BALAO VS MACAPAGAL

 A man in gray pants, a black jacket, a black shirt, a black visor, and was standing
in front of Saymor's Store in La Trinidad, Benguet, on September 17, 2008,
around 8:30 a.m. He was sitting on a bench with a traveling bag and a belt bag.
Vicky Bonel was taking care of the aforementioned store, which was owned by
her brother-in-law, at the same time that Aniceto G. Dawing, Jr. and a coworker
were delivering bakery goods to the location. After that, a white van showed up
and stopped in front of the store. The man was immediately approached by five
civilian-looking men brandishing firearms as they got out of the van. They bound
him with their hands. The man wanted to know why he was being taken into
custody. Witnesses were addressed by one of the armed men, who claimed to
be police officers. Since the man was being detained for possession of illegal
drugs, another warned that no one should interfere. After that, they shoved the
man into the van. The man's traveling bag was returned to the store by one of the
armed men. One of the armed men was also heard telling the van's driver that
they were going to Camp Dangwa, the PNP Provincial Headquarters in La
Trinidad, Benguet, before leaving the location. The van drove toward the actual
town of La Trinidad. The man was later identified as James Balao by the
witnesses after they saw his picture on posters announcing his disappearance.
 The petition alleged that in May 2008, James reported surveillances on his
person to his family, particularly to his sister Nonette Balao (Nonette), and to
CPA Chairperson Beverly Longid (Beverly). James was said to have seen a van
with the plate number USC 922 parked suspiciously outside his house as one of
the vehicles following him. Additionally, he claimed to have received messages
and calls on his mobile phone informing him that the AFP-ISU and the PNP
Regional Office were monitoring him. The informer provided the precise dates he
visited his family, the clothes he wore, and the dates and times he went home or
 visited friends and family to support the surveillance. Nonette and Beverly's
affidavits4 attesting to James's reports of surveillance to his family and the CPA
were included in the petition. In addition, it was alleged that on September 17,
2008, around 7:00 a.m., James sent Nonette a text message announcing that he
was leaving his rented house in Fairview Central, Baguio City, and that he was
going to their ancestral home in Pico, La Trinidad, Benguet, to do his laundry.
The typical travel time between Fairview, Baguio City and Pico is between 20
and 45 minutes. Nonette began contacting their friends and family around 8:00 in
the morning after discovering that James had not arrived at their parents' Pico
residence. However, no one was aware of his location.
 As a result, the Balao family attempted to locate James with the assistance of the
CPA and other NGOs. Teams were put together to follow James's path from
Fairview, Baguio City, to Pico, La Trinidad, and people were asked if they saw
him along the way. However, these searches produced no outcomes. One of the
teams also went to the AFP-ISU (PA-ISU) office at Navy Base and the Military
Intelligence Group office at Camp Allen, both in Baguio City. Both of these offices
denied knowing where James was. The family also reported James's
disappearance at Baguio Police Station 7. The report was entered correctly into
the blotter, but since the petition was filed, nothing has changed. In addition, they
wrote to a number of government agencies to inform them of James's
disappearance and request their assistance in locating him. They also sought the
media's assistance in announcing James's disappearance.
 In addition, the petitioners cited a number of instances of harassment and
violations of members, staff, and officers of the CPA.
 The petitioners requested a writ of amparo directing the respondents to release
James, cease and desist from further inflicting harm on his person, and to
disclose where James is detained or confined, asserting that there is no clear,
speedy, or adequate remedy for them to protect James's life, liberty, and
security.

In addition, they prayed for the following:

 (1) an inspection order for the inspection of at least 11 military and police
facilities which have been previously reported as detention centers for activists
abducted by military and police operatives;

(2) a production order for all documents that contain evidence relevant to the
petition, particularly the Order of Battle List and any record or dossier
respondents have on James; and

(3) a witness protection order.

 Petitioners simultaneously filed an Urgent Ex-Parte Motion for the immediate

issuance of a writ of amparo pursuant to Section 6 of the Rule on the Writ of
Amparo.
 On October 9, 2008, the Writ of Amparo was issued directing respondents to file
their verified return together with their supporting affidavit within five days from
receipt of the writ.
 In their joint return, respondents stated:

1. that President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo ought to be removed from her

position as party-respondent because she is immune from suit;
2. that Arthur Balao should be the only person named as a petitioner, and that
the other petitioners should be dropped;
3. There is no specific wrongdoing against respondents that would demonstrate
their involvement in the abduction of James or knowledge of it;
4. that The Executive Sec. Sec. Ermita Sec. Teodoro Sec. Puno In their
respective affidavits, Gonzales, Gen. Yano, Gen. Cachuela, Gen. Mapagu,
and Gen. Verzosa denied having such participation or knowledge of James's
abduction, outlined their actions in investigating the matter, and pledged to
continue exerting extraordinary diligence in securing James's liberty and
bringing all those responsible for his disappearance to the bar of justice,
including military or police personnel when the findings of the investigations
warranted it;
5. That Chief Martin already conducted an investigation, interviewed a number
of witnesses, and spoke with the Commander of Military Intelligence Group I
(MIG1) and the Commanding Officer of the Internal Service Unit-Internal
Security Group, Philippine Army.

 He also mentioned that the petitioners themselves did not cooperate with the
police in the investigation and that they did not request that the National
Bureau of Investigation locate James.
 Respondents argued that the petition did not satisfy the Rule on the Writ of
Amparo's requirement that claims be supported by substantial evidence
because:

1) The allegations made by the petitioners make no mention of the alleged

involvement of respondents in the alleged abduction of James, either directly
or indirectly;

2) Because Nonette and Beverly lack personal knowledge of the

circumstances surrounding James' abduction, their statements are based on
hearsay and have no basis in fact;

(3) The allegations in the petition do not demonstrate the materiality and
relevance of the locations that are being sought to be searched or inspected
or the documents that are to be produced. This includes the requirement that
the petition for an inspection order be supported by affidavits or testimonies of
witnesses who have personal knowledge of the location of the aggrieved
party.

