Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2012 > February 2012 Resolutions > [G.R. No. 189155 : February 07, 2012] IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR THE WRIT OF AMPARO AND THE WRIT OF HABEAS DATA IN FAVOR OF MELISSA C. ROXAS, MELISSA C. ROXAS, PETITIONER, - VERSUS - GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, GILBERT TEODORO, GEN. VICTOR S. IBRADO, P/DIR. GEN. JESUS AME VERZOSA, LT. GEN. DELFIN N. BANGIT, PC/SUPT. LEON NILO A. DELA CRUZ, MAJ. GEN. RALPH VILLANUEVA, PS/SUPT. RUDY GAMIDO LACADIN, AND CERTAIN PERSONS WHO GO BY THE NAMES DEX, RC AND ROSE, RESPONDENTS. :

Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution dated FEBRUARY 7, 2012, which reads as follows:cralaw

"G.R. No. 189155 (In The Matter Of The Petition For The Writ Of Amparo And The Writ Of Habeas Data In Favor Of Melissa C. Roxas, Melissa C. Roxas, petitioner, - versus - Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo,^[*] Gilbert Teodoro, Gen. Victor S. Ibrado, P/Dir. Gen. Jesus Ame Verzosa, Lt. Gen. Delfin N. Bangit, PC/Supt. Leon Nilo A. Dela Cruz, Maj. Gen. Ralph Villanueva, PS/Supt. Rudy Gamido Lacadin, And Certain Persons Who Go By The Names Dex, Rc And Rose, respondents.)

RESOLUTION

The Antecedents 

In Our 7 September 2010 Decision,^[1] after finding that the failure of the petitioner to present substantial proof as to the respondents' responsibility anent her abduction and torture was in part attributable to the lack of extraordinary diligence on the part of existing police and military investigations, this Court ordered the conduct of further investigations, this time, to be spearheaded by the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) as the designated lead investigating agency for purposes of this petition. The CHR was then required to submit a report of its investigations as well as a recommendation to the Court of Appeals which, in the meantime, retained jurisdiction of this case. Finally, We also directed the Court of Appeals to monitor the investigations and submit to this Court its own report and recommendation, for Our consideration and, ideally, final disposition. Specifically, Our directive reads: 

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is PARTIALLY MERITORIOUS. We hereby render a decision: 

x x x x 

4.) MODIFYING the directive that further investigation must be undertaken, as follows�

a. APPOINTING the Commission on Human Rights as the lead agency tasked with conducting further investigation regarding the abduction and torture of the petitioner. Accordingly, the Commission on Human Rights shall, under the norm of extraordinary diligence, take or continue to take the necessary steps; (a) to identify the persons described in the cartographic sketches submitted by the petitioner, as well as their whereabouts; and (b) to pursue any other leads relevant to petitioner's abduction and torture. 

b. DIRECTING the incumbent Chief of the Philippine National Police, or his successor, and the incumbent Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, or his successor, to extend assistance to the ongoing investigation of the Commission on Human Rights, including but not limited to furnishing the latter a copy of its personnel records circa the time of the petitioner's abduction and torture, subject to reasonable regulations consistent with the Constitution and existing laws. 

c. Further DIRECTING the incumbent Chief of the Philippine National Police, or his successor, to furnish to this Court, the Court of Appeals, and the petitioner or her representative, a copy of the reports of its investigations and their recommendations, other than those that are already part of the records of this case, within ninety (90) days from receipt of this decision. 

d. Further DIRECTING the Commission on Human Rights (a) to furnish to the Court of Appeals within ninety (90) days from receipt of this decision, a copy of the reports on its investigation and its corresponding recommendations; and (b) to provide or continue to provide protection to the petitioner during her stay or visit to the Philippines, until such time as may hereinafter be determined by this Court.

