Mamba v. Bueno
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: On June 13, 2009, a canteen owned by Emelita N. Mamba in Tuao, Cagayan, was robbed. The following day, members of the Task Force Lingkod Bayan, along with barangay officials, invited the respondent, Leomar Bueno, then a minor, for questioning regarding his alleged involvement. The respondent and his mother agreed, and he was taken to the Tuao police station. Accounts differ on what transpired next, with the petitioners claiming the investigation stalled due to the absence of police investigators and social welfare personnel, while the respondent alleges he was taken to Mayor Mamba's house, beaten, threatened with death, and later tortured with hot wax and suffocation, and had a wire inserted into his penis, all to force a confession. 2. Procedural History: The respondent, Leomar Bueno, was eventually transferred to the custody of the PNP Cagayan Regional Office on June 18, 2009, and later released to the local Social Welfare and Development office. His mother sought assistance from the Commission on Human Rights (CHR), and on August 25, 2009, the respondent, with CHR's assistance, filed a Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Amparo with the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA granted the petition on January 18, 2010, enjoining the petitioners from further violence and ordering an investigation into the violations of the respondent's rights. A motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA on March 2, 2010. 3. The Petition: This case is a Petition for Review on Certiorari filed under Section 19 of A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC, seeking to annul the CA's Decision and Resolution. The petitioners argue that the CA erred in granting the writ of amparo, asserting that the respondent was not illegally detained or tortured and that the writ was not the proper remedy. They also contend that the CA improperly directed the PNP to conduct further investigation and that Mayor Mamba and Atty. Mamba were not involved as they were out of town during the incident. The respondent, in turn, argues that the petition was filed out of time and that the writ of amparo was the appropriate remedy given the alleged illegal warrantless arrest and torture, which he claims fall under the scope of enforced disappearances and violations of the right to security.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court was filed within the reglementary period. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in granting the petition for the issuance of a writ of amparo.
Ruling
The petition is devoid of merit. The Supreme Court affirmed the Decision dated January 18, 2010 and Resolution dated March 2, 2010 of the Court of Appeals, subject to modifications regarding the investigation and reporting timelines. The Court ruled that the petition was filed on time and that the CA correctly granted the writ of amparo.
Ratio Decidendi
On the timeliness of the petition: The Court held that the petition for review on certiorari was filed within the reglementary period. Section 19 of A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC allows an appeal to the Supreme Court within five working days from notice of the adverse judgment. The Court clarified that A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC does not prohibit motions for reconsideration of final judgments or orders, and the Rules of Court apply suppletorily. The petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration with the CA, which was denied. From the denial, they had a fresh period of five working days to file their petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, which they did within the prescribed period. On the propriety of the grant of the writ of amparo: The Court affirmed the CA's decision, finding substantial evidence that the respondent's rights to life, liberty, and security were violated. The respondent's testimony, corroborated by Haber, Dr. Tiangco, and Layus, established that he was apprehended by the Task Force, illegally detained, and tortured. The Court emphasized that even if the respondent was guilty of a crime, it did not justify his apprehension and torture without due process. The writ of amparo covers extralegal killings and enforced disappearances, or threats thereof, and also violations of the right to security, which includes the guarantee of protection by the government. The Court noted that the petitioners, as local government officials, failed to conduct an effective investigation or provide protection, instead seemingly justifying the actions taken against the respondent. The Court reiterated that the writ of amparo may still issue even after release from detention to facilitate the punishment of offenders. The CA's directive for further investigation by the PNP Cagayan Regional Office was deemed proper, as it was the agency that had already commenced an initial investigation.
Main Doctrine
The writ of amparo may still issue in favor of a person who has already been released from detention, as it serves both preventive and curative roles in addressing violations or threats to the right to life, liberty, or security, facilitating the punishment of those responsible through subsequent investigation and action. Furthermore, the writ covers violations of the right to security, which includes the guarantee of protection by the government.