 Additionally, respondents argued that it is the PNP as the law enforcement

agency, not the military and executive officials, that is responsible for
conducting missing person investigations. The AFP may inquire only as
directed by the appropriate superior into the matters being mentioned,
primarily in preparation for court martial proceedings. Consequently, their
consistent denials of any involvement, knowledge, or authorization in the
 alleged disappearance of James Balao. However, respondents submitted the
following affidavits to demonstrate their actions and reports to the appropriate
authorities:
 According to Executive Secretary Ermita, after receiving a copy of the
petition for a writ of amparo, he arranged for the sending of a letter to the
PNP Chief and AFP Chief of Staff to inquire about and determine the
circumstances surrounding the alleged disappearance of James Balao. The
letters also requested that relevant reports on the findings of the investigation,
if any, be submitted.
 The "Policy Directive on the Actions and Defenses Under the Amparo Rule,"
which instructed members of the AFP to take specific measures even without
waiting for the filing of an amparo petition in court whenever any member of
the AFP or any of its commands or units have been reported or published as
being involved in the alleged violation of an individual's right to life, liberty,
and security or threat thereof, was declared by Secretary Teodoro shortly
after the Rule on the Writ of Amparo was promulgated by 07- 9-12-SC. In the
event that a petition is filed, the order was also given to the AFP to
immediately work with the PNP, NBI, DOJ, and other government agencies to
achieve the desired outcomes. In regards to the current petition for writ of
amparo, he has no reason to doubt that the AFP will comply with the
aforementioned policy directive, which was contained in his Memorandum
dated October 31, 2007 to the Chief of Staff, AFP.
 Secretary Puno said he had received a copy of the petition and would write
to the PNP Chief to request relevant reports about the alleged "taking" of the
person for whom the writ of amparo was requested. He pledged to make
available any report regarding the matter from the PNP.
 According to NSA Gonzales, he is presumed to have carried out his duties in
accordance with the law because he is a public officer. This assumption is
unaffected by the petition's erroneous assumptions and conclusions that have
no basis in fact or law. He sent letters and communications to the Director
General of the National Intelligence Coordinating Agency, the Chief of the
 PNP, and the Chief of Staff of the AFP upon receiving a copy of the petition to
investigate the alleged disappearance and determine whether military or
police personnel were involved. He promised to provide the significant
findings of any investigations that had been or would be conducted by the
relevant agencies.
 General Yano said that before he got a copy of the petition, the Department
of National Defense sent him a memo with the letter from Bayan Muna
Representative Teodoro A. Casio asking about James Balao's alleged
kidnapping. Based on that memo, he sent a radio message to the NOLCOM
Commander directing him to investigate the situation thoroughly and send the
results to the AFP General Headquarters. In addition, this was done in
accordance with the Policy Directive that Defense Secretary Teodoro issued.
In a second radio message dated October 16, 2008, he reiterated his
directive to the PA Commanding General of October 6, 2008. He promised to
provide the court with significant findings from the units' investigations as
soon as Higher Headquarters received them.
 According to Lt. Gen. Cachuela Higher Headquarters had already instructed
him to investigate the alleged abduction of James Balao thoroughly even
before he received a copy of the petition. In response, he gave the 5th
Infantry Division, Pennsylvania, the order to investigate the incident because
the location of the kidnapping was within its jurisdiction. He promised to
provide the court with a copy of the investigation's outcome as soon as
NOLCOM received it.
 BGen. Mapagu, on the other hand, stated that the petition's allegations do
not indicate that the PA was involved in James Balao's alleged
disappearance. He claimed that he immediately requested information from
the "concerned staff" and instructed them to submit a report if they were able
to obtain any information.
 Pol. Dir. General Verzosa described the PNP's actions, particularly those
taken by the PCSupt-led PNP Regional Office-Cordillera (PRO-COR).
 Eugene Martin is the head of the PNP unit that is looking into James Balao's
case.
 Pol. Supt. Inst. Martin recalled that CPA Chairperson Beverly Longid Pol.
Supt. Inst. Martin recalled that Beverly Longid, Chairperson of the CPA, called
him in the afternoon of September 17, 2008, to inform him of James's
disappearance. He was informed that James was allegedly missing on
September 20, 2008, and he immediately instructed the Office of the Regional
Intelligence Division (RID) to immediately send flash alarms to all lower units
in an effort to locate James Balao. A Memorandum with his picture and
description came next. Police Station 1 of the Baguio City Police Office
(BCPO) immediately began an investigation at James's boarding house in
Barangay Fairview, Baguio City, on his instructions. In a similar vein, he
directed the establishment of Task Force Balao to expedite the investigation
into the case. He also instructed the RID to supervise all lower units and
make every effort to intensify their investigation into James' disappearance
and determine its circumstances. His affidavit outlined the findings of the
investigations. He was always in touch with the leaders of the CPA and the
Balao family, who gave the plate numbers of the cars James allegedly saw
before he disappeared as part of the surveillance on his person. The Land
Transportation Office confirmed that the vehicles in question were registered
to the following individuals: Narciso Magno, TNH 787, of #20 Darasa,
Tanauan, Batangas; and USC 922 – G & S Transport Corp. On October 6,
2008, he was informed of an abduction in Tomay, La Trinidad, and he
directed the Provincial Director of Benguet to conduct a thorough
investigation; The aforementioned investigation revealed that James was the
abductee. With the assistance of the CPA and the Balao family, Task Force
Balao was able to persuade two witnesses to the abduction in Tomay, La
Trinidad, Benguet, on October 8, 2008; Consequently, cartographic
renderings of the suspects were produced. He presided over a meeting to
coordinate efforts to locate James on October 9, 2008, in the morning,
attended by the Group Commander, MIG1, and Commanding Officer of ISU,
 ISG, and PA. He met with James's family in the afternoon of the same day to
inform them of the initial efforts and investigation. In addition, the Task Force
Balao was able to obtain the affidavits of the witnesses Aniceto Dawing and
Vicky Bonel. The Task Force Balao also invited some members of the CPA
who had retrieved James's personal belongings in Fairview, Baguio City,
along with his companions prior to his disappearance on September 17,
2008, to appear before the Task Force Balao in order to obtain additional
clarifications, but none of them did so. The case is still being followed up on,
and the investigation is going on. The goal is to find out what really happened,
find the people who kidnapped the people, figure out the real reason for the
kidnapping, and file the necessary charges against the people who did it.
 Also attached to the Return are the more detailed reports (with attached
affidavits of other witnesses) dated October 14, 2008 and October 6, 2008
submitted by Task Force Balao Commander P/S Supt. Fortunato B. Albas to
the PNP Cordillera Regional Director. Pertinent portions of the two reports
read:
 Mr. Zusimo Unarosa, who lives in Nr. 126, Purok 3, Central Fairview, Baguio
City, told investigators that during the first week of September 2008, he
frequently observed two (2) unidentified males between the ages of 50 and 70
bringing boxes from the house, the contents of which were unknown.
However, it was asserted that the barangay is unfamiliar with these two male
personalities. He also said that he had never seen a van monitoring the
house and had never heard of any kidnapping or abduction in the
neighborhood.
 Mr. Anselmo Alukim claimed to have witnessed unidentified male and
female visitors to the property.
 Mr. Danny Griba, a resident of the aforementioned barangay, asserted that
James Balao is not a resident or occupant of the aforementioned house, that
he only saw the subject in the summer, and that the aforementioned house is
home to five (5) unidentified individuals. In addition, he stated that three men
between the ages of 40 and 50 and a woman between the ages of 20 and 30
 leave during the day with a number of boxes and return around 6:00 and 7:00
p.m. aboard a taxicab with a number of boxes whose contents are unknown.
 Mrs. Corazon Addun, who lives in No. 114, Purok 3, Central Fairview,
Baguio City, asserts that the subject has only been seen once since April
2008, when he was last seen there. She went on to say that Uncle John, who
is between the ages of 40 and 50, and a man, who is between the ages of 20
and 30, live in the house. As a result, on September 21, 2008, Uncle John
visited Mrs. Addun's house and informed her over a cup of coffee that he
would be traveling to Sagada, Mountain Province, with the intention of
locating a colleague who had been sent there. As a result, he was informed
by phone that James Balao, his colleague who was reported missing, had not
reached the municipality. She never saw Uncle John again after that brief
conversation. In addition, she was unaware of any unusual occurrences or
vehicles that were conducting surveillance there.
 This office has also worked with MIG-1 and ISU, ISG, and PA, but neither
office has said anything about the alleged kidnapping of James Balao.
 It was discovered that SPO4 Genero Rosal, who lived nearby, was the one
who investigated the incident after his neighbors reported it to him. That after
learning of James' kidnapping, he contacted PDEA, La Trinidad PS, RID, and
Intel BPPO to see if they had a presence in Tomay, La Trinidad, but they all
responded that they did not.
 Witnesses were shown a photocopy of the picture of James Balao, and they
confirmed that it was the same person who was arrested and handcuffed.
Another witness revealed that a red motorcycle with two male riders allegedly
conducted surveillance along the highway about ten (10) meters from the
location where the victim was picked up prior to their arrest. The victim was
taken inside a white Mitsubishi Adventure a few minutes later. The Mitsubushi
Adventure was followed by the tandem riders on their motorcycles all the way
to Camp Dangwa in La Trinidad, Benguet. One of the kidnappers was heard
telling the driver to say, "pare sa Camp Dangwa tayo," according to another
witness.
 A "KULOT" who also witnessed the alleged abduction was identified through
subsequent investigation. However, he avoided speaking and instead pointed
to Helen's Bread's delivery driver. On October 9, 2008, around 8:30 a.m.,
Aniceto Dawing Jr. Helen's Bread's delivery van driver, y Gano, came out and
gave statements about what he saw during the alleged abduction.
 Vicky Bonel y Felipe, 19 years old, single, native of Atok, Benguet, resident
of Tomay, LTB, and storekeeper of Saymor's Store, made her sworn
statement regarding the alleged abduction on October 12, 2008. The
individual who claimed to be a policeman was depicted on a map. She went
on to say that while she was tending to her brother-in-law's store, six or more
gunmen handcuffed and shoved the victim into their vehicle. She recalled that
if she can see them again, she can identify the kidnappers.
 Another witness stated that she was preparing her merchandise in Lower
Tomay's waiting shed when, around 7 a.m. on September 17, 2008, she
noticed a motorcycle parked next to the elementary school. Before the
kidnapping, the biker was doing a suspicious search of the area and calling
someone from his cell phone.
 A follow-up investigation was carried out by the Baguio City Police Office,
who were successful in obtaining an affidavit from Florence Luken y
Mayames, 47 years old, married, and a resident of 135 Central Fairview. In it,
Florence averred that James Balao, along with a certain Uncle John, who is
approximately 65-75 years old and stands 5'4", and a certain Rene, who is
approximately 30-35 years old and stands 5'5", She added that James Balao
and company do not interact with neighbors and typically leave only one
person behind, as James and Rene leave around 6:00 or 7:00 in the morning
and return around 6:00 or 7:00 in the evening. She also said that she didn't
see a van or any other kind of vehicle parked along the roadside in front of
any house—not even his neighbors or people watching the people living
there. As a result, on September 26, 2008, around 1:00 p.m., a closed van
(Ca[n]ter) with an unknown plate number was observed parked in front of the
aforementioned house. More than ten unidentified males between the ages of
 20 and 23, as well as an unidentified female, then entered the alleged rented
house of James Balao, took some tables, chairs, and cabinets, and then
immediately fled to an unknown location.
 Mrs Mina Cabati Serdan, the owner of the house that James Balao is
renting, claimed that in May of 2007, a particular Mr. She was told by June, a
real estate agent, that James Balao would rent the house for a year at a
agreed-upon monthly rent of 15,000 pesos (P15,000.00). She stated that
James Balao's stay had been extended for nearly four months. Mrs.] in the
final week of August 2008 Serdan informed James Balao by phone that on
September 30, 2008, she would end his stay at the rented house. Mrs[.]
Serdan went on to say that she only went to the rented house twice and only
saw James Balao and unknown companions there. that she only found out
about James Balao's disappearance after a specific Carol told her. She added
that on September 26, 2008, she visited her house and discovered that the
occupants had already left. She also discovered that the relatives had already
removed all of the occupants' personal belongings.
 According to Aniceto Dawing's testimony, on September 17, 2008, at
approximately 8:00 a.m., he was delivering bread to Saymor's Store in
Tomay, La Trinidad, Benguet, when a white van pulled up in front of them and
five armed men got out. The armed men, who spoke Filipino and said they
were police officers, held a gun and pointed it at one man. The male was
informed by the armed men that he was being detained for possession of
illegal drugs. After that, they let the man get in the car and told him that they
were going to Camp Dangwa. Dawing acknowledged that he was unaware
that James was the person he saw at the time, only learning of his identity
when he saw a poster with James's picture on it. He claimed during cross-
examination that the white van lacked any indication that it was a police
vehicle and that the armed men were dressed in civilian attire and lacked any
identification cards or badges from the police. Because of their posture,
haircut, and how they introduced themselves, he simply assumed that they
were police officers.
 Anvil Lumbag stated in his affidavit that he had also stopped by Saymor's
Store in the early morning of September 17, 2008, to purchase chicken. He
claimed that four men got out of a Toyota Revo that stopped in front of the
store. While pointing a gun at the man who was standing in front of the store,
the men handcuffed him and said, "Walang makikialam, drugs kaso nito." The
man was then compelled to board the Revo. Lumbag heard one of the men
say that they would be going to Camp Dangwa before the Revo left. However,
Lumbag's affidavit did not specify whether James was taken by the armed
men.
 Beverly Longid testified that she met James while she was in college and
was a member of the CPA youth organization. James would work with
Beverly, who is the chair of the CPA, whenever he had a CPA-related activity.
She also said in her testimony that the last time she talked to James was in
July or August 2008, when he told her about PNP and AFP surveillance on
his person. She claimed in her affidavit that James told her about several
vehicles following him, one of which was a green van with the plate USC 922,
the same number she had seen on a silver grey van at the Navy Base in
Baguio City's intelligence security unit. Beverly acknowledged that she was
working at the Office of the Cordillera People's Legal Center in Baguio City at
the time of the alleged abduction and that she learned of James'
disappearance in the afternoon of September 18, 2008. In addition, she
confirmed that they spoke with Pol. Supt. Martin will try to get help with
James' disappearance.
 According to Nonette Balao's testimony, she was in her Km bakery. 4, in the
early morning of September 17, 2008, in La Trinidad, Benguet She received a
text message from James around 6:30 in the morning announcing that he
would be doing some laundry at their ancestral home. She received a second
text message from James thirty minutes later informing her that he was
already leaving his residence in Fairview, Baguio City. She became
concerned when, at around 8:00 a.m., James had not yet arrived at their
ancestral home. She attempted to call him after sending him a text message
 without success. However, he had already turned off his phone. She then
contacted the CPA office to inquire about James' presence. Nonette also
testified that they only reported James's disappearance to the police on
September 20, 2008, as they believed it was necessary for a person to be
missing for at least 48 hours before the disappearance could be reported.
She went to James's house in Fairview at around 9:00 a.m., but James's
housemates told her that he left at 7:00 a.m. They went to Police Precinct No.
1 of the Substation. 1 in Baguio and to the La Trinidad police precinct to
report the incident. Additionally, they checked Camp Dangwa to see if James
was present.
 Nonette claimed that James never turned off his phone, and since he had
already texted her that he was coming home, he could have texted again if
plans changed. This made Nonette concerned. Additionally, James had
disclosed to them that he had been under surveillance since April 2008. She
is unaware of the reason James traveled to Tomay, La Trinidad.
 In his affidavit, Samuel Anongos stated that he is a member of the CPA's
Education Commission. He claimed that AFP members harassed the
community and violated a number of human rights when they held trainings
and educational discussions on mining education in Abra. Additionally, it is
said that the AFP held community meetings at which they asserted that the
CPA is a member of the New People's Army. A copy of a paper that the AFP
was allegedly distributing is attached to Anongos's affidavit. It depicts the
Communist Party of the Philippines-New People's Army (CPP-NPA)'s
organizational structure, identifying CPA as one of the organizations affiliated
with the National Democratic Front (NDF).
 Jasper Lucena

