Rodriguez to convince Elvis to disclose the location of
the NPA camp. They brought the two to the mountains,
I. G.R. No. 191805 November 15, 2011
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR THE WRIT OF
AMPARO AND HABEAS DATA IN FAVOR OF NORIEL H.
RODRIGUEZ, NORIEL H. RODRIGUEZ, petitioner, vs.
GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, GEN. VICTOR S. IBRADO,
PDG JESUS AME VERSOZA, LT. GEN. DELFIN BANGIT, MAJ.
GEN. NESTOR Z. OCHOA, P/CSUPT. AMETO G.
TOLENTINO, P/SSUPT. JUDE W. SANTOS, COL. REMIGIO M.
DE VERA, an officer named MATUTINA, LT. COL. MINA,
CALOG, GEORGE PALACPAC under the name “HARRY,”
ANTONIO CRUZ, ALDWIN “BONG” PASICOLAN and
VINCENT CALLAGAN, respondents.
G.R. No. 193160. November 15, 2011.* IN THE MATTER OF
THE PETITION vs. NORIEL H. RODRIGUEZ
** Consolidated decisions
WHO ARE THE PARTIES?
1) Noriel Rodriguez (Rodriguez) is petitioner in G.R.
No. 191805 and respondent in G.R. No. 193160.
- He is a member of Alyansa Dagiti Mannalon
Iti Cagayan (Kagimungan), a peasant
organization affiliated with Kilusang
Magbubukid ng Pilipinas (KMP).
2) Former President Arroyo, Police Director General (PDG.)
Jesus A. Verzosa, Police Senior Superintendent (P/SSupt.)
Jude W. Santos, etc. (Members of the 17th Infantry
Battalion) At the time the events relevant to the present
Petitions occurred, former President Arroyo was the
President of the Philippines. PDG. Verzosa, etc were
Special Investigators of the CHR in Region II.
Antecedent Facts
 Rodriguez claims that the military tagged KMP as an enemy
of the State under the Oplan Bantay Laya, making its
members targets of extrajudicial killings and enforced
disappearances.
 Sept 6 2009, at 5:00 p.m., Rodriguez had just reached
Barangay Tapel, Cagayan onboard a tricycle when 4 men
forcibly took him and forced him into a car. Inside the
vehicle were several men in civilian clothes, one of whom
was holding a .45 caliber pistol.
- During the drive, the men forced Rodriguez to
confess to being a member of the New Peoples
Army (NPA), but he remained silent.
- The car then entered a place that appeared to be a
military camp. Rodriguez later on learned that the camp
belonged to the 17th Infantry Battalion of the
Philippine Army.
 Sept 7: INTERROGATED.
 Sept 8: At dawn: soldiers armed with rifles took Rodriguez
and made him their guide on their way to an NPA camp in
Birao. Accompanying them was a man named Harry, who,
according to the soldiers, was an NPA member who had
surrendered to the military. Harry pointed to Rodriguez and
called him a member of the NPA. He also heard Harry tell
the soldiers that the latter knew the area well and was
acquainted with a man named Elvis. The soldiers loaded
Rodriguez into a military truck and drove to Tabbak, Bugey.
While he was walking with the soldiers, he noticed a soldier
with the name tag Matutina, who appeared to be an official
because the other soldiers addressed him as sir.
- Upon reaching Birao, the soldiers was able to locate a
certain Elvis and told him that Rodriguez had identified
his whereabouts location. The soldiers forced
where both were threatened with death. When the
soldiers punched Elvis, Rodriguez told them that he
would reveal the location of the NPA camp if they let
Elvis go home. They finally released Elvis around 3:00
p.m. that day. The soldiers and Rodriguez spent the
next three nights in the mountains.
 Sept 12: INTERROGATED AGAIN.
 Sept 13: the soldiers forced Rodriguez to sign documents
declaring that he had surrendered in an encounter in
Cumao, and that the soldiers did not shoot him because he
became a military asset in May. When he refused to sign
the document, he received another beating. Thus, he was
compelled to sign, but did so using a different signature
to show that he was merely coerced.
 The soldiers showed Rodriguez photographs of different
persons and asked him if he knew the men appearing
therein. The soldiers then wrote something on the paper,
making it appear that he was the one who had written
it, and forced him to sign the document. The soldiers
took photographs of him while he was signing. He did not
only receive another beating, but was also electrocuted.
The torture lasted for about an hour.
 Sept 16: the soldiers and Rodriguez started their descent.