5.) REFERRING BACK the instant case to the Court of Appeals for the following purposes:

a. To MONITOR the investigations and actions taken by the PNP, AFP, and the CHR; 

b. To DETERMINE, whether, in light of the reports and recommendations of the CHR, the abduction and torture of the petitioner was committed by persons acting under any of the public respondents; and on the basis of this determination� 

c. To SUBMIT to this Court within ten (10) days from receipt of the report and recommendation of the Commission on Human Rights�its own report, which shall include a recommendation either for the DISMISSAL of the petition as against the public respondents who were found not responsible and/or accountable, or for the APPROPRIATE REMEDIAL MEASURES, AS MAY BE ALLOWED BY THE AMPARO AND HABEAS DATA RULES, TO BE UNDERTAKEN as against those found responsible and/or accountable.

Accordingly, the public respondents shall remain personally impleaded in this petition to answer for any responsibilities and/or accountabilities they may have incurred during their incumbencies. 

Other findings of the Court of Appeals in its Decision dated 26 August 2009 in CA-G.R. SP No. 00036-WRA that are not contrary to this decision are AFFIRMED.^[2]

On 14 February 2011, the CHR submitted its Compliance Report^[3] to the Court of Appeals.

The Compliance Report of the CHR

The Compliance Report of the CHR consists of the following:

1. CHR Resolution (IV) No. A2010-130 dated 14 February 2011, including its annexes.^[4]  The resolution contains the findings of the CHR en banc based on the investigations conducted as well as its recommendation.
    
2. Report on the CHR Investigations. The report includes the records of public inquiries conducted by the CHR^[5] and the actual evidence it gathered during the course of its investigations.
    
3. Confidential Reports. These consist of two (2) folders marked as Annexes "A1" and "A2."^[6] Inside these folders are photos and statements from informants and witnesses taken by the CHR from its ocular inspections and field investigations, as well as reports from its regional office. The CHR considers these documents as containing information sensitive in nature and has asked that they be treated as confidential documents.^[7]

In CHR Resolution (IV) No. A2010-130, the CHR made the following findings:

1. That complainant, Melissa Roxas, was forcibly taken from the house of Jesus Paulo at Sitio Bagong Sikat, Barangay Kapanikian, La Paz, Tarlac on 19 May 2009 by unidentified armed men, along with two of her companions, in violation of her human right to be secure in her person.
    
2. That complainant, Melissa Roxas, was kept in captivity against her will in a still-unidentified location, by persons yet unknown, in violation of her human right to liberty, to be secure in her person and her right to not to be arbitrarily and involuntarily detained.
    
3. That complainant, Melissa Roxas, suffered physical and psychological maltreatment, inflicted by persons yet unknown, in the form of handcuffing, blows to her head and body, deprivation of food, threats and intimidation including threats to her life, deprivation of sleep, and intimidating phone calls made after her release to the cell phone given to her by her captors, and other actions. These actions comprise, at the very least, violations of the human right not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and could even be acts of torture, if committed by agents of the state. (Emphasis supplied).^[8]

CHR Resolution (IV) No. A2010-130 recommends that the Philippine National Police (PNP) and the National Bureau of Investigation to take over the investigations for this case, particularly on the aspect of identifying the individuals behind the abduction and torture of petitioner, because the CHR does not have the manpower, intelligence capability and local presence otherwise available to these agencies that are necessary to conduct surveillances and manhunts.^[9]

Having gone over the Compliance Report of the CHR, including all the reports and evidence contained therein, the Court of Appeals, for its part, submitted to this Court its own Report and Recommendation^[10] on 14 July 2011.

Report and Recommendation of the Court of Appeals

In its Report and Recommendation, the Court of Appeals commended the extent by which the CHR has engaged itself in the resolution of this case.^[11] The appellate court noted with particularity the field investigations, military camp inspections and coordination with some non-governmental and related organizations on top of the public inquiries conducted by the CHR just to shed light on petitioner's abduction.^[12]

The Court of Appeals, however, pointed out that the depth of the investigations conducted by the CHR actually yielded even more unsettling evidence.^[13] As it turns out, a handful of reports prepared by the CHR-Region III Regional Office that were included in the Confidential Reports submitted to the Court, contradict the very heart of the allegations made by the petitioner in her amparo and habeas data petition.^[14] These reports are purportedly based from statements and interviews of CHR field investigators with some rebel-returnees and witnesses to the abduction who, while identified by name in the reports, plea that their identities be kept secret from the general public in order to avoid possible reprisal from the persons or group of persons they implicate.

