THE SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE, THE CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED

FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioners,

vs.
RAYMOND MANALO and REYNALDO MANALO, respondents.

1. D E C I S I O N

Raymond testified that he was sleeping in their house in Buhol na Mangga, San
Ildefonso, Bulacan. Several armed soldiers wearing white shirts, fatigue pants and
army boots, entered their house and roused him. The men forced Raymond into a
white L300 van. Once inside, he was blindfolded. Later, in his 18 months of captivity,
he learned their names. The one who drove the van was Rizal Hilario alias Rollie
Castillo, whom he estimated was about 40 years of age or older. The van drove off,
then came to a stop. A person was brought inside the van and made to sit beside
Raymond. Both of them were beaten up. On the road, he recognized the voice of the
person beside him as his brother Reynaldo's. The finally arrived at a house where
the brothers were each brought to a different room and were beat up in several
occasions by the soldiers who continued asking and interrogating them whether they
were members of the New People’s Army. The torture continued for months until the
brothers got the chance to escape.

Petitioners dispute respondents' account of their alleged abduction and torture. In

compliance with the October 25, 2007 Resolution of the Court, they filed a Return of
the Writ of Amparo admitting the abduction but denying any involvement therein.

ISSUES: WON the respondents still have the right to the privilege of the
Writ of Amparo even if theirenforced disappearance had already passed
as they have escaped from captivity?

HELD:

The Supreme Court ruled that the respondents still have the right to the privilege
of the Writ of Amparo upholding the decision of the CA. There is no quarrel that
the enforced disappearance of both respondents Raymond and Reynaldo
Manalo has now passed as they have escaped from captivity and surfaced. But
while respondents admit that they are no longer in detention and are physically
free, they assert that they are not "free in every sense of the word"109 as their
"movements continue to be restricted for fear that people they have named in
their Judicial Affidavits and testified against (in the case of Raymond) are still at
large and have not been held accountable in any way. These people are directly
connected to the Armed Forces of the Philippines and are, thus, in a position
to threaten respondents' rights to life, liberty and security."110 (emphasis
supplied) Respondents claim that they are under threat of being once again
abducted, kept captive or even killed, which constitute a direct violation of
their right to security of person.111

Further, there is a violation of the right to security as freedom from threat

to respondents' life, liberty and security.While respondents were detained,
they were threatened that if they escaped, their families, including them, would
be killed. Understandably, since their escape, respondents have been under
concealment and protection by private citizens because of the threat to their life,
liberty and security. The threat vitiates their free will as they are forced to limit
their movements or activities.149 The circumstances of respondents' abduction,
detention, torture and escape reasonably support a conclusion that there is an
apparent threat that they will again be abducted, tortured, and this time, even
executed.

Next, the violation of the right to security as protection by the government.

Apart from the failure of military elements to provide protection to respondents by
themselves perpetrating the abduction, detention, and torture, they also
miserably failed in conducting an effective investigation of respondents'
abduction as revealed by the testimony and investigation report of petitioners'
own witness, Lt. Col. Ruben Jimenez, Provost Marshall of the 7th Infantry
Division. The one-day investigation conducted by Jimenez was very limited,
superficial, and one-sided. He merely relied on the Sworn Statements of the six
implicated members of the CAFGU and civilians whom he met in the
investigation for the first time.