August 2010 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > August 2010 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 183533 : August 31, 2010] IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR THE WRIT OF HABEAS DATA IN FAVOR OF FRANCIS SAEZ, FRANCIS SAEZ, PETITIONER, VS. GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, GEN. HERMOGENES ESPERON, JR., P/DIR. GEN. AVELINO RAZON, 22NI) MILITARY INTELLIGENCE COMPANY (MICO), CAPT. LAWRENCE BANAAG, SGT. CASTILLO, CAPT. ROMMELGUTIERREZ,CAPT. JAKE OBLIGADO , CPL. ROMANITO QUINTANA, JR., PVT. JERICO DUQUIL, CPL. ARIEL FONTANILLA, A CERTAIN CAPT. ALCAYDO, A CERTAIN FIRST SERGEANT, PVT. ZALDY OSIO, A CERTAIN PFC. SONNY, A CERTAIN CPL.CLANZA AND JEFFREY GOMEZ, :
[G.R. No. 183533 : August 31, 2010]
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR THE WRIT OF HABEAS DATA IN FAVOR OF FRANCIS SAEZ, FRANCIS SAEZ, PETITIONER, VS. GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, GEN. HERMOGENES ESPERON, JR., P/DIR. GEN. AVELINO RAZON, 22NI) MILITARY INTELLIGENCE COMPANY (MICO), CAPT. LAWRENCE BANAAG, SGT. CASTILLO, CAPT. ROMMELGUTIERREZ,CAPT. JAKE OBLIGADO , CPL. ROMANITO QUINTANA, JR., PVT. JERICO DUQUIL, CPL. ARIEL FONTANILLA, A CERTAIN CAPT. ALCAYDO, A CERTAIN FIRST SERGEANT, PVT. ZALDY OSIO, A CERTAIN PFC. SONNY, A CERTAIN CPL.CLANZA AND JEFFREY GOMEZ, RESPONDENTS.
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution dated AUGUST 31, 2010, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 183533 - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR THE WRIT OF HABEAS DATA IN FAVOR OF FRANCIS SAEZ,
FRANCIS SAEZ, petitioner, versus GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, GEN. HERMOGENES ESPERON, JR., P/DIR. GEN. AVELINO RAZON, 22ND MILITARY INTELLIGENCE COMPANY (MICO), CAPT. LAWRENCE BANAAG, SGT. CASTILLO, CAPT. ROMMELGUTIERREZ,CAPT. JAKE OBLIGADO , CPL. ROMANITO QUINTANA, JR., PVT. JERICO DUQUIL, CPL. ARIEL FONTANILLA, A CERTAIN CAPT. ALCAYDO, A CERTAIN FIRST SERGEANT, PVT. ZALDY OSIO, A CERTAIN PFC. SONNY, A CERTAIN CPL.CLANZA AND JEFFREY GOMEZ, respondents.
On July 21 2007, petitioner Francis Saez, a member of the ANAKPAWIS party-list organization, was invited by Pvt. Zaldy Osio and Sgt. Castillo of the Intelligence Unit of the 204th Infantry Brigade, 2nd Division of the Philippine Army, to their camp in Brgy. Pinagsabangan II, Naujan, Oriental Mindoro. They asked him about his involvement with the Communist Party of the Philippines (CCP). Out of fear, petitioner agreed to become an intelligence asset for the military. At around 5:00 p.m., he was allowed to go home. Sometime in August 2007, petitioner claimed that he was asked to retract his affidavit containing his eyewitness account of the abduction and murder of Eden Marcellana and Eddie Gumanoy, and to declare that Major General Jovito Palparan and his men had nothing to do with the incident. Military officers made him sign a document admitting that he was a surrenderee and a rebel returnee, and ordered him to infiltrate GABRIELA, KARAPATAN, PAMANTIK, KASAMA-TK and other activist groups. Believing that his life was in danger, petitioner went to KARAPATAN for assistance.[1]
Thereafter, petitioner filed with this Court a petition[2] for the issuance of the writs of amparo and habeas data with prayers for a Temporary Protection Order and an Order for the Inspection of Place and Production of Documents against respondents.
