raffy_baggins@yahoo.com
FR. REYES
V. GONZALES (2009)
G.R. No.
182161 December 3, 2009
FACTS:
Fr. Reyes was among of those who
were arrested during the Manila Peninsula Hotel siege, 30th of
November, 2007 and they were temporarily held at Camp Crame. A Hold Departure
Order (HDO) for the petitioner and to the other accused was issued by the DOJ
upon the request of the Department of Interior and Local Government. Probable
cause was found during investigation and petitioner was charged with rebellion.
The RTC however dismissed the charge against him but the HDO was still in
effect. Petitioner requested that HDO should be lifted in view of the dismissal
of the criminal case. Petitioner argued that a writ of amparo should be issued
against the respondents, violating the whole breadth of rights enshrined in the
Constitution, specifically, his right to travel.
ISSUE:
Whether the right to travel is covered by the Rule on the Writ of Amparo.
RULING:
No. The petition for a writ of
amparo is a remedy available to any person whose right to life, liberty and
security is violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or
omission of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or
entity. The writ shall cover extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or
threats thereof.
The restriction on petitioner’s
right to travel as a consequence of the pendency of the criminal case filed
against him was not unlawful. Petitioner has failed to establish that his right
to travel was impaired in the manner and to the extent that it amounted to a
serious violation of his right to life, liberty and security, for which there
exists no readily available legal recourse or remedy.
A person’s right to travel is
subject to the usual constraints imposed by the very necessity of safeguarding
the system of justice. In such cases, whether the accused should be permitted
to leave the jurisdiction for humanitarian reasons is a matter of the court’s
sound discretion.
SO V. TACLA (2010)
G.R. No. 190108 October 19, 2010
FACTS:
Herein petitioner is the father of Elena Guisande who was
charged with a criminal case of Qualified Theft, a non-bailable offense. Prior
to the institution of the criminal proceedings, Elena was admitted to Makati
Medical Center for psychiatric treatment and declared “not ready for discharge”
by her attending personal psychiatrist.
The prosecution however requested the trial court to seek
the assistance of NCMH a Government Hospital to further evaluate the
psychological illness of the accused, to determine if she could stand
arraignment. The RTC, thru Judge Esteban Tacla granted their motion, and Elena,
upon request by NCMH was brought to the said hospital, was further examined and
later on, confined. Because of her claim of “life-threatening"
circumstances surrounding her confinement at the NCMH which supposedly worsened
her mental condition and violated her constitutional rights against solitary
detention, the counsel of the accused and his father, filed a petition for
habeas corpus and amparo. Because of this claim, she was then transferred to
Saint Claire’s Medical Center.
However, she was released from confinement because as per
report by the NCMH regarding the psychological state of the accused, it was
stated that she is already competent to stand the rigors of the court trial.
And unpredictably, during the pendency for her petition
for the writs, the criminal case against her was dismissed.
ISSUE:
Whether the accused can still
be granted of her petition for the writ of amparo and writ of habeas corpus
RULING:
No. The petition for the writs of habeas corpus and
amparo was based on the criminal case for Qualified Theft against petitioner
So’s daughter, Guisande. To recall, petitioner So claimed that the conditions
and circumstances of his daughter’s, accused Guisande’s, confinement at the
NCMH was "life threatening"; although Guisande was accused of a
non-bailable offense, the NCMH could not adequately treat Guisande’s mental
condition. The petition has been
therefore rendered moot and academic by the dismissal of the Criminal Case.
The Rules on the Writs of Habeas Corpus and Amparo are
clear; the act or omission or the threatened act or omission complained of -
confinement and custody for habeas corpus and violations of, or threat to
violate, a person’s life, liberty, and security for amparo cases - should be
illegal or unlawful.
YANO V. SANCHEZ (2010)
G.R. No. 186640 February 11, 2010
FACTS:
Cleofas and Marciana (respondents) alleged that one evening, their
respective sons Nicolas Sanchez and Heherson Medina were catching frogs outside
their home in, Tarlac; that at around past midnight the next day, Nicolas’
"wives" Lourdez and Rosalie Sanchez, who were then at home, heard gunshots
and saw armed men in soldiers’ uniforms passing by; that at around dawn of the
same day, Lourdez and Rosalie went out to check on Nicolas, but to no avail.
Respondents
alleged that Josephine Galang Victoria, niece of a neighbor, later informed
them that she had seen two men inside Camp Servillano Aquino of the Northern
Luzon Command (Nolcom) Tarlac City, whom Josephine later identified as Nicolas
and Heherson (the victims) after respondents had shown her their photographs;
and that Josephine informed them that she saw the victims again on September
24, 2006 and November 1, 2006, this time at the Camp of the Bravo Company of
the Army’s 71st Infantry Batallion inside Hacienda Luisita.
Upon the endorsement of the CHR to
the Ombudsman, respondents prayed for the issuance of writ of amparo.
The appellate court, after hearing,
absolved herein petitioner among others, but granted herein respondents with
the reliefs of investigation of the camps and thorough impartial investigation.
ISSUE:
Whether the grant of the reliefs by the
appellate court after finding want of substantial evidence are valid and proper
RULING:
No. These provisional reliefs are
intended to assist the court before
it arrives at a judicious determination of the amparo petition. For the appellate court to, in the present
case, still order the inspection of the military camps and order the army units
to conduct an investigation into the disappearance of Nicolas and Heherson after it absolved petitioners is thus
not in order. The reliefs granted by the appellate court to respondents are not
in sync with a finding that petitioners could not be held accountable for the
disappearance of the victims.
No comments:
Post a Comment