Subject: Spec.

Pro (Writ of Amparo)

Case Title: Tapuz (party against forcible entry case) vs. del Rosario (RTC Judge of Kalibo)
Facts:  Sps. Sanson filed with the MCTC of Burungua-Malay, Aklan a complaint for forcible entry as against
Tapuz et. al, Madiraga et. al, and Timbas.
 MCTC ruled in favour of Sps. Sanson - MCTC found prior possession - the key issue in forcible entry
cases.
 Tapuz et. al appealed the decision with the RTC Cebu presided over by Judge Marin, meanwhile
granting the motion for the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction file by Sps. Sanson
with the condition for the posting of bond by Tapuz et. al.
 After Sps. Sanson had complied with the imposed condition, the writ - authorizing the immediate
implementation of the MCTC decision – was issued by respondent Judge Elmo F. del Rosario on 12
March 2007. The petitioners moved to reconsider the issuance of the writ; the private respondents, on
the other hand, filed a motion for demolition.
 del Rosario denied Tapuz et. al’s Motion for Reconsideration and to Defer Enforcement of Preliminary
Mandatory Injunction.
 Meanwhile, the petitioners opposed the motion for demolition. The respondent Judge nevertheless
issued via a Special Order a writ of demolition to be implemented fifteen (15) days after the Sheriff's
written notice to the petitioners to voluntarily demolish their house/s to allow the private respondents
to effectively take actual possession of the land.
 Tapuz et. al thereafter filed with the Court of Appeals, Cebu City, a Petition for Review (under Rule 42
of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure) of the Permanent Mandatory Injunction and Order of Demolition
of the RTC of Kalibo, Br. 6 in Civil Case No. 7990.


Issue/s: Whether or not there is sufficient grounds for the issuance of Writ of Amparo as prayed for by Tapuz et al.

Tapuz et. al: That the threats to the life and security of the poor indigent and unlettered petitioners continue
because Sps. Sansons have under their employ armed men and they are influential with the police authorities
owing to their financial and political clout.
Decision: […] The writ of amparo was originally conceived as a response to the extraordinary rise in the number of
killings and enforced disappearances, and to the perceived lack of available and effective remedies to address
these extraordinary concerns. It is intended to address violations of or threats to the rights to life, liberty or
security, as an extraordinary and independent remedy beyond those available under the prevailing Rules, or as a
remedy supplemental to these Rules. What it is not, is a writ to protect concerns that are purely property or
commercial. Neither is it a writ that we shall issue on amorphous and uncertain grounds. Consequently, the
Rule on the Writ of Amparo - […] - requires that every petition for the issuance of the writ must be supported by
justifying allegations of fact, to wit:
a) The personal circumstances of the petitioner;
b) The name and personal circumstances of the respondent responsible for the threat, act or omission, or,
if the name is unknown or uncertain, the respondent may be described by an assumed appellation;
c) The right to life, liberty and security of the aggrieved party violated or threatened with violation by an
unlawful act or omission of the respondent, and how such threat or violation is committed with the
attendant circumstances detailed in supporting affidavits;
d) The investigation conducted, if any, specifying the names, personal circumstances, and addresses of
the investigating authority or individuals, as well as the manner and conduct of the investigation,
together with any report;
e) The actions and recourses taken by the petitioner to determine the fate or whereabouts of the
aggrieved party and the identity of the person responsible for the threat, act or omission; and
f) The relief prayed for.
The petition may include a general prayer for other just and equitable reliefs.

The writ shall issue if the Court is preliminarily satisfied with the prima facie existence of the ultimate facts
determinable from the supporting affidavits that detail the circumstances of how and to what extent a threat to
or violation of the rights to life, liberty and security of the aggrieved party was or is being committed.