The Court of Appeals stressed that such reports and statements, by themselves, have poor intrinsic legal value.^[15] Nonetheless, the appellate court expressed optimism that the persons involved in such reports may be pursued via  an executive court hearing, so that their credibility may properly be tested in a judicial proceeding.^[16]

On the other hand, the Court of Appeals acknowledged the sad fact that even with the CHR at the helm of investigatory efforts, there was still scarcity of evidence linking any of the public respondents in the abduction and torture of the petitioner.

Thus, the Court of Appeals gave Us a two-pronged recommendation:

  II. RECOMMENDATION 

We respectfully recommend that, subject to the approval of the Honorable Supreme Court and to such concomitant rules it may prescribe, a summary hearing may be conducted by this Court to require the personal appearance of those confidential witnesses interviewed by the CHR and affirm their allegations under oath; or to provide an avenue for CHR-gathered material to stand the test of authenticity and credibility within the parameters of the law and the rules of evidence, and, to ultimately identify the perpetrators of this crime; 

or 

that the petition should be DISMISSED now as against the public respondents who are still not shown to be responsible and/or accountable for the abduction of the petitioner; neither is there any evidence that the same was committed by persons acting under any of the public respondents.^[17]

Our Ruling

The recommendation of the Court of Appeals with regard to conducting a summary hearing is well taken.

This Court is faced with the peculiarity that, while the CHR investigations have already been concluded, no additional evidence tending to implicate any of the public respondents in the abduction and torture of the petitioner have materialized. CHR Resolution (IV) No. A2010-130 is quite clear that the evidence gathered during the CHR investigations were still not sufficient to identify any of the respondents, or anyone in particular for that matter, as the persons responsible for petitioner's abduction. Neither did the ocular inspections of various military facilities and firing ranges in Pampanga, conducted by the CHR, definitively point that petitioner was detained in any of them.

In other words, from an evidentiary point of view, We are in a position no better than We were the first time this case was decided�it is established that petitioner and her companions were abducted, but the perpetrators thereof remain unidentified.

Be that as it may, this Court chooses not to dismiss this case outright. For one thing, We do not want to preempt the parallel investigation being conducted by the PNP in pursuit of those identified in petitioner's sketches.^[18] Dismissing the case right now may send the wrong message that any further inquiries as to the abduction and torture of petitioner must ipso facto  be considered closed or terminated. It must be emphasized that the respondents, or their successors, remain accountable, even though still not found to be responsible.

But perhaps more importantly, this Court has now been made aware of the existence of a slew of CHR-Region III confidential reports that undermine the accusations hurled by petitioner against the respondents. These reports, it must be borne in mind, have never been considered before in resolving this petition.

One of such reports, as ably pointed out by the Court of Appeals, features an alleged interview of a CHR field investigator with Joseph Edward Jandoc (Mr. Jandoc)�one of those abducted along with petitioner on 19 May 2009. Without going into any specifics that the CHR may not want to be publicized, the information given by Mr. Jandoc appears to have direct significance to this petition because he claims, like petitioner, to have seen the face of one of their abductors. But unlike petitioner, Mr. Jandoc actually disputes any government intervention in their abduction and torture. This pivotal information, in all likelihood, may have been the one that influenced the CHR not to accept the allegations of the petitioner hook, line and sinker in reporting its findings in CHR Resolution (IV) No. A2010-130.

Unfortunately, however, such report also revealed that Mr. Jandoc refused to execute any written statement in connection with the information he relayed. Mr. Jandoc, unlike petitioner, never affirmed the truth of his allegations before the Court of Appeals and was never cross-examined by the latter. Thus, this Court shares the Court of Appeals' apprehension that the said reports, as they stand, may not have much evidentiary value given that their credibility were never properly verified.

This Court, therefore, agrees that bringing the persons interviewed in the CHR-Region III confidential reports or at the least, the CHR field investigators themselves, before a summary hearing before the Court of Appeals will serve as a huge step towards identifying the persons behind the abduction and torture of petitioner. Certainly, it may aid an on-going investigations by pointing them at an alternative, if not the right direction. Before disposing of this case once and for all, We must ensure that each and every possible lead or theory was pursued and verified, and no stone left unturned.

