REPUBLIC vs

CAYANAN
November 7, 2017
G.R. No. 181796
Substantial evidence is sufficient in proceedings
involving petitions for the writ of amparo. The
respondent must show in the return on the writ of
amparo the observance of extraordinary diligence.

Once an enforced disappearance is established by

substantial evidence, the relevant State agencies
should be tasked to assiduously investigate and
determine the disappearance, and, if warranted, to
bring to the bar of justice whoever may be
responsible for the disappearance.
On July 9, 2007, Pablo Cayanan, a used car dealer, and
Ronaldo F. Perez, a fixer, were forcibly taken by a
group of armed men led by SPO2 Rolando Pascua. Perez
was later released but Cayanan has not been seen nor
heard from since then.

A petition for habeas corpus was filed in behalf of

Cayanan but later converted to amparo proceedings.
Perez executed a sworn affidavit describing the
abduction but later recanted his statement. SPO2
Pascua submitted a counter-affidavit in which he denied
the allegations and claimed that he was also abducted in
the same incident by unknown men.
The RTC issued the writ of amparo, ordering the CIDG
Director to conduct further investigations and for SPO2
Pascua to appear before the proper forum.

The CIDG however appeals the RTC’s judgment, arguing

that the applicant for the writ failed to prove by
substantial evidence the involvement of CIDG in the
disappearance of Cayanan because Perez recanted his
affidavit; that the CIDG is only required to exercise
ordinary diligence and that it has already discharged its
duty under the Rules when it submitted its return with
certifications that CIDG was not detaining Cayanan.
Lastly, the CIDG contends that the issuance of the writ
violated Pascua’s right to presumption of innocence.
 Whether there is substantial evidence to justify
the issuance of the writ;

 Whether only ordinary diligence is required

from the CIDG;

 Whether the CIDG complied with the

requirements of the Rules on the submission of
return.

 Whether the issuance of the writ violated

Pascua’s right to be presumed innocent
 Substantial evidence

In amparo petitions, the Court allows for flexibility in

considering the evidence presented, including hearsay
evidence which may be admitted as the circumstances
of the case may require for the protection of the
precious rights to life, liberty, and security.

The recantation has no evidentiary value for being

general and bereft of details of what really happened if
the abduction did not occur. Other witnesses also
identified Pascua as the person leading the abductors.
 Extraordinary diligence is required
from the CIDG. The State and its
agencies, not just public officials and
employees, are covered by the Rule and
may be impleaded.

 The CIDG did not comply with Section

9 on the required contents of the return
of the Rule.
Presumption of innocence of the respondent is not an
issue in amparo proceedings

“The proceedings taken under the Rule on the Writ of

Amparo are not akin or similar to those in criminal
prosecutions. In the former, the guilt or innocence of
the respondents is not determined, and no penal
sanctions are meted. The proceedings only endeavor to
give the aggrieved parties immediate remedies against
imminent or actual threats to life, liberty or security.”