On the whole, what is clear from these statements - both sworn and unsworn - is the overriding involvement of
property issues as the petition traces its roots to questions of physical possession of the property disputed by
the private parties. If at all, issues relating to the right to life or to liberty can hardly be discerned except to the
 extent that the occurrence of past violence has been alleged. The right to security, on the other hand, is
alleged only to the extent of the threats and harassments implied from the presence of "armed men bare to
the waist" and the alleged pointing and firing of weapons. Notably, none of the supporting affidavits
compellingly show that the threat to the rights to life, liberty and security of the petitioners is imminent or is
continuing.
Doctrine:
Personal Notes:

Case Title: Caram vs. Segui

Facts:  Ma. Christina Yusay Caram (Christina) had an amorous relationship with Marcelino Gicano Constantino III
(Marcelino) and eventually became pregnant with the latter’s child without the benefit of marriage.
 After getting pregnant, Christina mislead Marcelino into believing that she had an abortion when in fact she
proceeded to complete the term of her pregnancy. During this time, she intended to have the child adopted
through Sun and Moon Home for Children (Sun and Moon) in Parañaque City to avoid placing her family in a
potentially embarrassing situation for having a second illegitimate son.
 Christina gave birth to Baby Julian at Amang Rodriguez Memorial Medical Center, Marikina City. Sun and
Moon shouldered all the hospital and medical expenses. On August 13, 2009, Christina voluntarily
surrendered Baby Julian by way of a Deed of Voluntary Commitment to the DSWD.
 Marcelino suffered a heart attack and died without knowing about the birth of his son.
 During the wake, Christina disclosed to Marcelino’s family that she and the deceased had a son that she gave
up for adoption due to financial distress and initial embarrassment. Marcelino’s family was taken aback by the
revelation and sympathized with Christina.
 The DSWD, through Secretary Esperanza I. Cabral issued a certificate10 declaring Baby Julian as "Legally
Available for Adoption." A local matching conference was held on January 27, 2010 and on February 5, 2010,
Baby Julian was "matched" with the spouses Vergel and Filomina Medina (Medina Spouses) of the Kaisahang
Bahay Foundation. Supervised trial custody then commenced.
 Christina who had changed her mind about the adoption, wrote a letter to the DSWD asking for the
suspension of Baby Julian’s adoption proceedings. She also said she wanted her family back together.
 Assistant Secretary Cabrera informed Noel Constantino (brother of Marcelino) that the procedures followed
relative to the certification on the availability of the child for adoption and the child’s subsequent placement
to prospective adoptive parents were proper, and that the DSWD was no longer in the position to stop the
adoption process.
 Christina filed a petition for the issuance of a writ of amparo before the RTC of Quezon City seeking to obtain
custody of Baby Julian from Atty. Segui, Atty. Escutin, Assistant Secretary Cabrera and Acting Secretary Celia C.
Yangco, all of the DSWD.
 RTC, Branch 106 of Quezon City, through its Presiding Judge, the Honorable Angelene Mary W. Quimpo-Sale,
issued a Writ of Amparo commanding the four respondents to produce the body of Baby Julian at a hearing.
 Respondents appeared before the RTC but respondents did not bring the child, stating that threats of
kidnapping were made on the child and his caregivers. To give respondents another chance, the RTC reset the
hearing to August 5, 2010.
 RTC dismissed the petition for issuance of a writ of amparo without prejudice to the filing of the appropriate
action in court. The RTC held that Christina availed of the wrong remedy to regain custody of her child Baby
Julian. The RTC further stated that Christina should have filed a civil case for custody of her child as laid down
in the Family Code and the Rule on Custody of Minors and Writ of Habeas Corpus in Relation to Custody of
Minors.
Issue/s: Whether or not a petition for a writ of amparo is the proper recourse for obtaining parental authority and
custody of a minor child.
Decision: Writ of Amparo is not the proper remedy.