Petitioners are the parents of Alicia Jasper S. Lucena (A J)- a 19-year- old lass born on
July 24, 2001.

AJ enrolled as an 11th-grade student at the Far Eastern University (FEU) sometime in

2018. AJ was persuaded to join the FEU Chapter of Anakbayan, a youth group that
purportedly promotes national democracy ideals, AJ informed petitioners on February 2,
2019, that she had joined Anakbayan and was now an official member.

AJ left the family home the following day without giving any reason. Three days later,
she did not return.

AJ once again left the family home on March 10, 2019. This time, she didn't show up
until May 25, 2019, which was more than two months later. Petitioners learned that
respondents Charie Delos Reyes (Reyes), Bianca Gacos (Gacos), and Jay Roven
Ballais Villafuente (Villafuente)4—national leaders of Anakbayan—had AJ in their
custody while he was not at home. AJ was also promoting the Kabataan Partylist and
Neri Colmenares while also engaging in recruiting efforts on Anakbayan's behalf.
AJ left the family home for the third time on July 10, 2019, and he never came back.
Since then, she has left FEU.

In response to reports that Anakbayan had been recruiting students and convincing
them to leave their homes, the Senate Committee on Public Order and Dangerous
Drugs held a hearing on the matter on August 7, 2019. Relissa, the petitioner, was one
of those invited to the committee hearing to testify about her interaction with AJ.

On August 14, 2019, members of the Gabriela Party-list, Bayan Muna Party-list,
Kabataan Party-list, and ACT Teacher Party-list presented and appeared alongside AJ
and another student who was allegedly missing. In that press conference, AJ explained
that she joined Anakbayan voluntarily rather than being kidnapped.

The petitioners filed this petition for the issuance of writs of amparo and habeas corpus
with the primary goal of regaining AJ's custody. The petition names Impleaded, Reyes,
Gacos, and Villafuente as respondents. Sarah Elago, a member of the Kabataan Party's
list of representatives; The spokesperson for Anakbayan is Alex Danday; and Attorney
Maria Kristina Conti, a well-known Anakbayan advisor.

The petition, in particular, prays the Court to issue the following reliefs:

a. A writ of amparo in favor of AJ and petitioners.

b. In the interim, a temporary protection order ''prohibiting the respondents, and the
[AnakbayanJ and [KabataanJ Party-list from recruiting, influencing, indoctrinating,
immersing and threatening the life, liberty and security of [AJ], or from committing or
attempting to commit any act which are violative o fthe rights o f[AJJ, and abusive of her
physical, mental, psychological and emotional development."

c. A writ of habeas corpus ordering the respondents to produce the person of AJ in

Court.

d. An order immediately placing AJ under the custody and care ofthe petitioners.
e. An order requiring the conduct o f a medical and psychological examination on, and
the conferment of medical and psychological assistance to AJ in order to determine the
extent and gravity of the abuse, exploitation and prejudice to her mental, physical,
emotional and psychological state.

The petitioners acknowledge that AJ is already of legal age, eighteen (18) years old. But
they say that AJ's decision to stay with the Anakbayan cannot be said to have come
from a valid and well-informed consent because she was radicalized and indoctrinated
by them when she was a minor. The petitioners claim that AJ's "mental, psychological,
emotional, or spiritual development" was negatively impacted by this early radicalization
and indoctrination, making it impossible for her to freely consent even after she reached
the age of majority. As a result, AJ cannot be considered to have freely consented to
joining the Anakbayan, participating in the activities of the Anakbayan, and ultimately
remaining a member of the Anakbayan.

The Court issued a Resolution16 on May 19, 2020, requiring the respondents to explain
why the peremptory writs of amparo and habeas corpus should not be issued within ten
(10) days of receiving the resolution. On time, all respondents submitted their resolution
compliance.
 In the matter of the petition for writ of habeas corpus vs Hon. De Lima

This is a Petition for Writ of Amparo and Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus/Data (With

Prayers for Production and Inspection of Place) and a Petition for the Issuance of a Writ

of Amparo assailing the sudden transfer of national inmates from the National Bilibid
Prisons in Muntinlupa City to the National Bureau of Corrections in Manila City for the
purpose of conducting an inspection on their living quarters;

Secretary Leila M. De Lima (Secretary De Lima) directed then-Bureau of Corrections

Director Franklin Jesus B. Bucayu and then-National Bureau of Investigation Director
Virgilio L. Mendez in a Memorandum titled "SECRET" on December 12, 2014.

This activity was carried out as a result of intelligence reports that were conducted over
the course of several months and looked into allegations that some inmates at the New
Bilibid Prison were engaging in illegal activities. "Included the operation of a narcotics
trade through mobile phones, laptops, and internet equipment illegally brought inside
the [New Bilibid Prison], enabling incarcerated [New Bilibid Prison] inmates to
communicate with their contacts (i.e., couriers and buyers")," according to the alleged
illegal activities.

On December 15, 2014, A surprise raid on the living quarters (kubol) of 20

High-Risk/High Profile New Bilibid Prison inmates was carried out by members of the
Department of Justice, National Bureau of Investigation, Bureau of Corrections,
Presidential Anti- Organized Crime Commission, Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency,
National Capital Region Police Office, Special Action Force, and Muntinlupa Police.

According to a Memorandum from the Deputy Director for Intelligence Service of the
National Bureau of Investigation dated December 16, 2014, several illegal and
contraband items were recovered from the inmates as a result of the surprise raid.

While their living quarters were taken down, the 19 inmates were moved to the New
Bilibid Prison Extension Facility in the National Bureau of Investigation compound on
Taft Avenue, Manila.

Memie Sultan Boratong (Boratong), Amin Imam Boratong's wife, filed a petition for Writ
of Amparo and Writ of Habeas Corpus/Data (With Prayers for Production and Inspection
of Place) with this Court on December 19, 2014. The petition was docketed as G.R. No.
215585.

In 2006, the Pasig Regional Trial Court, Branch 154, found Amin Imam Boratong guilty
of violating Republic Act No. 9165 FOR, in Pasig City, allegedly operating a "shabu
tiangge." He was in New Bilibid Prison prior to the surprise raid, where he was serving
his sentence while awaiting an appeal with the Court of Appeals.