When they stopped, the soldiers took his photograph and
asked him to name the location of the NPA camp.
Thereafter, they all returned to the military camp. He was
then brought to the Enrile Medical Center, where Dr. Ramil
examined him. When the doctor asked him why he had
bruises and contusions, he lied and told her that he
sustained them when he slipped, as he noticed a soldier
observing him. Dr. Ramils medical certificate indicated that
he suffered from four hematomas in the epigastric area,
chest and sternum.
 Back at the camp, the soldiers let Rodriguez eat with
several military officials and took pictures of him while he
was eating with them. They also asked him to point to a map
in front of him and again took his photograph. Later, they
told him that he would finally see his mother.
- Rodriguez was brought to another military camp, where
he was ordered to sign a piece of paper stating that he
was a surrenderee and was never beaten up. Scared
and desperate to end his ordeal, he signed the paper
and was warned not to report anything to the media
 Sept 17: DO NOT TELL TO THE MEDIA. The mother and
the brother of Rodriguez arrived surrounded by several
men. His mother, Wilma, talked to Lt. Col. Mina. Rodriguez
heard one of the soldiers tell Wilma that he had surrendered
to the military and had long been its asset.
- His brother, Rodel, informed him that the men
accompanying them were from the CHR, namely,
Pasicolan, Cruz and Callagan. Upon seeing
Rodriguez, Cruz instructed him to lift up his shirt, and
one of the CHR employees took photographs of his
bruises.
- Subsequently, the soldiers accompanied them to the
CHR office, where Rodriguez was made to sign an
affidavit stating that he was neither abducted nor
tortured. Afraid and desperate to return home, he was
forced to sign the document. Cruz advised him not to
file a case against his abductors because they had
already freed him. The CHR personnel then led him
and his family to the CHR Toyota Tamaraw FX service
vehicle. He noticed that a vehicle with soldiers on board
followed them.
The Tamaraw FX pulled over and respondent 1st Lt. Matutina
boarded the vehicle. Upon reaching a mall in Isabela, Rodriguez,
they all transferred to an orange Toyota Revo. Upon reaching the
boundary of Nueva Ecija and Nueva Viscaya, 1st Lt. Matutina
alighted and called Rodriguez to a diner. A certain Alan
approached Rodriguez and handed him a cellphone with a SIM
card. The latter and his family then left and resumed their journey
back home.
 Sept 18: Rodriguez reached his house in Sta. Ana, Manila at
3:00 a.m. Callagan and two soldiers went inside the house,
and took photographs and a video footage thereof. The
soldiers explained that the photos and videos would serve as
evidence of the fact that Rodriguez and his family were able to
arrive home safely. Despite Rodriguezs efforts to confront the
soldiers about their acts, they still continued and only left 30
mins later
 Sept 19: Dr. Pamugas, a physician trained by the International
Committee on Torture and Rehabilitation, examined
Rodriguez and issued a Medical Certificate stating that the
latter had been a victim of torture.
 Nov 3, 2009, Rodriguez and his girlfriend, Aileen Robles,
noticed that several suspicious-looking men followed them
at the MRT, in the streets and on a jeepney.
CASE: Rodriguez filed before this Court a Petition for the Writ
of Amparo and Petition for the Writ of Habeas Data with
Prayers for Protection Orders, Inspection of Place, and
Production of Documents and Personal Properties.
CA DECISION: GRANTED the respective writs after finding that
the petition sufficiently alleged that Rodriguez had been
abducted, tortured and later released by members of the
17th Infantry Battalion of the Philippine Army. But dropped Pres.
Arroyo as part-respondent as she may not be sued in any case
during tenure of office or actual incumbency.
RESPONDENTS VERSION:
 On 8 January 2010, respondents therein, through the Office
of the Solicitor General (OSG), filed their Return of the Writ,
which was likewise considered as their comment on the
petition. In their Return, respondents therein alleged
that wanting to bolt from the NPA, he told Cpl. Cabaccan
and Cpl. Navarro that he would help the military in
exchange for his protection.
- Upon his voluntary surrender on May 28, 2009,
Rodriguez was made to sign an Oath of Loyalty and an
Agents Agreement/Contract, showing his willingness to
return to society and become a military asset. Since
then, he acted as a double agent, returning to the NPA
to gather information. However, he feared that his NPA
comrades were beginning to suspect him of being an
infiltrator. Thus, with his knowledge and consent, the
soldiers planned to stage a sham abduction to erase
any suspicion about him being a double agent. Hence,
the abduction subject of the instant petition was
conducted.