Christina Caram: The life, liberty and security of Baby Julian is being violated or threatened by the respondent
DSWD officers’ enforcement of an illegal Deed of Voluntary Commitment between her and Sun and Moon. She
claims thatshe had been "blackmailed" through the said Deed by the DSWD officers and Sun and Moon’s
representatives into surrendering her child thereby causing the "forced separation" of the said infant from his
mother. Furthermore, she also reiterates that the respondent DSWD officers acted beyond the scope of their
authority when they deprived her of Baby Julian’s custody.

The Amparo Rule was intended to address the intractable problem of "extralegal killings" and "enforced
 disappearances," its coverage, in its present form, is confined to these two instances or to threats thereof.

The Court in Navia v. Pardico enumerated the elements constituting "enforced disappearances" as the term is
statutorily defined in Section 3(g) of R.A. No. 9851 to wit:
(a) That there be an arrest, detention, abduction or any form of deprivation of liberty;
(b) That it be carried out by, or with the authorization, support or acquiescence of, the State or a political
organization;
(c) That it be followed by the State or political organization’s refusal to acknowledge or give information on the
fate or whereabouts of the person subject of the amparo petition; and,
(d) That the intention for such refusal is to remove subject person from the protection of the law for a prolonged
period of time.

Christina's directly accusing the respondents of forcibly separating her from her child and placing the latter up for
adoption, supposedly without complying with the necessary legal requisites to qualify the child for adoption,
clearly indicates that she is not searching for a lost child but asserting her parental authority over the child and
contesting custody over him. Since it is extant from the pleadings filed that what is involved is the issue of child
custody and the exercise of parental rights over a child, who, for all intents and purposes, has been legally
considered a ward of the State, the Amparo rule cannot be properly applied.

Doctrine:
Personal Notes: "Extralegal killings" are "killings committed without due process of law, i.e., without legal safeguards or judicial
proceedings."

"Enforced disappearances" are "attended by the following characteristics:

1. An arrest, detention or abduction of a person by a government official or organized groups or private
individuals acting with the direct or indirect acquiescence of the government;
2. The refusal of the State to disclose the fate or whereabouts of the person concerned or a refusal to
acknowledge the deprivation of liberty which places such persons outside the protection of law.

Case Title: Vivares et. al vs. St. Theresa’s College

Facts:  Nenita Julia V. Daluz (Julia) and Julienne Vida Suzara (Julienne), both minors, were, during the period
material, graduating high school students at St. Theresa's College (STC), Cebu City.
 Sometime in January 2012, while changing into their swimsuits for a beach party they were about to
attend, Julia and Julienne, along with several others, took digital pictures of themselves clad only in
their undergarments. These pictures were then uploaded by Angela Lindsay Tan (Angela) on her
Facebook3 profile.
 Mylene Rheza T. Escudero (Escudero), a computer teacher at STC’s high school department, learned
from her students that some seniors at STC posted pictures online, depicting themselves from the
waist up, dressed only in brassieres. Escudero then asked her students if they knew who the girls in the
photos are. In turn, they readily identified Julia, Julienne, and Chloe Lourdes Taboada (Chloe), among
others.
 Escudero reported the matter and, through one of her student’s Facebook page, showed the photosto
Kristine Rose Tigol (Tigol), STC’s Discipline-in-Charge, for appropriate action. Thereafter, following an
investigation, STC found the identified students to have deported themselves in a manner proscribed
by the school’s Student Handbook, to wit:
1. Possession of alcoholic drinks outside the school campus;
2. Engaging in immoral, indecent, obscene or lewd acts;
3. Smoking and drinking alcoholicbeverages in public places;
4. Apparel that exposes the underwear;
5. Clothing that advocates unhealthy behaviour; depicts obscenity; contains sexually suggestive
messages, language or symbols; and 6. Posing and uploading pictures on the Internet that entail ample
body exposure.
 Julia, Julienne, Angela, and the other students in the pictures in question, reported, as required, to the
office of Sr. Celeste Ma. Purisima Pe (Sr. Purisima), STC’s high school principal and ICM6 Directress.
They claimed that during the meeting, they were castigated and verbally abused by the STC officials
present in the conference, including Assistant Principal Mussolini S. Yap (Yap), Roswinda Jumiller, and
Tigol.
  What is more, Sr. Purisima informed their parents the following day that, as part of their penalty, they
are barred from joining the commencement exercises scheduled on March 30, 2012.