Another Petition for a Writ of Amparo, filed as G.R. No. Anthony R. Bombeo (Bombeo),
Herbert R. Colanggo's first-degree cousin, submitted Form 215768. Colanggo was said
to have been kept away from his lawyer and family during his transfer, according to the
Petition.
The Ozamis Holdup Gang, whose members are believed to have carried out a 2009
bank robbery that resulted in the deaths of ten people, is said to be led by Colanggo.
Colanggo was found guilty by the Regional Trial Court of Las Pinas, Branch 201 on
October 18, 2010, and he was given the order to be detained at the New Bilibid Prison.
His sentence ranged from a minimum of 12 years in prison to a maximum of 15 years
and six months in prison. The Court of Appeals is hearing his appeal. Additionally, he
has cases pending before the Pampanga and Quezon City trial courts.

Colanggo is also known as "Herbert C," a Filipino musician. He has his own YouTube
channel, and one of the videos there shows a music video that was allegedly made and
shot in his kubol's music studio. He won the Philippine Movie Press Club's 2014 Star
Awards for Best New Male Recording Artist on September 14, 2014. Apple iTunes lets
you download "Kinabukasan," his platinum-selling album. for US $3.99.

On January 13, 2015, this Court consolidated G.R. No. 215585 with G.R. No. 215768
and dismissed Boratong's petition for writs of amparo and habeas data. Respondents
were also directed to comment on Boratong's. petition for habeas corpus and Bombeo's
petition for amparo.

Guidelines for the 19 inmates' visits were issued by then-Director Mendez of the
National Bureau of Investigation in a Memorandum dated January 14, 2015. On
January 23, 2015, then-Secretary De Lima approved these guidelines.

On March 9, 2015, the Office of the Solicitor General published its Consolidated
Comment, which stated that the relatives of the remaining 17 inmates had submitted a
number of petitions for amparo to the Court of Appeals. The parties were instructed to
submit their Memoranda following the submission of their respective replies by the
petitioners.

According to petitioner Boratong, Amin Imam Boratong was not allowed to see his
relatives or talk to his lawyer when the petition was filed. She also insists that her
husband's conviction was still pending appeal, so there was no need to transfer him to
the National Bureau of Investigation. She argues that his incommunicado status and
summary transfer to "a place where armed authorities are ubiquitous" were equivalent
to an enforced disappearance, necessitating the issuance of a writ of amparo.

Petitioner Boratong also insists that her husband was "in effect abducted from the
facility where he should be incarcerated" when he was "unceremoniously handcuffed
and transferred to the NBI without any reasort afforded to him and without authority of
the courts." "Petitioner Boratong asserts that despite the subsequent grant of visitation
rights, the threat to her husband's life and security remained pervasive because the
grant was only to be given upon approval of the request, implying that consent to
visitation could be withheld at any time." She also said that visitation hours only said 19
inmates could have visitors for eight hours a day for two days.

Petitioner Boratong argues that a writ of habeas corpus should have been issued
because no documents were provided indicating her husband's "high risk" status, which
would have justified his transfer to Building 14, the National Bilibid Prison facility for high
risk inmates. She also says that because the surprise raid didn't find any expensive
items in her husband's kubol, no information was given about his involvement in the
alleged illegal activities at New Bilibid Prison. She points out that the Secretary of
Justice's ability to transfer any prisoner without a valid court order was also doubtful.
According to petitioner Boratong, a challenge to the legal basis for detention constitutes
a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Because Amin Imam Boratong was "allowed
unhampered access to counsel and a more indulgent visitation rights" in his previous
kubol, she questions the legality of his continued confinement in Building 14.

On the other hand, petitioner Bombeo argues that Colanggo's "incommunicado

detention" is the same as, or a threat of, an enforced disappearance. "A person in
detention, totally cut off from society, cut off from any communication from his counsel
and people concerned for his safety, whereabouts, status, and health, is a victim of an
enforced or voluntary disappearance," he asserts. He insisted that "the public officer or
the government agency having custody of the detainee cannot be denied" Colanggo's
constitutional right to counsel. He claims that the respondents' reasoning that "there
was a need for Mr. Colanggo to be restrained from his 'criminal network'" was an insult
to his lawyer because the respondents assumed that his lawyer was connected to this
alleged criminal network.

Ladaga vs Mapagu

Petitioners have all had their names included on a list that is said to be a JCICC
"AGILA" 3rd Quarter 2007 Order of Battle Validation Result of the Philippine Army's
10th Infantry Division (10th ID). This list contains the names of organizations and
individuals in Southern Mindanao, particularly Davao City, that are said to be connected
to the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and its military arm, the New People's
Army (NPA). The petitioners have They believe that the inclusion of their names on the
aforementioned Order of Battle (OB List) makes them easy targets for illegal killings or
mysterious disappearances—a real threat to their safety, liberty, and life.

The respondent in G.R. 189689, ATTY. LILIBETH O. LADAGA (Atty. On May 21, 2009,
Ladaga) learned of the OB List's existence from an unidentified source. This was after
Representative Satur Ocampo (Representative Ocampo) of the Bayan Muna Party-List
made a PowerPoint presentation that was made public on May 18, 2009, at the
conclusion of the International Solidarity Mission (ISM) that was carried out by various
organizations.

According to her Affidavit, Ladaga narrated that since 2007, suspicious-looking

individuals have been visiting her Davao City law office during her absence, either
posing as members of the military or falsely claiming to be clients inquiring about the
status of their cases, substantiating the threats to her life, liberty, and security. Atty., her
office partner, testified to these occurrences. Through an Affidavit6 dated June 16,
2009, Michael P. Pito

The petitioner, on the other hand, in G.R. No. 189690, ATTY, Davao City Councilor
ATTY. ANGELA LIBRADO- TRINIDAD On May 19, 2009, Librado-Trinidad) made a
Privilege Speech in front of the Sangguniang Panglungsod of Davao City to demand
that her name be removed from the OB List. The Davao City Council then directed a
formal investigation into the alleged OB List's existence. During its public hearing in
Davao City on May 22, 2009, the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) received a copy
of the PowerPoint presentation and announced that it would be conducting its own
investigation into the matter.

She claims that she has not committed any act against national security in the course of
her work as a lawyer or as a member of the Sangguniang Panglungsod of Davao or
Bayan Muna that would justify the inclusion of her name on the aforementioned OB List.
She stated in her Affidavit that sometime in May 2008, two men on a motorcycle who
appeared suspicious followed her vehicle as she drove to various locations throughout
the day. Additionally, she recalled that on June 23, 2008, while she was away from
home, three unidentified men attempted to break into their home and then boarded a
plate-less stainless "owner type-vehicle" to leave. The police were properly informed of
both incidents.

In the meantime, the petitioner in G.R. 189691, the current Secretary General of the
Union of People's Lawyers in Mindanao (UPLM) and the Free Legal Assistance Group
(FLAG) Coordinator in Davao City, ATTY. Atty. CARLOS ISAGANI T. ZARATE Zarate)
was informed in May 2009 that his name was also on the OB List that Representative
Ocampo made public at a forum about human rights abuses in Southern Mindanao. In
Atty. Zarate’s petition, he alleged that: Bayan Muna Party-list Representative Satur
Ocampo disclosed the existence of a "watch list," officially known in military parlance as
"Order of Battle," prepared by the intelligence arm of the Philippine Army's 10th ID, led
by respondent Maj Gen. Reynaldo Mapagu, at a press conference on May 19, 2009,
marking the conclusion of an International Solidarity Mission (ISM) organized to
investigate alleged human rights violations in Southern Mindanao by state forces.

He claimed that the "Order of Battle" was in a "SECRET" Powerpoint presentation with
the title "3rd Quarter 2007 OB Validation Result"; It was allegedly created by the "JCICC
"Agila"" under the supervision of the Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence of the
Philippine Army's 10th Infantry Division.

Pador vs. Arcayan

The petitioners submitted a verified petition for the issuance of a Writ of Amparo to the
RTC on March 22, 2008.

Petitioners claimed that in Barangay Tabunan, Cebu City, in February 2008, rumors
circulated that petitioner Nerio Pador was a marijuana planter. Respondents Roberto
Alimorin, Carmelo Revales, and Alberto Alivio raided their ampalaya farm on March 17,
2008, in search of marijuana plants. Respondent Barangay Captain Arcayan sent
invitation letters to petitioners Nerio and Rey Pador following the raid for a conference.
They gave the invitation letters to their counsel, who advised them to send a letter-reply
to Barangay Captain Arcayan instead of attending. The latter allegedly read the
contents of the letter-reply, obtained one copy, and refused to sign a receipt for the
document when he received it. The petitioners then came to the conclusion that the
conduct of the raid, the sending of invitation letters, the respondent barangay captain's
refusal to receive their letter-reply, the possibility of additional cases of harassment,
false accusations, and possible violence from respondents, all gravely threatened their
right to life, liberty, and security, and that the issuance of a writ of amparo was
necessary.

The RTC issued the Writ and instructed respondents to submit a verified return after
reviewing the petition's contents and affidavits.

Respondents submitted their Verified Return and/or Comment as directed by the RTC.
Respondent Winelo Arcayan allegedly received a report on 16 March 2008 regarding
the alleged existence of a marijuana plantation in a location known as Sitio Gining in
Barangay Tabunan, according to their counter-statement of facts. He then brought the
matter to Barangay Captain Arcayan and Barangay Chief Romeo Pador, who
immediately began putting together a patrol.

Carmelo Revales left the location for breakfast on March 17, 2008, while the barangay
tanods were having their final briefing. Nerio Pador stopped him on his motorcycle while
he was eating breakfast and said that the marijuana plants had been uprooted. Carmelo
denied knowing anything about the incident, and Nerio then made the threat to kill him.
Carmelo immediately informed the other barangay tanods of this threat.

