GR 181796; (November, 2017) (Digest)
G.R. No. 181796, November 7, 2017
Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Director/Head of the Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG), Philippine National Police (PNP), Petitioner, vs. Regina N. Cayanan and SPO1 Rolando V. Pascua, Respondents.
FACTS
Regina Cayanan filed a petition for habeas corpus, later amended to a petition for a writ of amparo, alleging the enforced disappearance of her husband, Pablo. She claimed that on July 9, 2007, a group of armed men identifying themselves as CIDG operatives, led by respondent SPO1 Rolando Pascua, forcibly arrested Pablo without a warrant in Quezon City. Pablo was reportedly taken to Camp Crame and had not been seen or heard from since. Despite demands, the CIDG did not produce him. The CIDG, in its return, denied any custody or detention of Pablo. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) issued the writ of amparo and later issued a resolution maintaining the writ, ordering the CIDG to continue its investigation, directing Pascua to appear, and making a temporary protection order permanent.
ISSUE
The primary issue was whether substantial evidence existed to warrant the issuance and continuance of the writ of amparo.
RULING
The Supreme Court upheld the RTC’s issuance of the writ of amparo, finding the appeal to be without merit. The Court clarified that the standard of proof in amparo proceedings is substantial evidence, which is that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. This standard is lower than proof beyond reasonable doubt required in criminal cases. The Court found that Regina’s detailed allegations, including the specific date, location, identity of the alleged abductors (CIDG operatives led by Pascua), and the subsequent lack of information about Pablo’s whereabouts, constituted substantial evidence of an enforced disappearance.
The Court emphasized that once such substantial evidence is presented, the burden shifts to the respondents, particularly state agents, to prove they exercised extraordinary diligence in investigating the disappearance. The CIDG’s mere denial of custody and its investigation, which the Court found to be a superficial effort focused on disclaiming responsibility rather than a genuine probe, failed to meet this required standard of extraordinary diligence. Pascua’s failure to appear in court proceedings and his reliance on the presumption of innocence were unavailing, as amparo proceedings are separate from criminal trials and aim to determine accountability for the protection of constitutional rights, not criminal guilt. The Court affirmed the orders for continued investigation, witness protection, and the permanent protection order.