GEN. AVELINO I. RAZON, JR., Chief, Philippine National Police (PNP); Police Chief Superintendent RAUL CASTAÑEDA, Chief, Criminal Investigation Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG); Police Senior Superintendent LEONARDO A. ESPINA, Chief, Police Anti-Crime and Emergency Response (PACER); and GEN. JOEL R. GOLTIAO, Regional Director of ARMM, PNP vs. MARY JEAN B. TAGITIS, herein represented by ATTY. FELIPE P. ARCILLA, JR., Attorney-in-Fact Attorney-in-Fact G.R. no. 182498 December 3, 2009 FACTS: Engr. Morced N. Tagitis is a consultant for the World Bank and the Senior Honorary Counselor for the Islamic Development Bank (IDB) Scholarship Programme. Programme. He was last seen in Jolo, Sulu. Kunnong and Muhammad Abdulnazeir N. Matli, a UP professor professor of Muslim Muslim studies studies and Tagitis’ Tagitis’ fellow student student counselor counselor at the IDB reported Tagitis’ disappearance to the Jolo Police Station. More than a month later , the Mary B. Tagitis (Tagitis), Engr. Tagitis's wife, filed a Petition for the Writ of Amparo (petition) with the Court of Appeals (CA). The petition was directed against certain members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and the Philippine National Police (PNP): The petition avers that: Soon after the Tagitis left the room, Engr. Tagitis went out of the pension house to take his early lunch but while out on the street, a couple of burly men believed to be police intelligence operatives, forcibly took him. When Kunnong could not locate Engr. Tagitis, the former sought the help of another IDB scholar and reported the matter to the local police agency. Kunnong including his friends and companions in Jolo, exerted efforts in trying to locate the whereabouts of Engr. Tagitis and when he reported the matter to the police authorities in Jolo, he was immediately given a ready answer that Engr. Tagitis could have been abducted by the Abu Sayyaf group; Information from persons in the military who do not want to be identified stated that Engr. Tagitis is in the hands of the uniformed men; and according to reliable information received by Tagitis, subject Engr. Tagitis is in the custody of police
intelligence operatives, specifically with the CIDG, PNP Zamboanga City, being held against his will in an earnest attempt of the police to involve and connect Engr. Tagitis with the different terrorist groups. Tagitis filed her complaint with the PNP Police Station in the ARMM in Cotobato and in Jolo, seeking their help to find her husband, but Tagitis's request and pleadings failed to produce any positive results. The unexplained uncooperative behavior of the petitioners to Tagitis's request for help and failure and refusal of the petitioners to extend the needed help, support and assistance in locating the whereabouts of Engr. Tagitis who had been declared missing since October 30, 2007 which is almost two (2) months now, clearly indicates that the [petitioners] are actually in physical possession and custody of Engr. Tagitis. On the same day the petition was filed, the CA IMMEDIATELY ISSUED the Writ of Amparo. At the same time, the CA DISMISSED the petition against the Tagitis from the military, Lt. Gen Alexander Yano and Gen. Ruben Rafael, based on the finding that it was PNP-CIDG, not the military, that was involved. Petitioners appealed the decision of the CA to the Supreme Court. Hence, this petition
ISSUES: 1. WON the petition for writ of amparo filed is sufficent in form and substance; 2. WON there was an enforced disappearance in this case that can be a proper ground for issuance of writ of amparo;
HELD: 1. YES. In questioning the sufficiency in form and substance of the respondent’s Amparo petition, the petitioners contend that the petition violated Section 5(c), (d), and (e) of the Amparo Rule and hence did not comply with the formal requirements of the said Rule.
SC held however, that in an Amparo petition, this requirement must be read in light of the nature and purpose of the proceeding, which addresses a situation of uncertainty; hence the one filing the petition may not be able to describe with certainty how the victim exactly disappeared, or who actually acted to kidnap, abduct or arrest him or her, or where the victim is detained, because these information may purposely be hidden or covered up by those who caused the disappearance. To read the Rules of Court requirement on pleadings while addressing the unique Amparo situation, the test in reading the petition should be to determine whether it contains the details available to the one filing the petition under the circumstances, WHILE presenting a cause of action showing a violation of the victim’s rights to life, liberty and security through State or private party action. The petition should likewise be read in its totality, to determine if the required elements- – -namely, of the disappearance, the State or private action, and the actual or threatened violations of the rights to life, liberty or security- – - are present. Applying these rules in the present case, the petition amply recites in its paragraphs 4 to 11 the circumstances under which Tagitis suddenly dropped out of sight after engaging in normal activities, and thereafter was nowhere to be found despite efforts to locate him. It also clearly alleged how Tagitis’ rights to life, liberty and security were violated when he was "forcibly taken and boarded on a motor vehicle by a couple of burly men believed to be police intelligence operatives," and then taken "into custody by the respondents’ police intelligence operatives since October 30, 2007, specifically by the CIDG, PNP Zamboanga City, x x x held against his will in an earnest attempt of the police to involve and connect him with different terrorist groups." 2. YES. The Convention defines enforced disappearance as "the arrest, detention, abduction or any other form of deprivation of liberty by agents of the State or by persons or groups of persons acting with the authorization, support or acquiescence of the State, followed by a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty or by concealment of the fate or whereabouts of the disappeared person, which place such a person outside the protection of the law."
There is no direct evidence indicating how the victim actually disappeared. The direct evidence at hand only shows that Tagitis went out of the ASY Pension House after depositing his room key with the hotel desk and was never seen nor heard of again. The undisputed conclusion, however, from all concerned- the petitioner, Engr. Tagitis’ colleagues and even the police authorities, is that Engr Tagistis disappeared under mysterious circumstances and was never seen again. Likewise, there is no direct evidence showing that operatives of PNP CIDG Zamboanga abducted or arrested Tagitis. Col. Kasim never denied that he met with the Tatigits and her friends, and that he provided them information that Tagitis was being held by police officials. However, this is based on the input of an unnamed asset. He simply claimed in his testimony that the "informal letter" he received from his informant in Sulu did not indicate that Tagitis was in the custody of the CIDG. He also stressed that the information he provided the respondent was merely a "raw report" from "barangay intelligence" that still needed confirmation and "follow up" as to its veracity. To be sure, Tagitis’s and Mrs. Talbin’s testimonies were far from perfect, as the petitioners pointed out. The inconsistencies the petitioners point out relate, more than anything else, to details that should not affect the credibility of the respondent and Mrs. Talbin; the inconsistencies are not on material points. To consider also that some pieces of evidence are incompetent and inadmissible evidence of is to state that in the absence of any direct evidence, a court should dismiss the petition. An immediate dismissal for this reason would make the Amparo Rule ineffective, since it cannot allow for the special evidentiary difficulties that are unavoidably present in Amparo situations, particularly in extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances. To give full meaning to our Constitution and the rights it protects, the Court declares that courts in amparo proceedings should at least take a close look at the available evidence to determine the correct import of every piece of evidence; and this should include those usually considered inadmissible under the general rules of evidence
But the Court must take into account the surrounding circumstances and the test of reason which shall be used as a basic minimum admissibility requirement. The Court gleans from all these admitted pieces of evidence and developments a consistency in the government’s denial of any complicity in the disappearance of Tagitis, which is disrupted only by the report made by Col. Kasim to Tagitis about her husband. Even Col. Kasim, however, eventually denied that he ever made the disclosure that Tagitis was under custodial investigation for complicity in terrorism. Based on these considerations, we conclude that Col. Kasim’s disclosure, made in an unguarded moment, unequivocally point to some government complicity in the disappearance.