 Meanwhile, Cruz, Pasicolan and Callagan filed a
Consolidated Return of the Writ alleging that they had
exercised extraordinary diligence in locating Rodriguez,
facilitating his safe turnover to his family and securing their
journey back home to Manila.
- More specifically, they alleged that, on Sept 16 2009,
after Wilma sought their assistance in ascertaining the
whereabouts of her son, Cruz made phone calls to the
military and law enforcement agencies to determine his
location. Cruz was able to speak with Lt. Col. Mina, who
confirmed that Rodriguez was in their custody. This
information was transmitted to CHR Regional Director
Atty. Baliga. He, in turn, ordered Cruz, Pasicolan and
Callagan to accompany Wilma to the 17th Infantry
Division.
- When the CHR officers, along with Wilma and Rodel,
arrived at the 17th Infantry Battalion Brigade
Commander Col. de Vera and Battalion Commander
Lt. Col. Mina alleged that Rodriguez had become one
of their assets, as evidenced by the Summary on the
Surrender of Noriel Rodriguez and the latters Contract
as Agent.
- The CHR officers observed his casual and cordial
demeanor with the soldiers. In any case, Cruz asked
him to raise his shirt to see if he had been subjected to
any maltreatment. Cruz and Pasicolan did not see any
traces of torture. Thereafter, Rodriguez was released
to his family, and they were made to sign a certification
to this effect. During the signing of the document,
herein CHR officers did not witness any threat,
intimidation or force employed against Rodriguez or his
family.
- During their journey back to the home of Rodriguez, the
CHR officers observed that he was very much at ease
with his military escorts, especially with 1st Lt. Matutina.
Neither was there any force or intimidation when the
soldiers took pictures of his house, as the taking of
photographs was performed with Wilmas consent.
Subsequently, respondents therein filed their MR.
 Before the CA could resolve MR, Rodriguez filed Petition
for Partial Review on Certiorari (G.R. No. 191805), raising
the following assignment of errors:
a) CA erred in not granting the Interim Relief for TPO.
b) CA erred in saying: that given the nature of the writ
of amparo, which has the effect of enjoining the
commission by respondents of violation to petitioners
right to life, liberty and security, the safety of petitioner
is ensured with the issuance of the writ, even in the
absence of an order preventing respondent from
approaching petitioner.
c) The Court of Appeals erred in not finding that
respondent Gloria Macapagal Arroyo had command
responsibility.
On the other hand, respondents therein, in their
Comment dated 30 July 2010, averred:
a) CA properly dropped then President Arroyo as a party-
respondent, as she may not be sued in any case during her
tenure of office or actual incumbency.
b) Petitioner had not presented any adequate and competent
evidence, much less substantial evidence, to establish his
claim that public respondents had violated, were violating
or threatening to violate his rights to life, liberty and security,
as well as his right to privacy. Hence, he was not entitled to
the privilege of the writs of amparo and habeas data or to
the corresponding interim reliefs
ISSUES:
1) WON the interim reliefs prayed for by Rodriguez may be
granted after the writs of amparo and habeas data have
already been issued in his favor.
2) WON former President Arroyo should be dropped as a
respondent on the basis of the presidential immunity from suit.
3) WON the doctrine of command responsibility can be used
in amparo and habeas data cases.
4) WON the rights to life, liberty and property of Rodriguez
were violated or threatened by respondents
RULING:
A. The writ of amparo is an extraordinary and independent
remedy that provides rapid judicial relief, as it partakes
of a summary proceeding that requires only substantial
evidence to make the appropriate interim and
permanent reliefs available to the petitioner.
 It is not an action to determine criminal guilt requiring proof
beyond reasonable doubt, or liability for damages requiring
preponderance of evidence, or administrative responsibility
requiring substantial evidence that will require full and
exhaustive proceedings. Rather, it serves both preventive
and curative roles in addressing the problem of extrajudicial
killings and enforced disappearances. It is preventive.
B. The writ of habeas data provides a judicial remedy to
protect a person’s right to control information
regarding oneself, particularly in instances where such
information is being collected through unlawful means
in order to achieve unlawful ends.
 As an independent and summary remedy to protect the right
to privacy—especially the right to informational privacy—
the proceedings for the issuance of the writ of habeas data
does not entail any finding of criminal, civil or administrative
culpability. If the allegations in the petition are proven
through substantial evidence, then the Court may (a) grant
access to the database or information; (b) enjoin the act
complained of; or (c) in case the database or information
contains erroneous data or information, order its deletion,
destruction or rectification.
