G.R. No. 265195 , September 09, 2024
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF AMPARO IN FAVOR OF HENRY V. TAYO, JR., ALIAS “MAGELAN TAYO,” HIEZEL V. TAYO, MERLINA V. TAYO, AND HENRY C. TAYO, SR., PETITIONERS, VS. PMAJ JOERY T. PUERTO, STATION COMMANDER OF BACOLOD CITY POLICE STATION 8, PSSG ROBERTO P. GAURANA, JR., DUTY JAILER OF BACOLOD CITY POLICE STATION 8, AND PATROLMAN GARRY BUGANOTAN, DESK OFFICER/RECORDS CUSTODIAN OF BACOLOD CITY POLICE STATION 8, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

On September 27, 2022, at around 11:30 a.m., Henry V. Tayo, Jr. was arrested and detained at Bacolod City Police Station 8 (BCPS 8) based on separate complaints for theft. After the complainants did not pursue their cases, Tayo, Jr. was purportedly released at around 11:30 p.m. the same day to one of the complainants, Melleza Basco Besana, and five barangay tanods. After his supposed release, Tayo, Jr.’s family neither heard from nor saw him. They inquired at the police station, where the respondents (police officers of BCPS 8) informed them Tayo, Jr. had been released and showed a video clip of him signing the release logbook. The family requested a copy of the CCTV footage of Tayo, Jr. leaving the station and was assured it would be furnished once available. The family sought assistance from the Commission on Human Rights (CHR), the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO), the National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM), and the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG). The respondents later informed the family that an IT personnel was assigned to retrieve the footage, but it could not be retrieved as the recording device could only store up to five days of data. The respondents also accompanied the family to a barangay hall to view a different, blurry footage allegedly showing Tayo, Jr. boarding a tricycle. Besana and a barangay tanod, Joenick B. Francisco, executed judicial affidavits stating they signed the release logbook but did not actually witness Tayo, Jr. leave the police station. The Tayo family filed a Petition for a Writ of Amparo with a Prayer for a Production Order. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed the petition, finding no substantial evidence of government participation or refusal by the respondents to provide information on Tayo, Jr.’s whereabouts.

ISSUE

Whether the RTC erred in dismissing the Petition for a Writ of Amparo and denying the prayer for the issuance of a Production Order.

RULING

No, the RTC did not err. The Supreme Court denied the Petition for Review on Certiorari and affirmed the RTC Decision. The Court held that for a writ of amparo to issue, the petitioners must establish by substantial evidence that the respondents committed an act or omission that violated, or threatened with violation, the right to life, liberty, or security of the aggrieved party. The petitioners failed to discharge this burden. The elements of enforced disappearance under Republic Act No. 9851 were not proven: (1) there was no evidence of an arrest, detention, abduction, or any form of deprivation of liberty carried out by the respondents or with their authorization, support, or acquiescence after Tayo, Jr.’s documented release; (2) there was no evidence of a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty or to give information on the fate or whereabouts of Tayo, Jr., as the respondents cooperated by showing the release video, attempting to retrieve CCTV footage, and accompanying the family to view other footage; and (3) the alleged deprivation of liberty was not part of a government policy or in furtherance of a political objective. The respondents’ explanations for the missing CCTV footage and the video recording were credible and not indicative of bad faith. The Court also found the prayer for a Production Order moot, as the respondents had already attempted to retrieve and produce the requested footage. The petitioners’ evidence only established Tayo, Jr.’s disappearance after his release, not that it was carried out by State agents or that the State refused to disclose information. Therefore, the privilege of the writ of amparo was correctly denied.