GEN. AVELINO I. RAZON, JR.

, Chief, Philippine National Police (PNP);

Police Chief Superintendent RAUL CASTAEDA, Chief, Criminal
Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG); Police Senior Superintendent
LEONARDO A. ESPINA, Chief, Police Anti-Crime and Emergency Response
(PACER); and GEN. JOEL R. GOLTIAO, Regional Director of ARMM, PNP
vs. MARY JEAN B. TAGITIS, herein represented by ATTY. FELIPE P.
ARCILLA, JR., Attorney-in-Fact

G.R. no. 182498 December 3, 2009

FACTS:

Engr. Morced N. Tagitis is a consultant for the World Bank and the Senior
Honorary Counselor for the Islamic Development Bank (IDB) Scholarship
Programme. He was last seen in Jolo, Sulu. Kunnong and Muhammad Abdulnazeir
N. Matli, a UP professor of Muslim studies and Tagitis fellow student counselor at
the IDB reported Tagitis disappearance to the Jolo Police Station.

More than a month later , the Mary B. Tagitis (Tagitis), Engr. Tagitis's wife, filed a
Petition for the Writ of Amparo (petition) with the Court of Appeals (CA). The
petition was directed against certain members of the Armed Forces of the
Philippines (AFP) and the Philippine National Police (PNP):

The petition avers that:

Soon after the Tagitis left the room, Engr. Tagitis went out of the pension house to
take his early lunch but while out on the street, a couple of burly men believed to
be police intelligence operatives, forcibly took him. When Kunnong could not
locate Engr. Tagitis, the former sought the help of another IDB scholar and
reported the matter to the local police agency. Kunnong including his friends and
companions in Jolo, exerted efforts in trying to locate the whereabouts of Engr.
Tagitis and when he reported the matter to the police authorities in Jolo, he was
immediately given a ready answer that Engr. Tagitis could have been abducted by
the Abu Sayyaf group;

Information from persons in the military who do not want to be identified stated
that Engr. Tagitis is in the hands of the uniformed men; and according to reliable
information received by Tagitis, subject Engr. Tagitis is in the custody of police
intelligence operatives, specifically with the CIDG, PNP Zamboanga City, being
held against his will in an earnest attempt of the police to involve and connect
Engr. Tagitis with the different terrorist groups.

Tagitis filed her complaint with the PNP Police Station in the ARMM in Cotobato
and in Jolo, seeking their help to find her husband, but Tagitis's request and
pleadings failed to produce any positive results.

The unexplained uncooperative behavior of the petitioners to Tagitis's request for

help and failure and refusal of the petitioners to extend the needed help, support
and assistance in locating the whereabouts of Engr. Tagitis who had been declared
missing since October 30, 2007 which is almost two (2) months now, clearly
indicates that the [petitioners] are actually in physical possession and custody of
Engr. Tagitis.

On the same day the petition was filed, the CA IMMEDIATELY ISSUED the Writ
of Amparo. At the same time, the CA DISMISSED the petition against the Tagitis
from the military, Lt. Gen Alexander Yano and Gen. Ruben Rafael, based on the
finding that it was PNP-CIDG, not the military, that was involved.

Petitioners appealed the decision of the CA to the Supreme Court. Hence, this
petition

ISSUES:

1. WON the petition for writ of amparo filed is sufficent in form and substance;

2. WON there was an enforced disappearance in this case that can be a proper
ground for issuance of writ of amparo;

HELD:

1. YES. In questioning the sufficiency in form and substance of the

respondents Amparo petition, the petitioners contend that the petition
violated Section 5(c), (d), and (e) of the Amparo Rule and hence did not
comply with the formal requirements of the said Rule.
SC held however, that in an Amparo petition, this requirement must be read in
light of the nature and purpose of the proceeding, which addresses a situation of
uncertainty; hence the one filing the petition may not be able to describe with
certainty how the victim exactly disappeared, or who actually acted to kidnap,
abduct or arrest him or her, or where the victim is detained, because these
information may purposely be hidden or covered up by those who caused the
disappearance.