According to the responses, despite Nerio's actions, they continued to patrol the area. In
Cebuano, he yelled, "If I will be informed who reported the matter to the police, I will
attack the informant," as they passed Nerio's house. After that, Carmelo inquired, "Who
reported to you?" "I will tell you later once I will be captured by police authorities," was
Nerio's response. We will all pass away this afternoon. I want to fight!”

After that, respondents began their search of a property owned by David Quintana, but
their searches turned up nothing.
Later that evening, as respondent Alberto Alivio was passing by Nerio's house, the latter
made the following threat to kill him: "I want to kill now! The next question Alberto posed
to him was, "Who reported to you so that the truth will come out?" After that, Nerio
punched the door of his house and declared, "I will tell you later when I will be captured
by the authorities of the police!" After that, Alberto left the location and informed the
respondent, Barangay Captain Arcayan, of the situation.

Barangay Captain Arcayan stated in response to the reports that he instructed his
secretary to prepare invitation letters for petitioners Nerio and Rey Pador due to the
serious allegations of Nerio's threats and intimidation against some of the barangay
tanods. Barangay Captain Arcayan explained that because he had already received a
copy of the petitioners' letter-reply, he no longer signed it. The Petition was then heard
by the RTC. It issued the challenged Resolution on July 3, 2008, concluding that
respondents had adequately explained the reason for the issuance of the invitation
letters and that petitioners' claims were merely based on hearsay and speculations. The
petitioners were then denied access to the privilege of the writ of amparo.

Enrile vs People

The Office of the Ombudsman submitted an Information for Plunder to the

Sandiganbayan on June 5, 2014, against Enrile, Jessica Lucila Reyes, Janet Lim
Napoles, Ronald John Lim, and John Raymund de Asis.

On June 10, 2014, and June 16, 2014, respectively, Enrile filed before the
Sandiganbayan an urgent omnibus motion (motion to dismiss for lack of evidence on
record to establish probable cause and ad cautelam motion for bail) as well as a
supplemental opposition to the issuance of a warrant of arrest and for dismissal of
Information. On June 20, 2014, the Sandiganbayan heard both motions.
The prosecution submitted a consolidated opposition to both motions on June 24, 2014.

The Sandiganbayan denied Enrile's motions on July 3, 2014, and issued arrest warrants
for the accused in the plunder case.

Enrile received a notice of hearing on July 8, 2014, informing him that his arraignment
would take place on July 11, 2014, before the Third Division of the Sandiganbayan.

Enrile presented the Sandiganbayan with a motion for bill of particulars on July 10,
2014. He moved to postpone his arraignment on the same day because he was going
to have a medical exam at the Philippine General Hospital (PGH).

On July 11, 2014, Enrile was brought to the Sandiganbayan as per the
Sandiganbayan's structure and his movement for bill of specifics was called for hearing.
Atty. Estelito Mendoza (Atty. Mendoza), Enrile's insight, contended the movement
orally. From there on, Sandiganbayan Directing Equity (PJ) Amparo Cabotaje-Tang
(Cabotaje-Tang), pronounced a "10-minute break" to consider on the movement.

At the point when the court meeting continued, PJ Cabotaje-Tang declared the Court's
refusal of Enrile's movement for bill of specifics basically on the accompanying grounds:

(1) the subtleties that Enrile wants are "significant emphases" of the contentions he
brought up in his supplemental resistance to the issuance of warrant of capture and for
excusal of data; and

(2) the subtleties looked for are evidentiary in nature and are best ventilated during
preliminary.

Atty. Mendoza stated that he would orally move to reconsider the Sandiganbayan's
denial if he were not given time to file a motion for reconsideration and asked for more
time. Atty. was then directed by the Sandiganbayan. Mendoza ought to proceed right
away with his request for reconsideration. Atty. Mendoza then orally presented his
reasons why Enrile's motion for a bill of particulars should be reconsidered. The
Sandiganbayan once more called a break to discuss the motion. PJ Cabotaje-Tang
made the announcement after five minutes that the motion for reconsideration had been
denied by the Sandiganbayan.

Corpuz vs People

Petitioner and private complainant Danilo Tangcoy met sometime in 1990 at the Admiral
Royale Casino in Olongapo City. When petitioner learned that private complainant was
lending money to casino players at the time, he approached him on May 2, 1991, at the
same casino, and offered to sell the aforementioned pieces of jewelry on a commission
basis. Private complainant gave his consent, and as a result, he provided the petitioner
with the following items: a men's 18k diamond ring; bracelet worn by women; a receipt
with an even date shows one (1) men's necklace and another men's bracelet, both of
which have a total value of P98,000.00. They agreed that the petitioner would return the
same items if they were not sold or return the sale proceeds within 60 days. The time
period ended without the petitioner returning the jewelry or the sale proceeds. When
private complainant was able to meet petitioner, he promised to pay the value of the
items that had been given to him, but this promise was unfulfilled.

With the assistance of his attorney, petitioner entered a plea of not guilty on January 28,
1992. After that, there was a merits trial.

Danilo Tangcoy's lone testimony was presented by the prosecution to support the
aforementioned assertions. In contrast, the petitioner's lone testimony was presented by
the defense, which can be summarized as follows:

Petitioner and private complainant were Antonio Balajadia's collection agents, and
Antonio Balajadia is in the business of financing Base employees with loans. They
receive a commission for each collection they sell. The petitioner claimed not to have
done business with the private complainant. However, he acknowledged signing a blank
receipt in exchange for a loan from Balajadia in 1989. He claimed that the same receipt,
dated May 2, 1991, was used as evidence against him for the alleged agreement to sell
the jewelry in question, which he had not even witnessed.

People vs Atencio

"In a house on the corner of Magsaysay and Del Pilar Streets. Two families reside in the
Catarman neighborhood of N. Samar, across from the Exel Theater. The accused
Avelino Atencio and his family live in the kitchen of that house, while Leonardo and his
family live in the main house. Leonardo passed away in that house. The only thing that
separates the two's homes is a wall partition. Isidro Moreno stays in a traveling store a
meter away from that house.
"On October 11, 1978, around 7:00 p.m., Avelino Atencio, Antonio Gallo, and Conrado
Cardenas went downstairs from the house at Avelino Atencio's other end.

"Antonio Gallo left his two companions behind and made his way to the door of the
house where Leonardo Franzuela and Pascualita Dalmacio's spouses were staying. At
that point, Leonardo Franzuela was seated at their house's entrance. At the time,
Pascualita Dalmacio was attempting to get her children to eat their dinner at the window
of their previous traveling store. Antonio Gallo slashed Leonardo Franzuela, who was
sitting at the door of the house, right away when he got there, hitting him on the
forehead. Leonardo Franzuela tripped and fell.

Conrado Cardenas and Avelino Atencio made their way to the traveling store where
Isidro Moreno was almost simultaneously. Avelino Atencio stabbed Isidro Moreno in the
chest as soon as Conrado Cardenas pulled Isidro Moreno out of the traveling store's
door. Isidro Moreno fell to the ground.

"Avelino Atencio and Conrado Cardenas went to the location where Leonardo
Franzuela and Antonio Gallo were fighting for the bolo. They assisted Antonio Gallo and
staggered Leonardo Franzuela in turn. Leonardo Franzuela and Antonio Gallo were
grappling for control of the bolo when they fell. At this point, Antonio Gallo stabbed
Leonardo Franzuela with a small bolo known as "depang" from his leg.

"Conrado Cardenas and Avelino Atencio scampered away while policemen Riatas and
Cablay arrived, and Avelino Atencio lost hold of his bolo while scampering away, which
was picked up by the police." While Antonio Gallo was still atop Leonardo Franzuela,
the policemen overtook him. The police took the bolo and a smaller bolo called
"depang," which was dropped by Avelino Atencio. The police brought Antonio Gallo
outside the fence, and Leonardo Franzuela, who was left on the ground, was taken to
the hospital, along with Isidro Moreno. Isidro Moreno and Leonardo Franzuela both
passed away along the way.

The consolidated verdict was appealed by every accused person. However, Antonio
Gallo has since escaped from prison. In accordance with Section 8, Rule 124 of the
1964 Rules of Court and the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, his appeal ought to be
dismissed as is.

The two appellants contend that the Trial Court erred by (1) determining that all three
accused conspired to kill the two victims in both cases; 2) finding them guilty of the two
crimes; and, thirdly, not releasing them. They insist that the witnesses for the
prosecution who identified them and described the slayings of Franzuela and Moreno
were either mistaken or lied; Because they were not present at the scene and time of
the crime, they could not have committed the heinous act that was attributed to them.

in support of this alibi-defense argument. Cardenas and Jorge Dublas, his witness,
testified that Cardenas had been invited by Dublas to go to Barangay Cabayhan to help
harvest rice on the latter's land, which is 12 kilometers away, on October 10, 1978, a
day before the murders in the poblacion of Catarman were committed; that Cardenas
had accepted the invitation and went to Cabayhan in the morning of October 11, after
breakfast, actually arriving there at approximately 8 o'clock in that on October 12, he
(Cardenas) had met Antonio Gallo's son, who had requested that he accompany
Antonio Gallo to the poblacion because Antonio Gallo was in the hospital.

On the other hand, Atencio testified that on the day of the murders, he was not at his
house but rather at the home of his ill aunt, Anastacia de la Cruz, in the Canlubang
District of the poblacion; He had been at his aunt's house until nine o'clock at night;
Additionally, his witness, Eleodoro Collamar, testified that when Patrolman Amado
Velarde went to his house to conduct an investigation into him in connection with the
homicides, he was already asleep.