Issue/s:
Decision:
Doctrine:
Personal Notes:

Case Title: Razon (PNP Chief) vs. Tagitis (wife of Engr. Tagitis [missing])
Facts:  Tagitis, a consultant for the World Bank and the Senior Honorary Counselor for the Islamic
Development Bank (IDB) Scholarship Programme, was last seen in Jolo, Sulu. Together with Arsimin
Kunnong (Kunnong), an IDB scholar.
 Tagitis asked Kunnong to buy him a boat ticket for his return trip the following day to Zamboanga.
When Kunnong returned from this errand, Tagitis was no longer around. The receptionist related that
Tagitis went out to buy food at around 12:30 in the afternoon and even left his room key with the desk.
Kunnong looked for Tagitis and even sent a text message to the latter’s Manila-based secretary who did
not know of Tagitis’ whereabouts and activities either; she advised Kunnong to simply wait.
 Kunnong and Muhammad Abdulnazeir N. Matli, a UP professor of Muslim studies and Tagitis’ fellow
student counselor at the IDB, reported Tagitis’ disappearance to the Jolo Police Station. On November
7, 2007, Kunnong executed a sworn affidavit attesting to what he knew of the circumstances
surrounding Tagitis’ disappearance.
 More than a month later (on December 28, 2007), the Tagitis filed a Petition for the Writ of Amparo
with the CA through her Attorney-in-Fact, Atty. Felipe P. Arcilla.
 The petition was directed against
a) Lt. Gen. Alexander Yano, Commanding General, Philippine Army;
b) Gen. Avelino I. Razon, Chief, Philippine National Police (PNP);
c) Gen. Edgardo M. Doromal, Chief, Criminal Investigation and Detention Group (CIDG);
d) Sr. Supt. Leonardo A. Espina, Chief, Police Anti-Crime and Emergency Response;
e) Gen. Joel Goltiao, Regional Director, ARMM-PNP; and
f) Gen. Ruben Rafael, Chief, Anti-Terror Task Force Comet [collectively referred to as petitioners].
 After reciting Tagitis’ personal circumstances and the facts outlined above, the petition went on to
state: […]
 According to reliable information received by the Tagitis, subject Engr. Tagitis is in the custody of police
intelligence operatives, specifically with the CIDG, PNP Zamboanga City, being held against his will in an
earnest attempt of the police to involve and connect Engr. Tagitis with the different terrorist groups.
 The unexplained uncooperative behavior of the [petitioners] to the [respondent’s] request for help and
failure and refusal of the [petitioners] to extend the needed help, support and assistance in locating
the whereabouts of Engr. Tagitis who had been declared missing since October 30, 2007 which is
almost two (2) months now, clearly indicates that the [petitioners] are actually in physical possession
and custody of [respondent’s] husband, Engr. Tagitis;
 Tagitis has exhausted all administrative avenues and remedies but to no avail, and under the
circumstances, Tagitis has no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy to protect and get the release
of subject Engr. Morced Tagitis from the illegal clutches of the [petitioners], their intelligence
operatives and the like which are in total violation of the subject’s human and constitutional rights,
except the issuance of a WRIT OF AMPARO.
 The Court of Appeals immediately issued the Writ of Amparo, set the case for hearing and directed the
petitioners to file their verified return within seventy-two (72) hours from service of the writ.
 In their verified Return filed during the hearing the petitioners denied any involvement in or knowledge
of Tagitis’ alleged abduction. They argued that the allegations of the petition were incomplete and did
not constitute a cause of action against them; were baseless, or at best speculative; and were merely
based on hearsay evidence.
 The CA issued its decision confirming that the disappearance of Tagitis was an "enforced
disappearance" under the United Nations (UN) Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from
Enforced Disappearances. The CA ruled that when military intelligence pinpointed the investigative arm
of the PNP (CIDG) to be involved in the abduction, the missing-person case qualified as an enforced
disappearance.
 The conclusion that the CIDG was involved was based on the respondent’s testimony, corroborated by
 her companion, Mrs. Talbin.
 The CA noted that the information that the CIDG, as the police intelligence arm, was involved in Tagitis’
abduction came from no less than the military – an independent agency of government. The CA thus
greatly relied on the "raw report" from Col. Kasim’s asset, pointing to the CIDG’s involvement in Tagitis’
abduction.
 The Court of Appeals held that "raw reports" from an "asset" carried "great weight" in the intelligence
world. It also labeled as "suspect" Col. Kasim’s subsequent and belated retraction of his statement that
the military, the police, or the CIDG was involved in the abduction of Tagitis.
 The Court of Appeals extended the privilege of the writ to Tagitis and his family, and directed
a) the CIDG Chief, Col. Jose Volpane Pante,
b) PNP Chief Avelino I. Razon,
c) Task Force Tagitis heads Gen. Joel Goltiao and Col. Ahiron Ajirim, and
d) PACER Chief Sr. Supt. Leonardo A. Espina
 To exert extraordinary diligence and efforts to protect the life, liberty and security of Tagitis, with the
obligation to provide monthly reports of their actions to the CA. At the same time,
 The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition against the then respondents from the military, Lt. Gen
Alexander Yano and Gen. Ruben Rafael, based on the finding that it was PNP-CIDG, not the military,
that was involved.
 Motion for reconsideration was filed with the Court of Appeals but was later denied.
Issue/s: Whether or not the writ of amparo filed before the Court of Appeals was sufficient in form and substance to
establish a conclusion that the CIDG Zamboanga was responsible for the abduction.