To read the Rules of Court requirement on pleadings while addressing the unique
Amparo situation, the test in reading the petition should be to determine whether it
contains the details available to the one filing the petition under the circumstances,
WHILE presenting a cause of action showing a violation of the victims rights to
life, liberty and security through State or private party action.

The petition should likewise be read in its totality, to determine if the required
elements--namely, of the disappearance, the State or private action, and the actual
or threatened violations of the rights to life, liberty or security-- are present.

Applying these rules in the present case, the petition amply recites in its paragraphs
4 to 11 the circumstances under which Tagitis suddenly dropped out of sight after
engaging in normal activities, and thereafter was nowhere to be found despite
efforts to locate him.

It also clearly alleged how Tagitis rights to life, liberty and security were violated
when he was "forcibly taken and boarded on a motor vehicle by a couple of burly
men believed to be police intelligence operatives," and then taken "into custody by
the respondents police intelligence operatives since October 30, 2007, specifically
by the CIDG, PNP Zamboanga City, x x x held against his will in an earnest
attempt of the police to involve and connect him with different terrorist groups."

2. YES. The Convention defines enforced disappearance as "the arrest,

detention, abduction or any other form of deprivation of liberty by agents of
the State or by persons or groups of persons acting with the authorization,
support or acquiescence of the State, followed by a refusal to acknowledge
the deprivation of liberty or by concealment of the fate or whereabouts of the
disappeared person, which place such a person outside the protection of the
law."
There is no direct evidence indicating how the victim actually disappeared. The
direct evidence at hand only shows that Tagitis went out of the ASY Pension
House after depositing his room key with the hotel desk and was never seen nor
heard of again.

The undisputed conclusion, however, from all concerned- the petitioner, Engr.
Tagitis colleagues and even the police authorities, is that Engr Tagistis
disappeared under mysterious circumstances and was never seen again. Likewise,
there is no direct evidence showing that operatives of PNP CIDG Zamboanga
abducted or arrested Tagitis.

Col. Kasim never denied that he met with the Tatigits and her friends, and that he
provided them information that Tagitis was being held by police officials.

However, this is based on the input of an unnamed asset. He simply claimed in his
testimony that the "informal letter" he received from his informant in Sulu did not
indicate that Tagitis was in the custody of the CIDG. He also stressed that the
information he provided the respondent was merely a "raw report" from "barangay
intelligence" that still needed confirmation and "follow up" as to its veracity.

To be sure, Tagitiss and Mrs. Talbins testimonies were far from perfect, as the
petitioners pointed out. The inconsistencies the petitioners point out relate, more
than anything else, to details that should not affect the credibility of the respondent
and Mrs. Talbin; the inconsistencies are not on material points.

To consider also that some pieces of evidence are incompetent and inadmissible
evidence of is to state that in the absence of any direct evidence, a court should
dismiss the petition. An immediate dismissal for this reason would make the
Amparo Rule ineffective, since it cannot allow for the special evidentiary
difficulties that are unavoidably present in Amparo situations, particularly in
extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances.

To give full meaning to our Constitution and the rights it protects, the Court
declares that courts in amparo proceedings should at least take a close look at the
available evidence to determine the correct import of every piece of evidence; and
this should include those usually considered inadmissible under the general rules of
evidence
But the Court must take into account the surrounding circumstances and the test of
reason which shall be used as a basic minimum admissibility requirement.

The Court gleans from all these admitted pieces of evidence and developments a
consistency in the governments denial of any complicity in the disappearance of
Tagitis, which is disrupted only by the report made by Col. Kasim to Tagitis about
her husband. Even Col. Kasim, however, eventually denied that he ever made the
disclosure that Tagitis was under custodial investigation for complicity in
terrorism.

Based on these considerations, we conclude that Col. Kasims disclosure, made in

an unguarded moment, unequivocally point to some government complicity in the
disappearance.