The appellants' alibi claim must be rejected. According to established law, in order for
such a defense to be accepted, it must be demonstrated not only that the accused was
somewhere else at the time of the crime, but also that the circumstances are such as to
logically lead to the conclusion that he was physically unable to be present at the scene
of the crime. In addition, the defense must be rejected in the face of positive witness
identification of the perpetrators. The record does not provide sufficient evidence of the
circumstances that would make it impossible for either Cardenas or Atencio to be
present at the scene of the crime when it was committed, despite the fact that the
appellants had been clearly and directly identified by two (2) eyewitnesses, Pascualita
Franzuela and Rogelio Moreno. A kilometer separated Atencio's alleged location at the
time from the home of his ailing aunt. In addition, Cardenas' testimony that he was 12
kilometers away in the morning of October 11 does not, in and of itself, demonstrate
that he was physically unable to be at the scene of the crime in the evening of that day,
which is when the incident actually occurred.

Based on their alleged bias, the appellants also question the credibility of the
eyewitnesses, the first of whom is the widow of one of the victims, Leonardo Franzuela,
and the second is a son of the other victim, Isidro Moreno. It is impossible to give their
arguments any credence or force. A witness's credibility cannot be affected by the mere
existence of a relationship by consanguinity or affinity on its own; at best, it is indicative
of a need for a little bit more caution when evaluating his testimony. However, it is
evident that the testimony of such a witness must be evaluated on its own merits, and it
may and should be given credit if it is not otherwise destroyed or neutralized by other
more credible evidence on record or any other revealed intrinsic defect.

"The testimony of the prosecution witnesses x x (to be) clear and positive and not
contrary to the ordinary course of events and things" was found by the Court a quo in
the present case. This assessment will be upheld by this Court based on its own review
of the record and the well-established rule that, in cases involving the credibility of
witnesses, appellate courts will typically not alter the findings of the trial court unless the
trial court has clearly overlooked certain facts of substance and value that, if taken into
consideration, could affect the outcome of the case. Additionally, there is absolutely no
evidence in the record of such an oversight.

The appellants also assert that Pascualita Franzuela's testimony is influenced by her
animosity toward Atencio as a result of his refusal to vacate the house he occupied
despite the widow's demand for it. It has not been demonstrated that the Court a quo's
rejection of this claim was incorrect. The Trial Court also notes that other witnesses,
including Patrolman Pedro Raitas, back up Pascualita's testimony on important points.

The Trial Court correctly rejected Gallo's attempt to exonerate his co-accused by
claiming sole responsibility for the murders because it was clearly and completely
inconsistent with the evidence that was recorded.

The conclusion reached by the Trial Court that the accused were involved in a plot to kill
the victims also needs to be confirmed. The evidence supports it. The acts performed
by the defendants simultaneously or contemporaneously have sufficiently demonstrated
the community of purpose, or unity of design. Together, the three accused—Avelino
Atencio, Conrado Cardenas, and Antonio Gallo—went to the homes of the victims; They
simultaneously attacked their unsuspecting prey with bladed weapons without warning,
with Gallo attacking Leonardo Franzuela and Cardenas and Atencio snatching Isidro
Moreno; Cardenas and Atencio came to the aid of Gallo, who was fighting harder than
Isidro, after Isidro had given up. The fact that Franzuela was wounded by two different
weapons lends credence to the claim. Conspiracy among those who are shown to have
participated in such an action should be established by providing evidence of a
coordinated effort and corroborating collateral events.

People vs. Intino

The appellant, Marianito Intino, is a farmer who was hired by the victim, Bienvenido
Caluser, as a coconut picker.

The appellant and the victim went to the house of the victim's girl friend, Norma
Calipayan, where they were served tuba on September 17, 1976, around 3:00 p.m.
They invited a passerby named Benny Raliente to join them in their drinking spree while
they were together. Bienvenido Caluser joined Norma, Rosario, her mother, and
Luciano, her father, in their supper after the latter accepted their invitation but left
Marianito and Bienvenido after drinking about two or three glasses of tuba. Primo
Calipayan, Norma's brother, was lying on a bench next to Marianito as he took a seat on
the porch, about four meters from the dining table. Rosario breastfed her one-year-old
child inside the bedroom after eating, while her husband left the house. Bienvenido and
Norma were left at the dining table. Since Bienvenido was seated with his back to the
door leading to the porch, Norma observed Marianito suddenly rise from his seat and
then approach Bienvenido from behind. In order for Norma to observe Marianito's
actions, she was perched on a different bench on the right side of Bienvenido, facing
the door to the porch. Exh. Page 18 of E-3, Record). Norma stood up as Bienvenido
held onto her after she heard him say, "I am wounded" in the local language. Witness
Norma said, "Marian husto na," when appellant stabbed Bienvenido once more as he
tried to look at his attacker. Rosario, Norma's mother, rushed out of the room when she
heard someone yelling that he was hurt and saw Marianito continuing to attack
Bienvenido, who had already been wounded. As she took the bolo from Marianito,
Rosario pushed him aside to stop him from attacking Bienvenido Caluser further.
Marianito sped off. Upon seeing Bienvenido Caluser bathed in his own blood with
intestines sticking out of his abdomen when Luciano Calipayan arrived, he immediately
sought assistance from Punay de San Miguel, Peping de San Miguel, and their other
neighbors. They strapped Bienvenido Caluser to a hammock and put him on a baby bus
to the Daniel Z. Romualdez Memorial Hospital in Tacloban City, where he passed away
around midnight that same day.

On the other hand, the testimony of witnesses Alejo D. Ripalda, Segundina C. Delda,
and Marianito Intino, the appellant, serves as evidence for the defense. The appellant
denied stabbing and murdering the victim. He named the attacker Benedicto Relente2,
also known as "Pare Benny" (of the victim). Alejo D. Ripalda and Segundina C. Delda,
the victim's sister, testified that the victim told Segundina, who was in the baby bus, that
his attacker was "Pare Benny," referring to Benedicto Relente of Villa Magsaysay. The
victim also told Fernando San Miguel, who was in the intensive care unit of the hospital,
that his attacker was "Pare Benny." Witness Alejo Ripalda, who was then present in
both instances, is said to have heard these two distinct dying statements.
The appeal has no basis. After carefully reviewing the evidence, we have no doubt that
the prosecution witnesses, Norma and Rosario Calipayan, correctly identified the
appellant in both their sworn statements to NBI agents Reynaldo C. Manzanero on
January 21, 1977, and their open-court oral statements on March 14, 1977. Even
though she was present with Bienvenido, witness Norma Calipayan admitted in her
sworn statement that she did not see appellant stab Bienvenido Caluser the first time,
even though she saw appellant approach the victim from behind. She did not know that
Marianito had any malicious intent toward the victim. In addition, Norma and Rosario
Calipayan stated that, with the exception of the incident in which the victim jokingly
stated that he would box the appellant because he was from Pagsulhugan, they do not
know of any animosity or bad blood between the victim and the appellant. Rosario
intervened by asking Bienvenido what was going on when she heard this conversation.
The latter responded simply by stating that he was joking.

People vs Dacuycuy

The present petition seeks to overturn the decision of the then-Court of First Instance of
Leyte, Branch IV, dated September 8, 1976, granting the petition for certiorari and
prohibition with preliminary injunction filed by private respondents and filed as Civil
Case No. 5428, in addition to his resolution of October 19, 1976 rejecting the parties'
motions for reconsideration. The issues surrounding the jurisdiction over violations of
Republic Act No. Section 32 of Article 4670, also known as the Magna Carta for Public
School Teachers, and its constitutionality.

Private respondents Celestino S. Matondo, Segundino A. Caval, and Cirilo M. Zanoria,

public school officials of Leyte, were charged before the Municipal Court of Hindang,
Leyte in Criminal Case No. 4 on April 4, 1975, according to a complaint filed by the
Chief of Police of Hindang, Leyte. 555 of it for breaking Republic Act No. 4670. On May
29, 1975, the case was scheduled for arraignment and trial. As the defendants in this
case, the private respondents pleaded not guilty to the charge at the arraignment. They
then made an oral motion to quash the complaint on the grounds that they lacked
jurisdiction over the offense due, allegedly, to the correctional nature of the offense's
prescribed prison sentence. On June 13, 1975, the motion to quash was subsequently
reduced to writing. The motion to quash was denied by the municipal court on August
21, 1975, because it lacked merit. On September 2, 1975, private respondents made a
motion to reconsider the above-mentioned denial order on the same grounds of lack of
jurisdiction, but with the additional claim that the facts charged do not amount to an
offense given that Section 32 of Republic Act No. 4670 is null and void because it
violates the Constitution. The motion to reconsider was denied in an unsigned order that
the counsel for private respondents received on October 5, 1975.

Private respondents filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary
injunction on October 26, 1975, with the former Court of First Instance of Leyte, Branch
VIII. The case was filed as Civil Case No. B-622, to prevent the Chief of Police,
Provincial Fiscal, and Municipal Judge of Hindang, Leyte, from proceeding with the trial
of the aforementioned Criminal Case No. 555 on the grounds that the alleged offense
was beyond the jurisdiction of the former Hindang Municipal Court. An amended petition
then claimed that the facts charged do not constitute an offense because the penal
provision, Section 32 of the aforementioned law, is unconstitutional for the following
reasons: 1) It imposes a cruel and unusual punishment, with no fixed sentence and the
possibility of permanent isolation; (2) It also amounts to an excessive delegation of
legislative power, with the court's sole discretion regarding the length of the prison
sentence acting as if it were the government's legislative department.
On March 30, 1976, private respondents were informed that their petition was related to
Criminal Case No. 1978 for breaking Presidential Order No. 442 was previously moved
from Branch VIII to Branch IV of the former Court of First Instance of Leyte. Judge
Fortunato B. Cuna of the former branch transferred the petition to the latter branch for
further proceedings, where it was later filed as Civil Case No. 5428. The petitioner
herein opposed the admission of the amended petition on March 15, 1976, but the
respondent judge denied this in his April 20, 1976, resolution. In response to the
amended petition, the petitioner herein filed a supplementary memorandum on August
2, 1976.