Without giving due course to the petition, the Court issued the writs of amparo and habeas data, and referred the case to the Court of Appeals (CA) to hear and decide the same.[3] In their Return of the Writ,[4] respondents asserted that there are no persons assigned in their units by the names of Capt. Lawrence Banaag, Capt. Rommel Gutierrez and Cpl. Ariel Fontanilla. Moreover, the names and designations "a certain Capt. Alcaydo;" "a certain First Sergeant;" "a certain Cpl. James;" "a certain Pfc. Sonny" and "a certain Joel" are insufficient to specify the particular persons referred to in the petition. Respondents Gen. Hermogenes Esperon, Jr.; Capt. Jacob Thaddeus M. Obligado; Pvt. Rizaldy A. Osio; Pfc. Romanito C. Quintana, Jr.; and Pfc. Jerico Duquil submitted their respective affidavits.[5]
On July 9, 2008, the CA promulgated its Decision,[6] the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:
Aggrieved, petitioner filed the present petition for review on certiorari[8] under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, to reverse and set aside the Decision of the CA. Petitioner raises the following issue:
We deny the petition. A careful perusal of the subject petition shows that the CA correctly found that the petition was bereft of any allegation as to what particular acts or omission of respondents violated or threatened petitioner's right to life, liberty and security. His claim that he was incommunicado lacks credibility as he was given a cellular phone and allowed to go back to Oriental Mindoro. The CA also correctly held that petitioner failed to present substantial evidence that his right to life, liberty and security were violated, or how his right to privacy was threatened by respondents. He did not specify the particular documents to be secured, their location or what particular government office had custody thereof, and who has possession or control of the same. He merely prayed that respondents be ordered "to produce any documents submitted to any of them in the matter of any report on the case of FRANCIS SAEZ, including all military intelligence reports."
Petitioner assails the CA in failing to appreciate that in his Affidavit and Fact Sheet, he had specifically detailed the violation of his right to privacy as he was placed in the Order of Battle and promised to have his record cleared if he would cooperate and become a military asset. However, despite questions propounded by the CA Associate Justices during the hearing, he still failed to enlighten the appellate court as to what actually transpired to enable said court to determine whether his right to life, liberty or security had actually been violated or threatened. Records bear out the unsubstantiated claims of petitioner which justified the appellate court's dismissal of the petition.
As to petitioner's argument that the CA erred in deleting the President as party-respondent, we find the same also to be without merit. The Court has already made it clear in David v. Macapagal-Arroyo[10] that the President, during his or her tenure of office or actual incumbency, may not be sued in any civil or criminal case, and there is no need to provide for it in the Constitution or law. It will degrade the dignity of the high office of the President, the Head of State, if the President can be dragged into court litigations while serving as such. Furthermore, it is important that the President be freed from any form of harassment, hindrance or distraction to enable the President to fully attend to the performance of official duties and functions.
WHEREFORE, the Court resolves to DENY the present petition for failing to show that the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in issuing the assailed Decision dated July 9, 2008 in CA-G.R. SP No. 00024 WOA."
Brion, J., on official leave.
Peralta, J., on official business.
"G.R. No. 183533 - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR THE WRIT OF HABEAS DATA IN FAVOR OF FRANCIS SAEZ,
FRANCIS SAEZ, petitioner, versus GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, GEN. HERMOGENES ESPERON, JR., P/DIR. GEN. AVELINO RAZON, 22ND MILITARY INTELLIGENCE COMPANY (MICO), CAPT. LAWRENCE BANAAG, SGT. CASTILLO, CAPT. ROMMELGUTIERREZ,CAPT. JAKE OBLIGADO , CPL. ROMANITO QUINTANA, JR., PVT. JERICO DUQUIL, CPL. ARIEL FONTANILLA, A CERTAIN CAPT. ALCAYDO, A CERTAIN FIRST SERGEANT, PVT. ZALDY OSIO, A CERTAIN PFC. SONNY, A CERTAIN CPL.CLANZA AND JEFFREY GOMEZ, respondents.
On July 21 2007, petitioner Francis Saez, a member of the ANAKPAWIS party-list organization, was invited by Pvt. Zaldy Osio and Sgt. Castillo of the Intelligence Unit of the 204th Infantry Brigade, 2nd Division of the Philippine Army, to their camp in Brgy. Pinagsabangan II, Naujan, Oriental Mindoro. They asked him about his involvement with the Communist Party of the Philippines (CCP). Out of fear, petitioner agreed to become an intelligence asset for the military. At around 5:00 p.m., he was allowed to go home. Sometime in August 2007, petitioner claimed that he was asked to retract his affidavit containing his eyewitness account of the abduction and murder of Eden Marcellana and Eddie Gumanoy, and to declare that Major General Jovito Palparan and his men had nothing to do with the incident. Military officers made him sign a document admitting that he was a surrenderee and a rebel returnee, and ordered him to infiltrate GABRIELA, KARAPATAN, PAMANTIK, KASAMA-TK and other activist groups. Believing that his life was in danger, petitioner went to KARAPATAN for assistance.[1]
Thereafter, petitioner filed with this Court a petition[2] for the issuance of the writs of amparo and habeas data with prayers for a Temporary Protection Order and an Order for the Inspection of Place and Production of Documents against respondents.
