GEN.

EMMANUEL BAUTISTA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE CHIEF OF

STAFF OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES (AFP), GEN.
EDUARDO AÑO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS COMMANDING OFFICER OF
THE INTELLIGENCE SERVICE OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE
PHILIPPINES (ISAFP), GEN. HERNANDO IRIBERRI, IN HIS
CAPACITY AS COMMANDING GENERAL OF THE PHILIPPINE
Case Name ARMY, GEN. BENITO ANTONIO T. DE LEON, IN HIS CAPACITY AS
COMMANDING GENERAL OF THE 5TH INFANTRY DIVISION, AND
PC/SUPT. MIGUEL DE MAYO LAUREL, IN HIS CAPACITY AS CHIEF
OF THE ISABELA PROVINCIAL POLICE OFFICE, PETITIONERS, V.
ATTY. MARIA CATHERINE DANNUG-SALUCON, RESPONDENT.

P. Administrative Powers – Supervision of Lower Courts - Appointments of

Topic officials and employees of entire judiciary – Promulgate rules concerning the
enforcement and protection of constitutional rights
Case No. |
[ G.R. No. 221862, January 23, 2018]
Date

Ponente J. Bersamin

Digest
Jude Fanila
Author

Summary (2-3 Sentences)

Narrative Format. You start with this in recit

Doctrines involved Writs of amparo and habeas data

Application of Doctrines (re: Outline/topic N/A

placement)

RELEVANT FACTS
1. Respondent, Atty. Maria Dannug-Salucon was a co-founder of the National Union of
People’s Lawyers (NUPL) as well as a partner of her own law firm that undertook the
defense of political detainees, including human rights defenders, some of which were
alleged members of the Communist Party of the Philippines (CCP) or the New People’s
Army (NPA) who had been harassed with allegedly trumped up charges by the PH govt.
2. On March 24, 2014, respondent was made aware of potential security risks regarding her
work by her paralegal during a lunch meeting with the relatives of a detained political
prisoner client who was accused of murder in the RTC of Lagawe, Ifugao (lagawe case).
Her paralegal was later gunned down that same evening. Respondent had asked him
earlier that day to identify the names, ranks and addresses of the handler/s of the
prosecution witness in the Lagawe case.

3. That same evening, she was informed by a client who was working as a civilian asset for
the PNP Intelligence Section that the PNP had issued a directive to PNP Burgos, Isabela
(her hometown) to conduct a background investigation on her and to confirm whether she
was a “Red Lawyer”. She was also informed that she was being secretly followed by
agents of the Intelligence Service of the AFP (ISAFP), and that people that looked like
military/police had been asking people in her office about her and her routine.

4. On March 31, she received another call from her client-informant which confirmed that
she was the subject of surveillance, and was in fact being tailed by ISAFP operatives after
her client-informant was interrogated by three ISAFP operatives with regards to w/n she
was acquainted with known NPA members and why she was always the lawyer of several
suspected communist terrorists.

5. Upon further investigation she discovered additional things that supported this claim: (see
notes for full section) but tl;dr, (1) She was tailed by AFP & PNP Operatives (2) Shady
looking PNP/AFP personnel went to her home and office several times, etc. as reported to
her by her driver and co-workers

6. As a response, she filed with the CA the present petition for the writs of amparo & habeas
data alleging that the above acts, in conjunction with the previous history of human rights
lawers/defenders/political activists were killed or abducted after being labeled as
“communists” following this pattern of surveillance may be interpreted as preliminary acts
leading to her abduction/killing. She further alleged that while the purported
military/police personnel were still unidentified, they were members of the ISAFP, AFP &
PNP who acted under the orders of their superiors, hence impleading the respondents.

7. CA ruled in her favor, finding that she has proven by substantial evidence that respondents
(petitioners here) are responsible and accountable for the violation of respondent’s rights
to life, liberty and security on the basis of the unjustified surveillance operations/acts of
harassments and intimidation committed against her as well as lack of fair and effective
official investigation with regards to her allegations. Granting her petition for the writs of
amparo and habeas data

8. Directing respondents, in their capacities as Acting Regional Director of the Police

Regional Office 2, Command General of the Philippine Army; Commanding Officer of
the ISAFP and Chief of Staff of the AFP to protect the life liberty and security of
respondent (Atty. Dannug-Salucon) as well as to conduct further investigation into her
allegations.

9. After CA denied motion for reconsideration, current petition for certiorari was filed.
Petition for certiorari
 Assaling the March 12, 2015 CA decision that granted the privilege of the writs of
amparo and habeas data to Atty. Dannug-Salucon.

 Petitioner presented the following issues to the SC:

 Whether or not the CA erred in admitting and considering Atty. Salucon's evidence despite
being largely based on hearsay information;

 Whether or not the CA erred in finding Atty. Salucon's evidence sufficient to justify the
granting of the privilege of the writs of amparo and habeas data;

 Whether or not the CA erred in ruling that the hearsay evidence of Atty. Salucon,
assuming its admissibility for the sake of argument, satisfied the requirement of substantial
evidence;

 Whether or not the CA erred in granting the privilege of the writ of habeas data despite
the failure of Atty. Salucon to produce evidence showing that the petitioners were in
possession of facts, information, statements, photographs or documents pertaining to her; and

 Whether or not the CA erred in directing the petitioners to exert

extraordinary diligence and efforts to conduct further investigation in order to
determine the veracity of Atty. Salucon's alleged harassment and surveillance.

RATIO DECIDENDI
Issue Ratio
W/N the CA erred NO
in admitting Atty.  Citing [Razon, Jr. v. Tagitis], the SC held that the standard of
Salucon’s evidence for granting a writ of ampora was the standard of
evidence? (claim totality of evidence
that her evidence o There, it held that because of the unique difficulties
was circumstantial
presented by the subject of the writ, i.e. enforced
and hearsay)
disappearances it must consider all the pieces of
evidenced adduced in their totality
o This basically means that if the piece of evidence is
relevant to the issue and is consistent with all other pieces
of evidence, it can be admitted. So hearsay/circumstantial
is ok so long as it fits this test and does not violate the due
process requirement.
o It also cites [Velasquez v. Rodrigues] which was cited in
Razon where the Inter-American Court of Human Rights
noted that enforced disappearances could generally only
 be proved throough circumstantial or indirect evidence
owing to the fact that the State had a virtual monopoly of
access to the pertinent evidence.
 SC also notes that the totality test has prior legal basis in child
abuse cases. [Section 28 of the Rule on Examination of a Child
Witness] allows for the admission of the hearsay testimony of a
child describing any act/attempted act of sexual abuse subject in
a court proceeding. The admissibility of the statement is
determined by the court based on specified subjective and
objective considerations re: the reliability of the child witness
(basically, grounding for flexibility in consideration of
evidence).
W/N the evidence YES (See notes for full list)
adduced by the  Following the doctrine of Razon the SC held that a writ of
respondent amparo may be issued if the person who filed it has sufficiently
sufficient to shown based on the totality of evidence in relation to the
justify the information available to them at the time that: (1) There is a real
issuance of the and probable threat to their right to life, liberty and security (2)
writ of amparo? the presence of a state or private action produces the threat
 Here, her paralegal was gunned down after the former informed
her of potential surveillance.
W/N the CA had YES
sufficient basis to ● Habeas Data is a remedy for “any person whose right to privacy
grant the writ of in life, liberty or security is volated or threatened by an unlawful
habeas data? act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private
individual or entity engaged in the gathering, collecting or
storing of data or information regarding the person, family, home
and correspondence of the aggrieved party.”
o It is an independent and summary remedy that seeks to
protect a person’s right to control of information
regarding oneself, particularly in instances in which such
information is being collected through unlawful means in
order to achieve unlawful ends.
● Here, factually & procedurally warranted. Civillian asset
informed her of the surveillance, and she personally observed the
surveillance.
W/N the directive YES
of the CA against ● [Section 9 & 17 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo] (see
petitioners to notes) requires the amparo respondent if a public official
exert employee to prove that the extraordinary diligence as required by
extraordinary applicable laws, rules and regulations was observed in the
diligence in performance of duty.
conducting further o i.e. they can’t invoke the presumption that official duty
investigations was has been regularly performed to evade
valid and proper? liability/responsibility, they have to show that they did
shit properly.
o Citing Razon, Jr. the SC held that there was a two-fold
burden to public authorities in situations of extrajudicial
killings and enforce disappearances: (1) To ensure that all
efforts at disclosure and investigation are undertaken
under pain of indirect contempt from the SC when
governmental efforts are less than what the individual
situations require (2) to address the disappearance, so that
the life of the victim is preserved and their rights to liberty
and security are restored.
▪ Basically, di pa tapos trabaho until naproduce ung
victim, na restore to liberty and security, and may
criminal action started vs. the guilty party.
o Citing [Ladaga v. Mapagu] the SC held that failure of an
amparo petitioner to establish by substantial evidence the
involvement of military/police not a hindrance to the SC
ordering the conduct of further investigations.
o As held in [In the matter of the petition for the Writ of
Amparo and Habeas Data in favor of Noriel
Rodriguez] failure to conduct a fair and effective
investigation = violation or threat to Rodriguez’s rights to
life, liberty and security. So liability may attach as failure
to investigate = omission that violates these rights.
● Ergo, they have a two-fold burden. They must conduct an
independent investigation on their own to determine the veracity
of the Atty. Salucon’s allegations to fulfill said burden.

RULING

WHEREFORE,

the Court DENIES the petition for review on certiorari for its lack of merit; AFFIRMS the
decision and resolution promulgated by the Court of Appeals on March 12, 2015 and
December 2, 2015, respectively, in CA-G.R. SP No. 00053-W/A; and REMANDS this case
to the Court of Appeals for the monitoring of the investigation to be hereafter undertaken in
accordance with the decision promulgated by the Court of Appeals on March 12, 2015, and
for the validation of the results of the investigation.

SO ORDERED.
 Antecedent FACTS
A. Shady shit that the AFP/PNP pulled that she alleged in her initial CA petition
(Facts & Circumstances)
a) She was a human rights lawyer who had taken criminal cases in which the accused were
political detainees, including human rights defenders or suspected members of the CPP-
NPA, and the complainants were military or police officials or personnel;
   
b) Her paralegal William Bugatti informed her that he had personally observed various
individuals conducting surveillance operations of their movements (i.e., the respondent
and Bugatti) specially during the trial of a case in Ifugao involving a political detainee
who was a leader of a people's or sectoral organization;
   
c) On the day Bugatti informed her about his observation, and she instructed him to discover
the names, ranks, and addresses of the handlers of the Prosecution witness in the Ifugao
case, he was fatally gunned down;
   
d) On the same day Bugatti was gunned down, a client of hers who was working as a
civilian asset for the PNP Intelligence Section reported to her that the Regional
Intelligence Unit of the PNP, through the PNP Isabela Provincial Office, issued a
directive to conduct a background investigation to confirm if she was a "Red Lawyer;"
   
e) Said civilian asset also informed her that she was being secretly followed by ISAFP
agents, and that individuals who appeared to be military or police personnel had been
asking people around her office regarding her routine and whereabouts;
   
f) Her secretary informed her that a member of the CIS-CIDG and some purported military
personnel had gone to her law office on several occasions inquiring on her whereabouts;
   
g) On the same day said CIS-CIDG member went to her law office, she received a text
message from the Chief Investigator of the CIDG requesting, for the third time, a copy of
the records of a case she was handling;
   
h) Gamongan, her driver who testified in support of the petition, notified her that a vendor
outside her law office had told him that several motorcycle-riding personnel of the
military had approached said vendor on separate instances asking about her whereabouts
and the persons she was with, her routine and schedule, as well as the persons who were
left at the law office whenever she went out;
   
i) Gamongan also testified about an incident that occurred while he was waiting outside her
house in which a motorcycle-riding man, who looked like he was military or police based
on his haircut and demeanor, had driven by her house twice intently observing him and
the house "as if he wanted to do something bad;"
   
j) A known civilian asset of the Military Intelligence Group (MIG) tried to convince her to
have a meeting with MIG Isabela so that he could explain why she was being watched;
and
   
k) Upon her refusal of the invitation to meet, the civilian asset returned the next day telling
her that she was being watched by the MIG because of a land dispute case she was then
handling for a client

NOTES
Rule on the Writ of Amparo

Section 9 - requires the amparo respondent to state in the return the actions that have been or
will still be taken: (a) to verify the identity of the aggrieved party;
(b) to recover and preserve evidence related to the death or disappearance of the person
identified in the petition which may aid in the prosecution of the person or persons
responsible;
(c) to identify witnesses and obtain statements from them concerning the death or
disappearance; (d) to determine the cause, manner, location and time of death or
disappearance as well as any pattern or practice that may have brought about the death or
disappearance;
(e) to identify and apprehend the person or persons involved in the death or disappearance;
and
(f) to bring the suspected offenders before a competent court.

Section 17 - Burden of Proof and Standard of Diligence Required. -The parties shall establish
their claims by substantial evidence.