c;c,-:J

SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES

D)'.~~~~~~D
TIME: &•~
31\epublic of tl)t ~bilippine~
~upreme iourt
ftlanHa
SEC()ND DIVISION
FE J. MORADA, ·'"1_ n
~ <!!l."~
NQ'o!
.
· "'#~
11,2~,,,..c
. µAu
Petitioner,
Present:

P,1~,R ... s.;,'." B· ED"NABE·

r"'rL.1AS .. i. J'.,
::< xu · . _., SA

- versus - HERNA1"1:DO,
INTING,
GAERLAN, and
DIMAAl\/IPAO, JJ.
R,A.NDY RIAS~ EX-O ROLLY
CEBU, DESI( OFFICER ROMY
DONALDO, DESK OFF."JCER
FERNANDO DOMINGO and
OTHER JOHN DOES OF
BARANGAY 176, CALOOCAN Promulgated:

~
CITY,
Respondents. FEB 14 2022
x--~--~----~~~~-~~~p~-~-~~-~~-~~-.~~~~~~~~~~~-~~~-a~~~~~~w~--m~~~~-·~~---~-~·~-~-~~--~~--~--x

l)ECISION
HERNANDO, J.:

At bar is a petition for review on cf;!rtiorari 1 filed by petitioner Fe J. Mora~a

(Morada) from the Order2 dated January 26, 2016 of the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Caloocan City, Branch 123~ which denied the Petition for Issuance of
Writ of Amparo 3 she filed for the alleged enforced disappearance of her son,
Johnson J. Niorada (Johnson).

Antecedent Facts

1\1orada alleged that on OctQber 14, :2015 at around 8:00 a.m,, she received
a text message frorn her daughter, Jermilyn J. rviorada; that Johnson was arrested
1
Rolla., pp, 12-2~,
2 Id. at 32-37.
Id. itt 38-43.

A/
Decision 2 G.R. No. 222226

and detained by the barangay tanods of Barangay l 76, Caloocan City for alleged
theft of a mobile phone in the house of another barangay tanod, herein respondent
Randy Rias (Randy). 4

Morada went to the barangay hall at about 7:00 p.m. of October 14, 2015.
At the barangay hall, respondent Rolly Cebu (Rolly) informed Morada that
Johnson was already released by either respondent Fernando Domingo (Fernando)
or respondent Romy Donal do (Romy) from the custody of the barangay as
evidenced by the entry in the barangay blotter, signed by Johnson himself. 5

In December 2015, Morada went to the Northern Police District (NPD) to

report that her son is missing. An investigation was conducted but the same was
terminated in view of the lack of a witness to shed light on Johnson's disappearance
and the insistence of the respondent barangay desk officers that Johnson was
already released from their custody. 6

In the meantime, rumors circulated within Barangay 176 that Johnson had
been extrajudicially killed and that his body was mixed in cement in order to
conceal the incident. This prompted Morada to institute a petition for the issuance
of a writ of amparo to detennine whether respondents had violated or threatened to
violate Johnson's right to life, liberty and security, and to compel respondents to
detennine the whereabouts of Johnson, and the person/s responsible for his
disappearance or possible death, among others. 7

On January 25, 2016, Morada filed before the RTC a Petition for Issuance
of Writ of Amparo, 8 docketed as SP. PROC CASE NO. C-5159.

Ru.ling of the Regional Trial Court

On January 26, 2016, the RTC rendered the assailed Order9 denying the
petition. The RTC held that there was no showing of any refusal on the part of the
respondents to acknowledge or to give information on Johnson's whereabouts such
that there was no intention to remove him from the protection of the law for a
prolonged period of time. Thus, the third and fourth elements of enforced
disappearance are absent. The decretal portion of the RTC Order reads:

Premises considered, the petition is hereby DENIED DUE COURSE and is

accordingly DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED. 10

4
Id. at 39.
5
Id. at 48.
6
Id. at 40.
7
Id. at 40-42.
8
Id. at 38-43.
9
Id. at 32-37.
10
Id. at 37.

-;v
Decision 3 G.R. No. 222226

Undaunted, Morada instituted the present petition before this Court.

Issue

The issue for resolution is whether the RTC gravely erred in not giving
due course to the petition for issuance of writ of amparo despite substantial
evidence submitted in support of the same.

Morada argues that, contrary to the RTC's findings, the enforced

disappearance of Johnson had been established by substantial evidence. Morada
insists that the lack of cooperation on the part of the respondents amounted to a
refusal on their part to acknowledge or give information on the fate or whereabouts
of Johnson, showing their intention to remove him from the protection of the law. 11

Our Ruling

The petition has no merit.

No substantial evidence exists to

prove Morada 's claim

Section 19 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo (A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC) is

explicit that both questions of fact and law can be raised before the Court in a
petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. 12 As a rule then, the Court is not
bound by the factual findings made by the lower court which rendered the judgment
in a petition for the issuance of the writ of amparo. Be that as it may, a careful
review of the records of the case reveals that the RTC committed no reversible
error in finding that no substantial evidence exists to compel the grant of the writ
prayed for by Morada.