Petitioners’ contention: petition violated Section 5(c), (d), and (e) of the Amparo Rule. Specifically, the
petitioners allege that the respondent failed to:
1. allege any act or omission the petitioners committed in violation of Tagitis’ rights to life, liberty and
security;
2. allege in a complete manner how Tagitis was abducted, the persons responsible for his disappearance,
and the respondent’s source of information;
3. allege that the abduction was committed at the petitioners’ instructions or with their consent;
4. implead the members of CIDG regional office in Zamboanga alleged to have custody over her husband;
5. attach the affidavits of witnesses to support her accusations;
6. allege any action or inaction attributable to the petitioners in the performance of their duties in the
investigation of Tagitis’ disappearance; and
7. specify what legally available efforts she took to determine the fate or whereabouts of her husband.

A petition for the Writ of Amparo shall be signed and verified and shall allege, among others (in terms of the
portions the petitioners cite:
(c) The right to life, liberty and security of the aggrieved party violated or threatened with violation by an
unlawful act or omission of the respondent, and how such threat or violation is committed with the attendant
circumstances detailed in supporting affidavits;
(d) The investigation conducted, if any, specifying the names, personal circumstances, and addresses of the
investigating authority or individuals, as well as the manner and conduct of the investigation, together with any
report;
(e) The actions and recourses taken by the petitioner to determine the fate or whereabouts of the aggrieved
party and the identity of the person responsible for the threat, act or omission
Decision: The framers of the Amparo Rule never intended Section 5(c) to be complete in every detail in […]. As in any other
initiatory pleading, the pleader must of course state the ultimate facts constituting the cause of action, omitting
the evidentiary details. In an Amparo petition, however, this requirement must be read in light of the nature and
purpose of the proceeding, which addresses a situation of uncertainty; […] these information may purposely be
hidden or covered up by those who caused the disappearance. In this type of situation, to require the level of
specificity, detail and precision that the petitioners apparently want to read into the Amparo Rule is to make this
Rule a token gesture of judicial concern for violations of the constitutional rights to life, liberty and security.