Without giving due course to the petition, the Court issued the writs of amparo and habeas data, and referred the case to the Court of Appeals (CA) to hear and decide the same.[3] In their Return of the Writ,[4] respondents asserted that there are no persons assigned in their units by the names of Capt. Lawrence Banaag, Capt. Rommel Gutierrez and Cpl. Ariel Fontanilla. Moreover, the names and designations "a certain Capt. Alcaydo;" "a certain First Sergeant;" "a certain Cpl. James;" "a certain Pfc. Sonny" and "a certain Joel" are insufficient to specify the particular persons referred to in the petition. Respondents Gen. Hermogenes Esperon, Jr.; Capt. Jacob Thaddeus M. Obligado; Pvt. Rizaldy A. Osio; Pfc. Romanito C. Quintana, Jr.; and Pfc. Jerico Duquil submitted their respective affidavits.[5]
On July 9, 2008, the CA promulgated its Decision,[6] the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:
WHEREFORE, in view of the forgoing, the petition is DISMISSED. The reliefs prayed for in the petition are DENIED.
SO ORDERED.[7]
Aggrieved, petitioner filed the present petition for review on certiorari[8] under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, to reverse and set aside the Decision of the CA. Petitioner raises the following issue:
WHETHER OR NOT the Court of Appeals, Former 14th Division committed reversible error in dismissing the Petition and dropping President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo as party respondent?[9]
We deny the petition. A careful perusal of the subject petition shows that the CA correctly found that the petition was bereft of any allegation as to what particular acts or omission of respondents violated or threatened petitioner's right to life, liberty and security. His claim that he was incommunicado lacks credibility as he was given a cellular phone and allowed to go back to Oriental Mindoro. The CA also correctly held that petitioner failed to present substantial evidence that his right to life, liberty and security were violated, or how his right to privacy was threatened by respondents. He did not specify the particular documents to be secured, their location or what particular government office had custody thereof, and who has possession or control of the same. He merely prayed that respondents be ordered "to produce any documents submitted to any of them in the matter of any report on the case of FRANCIS SAEZ, including all military intelligence reports."
Petitioner assails the CA in failing to appreciate that in his Affidavit and Fact Sheet, he had specifically detailed the violation of his right to privacy as he was placed in the Order of Battle and promised to have his record cleared if he would cooperate and become a military asset. However, despite questions propounded by the CA Associate Justices during the hearing, he still failed to enlighten the appellate court as to what actually transpired to enable said court to determine whether his right to life, liberty or security had actually been violated or threatened. Records bear out the unsubstantiated claims of petitioner which justified the appellate court's dismissal of the petition.
As to petitioner's argument that the CA erred in deleting the President as party-respondent, we find the same also to be without merit. The Court has already made it clear in David v. Macapagal-Arroyo[10] that the President, during his or her tenure of office or actual incumbency, may not be sued in any civil or criminal case, and there is no need to provide for it in the Constitution or law. It will degrade the dignity of the high office of the President, the Head of State, if the President can be dragged into court litigations while serving as such. Furthermore, it is important that the President be freed from any form of harassment, hindrance or distraction to enable the President to fully attend to the performance of official duties and functions.
WHEREFORE, the Court resolves to DENY the present petition for failing to show that the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in issuing the assailed Decision dated July 9, 2008 in CA-G.R. SP No. 00024 WOA."
Brion, J., on official leave.
Peralta, J., on official business.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) FELIPA B. ANAMA
Assistant Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) FELIPA B. ANAMA
Assistant Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, pp. 20-23, 28-32.
[2] Id. at 18-27.
[3] Resolution dated March 11, 2008, rollo, pp. 36-37.
[4] Dated March 25, 2008, rollo, pp. 98-130.
[5] Rollo,pp. 136-146.
[6] Id. at 43-64. Penned by Associate Justice Arcangelita M. Romilla-Lontok, with Associate Justices Mariano C. Del Castillo (now a member of this Court) and Romeo F. Barza concurring.
[7] Id. at 64.
[8] Id. at 2-15.
[9] Id. at 7.
[10] G.R. Nos. 171396, 171409, 171485, 171483, 171400 & 171489, May 3, 2006, 489 SCRA 160, 224-225.
