In a landmark decision, the Court of Appeals (CA) has upheld a petition for the issuance of a writ of amparo filed by Leomar Bueno against Mayor William N. Mamba, stemming from allegations of illegal detention and torture. The case highlights the use of the writ of amparo as a protective remedy in response to alleged violations of constitutional rights, specifically aimed at safeguarding individuals from threats to life, liberty, and security.
Facts of the Case
The case began when Emelita N. Mamba, the mother of Mayor William Mamba, was the victim of a robbery at her canteen in Tuao, Cagayan. In response, Task Force Lingkod Bayan, an agency created by the Sangguniang Bayan of Tuao to assist the local police in maintaining peace and order, initiated an investigation into the robbery. However, the investigation took a disturbing turn when Bueno and his associate, Haber, were brought to Mayor Mamba’s residence and allegedly subjected to torture as part of a coercive attempt to extract confessions.
According to Bueno’s testimony, he and Haber were forced to roll on the grass, kicked, beaten with a cue stick, and had hot wax poured on them in an attempt to force them to admit to their involvement in the robbery. They denied any involvement in the incident. During their detention, they were also blindfolded and questioned by Atty. Mamba, who was reportedly present during parts of the interrogation. Later, they were taken to the Task Force’s office, where they spent the night under custody.
Legal Proceedings and CA Decision
Bueno, with the assistance of the Commission on Human Rights (CHR), filed a petition for the issuance of a writ of amparo with the CA. On September 14, 2009, the CA accepted the petition and ordered the issuance of the writ, providing legal protection to Bueno. The petitioners subsequently filed their verified return on September 23, 2009.
The primary legal issue in this case revolved around whether the CA erred in granting the writ of amparo. The writ, as defined by Section 1 of A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC, serves as a remedy for specific violations or threats of violations to the constitutional rights to life, liberty, or security. The coverage is limited to cases involving extralegal killings or enforced disappearances, which the court has defined as state-involved deprivation of liberty followed by refusal to acknowledge the detention or reveal the fate of the individual.
In cases of amparo, the burden of proof rests on the petitioner, who must provide substantial evidence of their claims. Substantial evidence is a standard requiring a reasonable amount of proof sufficient to convince an impartial mind of the claim’s validity.
Court’s Findings and Ruling
The CA found that Bueno had met the standard of substantial evidence, demonstrating that members of the Task Force apprehended, detained, and tortured him without legal or judicial proceedings. It was further established that Bueno’s mother, Maritess, would not have seen her son without the intervention of P/Supt. Buenaobra from the PNP Cagayan Regional Office.
The Court concluded that the Task Force’s actions constituted a violation of Bueno’s right to security, as the government failed to provide protection and legal safeguards. The evidence pointed to the illegal detention and torture of Bueno, actions that violated his rights to liberty and personal security. As a result, the CA justifiably issued the writ of amparo in Bueno’s favor, recognizing the unlawful treatment he endured.
Implications of the Decision
This case reinforces the importance of the writ of amparo as a tool for addressing state-involved violations of fundamental rights. The decision underscores the judiciary’s role in providing protective measures for citizens against abuses of power and emphasizes the need for adherence to legal processes and safeguards.
The CA’s decision serves as a reminder of the constitutional guarantees afforded to all individuals and the judiciary’s commitment to upholding these rights. This case sets a significant precedent for similar cases involving unlawful detention and torture, ensuring that victims can seek judicial relief and protection through the writ of amparo.
Read the full copy of the decision here https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/62807
Real LexEcon 