[…] the test in reading the petition should be to determine whether it contains the details available to the
petitioner under the circumstances, while presenting a cause of action showing a violation of the victim’s rights
to life, liberty and security through State or private party action. The petition should likewise be read in its
totality, rather than in terms of its isolated component parts, to determine if the required elements – namely, of
the disappearance, the State or private action, and the actual or threatened violations of the rights to life,
 liberty or security – are present.

In the present case, the petition amply recites in its paragraphs 4 to 11 the circumstances under which Tagitis
suddenly dropped out of sight after engaging in normal activities, and thereafter was nowhere to be found
despite efforts to locate him. The petition alleged, too, under its paragraph 7, in relation to paragraphs 15 and
16, that according to reliable information, police operatives were the perpetrators of the abduction. It also
clearly alleged how Tagitis’ rights to life, liberty and security were violated when he was "forcibly taken and
boarded on a motor vehicle by a couple of burly men believed to be police intelligence operatives," and then
taken "into custody by the respondents’ police intelligence operatives since October 30, 2007, specifically by the
CIDG, PNP Zamboanga City, x x x held against his will in an earnest attempt of the police to involve and connect
[him] with different terrorist groups."

These allegations properly pleaded ultimate facts within the pleader’s knowledge about Tagitis’ disappearance,
the participation by agents of the State in this disappearance, the failure of the State to release Tagitis or to
provide sufficient information about his whereabouts, as well as the actual violation of his right to liberty. Thus,
the petition cannot be faulted for any failure in its statement of a cause of action.

If a defect can at all be attributed to the petition, this defect is its lack of supporting affidavit, as required by
Section 5(c) of the Amparo Rule. […]. This requirement, however, should not be read as an absolute one that
necessarily leads to the dismissal of the petition if not strictly followed. Where, as in this case, the petitioner has
substantially complied with the requirement by submitting a verified petition sufficiently detailing the facts relied
upon, the strict need for the sworn statement that an affidavit represents is essentially fulfilled. We note that the
failure to attach the required affidavits was fully cured when the respondent and her witness (Mrs. Talbin)
personally testified in the CA hearings to swear to and flesh out the allegations of the petition. Thus, even on this
point, the petition cannot be faulted.

Doctrine:
Personal Notes:

