G.R. No. 184467 ; June 19, 2012
EDGARDO NAVIA, RUBEN DIO, and ANDREW BUISING, Petitioners, vs. VIRGINIA PARDICO, for and in behalf and in representation of BENHUR V. PARDICO, Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Virginia Pardico filed a Petition for a Writ of Amparo against petitioners Edgardo Navia, Ruben Dio, and Andrew Buising, all security personnel of Asian Land Strategies Corporation. She alleged that on March 31, 2008, her husband Benhur was taken from a residence by the guards for investigation regarding a stolen lamp. According to the respondent’s version, Benhur was slapped, punched, and threatened by Navia at the security office. While Benhur’s companion, Bong Lapore, and his mother were eventually released after signing logbook entries, Benhur was detained. The petitioners denied these allegations, contending that Benhur and Bong were merely invited, voluntarily gave statements admitting they moved the lamp, and were both released unharmed after the complainant declined to pursue the matter. They presented logbook entries signed by Bong, his mother, and purportedly by Benhur, confirming their release. Benhur Pardico has been missing since that night.

ISSUE

Whether the Writ of Amparo should be granted based on the evidence presented.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the grant of the Writ of Amparo by the Regional Trial Court. The legal logic is anchored on the specific requirements for the writ in cases of enforced disappearance. For the writ to issue, it is not enough to allege and prove that a person is missing. The petitioner must establish by substantial evidence that the disappearance was carried out by, or with the authorization, support, or acquiescence of, the state or a political organization, followed by a refusal to acknowledge the detention or to give information on the victim’s fate. In this case, the Court found the petitioners’ claim of release to be dubious. The evidence showed that the logbook entry supposedly signed by Benhur upon his release was not convincingly proven to bear his genuine signature, creating serious doubt about his fate after being taken into custody. The acts of the petitioners—armed security guards effecting a seizure, conducting an investigation in their office, and producing questionable documentation—were performed under color of authority, satisfying the state agent requirement for an enforced disappearance under the Amparo Rule. Their subsequent inability to account for Benhur’s whereabouts completed the elements for the issuance of the writ. The Court thus upheld the lower court’s finding of responsibility on the part of the petitioners.