G.R. No. 222226 . February 14, 2022
FE J. MORADA, PETITIONER, VS. RANDY RIAS, EX-O ROLLY CEBU, DESK OFFICER ROMY DONALDO, DESK OFFICER FERNANDO DOMINGO AND OTHER JOHN DOES OF BARANGAY 176, CALOOCAN CITY, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioner Fe J. Morada filed a Petition for Issuance of Writ of Amparo before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for the alleged enforced disappearance of her son, Johnson J. Morada. She alleged that on October 14, 2015, her son was arrested and detained by barangay tanods of Barangay 176, Caloocan City for alleged theft. When she went to the barangay hall that evening, respondent Rolly Cebu informed her that Johnson had already been released by either respondent Fernando Domingo or Romy Donaldo, as evidenced by an entry in the barangay blotter signed by Johnson himself. In December 2015, Morada reported her son missing to the Northern Police District, but the investigation was terminated due to lack of witnesses and the barangay’s insistence on Johnson’s release. Rumors later circulated that Johnson had been extrajudicially killed. The RTC denied the petition, finding no substantial evidence of enforced disappearance, particularly the elements of refusal to acknowledge the disappearance and intention to remove the person from the protection of the law.

ISSUE

Whether the RTC gravely erred in not giving due course to the petition for issuance of a writ of amparo despite substantial evidence submitted in support of the same.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the RTC Order. The Court held that no substantial evidence existed to prove the claim of enforced disappearance. While the first two elements of enforced disappearance (arrest/detention and state involvement) were present, the third and fourth elements were lacking. The third element requires a refusal by the state or a political organization to acknowledge or give information on the person’s fate or whereabouts. The fourth element requires an intention to remove the person from the protection of the law for a prolonged period. The Court found that the respondents, through the barangay blotter signed by Johnson, positively showed his release from custody and provided information on his whereabouts at the time of release. There was no refusal to give information. Consequently, there was no intention to remove Johnson from legal protection for a prolonged period. The petitioner’s reliance on rumors, without corroborative testimonial, documentary, or circumstantial evidence, did not constitute substantial evidence. The liberality of the amparo remedy does not excuse a claimant from the burden of proof, which requires adequate evidence.