G.R. No. 242257, October 15, 2019.
VIVIAN A. SANCHEZ, PETITIONER, VS. PSUPT. MARC ANTHONY D. DARROCA, CHIEF OF POLICE, SAN JOSE MUNICIPAL POLICE STATION; PSSUPT. LEO IRWIN D. AGPANGAN, PROVINCIAL DIRECTOR, PNP-ANTIQUE; PCSUPT. JOHN C. BULALACAO, REGIONAL DIRECTOR, PNP-REGION VI, AND MEMBERS OF THE PNP UNDER THEIR AUTHORITY, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

On August 16, 2018, petitioner Vivian A. Sanchez learned her estranged husband, Eldie Labinghisa, was among seven alleged New People’s Army members killed by police in Antique. She went to St. Peter’s Funeral Home to verify, but police officers there took her photo without permission, causing her to leave without identifying the body. Later, a police friend informed her that her photo was being circulated at the station and urged her to cooperate with investigators or risk being surveilled. The next day, at the funeral home, three police officers threatened to apprehend and charge her with obstruction of justice if she refused to answer questions. Later that day, police officers went to her house and showed her a photo of a cadaver, which she confirmed as Labinghisa. In the following days, Sanchez noticed frequent drive-bys of a police car in front of her house, a vehicle tailing her family to Iloilo for the wake, and someone shadowing her outside, causing fear for her and her children’s safety. Her 15-year-old daughter attested to the constant police presence causing anxiety and trouble sleeping. On August 24, 2018, Sanchez filed a Petition for Writ of Amparo before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Jose, Antique. The RTC issued the writ and a temporary protection order but later dismissed the petition, ruling Sanchez failed to substantiate her allegations with specific evidence that the respondents participated in or sanctioned threats to her security. Sanchez filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether or not petitioner Vivian A. Sanchez was able to prove with substantial evidence her entitlement to the privilege of a writ of amparo.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court denied the petition. The Court held that while the unauthorized taking and circulation of Sanchez’s photo at the police station was improper and a violation of her right to privacy, this act alone did not constitute a threat to her life, liberty, or security sufficient to warrant the writ of amparo. The Court found that Sanchez’s allegations of surveillance—based on the police car drive-bys, being tailed, and being shadowed—were not substantiated by evidence that these acts were done by the respondents or their subordinates with the intent to inflict harm or that they created a reasonable fear of an imminent violation of her rights. The Court emphasized that the amparo writ is not a remedy for every perceived invasion of privacy or security but is intended for cases of extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances, or threats thereof. The respondents’ Verified Return, which denied the surveillance and explained that taking her photo was part of a regular investigation, coupled with the lack of corroborative evidence from Sanchez, led the Court to conclude she failed to discharge the burden of proof by substantial evidence. The Temporary Protection Order was correctly lifted.