The elements constituting enforced disappearance as defined under Republic

Act No. 9851 are as follows:

(a) that there be an arrest, detention, abduction or any form of deprivation of

liberty;

(b) that it be carried out by, or with the authorization, support or acquiescence of,
the State or a political organization;

(c) that it be followed by the State or political organization's refusal to

acknowledge or give information on the fate or whereabouts of the person subject
of the amparo petition; and

11
Id. at 34.
12 SEC. 19. Appeal. -Any party may appeal from the final judgment or order to the Supreme Court under
Rule 45. The appeal may raise questions of fact or law or both.

11,
Decision 4 G.R. No. 222226

(d) that the intention for such refusal is to remove subject person from the
protection of the law for a prolonged period of time. 13

There is no question that the first and second elements are attendant in this
case. However, We agree with the RTC that the third and fourth elements are sorely
lacking. While it is admitted that Johnson was arrested for the alleged theft that he
committed in the house of Randy, it was sufficiently established by the respondents
that he was already released from their custody on October 14, 2015, as evidenced
by the barangay blotter, signed by Johnson himself. 14 In fact, Morada neither
denied nor refuted the said document of release. As opposed to the unsubstantiated
allegations of Morada that it is respondents who are responsible for Johnson's
disappearance, We accord greater weight to the documentary evidence presented
by the respondents exhibiting that Johnson was no longer in the custody of the
respondents when he disappeared. Such evidence strongly militate against
Morada's claim of enforced disappearance.

Morada further argues that the lack of cooperation on the part of the
respondents constitutes a refusal on their part to acknowledge Johnson's
disappearance and the corresponding intention to remove him from the protection
of the law.

This argument is specious.

By her own admission, Morada disclosed that when she inquired about her
son Johnson at the barangay hall, she was immediately informed by respondent
Rolly that Johnson was captured but was also released from detention the same
day. In support thereof, Rolly showed the barangay blotter which bore Johnson's
signature showing his release. Thus, it is clear that there was no refusal to give
information on the whereabouts of Johnson.

Morada further admitted that the NPD conducted an investigation on

Johnson's disappearance but the same was terminated due to the lack of a witness
to give light to the investigation and on account of the information from the
barangay that he was already released from custody. The foregoing belie Morada's
claim of lack of cooperation on the part of the authorities. On this score, We agree
with the following observations of the RTC:

This documentary proof of Johnson's release from detention is, to the mind of the
Court, substantial evidence to establish that the respondents have not refused to
acknowledge or give information on the whereabouts of Johnson, as in fact it
should be regarded as information positively showing that Johnson was no longer
under the hold of the barangay officials. 15

13
Navia v. Pardico, 688 Phil. 266, 279 (2012r
14
Rollo, p. 48.
15
Id. at 36.

"/
 Decision 5 G.R. No. 222226

Accordingly, there was no intention to remove Johnson from the protection

of the law for a prolonged period of time as he had been released already. Hence,
We see no enforced or involuntary disappearance that would warrant the issuance
of the writ of amparo.

"For the issuance of the writ, it is not sufficient that a person's life is
endangered. It is even not sufficient to allege and prove that a person has
disappeared. It has to be shown by the required quantum of proof that the
disappearance was carried out by, or with the authorization, support or
acquiescence of the government or a political organization, and that there is a
refusal to acknowledge the same or to give information on the fate or whereabouts
of the missing persons." 16

In the instant case, the Court agrees with the RTC that Morada failed to
prove by substantial evidence her claim of enforced disappearance. Morada's
petition is mainly anchored on the alleged rumor which circulated in their
community that Johnson was killed and his dead body was mixed in cement.
However, said allegation lacked corroborations. The presentation of
testimonial, documentary or at least circumstantial evidence could have made a
difference in light of the denials made by the respondents as regards Morada's
claims, as well as the documentary evidence, showing that Johnson is no longer
in the charge of the barangay. Morada's continued reliance on mere rumors and
speculations, without presenting any clear and independent evidence showing
that there was a threat to Johnson's life, liberty, and security, even prior to his
arrest or that he was physically harmed by the respondents while in detention,
does not amount to substantial evidence.

Not only did Morada fail to substantiate any extrajudicial killing or

enforced disappearance in this case, she also miserably failed to show any
government participation or acquiescence in any killing or disappearance. To
reiterate, records show that Johnson was properly accounted for by the
authorities who initially detained him.

Given the foregoing, there is no basis for the issuance of the writ of amparo.
The liberality accorded to amparo does not mean that a claimant is excused from
the onus of proving his case. "Indeed, even the liberal standard of substantial
evidence demands some adequate evidence." 17

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DENIED. The assailed

Order dated January 26, 2016 of the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City, Branch
123 is AFFIRMED.

16 Callo v. Morente, 818 Phil. 454, 460-461 (2017), citing Navia v. Pardico, supra note 13.
17 See Saez v. Macapagal-Arroyo, 695 Phil. 781, 799 (2012).

---z.
Decisio~1 6 G.R. No. 222226

SO ORDERED.

Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

ESTELAM. ~~ERNABE
Senior Associate Justice
Chairperson

/
~Ji,~
HE~INTfNG SA1VIUEL JI. GAERL
Associate Justice Associate Justice

RB. DIIViAAMPA
Associate Justice
Decision 7 G.R. No. 222226

ATTEST.ATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached ip
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court's Division.

AAOtJ..t,..A/
ESTELA. M:"PERLAS-B.ERNABE.
, . . . . 1 .

Senior Associate Justice

Chairperson

CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division
Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision
had been reached in consultation before the case was assig1.wd to the writer of
the opinion of the Court's Division.