Case Title: Roxas vs. GMA

Facts:  Melissa Roxas is an American citizen of Filipino descent. While in the United States, Roxas enrolled in
an exposure program to the Philippines with the group Bagong Alyansang Makabayan-United States of
America (BAYAN-USA) of which she is a member. During the course of her immersion, Roxas toured
various provinces and towns of Central Luzon and, in April of 2009, she volunteered to join members of
BAYAN-Tarlac in conducting an initial health survey in La Paz, Tarlac for a future medical mission.
 In pursuit of her volunteer work, petitioner brought her passport, wallet with Fifteen Thousand Pesos
in cash, journal, digital camera with memory card, laptop computer, external hard disk, IPOD,
wristwatch, sphygmomanometer, stethoscope and medicines.
 After doing survey work on 19 May 2009, Roxas and her companions, Juanito Carabeo (Carabeo) and
John Edward Jandoc (Jandoc), decided to rest in the house of one Mr. Jesus Paolo (Mr. Paolo) in Sitio
Bagong Sikat, Barangay Kapanikian, La Paz, Tarlac.
 At around 1:30 in the afternoon, however, Roxas, her companions and Mr. Paolo were startled by the
loud sounds of someone banging at the front door and a voice demanding that they open up.
 Suddenly, fifteen (15) heavily armed men forcibly opened the door, barged inside and ordered Roxas
and her companions to lie on the ground face down.
 The armed men were all in civilian clothes and, with the exception of their leader, were also wearing
bonnets to conceal their faces.
 Roxas tried to protest the intrusion, but five (5) of the armed men ganged up on her and tied her
hands.
 Roxas saw the other armed men herding Carabeo and Jandoc, already blindfolded and taped at their
mouths, to a nearby blue van. Roxas started to shout her name. Against her vigorous resistance, the
armed men dragged Roxas towards the van—bruising her arms, legs and knees.
 Once inside the van, but before she can be blindfolded, Roxas was able to see the face of one of the
armed men sitting beside her. The van then sped away.
 After about an hour of traveling, the van stopped. Roxas, Carabeo and Jandoc were ordered to alight.
 After she was informed that she is being detained for being a member of the Communist Party of the
 Philippines-New People’s Army (CPP-NPA), petitioner was separated from her companions and was
escorted to a room that she believed was a jail cell from the sound of its metal doors. From there, she
could hear the sounds of gunfire, the noise of planes taking off and landing and some construction
bustle. She inferred that she was taken to the military camp of Fort Magsaysay in Laur, Nueva Ecija.
 Five (5) straight days of interrogation coupled with torture happened. The thrust of the interrogations
was to convince petitioner to abandon her communist beliefs in favor of returning to "the fold." The
torture, on the other hand, consisted of taunting, choking, boxing and suffocating the Roxas.
 Throughout the entirety of her ordeal, Roxas was made to suffer in blindfolds even in her sleep. Roxas
was only relieved of her blindfolds when she was allowed to take a bath, during which she became
acquainted with a woman named "Rose" who bathed her. There were also a few times when she
cheated her blindfold and was able to peek at her surroundings.
 Despite being deprived of sight, however, Roxas was still able to learn the names of three of her
interrogators who introduced themselves to her as "Dex," "James" and "RC". "RC" even told Roxas that
those who tortured her came from the "Special Operations Group," and that she was abducted
because her name is included in the "Order of Battle."
 On 25 May 2009, Roxas was finally released and returned to her uncle’s house in Quezon City.
 Before being released the abductors gave Roxas a cellular phone with a SIM card, a slip of paper
containing an e-mail address with password, a plastic bag containing biscuits and books, the handcuffs
used on her, a blouse and a pair of shoes. Petitioner was also sternly warned not to report the incident
to the group Karapatan or something untoward will happen to her and her family.
 Sometime after her release, petitioner continued to receive calls from RC via the cellular phone given
to her. Out of apprehension that she was being monitored and also fearing for the safety of her family,
Roxas threw away the cellular phone with a SIM card.
 Seeking sanctuary against the threat of future harm as well as the suppression of any existing
government files or records linking her to the communist movement, Roxas filed a Petition for the
Writs of Amparo and Habeas Data before this Court on 1 June 2009.
 Roxas impleaded public officials occupying the uppermost echelons of the military and police hierarchy
as respondents, on the belief that it was government agents who were behind her abduction and
torture. Petitioner likewise included in her suit "Rose," "Dex" and "RC."
 The Supreme Court issued the desired writs and referred the same with the Court of Appeals for
hearing.
 The Court of Appeals extended to Roxas the privilege of the writ of amparo by directing the public
respondents to afford protection to the former, as well as continuing, under the norm of extraordinary
diligence, their existing investigations involving the abduction.
 The existence of an ongoing threat against the security of the Roxas, as manifested in the attempts of
"RC" to contact and monitor her, even after she was released. This threat, according to the Court of
Appeals, is all the more compounded by the failure of the police authorities to identify the material
perpetrators who are still at large.
Issue/s: Whether or not Roxas may implicate the high-ranking civilian and military authorities
Decision:
Doctrine:
Personal Notes: 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 file the appropriate criminal and civil cases against the responsible
parties in the proper courts.
Accountability 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 defined 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.

Case Title: Burgos vs. Esperon

Facts:
Issue/s:
Decision:
Doctrine:
Personal Notes: