Writ of Amparo; Enforced Disappearance; Republic Act No. 9851;Rule 45
[ G.R. No. 222226, February 14, 2022 ]
✍️👨‍⚖️HERNANDO, J.


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.

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

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

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.

"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." (Emphasis supplied).

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.

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."

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DENIED.


[ 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.

✍️👨‍⚖️HERNANDO, J.

To keep you posted,
𝐏𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝐬𝐮𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐟𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐨𝐰 𝐮𝐬!
@ https://pastepeso.com/l6eeter5x