors have been
established by substantial evidence to have participated in whatever way, by action or omission, in an enforced
disappearance, as a measure of the remedies this Court shall craft, among them, the directive to le the
appropriate criminal and civil cases against the responsible parties in the proper courts. Accountability, on the
other hand, refers to the measure of remedies that should be addressed to those who exhibited involvement in
the enforced disappearance without bringing the level of their complicity to the level of responsibility de ned
above; or who are imputed with knowledge relating to the enforced disappearance and who carry the burden of
disclosure; or those who carry, but have failed to discharge, the burden of extraordinary diligence in the
investigation of the enforced disappearance.

In the present case, while Jonas remains missing, the series of calculated directives issued by the Court outlined
above and the extraordinary diligence the CHR demonstrated in its investigations resulted in the criminal
prosecution of Lt. Baliaga. We take judicial notice of the fact that the Regional Trial Court, Quezon City, Branch 216,
has already found probable cause for arbitrary detention against Lt. Baliaga and has ordered his arrest in
connection with Jonas’ disappearance. We also emphasize that the CA in its March 18, 2013 decision already ruled
with nality on the entities responsible and accountable (as these terms are de ned in Razon, Jr. v. Tagitis) for the
enforced disappearance of Jonas. In its March 18, 2013 decision, the CA found, by substantial evidence, that Lt.
Baliaga participated in the abduction on the basis of Cabintoy’s positive identi cation that he was one of the
abductors of Jonas who told him not to interfere because the latter had been under surveillance for drugs. In the
same Decision, the CA also held the AFP and the PNP accountable for having failed to discharge the burden of
fi
fi
fi

fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi

fi
fi
fi
fi
extraordinary diligence in the investigation of the enforced disappearance of Jonas. Thus, the CA issued the
following directives to address the enforced disappearance of Jonas. We note that the respondents did not
appeal the March 18, 2013 CA decision and the May 23, 2013 CA resolution denying their motion for partial
reconsideration. Based on the above considerations, in particular, the nal ruling of the CA that con rmed the
validity of the issuance of the Writ of Amparo and its determination of the entities responsible for the enforced
disappearance of Jonas, we resolve to deny the petitioner’s prayer to issue the writ of Amparo anew and to refer
the case to the CA based on the newly discovered evidence. We so conclude as the petitioner’s request for the
reissuance of the writ and for the rehearing of the case by the CA would be redundant and super uous in light of:
(1) the ongoing investigation being conducted by the DOJ through the NBI; (2) the CHR investigation directed by
the Court in this Resolution; and (3) the continuing investigation directed by the CA in its March 18, 2013 decision.
We emphasize that while the Rule on the Writ of Amparo accords the Court a wide latitude in crafting remedies to
address an enforced disappearance, it cannot (without violating the nature of the writ of Amparo as a summary
remedy that provides rapid judicial relief) grant remedies that would complicate and prolong rather than expedite
the investigations already ongoing. Note that the CA has already determined with nality that Jonas was a victim
of enforced disappearance. To expedite proceedings, we refer the petitioner’s motion, this Resolution and its
covered cases to the DOJ for investigation, for the purpose of ling the appropriate criminal charges in the proper
courts against the proper parties, if warranted, based on the gathered evidence. For this purpose, we direct the
petitioner to furnish the DOJ and the NBI copies of her Urgent Ex Parte Motion Ex Abundanti Cautela, together
with the sealed attachments to the Motion, within ve (5) days from receipt of this Resolution. As a nal note, we
emphasize that our ROLE in a writ of Amparo proceeding is merely to determine whether an enforced
disappearance has taken place; to determine who is responsible or accountable; and to de ne and impose the
appropriate remedies to address the disappearance. As shown above, the bene cial purpose of the Writ of
Amparo has been served in the present case with the CA’s nal determination of the persons responsible and
accountable for the enforced disappearance of Jonas and the commencement of criminal action against Lt.
Baliaga. At this stage, criminal, investigation and prosecution proceedings are already beyond the reach of the
Writ of Amparo proceeding now before us.
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fl
fi
fi