ABERCA V.

VER
FACTS:
This case stems from alleged illegal searches and seizures and other violations of the
rights and liberties of plaintiffs by various intelligence units of the Armed Forces of the
Philippines, known as Task Force Makabansa (TFM) ordered by General Fabian Ver "to
conduct pre-emptive strikes against known communist-terrorist (CT) underground houses in
view of increasing reports about CT plans to sow disturbances in Metro Manila," Plaintiffs
allege, among others, that complying with said order, elements of the TFM raided several
places, employing in most cases defectively issued judicial search warrants; that during
these raids, certain members of the raiding party confiscated a number of purely personal
items belonging to plaintiffs; that plaintiffs were arrested without proper warrants issued by
the courts; that for some period after their arrest, they were denied visits of relatives and
lawyers; that plaintiffs were interrogated in violation of their rights to silence and counsel;
that military men who interrogated them employed threats, tortures and other forms of
violence on them in order to obtain incriminatory information or confessions and in order to
punish them; that all violations of plaintiffs constitutional rights were part of a concerted and
deliberate plan to forcibly extract information and incriminatory statements from plaintiffs
and to terrorize, harass and punish them, said plans being previously known to and
sanctioned by defendants.
HELD:
1. NO, Article 32 of the Civil Code provides a sanction to rights and freedom
enshrined in the constitution. These rights cannot be violated just because of an order given
by a superior. The rule of law must prevail, or else liberty will perish. Even though they just
followed the orders of their superior, these do not authorize them to disregard the rights of
the petitioners, and therefore cannot be considered acts done in their official duties.
Article 32 speaks of any public officer or private individual, and violation of these
constitutional rights does not exempt them from responsibility.
2. YES, the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus does not prevent petitioners from
claiming damages for the illegal arrest and detention in violation of their constitutional rights
by seeking judicial authority. What the writ suspends is merely the right of an individual to
seek release from detention as a speedy means of obtaining liberty. It cannot suspend their
rights and cause of action for injuries suffered due to violation of their rights.
3. YES, Article 32 speaks of the liabilities of people who are in direct violation of the
rights stated, as well as people who are indirectly responsible for such acts. In the case at
hand, the superior officers are the ones who gave the order, and can be considered
indirectly responsible. It was also stated in the complaint who were the ones who directly
and indirectly participated in those acts. By filing a motion to dismiss, they admitted all the
facts stated in the complaint.