1st ISSUE: Grant of interim relief -
 In any case, it must be underscored that the privilege of the
writ of amparo, once granted, necessarily entails the
protection of the aggrieved party. Thus, since we grant
petitioner the privilege of the writ of amparo, there is no need
to issue a TPO independently of the former. The order
restricting respondents from going near Rodriguez is
subsumed under the privilege of the writ.
2nd ISSUE: Presidential Immunity from Suit:
 Since there is no determination of administrative, civil
or criminal liability in amparo and habeas data
proceedings, courts can only go as far as ascertaining
responsibility or accountability for the enforced
disappearance or extrajudicial killing
 Razon v. Tagitis:
 Responsibility refers to the extent the actors have
been established by substantial evidence to
have participated in whatever way, by action or
omission, in an enforced disappearance, as a measure
of the remedies this Court shall craft, among them, the
directive to file the appropriate criminal and civil cases
against the responsible parties in the proper courts.
 Accountability, refers to the measure of remedies that
should be addressed to those:
a) who exhibited involvement in the enforced
disappearance without bringing the level of their
complicity to the level of responsibility defined
above; or
b) who are imputed with knowledge relating to the
enforced disappearance and who carry the burden of
disclosure; or
c) those who carry, but have failed to discharge, the
burden of extraordinary diligence in the
investigation of the enforced disappearance.
In all these cases, the issuance of the Writ of
Amparo is justified by our primary goal of addressing
the disappearance, so that the life of the victim is
preserved and his liberty and security are restored.
 Thus, in the case at bar, the CA found respondents the
exception of Calog, Palacpac or Harry to be accountable for
the violations of Rodriguezs right to life, liberty and security
committed by the 17th Infantry Battalion
 The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition with respect to
former President Arroyo on account of her presidential
immunity from suit.
- Rodriguez contends, though, that she should remain a
respondent in this case to enable the courts to determine
whether she is responsible or accountable therefor.
- In this regard, it must be clarified that the CA rationale
for dropping her from the list of respondents no
longer stands since her presidential immunity is
limited only to her incumbency.
- In Estrada v. Desierto, we clarified the doctrine that a
non-sitting President does not enjoy immunity
from suit, even for acts committed during the
latters tenure. We emphasize our ruling therein that
courts should look with disfavor upon the presidential
privilege of immunity, especially when it impedes the
search for truth or impairs the vindication of a right
- US v. Nixon, US President Nixon, a sitting President,
was subpoenaed to produce certain recordings and
documents relating to his conversations with aids and
advisers. SCconcluded that when the ground for
asserting privilege as to subpoenaed materials sought
for use in a criminal trial is based only on the
generalized interest in confidentiality, it cannot prevail
over the fundamental demands of due process of law
in the fair administration of criminal justice.
- In Nixon v. Fitzgerald, the US SC further held that the
immunity of the President from civil damages
covers only official acts. Recently, the US Supreme
Court had the occasion to reiterate this doctrine in the
case of Clinton v. Jones where it held that the US
President's immunity from suits for money damages
arising out of their official acts is inapplicable to
unofficial conduct.
 Applying the foregoing rationale to the case at bar, it is clear
that former President Arroyo cannot use the presidential
immunity from suit to shield herself from judicial scrutiny
that would assess whether, within the context
of amparo proceedings, she was responsible or accountable
for the abduction of Rodriguez.
3RD ISSUE: Command Responsibility in Amparo:
 Nothing precludes this Court from applying the
doctrine of command responsibility in amparo
proceedings to ascertain responsibility and
accountability in extra-judicial killings and enforced
disappearances.
 The doctrine of command responsibility may be used to
determine whether respondents are accountable for and
have the duty to address the abduction of Rodriguez in
order to enable the courts to devise remedial measures to
protect his rights.
 Rubrico v. Arroyo, command responsibility pertains to the
responsibility of commanders for crimes committed by
subordinate members of the AF or other persons subject to
their control in international wars or domestic conflict.
 In this regard, the Separate Opinion of Justice Conchita
Carpio-Morales in Rubrico is worth noting, thus:
- That proceedings under the Rule on the Writ of
Amparo do not determine criminal, civil or
administrative liability should not abate the
applicability of the doctrine of command
responsibility.