In order, however, to accommodate the CHR's plea for the confidentiality of their investigators and informants, the summary hearing will be held in an executive session closed to the public. At any time after issuing the appropriate subpoena, the Court of Appeals may, with conformity of the witnesses, place them under a Witness Protection Order under Section 14(d) of the Rules on the Writ of Amparo.^[19]

This Court is nothing short of hopeful that conducting this summary hearing may finally bring Us closer to the elusive final disposition of this case.cralaw

WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court RESOLVES to REQUIRE  the Court of Appeals to:

1. CONDUCT a SPECIAL SUMMARY HEARING  involving the witnesses and/or informants, as well as the field investigators, in relevant to CHR confidential reports in CHR-NCR Case No. 2009-0139, including but not limited to the following:
   
   
   1. Progress Report dated 20 August 2009,
   2. Progress Report dated 26 June 2009,
   3. Summary Report dated 18 December 2009,
   4. Progress Report dated 29 October 2009,
   5. Final Report dated 1 December 2009; 
   �
2. CONDUCT such hearing in a CLOSED-DOOR EXECUTIVE SESSION. Both parties or their representatives, however, may be present thereat;
    
3. RE-EVALUATE the standing evidence in this case vis-a-vis the new testimonies that may be yielded by such hearing and, on the basis thereof;
    
4. SUBMIT to this Court, within ten (10) days from the termination of such hearing an EVALUATION REPORT determining whether the new testimonies obtained in such hearing suffices to rebut the allegations of petitioner about the complicity of the respondents in her abduction.

In order to accomplish its tasks under this Resolution, the Court of Appeals retains jurisdiction over this case."

Del Castillo, J., on leave.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA E. VIDAL
Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

---

^[*] Former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo was effectively dropped as a party-respondent in this case in line with Our Decision dated 7 September 2010, wherein We affirmed the finding of the Court of Appeals on the matter.

^[1] Rollo, pp. 190-228.

^[2] Id. at 223-226.

^[3] Id., Vol. II, pp. 482-486.

^[4] Id. at 487-551. This resolution was issued by the CHR en banc in relation to CHR-NCR Case No. 2009-0139 entitled "In Re: The Alleged Abduction and Torture of Melissa C. Roxas, Juanito Carabeo and John Edward Jandoc at La Paz, Tarlac, on 19 May 2009."

^[5] Id. at 663-1126.

^[6] Id. at 1255-1358.

^[7] Id. at 485.

^[8] Id. at 509-510.

^[9] Id. at 510.

^[10] Id. at 474-497.

^[11] Id. at 493.

^[12] Id.

^[13] Id.

^[14] Id.

^[15] Id. at 494.

^[16] Id. at 493-494.

^[17] Id. at 496.

^[18] On 10 January 2011, the public respondents officers of the PNP submitted its Compliance  with Our 7 September 2010 Decision. In it were reports that updated the status of Jesus Paulo�one of key witnesses identified in the 7 September 2010 Decision. The public respondents PNP officers stated that they have already reached Jesus Paulo who, in turn, claimed that he was not able to recognize the faces of the abductors because they were wearing masks and he was ordered to lie on the ground face-down. The public respondents PNP officers also point out that the version of Jesus Paulo, however, does not necessarily contradict the version of petitioner because it is also entirely possible that some of the abductors only removed their masks after leaving the house (Id. at 452). Finally, the public respondents PNP officers manifested that Task Force Carojan may need some more time to finish the investigation (Id. at 454).

^[19] Sec. 14. Interim Reliefs. - Upon filing of the petition or at anytime before final judgment, the court, justice or judge may grant any of the following reliefs: 

x x x x. 

(d) Witness Protection Order. - The court, justice or judge, upon motion or motu proprio, may refer the witnesses to the Department of Justice for admission to the Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Program, pursuant to Republic Act No. 6981. 

The court, justice or judge may also refer the witnesses to other government agencies, or to accredited persons or private institutions capable of keeping and securing their safety.