GR 221862; (January, 2018) (Digest)
G.R. No. 221862 , January 23, 2018
GEN. EMMANUEL BAUTISTA, ET AL., PETITIONERS, V. ATTY. MARIA CATHERINE DANNUG-SALUCON, RESPONDENT.
FACTS
Respondent Atty. Maria Catherine Dannug-Salucon, a human rights lawyer and co-founder of the National Union of People’s Lawyers, filed a petition for writs of amparo and habeas data. She alleged she was under government surveillance and her life and liberty were under threat. Her paralegal, William Bugatti, was killed after informing her of the surveillance. A confidential informant, a civilian asset for the PNP, confirmed that a directive was issued to conduct a background check on her to confirm if she was a “Red Lawyer.” She learned her name was on a military watchlist of alleged communist terrorist supporters. Vendors near her office reported being repeatedly questioned by men appearing to be soldiers about her whereabouts and routine. A member of the CIDG also visited her law office looking for her.
The petitioners, high-ranking military and police officials, denied the allegations. They argued the evidence presented by the respondent was inadmissible hearsay and insufficient to prove any state-sponsored threat to her life, liberty, or security. The Court of Appeals granted the privilege of the writs, finding substantial evidence of threats justifying amparo relief. The petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in granting the privilege of the writ of amparo based on the evidence presented by the respondent.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA decision. The Court explained that amparo proceedings employ a standard of “substantial evidence” based on the “totality of evidence.” This standard is more flexible than in ordinary civil or criminal cases, allowing for the admission and appreciation of relevant circumstantial evidence and hearsay testimony that is consistent with admissible evidence. This flexibility is necessary due to the State’s virtual monopoly over pertinent information in cases of threats, enforced disappearances, or extrajudicial killings, and the inherent difficulty for a petitioner to obtain direct evidence.
Applying this standard, the Court found the totality of circumstances—the killing of her paralegal, the confirmation from a police asset, the repeated questioning of vendors by men described as soldiers, the visit from a CIDG agent, and her inclusion on a watchlist—constituted substantial evidence that her right to life, liberty, and security was under threat. The petitioners’ mere denials and failure to conduct a meaningful investigation into her allegations further bolstered the case for granting amparo relief. The Court remanded the case to the CA to monitor the investigation the petitioners were ordered to undertake.