- Boac v. Cadapan, likewise penned by Justice Carpio-
Morales, wherein this Court ruled:
 - Rubrico categorically denies the application of
command responsibility in amparo cases to
determine criminal liability. It however, recognizes a
preliminary yet limited application of command
responsibility in amparo cases to instances of
determining the responsible or accountable individuals
or entities that are duty-bound to abate any
transgression on the life, liberty or security of the
aggrieved party.
- If command responsibility were to be invoked and
applied to these proceedings, it should, at most, be
only to determine the author who, at the first
instance, is accountable for, and has the duty to
address, the disappearance and harassments
complained of, so as to enable the Court to devise
remedial measures that may be appropriate under
the premises to protect rights covered by the writ of
amparo.
- In other words, command responsibility may be
loosely applied in amparo cases in order to
identify those accountable individuals that have
the power to effectively implement whatever
processes an amparo court would issue.
C. Amparo proceedings determine
a) responsibility, or the extent the actors have been
established by substantial evidence to
have participated in whatever way, by action or
omission, in an enforced disappearance, and
b) accountability, or the measure of remedies that
should be addressed to those
i. who exhibited involvement in the enforced
disappearance without bringing the level of their
complicity to the level of responsibility defined
above; or
ii. who are imputed with knowledge relating to the
enforced disappearance and who carry the burden
of disclosure; or
iii. those who carry, but have failed to discharge, the
burden of extraordinary diligence in the
investigation of the enforced disappearance.
 Thus, although there is no determination of criminal, civil or
administrative liabilities, the doctrine of command
responsibility may nevertheless be applied to ascertain
responsibility and accountability within these foregoing
definitions.
D. The president, being the commander-in-chief of all
armed forces, necessarily possesses control over the
military that qualifies him as a superior within the
purview of the command responsibility doctrine
 To hold someone liable under the doctrine of command
responsibility, the following elements must obtain:
a) the existence of a superior-subordinate relationship
between the accused as superior and the perpetrator
of the crime as his subordinate;
b) the superior knew or had reason to know that the crime
was about to be or had been committed; and
c) the superior failed to take the necessary and
reasonable measures to prevent the criminal acts or
punish the perpetrators thereof.
d) On the issue of knowledge, it must be pointed out that
although international tribunals apply a strict standard
of knowledge, i.e., actual knowledge, such may
nonetheless be established through circumstantial
evidence.[87] In the Philippines, a more liberal view is
adopted and superiors may be charged with
constructive knowledge. This view is buttressed by the
enactment of
 On the issue of knowledge, it must be pointed out that in the
PH, a more liberal view is adopted and superiors may be
charged with constructive knowledge.
- This view is buttressed by the enactment of E.O. 226,
a government official may be held liable for neglect of
duty under the doctrine of command responsibility if he
has knowledge that a crime or offense shall be
committed, is being committed, or has been committed
by his subordinates, or by others within his area of
responsibility and, despite such knowledge, he did not
take preventive or corrective action either before,
during, or immediately after its commission.
Knowledge of the commission of irregularities, crimes
or offenses is presumed when
a) the acts are widespread within the government
officials area of jurisdiction;
b) the acts have been repeatedly or regularly
committed within his area of responsibility; or
c) members of his immediate staff or office personnel
are involved
 We do not automatically impute responsibility to former
President Arroyo for each and every count of forcible
disappearance. Aside from Rodriguezs general averments,
there is no piece of evidence that could establish her
responsibility or accountability for his abduction.
Neither was there even a clear attempt to show that she
should have known about the violation of his right to life,
liberty or security, or that she had failed to investigate,
punish or prevent it.
4TH ISSUE: Responsibility or accountability of respondents
in G.R. No. 191805
a. The totality of evidence proved by substantial evidence the
responsibility or accountability of respondents for the
violation of or threat to Rodriguezs right to life, liberty and
security.
b. The failure to conduct a fair and effect investigation
amounted to a violation of or threat to Rodriguezs rights to
life, liberty and security.
E. The Rule on the Writ of Amparo explicitly states that
the violation of or threat to the right to life, liberty and
security may be caused by either an act or
an omission of a public official
 Moreover, in the context of amparo proceedings,
responsibility may refer to the participation of the
respondents, by action or omission, in enforced
disappearance.
WHEREFORE, we resolve to GRANT the Petition for Partial
Review in G.R. No. 191805 and DENY the Petition for Review
in G.R. No. 193160. The Decision of the Court of Appeals is
hereby AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION.
- The case is dismissed with respect to respondents
former President Arroyo, Tolentino, and Santos, Calog,
Palacpac, Cruz, Pasicolan and Callagan for lack of
merit.