The aforementioned challenged decision was issued on September 8, 1976, by the

respondent judge, essentially ruling that Republic Act No. Although violations of 4670
fall outside of municipal and city courts' jurisdiction, the case was remanded to the
former Municipal Court of Hindang, Leyte, only for preliminary investigation.

As previously stated, petitioner moved for reconsideration on September 25, 1976.

Ganaway vs Quillen

In this initial habeas corpus action, the petitioner requests his release from Bilibid Prison
due to his imprisonment for debt in a civil case stemming from a contract. According to
the Attorney-General's return, the petitioner's incarceration in Bilibid Prison was caused
by an order from the Hon. Under the authority of Chapter XVII of the Code of Civil
Procedure, George R. Harvey, judge of the First Instance in the city of Manila, issued.
This court ordered the lower court's record in the case Thomas Casey et al. before it on
its own initiative because the allegations in the petition for habeas corpus were fatally
flawed on their own. opposed to George H. Ganaway.

In the preceding civil case, the complaint calls for an accounting and is based on a
contract. The complaint's phraseology, which repeatedly refers to an agreement
between the plaintiffs and the defendant, Exhibit A, which is related to the publication of
a book titled "Forbes' Memoirs" and refers to itself as "this contract," the receipt
attached to Exhibit A, which also refers to "the contract," and the order of the trial judge
on demurrer, which states that "the plaintiffs allege a contract with the defendant and a
breach of the contract by the defendant.

The Philippine Islands' constitutional prohibition falls into the same category as those
states where debt-related imprisonment is strictly forbidden. In contrast to some states
in the American Union, the Philippine Islands' Constitution does not make any
exceptions for fraud. "That no person shall be imprisoned for debt" is the restriction in
the Philippine Bill that is incorporated into the Jones Law. It ought to be given the same
interpretation that similar provisions in the United States have received.

Public opinion, which abhorred statutory provisions that permitted the cruel
imprisonment of debtors, was the driving force behind the abolition of debt
imprisonment. The people wanted to stop the State from using its power to get people
to pay their debts. Humane statutory and constitutional visions abolished the creditor's
control over the debtor's person.

People vs Reyes

The assistant city fiscal filed a complaint against the defendant in the Court of First
Instance of Manila for a violation of Act No. 2549, in the form that Acts Nos. 3085 and
3958. According to the information, the accused, in his capacity as president and
general manager of the Consolidated Mines, allegedly refused to pay Severa Velasco
de Vera's stenographer the long-due and payable salary of P35 per month from
September 9, 1936, to October 28, 1936, and for some time afterward. This was despite
the stenographer's repeated demands. The accused filed a demurrer arguing that the
information's allegations do not amount to an offense and that, even if they did, the laws
that punish them are unconstitutional. The court upheld the demurrer after the hearing,
declaring the last part of section 1 of Act No. 2549, as modified by Act No. 3958, which
dismissed the case with costs de oficio because it violates the constitutional prohibition
against imprisonment for debt and considers the facts alleged in the information to be
an offense. The fiscal appealed the aforementioned order.

Galman vs Sandiganbayan

On August 21, our nation commemorated the treacherous assassination of our foremost
opposition leader, former Senator Benigno "Ninoy" Aquino, Jr. Imprisoned for almost
eight years since the imposition of martial law in September 1972 by then-President
Ferdinand E. Marcos, he was sentenced to death by firing squad by a military tribunal
for common offenses that were alleged to have been committed long before the
declaration of martial law and whose jurisdiction over him as a civilian entitled Ninoy
pleaded in vain that the military tribunals are, in fact, instruments created by the
President under his General Orders as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the
Philippines. He also claimed that the President had already publicly indicted and found
him guilty of the charges at a nationwide press conference on August 24, 1971, when
he said the evidence against Ninoy was "not only strong but overwhelming." “1 This
occurred following the August 21, 1971, Plaza Miranda bombing of the proclamation
rally of the opposition Liberal Party candidates for the November 1971 elections, which
resulted in the deaths of eight people, the serious injuries of nearly all of the opposition
candidates, led by Senator Jovito Salonga, and the suspension of the privilege of the
writ of habeas corpus under Proclamation No. On August 23, 1971, 889 The
communists were immediately blamed for the massacre, but the truth has never been
established. However, the President of the time never brought the aforementioned
charges against Ninoy to civil court.

Despite this, Ninoy Aquino was allowed to leave the country in May 1980 to undergo
successful heart surgery. He wanted to return home "to strive for a genuine national
reconciliation founded on justice," despite the regime's refusal to issue him a passport
after three years in exile. His brain was smashed by a bullet fired point-blank into the
back of his head by a murderous assassin, despite the fact that the airport was
surrounded by airtight security of close to 2,000 soldiers—and "from a military
viewpoint, it (was) technically impossible to get inside (such) a cordon." He was to be
cold-bloodedly killed while being escorted away by soldiers from his plane that had just
landed at the Manila International Airport on “ Within a period of three hours, military
investigators reported that Rolando Galman, despite being a close friend of the accused
Col., was the man who shot Aquino (whose identity was initially rumored to be unknown
until a few days later). The communist-hired gunman Arturo Custodio, who picked him
up from his house on August 17, 1983, was killed by the military escorts in turn. Later,
the military recorded a scripted reenactment of the killing and broadcast it continuously
on all television channels as if it had been recorded live. In a nationally televised press
conference that he gave late in the evening of August 22, 1983, the then-President
immediately accepted the military version and repeated it, saying that "if the purpose
was to eliminate Aquino, this was not the way to do it" to dispel the notion that the
military was involved in the killing.

The national tragedy enraged the free world and shocked the nation as a whole. In the
largest and most orderly public turnout for Ninoy's funeral, millions of people
participated in the ten-day national mourning period and expressed their grief for his
martyrdom and yearning for truth, justice, and freedom.

“the treacherous and vicious assassination of former Senator Benigno S. Aquino, Jr. on
August 21, 1983 [which] has to all Filipinos become a national tragedy and national
shame especially because of the early distortions and exaggerations in both foreign and
local media so that all right thinking and honest men desire to ventilate the truth through
fare, independent and dispassionate investigation by prestigious and free investigators”
was the mandate that the president of the time was given to establish a Fact Finding
Board He finally constituted the Board on October 22, 1983, after two false starts. The
Board held 125 hearing days beginning on November 3, 1983, including 3 hearings in
Tokyo and 8 hearings in Los Angeles, California. They heard the testimonies of 194
witnesses, who were recorded in 20,377 pages of transcripts. On October 23 and 24,
1984, the Board submitted their minority and majority reports to the President. This was
another first anywhere in the world in which the chairman's minority report was
submitted one day ahead of time. The then-President treated the report as if it were the
majority report rather than a minority report of one and immediately referred it to
respondent Tanodbayan "for final resolution through the legal system" and for trial in the
Sandiganbayan, also known as a graft court. The following day, the majority of the four
other members' reports were presented to the then-President, who received them coldly
and could scarcely conceal his immediate rejection of their report, concluding, "I hope
you can live with your conscience with what you have done."
In point of fact, both the majority and minority reports concurred in rejecting the military
theory that Rolando Galman was the NPA-hired assassin, as presented by the chief
investigator, respondent Gen. Olivas, stating that "the evidence shows [to the contrary]
that Rolando Galman had no subversive affiliations." "Only the soldiers in the staircase
with Sen. Aquino could have shot him," they agreed. that Galman, known as the "fall
guy" of the military, was "not the assassin of Sen. Aquino" and that "the SWAT troopers
who gunned down Galman and the soldiers who escorted Sen. Aquino down the service
stairs, deliberately and in conspiracy with one another, gave a perverted story to us
regarding the alleged shooting by Galman of Sen. Aquino and the mowing down, in
turn, of Galman himself;" essentially, that the murder of Ninoy was the result of a
military conspiracy rather than a communist plot. The only difference between the two
reports is that the majority of them found that all twenty-six private respondents named
in the case's title, led by then-AFP Chief General Fabian C. Ver, were involved in the
military conspiracy and, as a result, “indicable for the premeditated killing of Senator
Benigno S. Aquino, Jr. and Rolando Galman at the MIA on August 21, 1983:” While the
minority report of the chairman would exclude nineteen of them and limit them to "the
six persons who were on the service stairs while Senator Aquino was descending" and
"General Luther Custodio." as plotters, because the criminal plot would not have been
able to be planned and carried out without his help.

"The epilogue to our work lies in what will transpire in accordance with the action that
the Office of the President may thereafter direct to be taken," the chairman wrote in her
minority report, somewhat prophetically. “The tragedy opened our eyes and for the first
time confirmed our worst fears of what unchecked evil would be capable of doing,” the
four-member majority report (also prophetically) wrote in the epilogue, after cautioning
forces adhering to an alien and intolerable political ideology against scrupulously using
the report to “discredit our traditionally revered institutions.”
 People vs Sandiganbayan

Villapando ran for Municipal Mayor of San Vicente, Palawan, on May 11, 1998. Orlando
M. Tiape, a relative of Villapando's wife and now deceased, ran for the position of
Municipal Mayor of Kitcharao, Agusan del Norte. Tiape lost, while Villapando won.
Following that, on July 1, 1998, Tiape was appointed Municipal Administrator of the
Municipality of San Vicente, Palawan, by Villapando. The Municipality of San Vicente,
Palawan and Tiape signed a Contract of Consultancy on February 8, 1999, allowing the
former to hire Tiape as a Municipal Administrative and Development Planning
Consultant in the Office of the Municipal Mayor for a period of six months, beginning on
January 1, 1999, and ending on June 30, 1999, for a salary of P26,953.80 per month.

Before the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon, Solomon B. Maagad and
Renato M. Fernandez filed charges against Villapando and Tiape for violating Article
244 of the Revised Penal Code on February 4, 2000.
 Ivler vs Modesto San Pedro

The petitioner, Jason Ivler (petitioner), was charged with two separate offenses by the
Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 71 (MeTC), following a vehicle collision in
August 2004: 1) Carelessness that caused minor physical injuries (Criminal Case No.
82367) for respondent Evangeline L. Ponce's (respondent Ponce) injuries; Secondly,
reckless imprudence that led to homicide and property damage (Criminal Case No.
82366) for the damage to the spouses Ponce's vehicle and the death of the respondent
Ponce's husband, Nestor C. Ponce. In both instances, petitioner provided bail for his
temporary release. The petitioner entered a guilty plea to the charge in Criminal Case
No. 82367 and was punished with a public shaming. Petitioner moved to quash the
Information in Criminal Case No. 1 citing this conviction. 82366 for putting him at risk of
receiving a second sentence for the same act of reckless imprudence.

The MeTC denied quashal because the two cases did not identify any offenses.
 Valeroso Vs People

SPO2 Antonio M. Disuanco of the Criminal Investigation Division, Central Police District
Command, received a dispatch order from the desk officer on July 10, 1996, around
9:30 a.m. The order instructed him and three additional police officers to serve a
petitioner Sr. arrest warrant issued by Judge Ignacio Salvador. Insp. In a case involving
kidnapping with a ransom, Jerry C. Valeroso.

The team checked petitioner's hideouts in Cavite, Caloocan, and Bulacan following a
briefing and the necessary surveillance. The group eventually arrived at the Integrated
National Police (INP) Central Station in Culiat, Quezon City, where they observed the
petitioner as he prepared to board a tricycle. The petitioner was approached by SPO2
Disuanco and his team. They physically searched him after putting him under arrest and
informing him of his constitutional rights. A Charter Arms with five rounds of live fire,
serial number 52315, was discovered concealed in his waist.

After that, the petitioner was taken to the police station to be questioned.

The firearm in question was checked out by the Firearms and Explosives Division at
Camp Crame and found to have been given to Raul Palencia Salvatierra of Sampaloc,
Manila, rather than the petitioner. The records verifier, Epifanio Deriquito, presented a
certification that Edwin C. Roque, chief records officer of the Firearms and Explosives
Division, had signed.

Under Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1, the petitioner was then charged with illegal
firearm and ammunition possession. 1866: With the help of his de parte counsel, Atty.
On October 9, 1996, petitioner Oscar Pagulayan entered a not guilty plea. A merits trial
followed.

As previously stated, SPO2 Disuanco and Deriquito presented evidence on behalf of

the prosecution. On the other hand, the defense version was provided by petitioner Sr.'s
combined testimonies. Insp. Adrian Yuson, SPO3 Agustin R. Timbol, Jr., and Jerry C.
Valeroso
The petitioner claimed that on July 10, 1996, he was sound asleep in his children's
boarding house in Quezon City's Sagana Homes, Barangay New Era. Four heavily
armed men dressed in civilian attire jolted him out of his slumber. He was expelled from
the room after they fired their weapons at him. After that, they bound his hands and set
him near the water supply. The raiding team returned inside and conducted a ransacked
and search of the room. Together with him, SPO2 Disuanco kept watch outside. An
employee shouted, "Hoy, may nakuha akong baril sa loob!" after leaving the room.
According to SPO2 Disuanco, "we are authorized to shoot you because there’s a shoot
to kill order against you, so if you are planning to do so something, do it right now," the
petitioner was informed. Additionally, he was informed that a warrant for his arrest
existed. He did, however, not receive any evidence when he requested it. The group
that carried out the raid also did not have a valid search warrant.

The petitioner claims that the boarding house search was unconstitutional. The gun that
was taken from him had all of the necessary permits and was licensed. However, due to
the firearm's confiscation by the police, he was unable to present the relevant
documentation. The petitioner also complained that he was not allowed to hire legal
counsel while he was in prison. He was not permitted to see or speak with his family
either. The petitioner argued that the police were out to get him. He declined Col.'s
request while still working for the Narcotics Command. to cover up a drug-related
investigation involving friends of the aforementioned police officer, Romulo Sales. Col.
His wife also filed a complaint with the Ombudsman against Sales. Col. Later, Sales
was given the position of head of the team that searched his boarding house. The
Narcotics Command's SPO3 Timbol, Jr. testified that he gave the petitioner a
Memorandum Receipt on July 1, 1993, for the firearm in question and its ammunition.
This was in response to Col.'s verbal instructions. Moreno Angelo. SPO3 Timbol made it
clear that the receipt was signed by him.

Adrian Yuson, who lived in the room next to the one where petitioner was arrested,
testified that on July 10, 1996, as he was getting ready for school, two police officers
suddenly entered his room. He was led out after they grabbed his shoulder. He was hit
with a gun all those times. He was inquired about the petitioner's lodgings. He pointed to
the petitioner's room out of fear for his life.

The room was then entered by four police officers. He saw them point a gun at the
petitioner, who was only wearing his underwear, as they did so. He was also there when
they forced petitioner out of his room. Three others returned inside the room while a
policeman remained near the faucet to protect the petitioner. They began looking
throughout the entire area. They forced open his locker, which led to the firearm in
question.

Republic vs Dela Merced

Dela Merced & Sons is the owner and operator of the commercial building known as the
Guadalupe Commercial Complex. The complex, which is next to the Pasig River and
houses restaurants or kitchenettes in the same building, has a wet market. The
Guadalupe Commercial Complex was inspected by the DENR's Environmental
Management Bureau-National Capital Region (EMB-NCR) on July 13, 2006. Dela
Merced & Sons was found to have broken the following rules by the inspection team: 1)
Administrative Order No. 1 of the DENR 2004-26 for operating generator sets (air
pollution source installations) without a permit; 2) Operating a facility that discharged
regulated water pollutants without a discharge permit is prohibited by Section 27(i) of
R.A. 9275. As a result, Dela Merced & Sons received a notice of violation (NOV) from
the EMB-NCR on August 28, 2006, outlining the charges and directing the company to
comply with the requirements. Dela Merced & Sons asked for and received a time
extension to follow the NOV's instructions. However, on October 11, 2006, Dela Merced
& Sons' compliance with R.A. 8749 (the Clean Air Act of 1999) and R.A. 9275, as well
as their respective Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRRs), was the subject of
another inspection by the EMB-NCR of the Guadalupe Commercial Complex. The
facility's effluent sample was taken by the inspection team, and laboratory tests
revealed that the sample did not meet the DENR Effluent Standards.

Consequently, on February 6, 2007, Dela Merced & Sons was issued a cease and
desist order (CDO) for violating R.A. 9275 and its IRR on the recommendation of the
EMB-NCR. The company was informed in the same Order that it would not be granted a
temporary lifting order (TLO) unless it provided the legal documentation. The kitchen
sinks of the locators at the Guadalupe Commercial Complex that had been identified as
sources of wastewater were sealed on March 30, 2007, as part of the EMB-NCR's
partial execution of the CDO. On the other hand, only warnings were given to the wet
market and the kitchenettes or turo-turo on the ground floor of the building.

Dela Merced & Sons submitted the required documentation for the issuance of a TLO
and a Motion for Reconsideration (MR) of the imposition of the CDO on April 3, 2007.
The TLO was issued on July 3, 2007, by the DENR-PAB.

Dela Merced & Sons received a Certificate of Non-Coverage (CNC) from the EMB-
DENR on August 9, 2007, in accordance with Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1586 (the
Philippine System for Environmental Impact Statements)

On November 14, 2007, a second sampling of effluents was carried out. The results
were then sent to the EMB laboratory for evaluation and confirmation. According to the
findings, the effluent met the DENR Effluent Standards. As a result, Dela Merced &
Sons received a Notice of Technical Conference from the DENR-PAB to discuss the
imposition of fines during the violation of R.A. 9275. A preliminary estimate of the fine in
the amount of P3.98 million was included in the notice. Additionally, Dela Merced &
Sons was instructed by the notice to submit its position paper regarding the fine. The
alleged 398 days that Dela Merced & Sons had broken R.A. 9275 were the subject of
the fine. In accordance with Section, the rate was P10,000 per day of violation. 28 of the
statute. The covered time period was from 12 October 2006, when the facility's collected
effluent failed the DENR Effluent Standards, to 13 November 2007, when the EMB-
NCR's sampling had already passed the DENR Standards the next day.

Dela Merced & Sons pleaded for the fine to be dropped because it was imposed without
due process. It argued that the fine was in violation of Article III, Sections 1 and 19(1).
Additionally, it argued that the time period from the TLO's issuance (3 July 2007) to its
compliance (13 November 2007) with the requirements should not be included in the
calculation. Dela Merced & Sons was fined P3.98 million by the DENR-PAB on
November 13, 2008, following the recommendation of the PAB Committee on Fines.
The latter made a request for reconsideration, but an Order dated 30 January 2009
denied its request.