Republic of the Philippines

HUMAN RIGHTS VICTIM’S CLAIM BOARD

E. Virata Hall, E. Jacinto., UP Diliman, 1101 Quezon, City

Heirs of SATURNINO BERNAGA TAGUICANA, DOCKETNO:2014-02-

00827
represented by Evelynda T. Curibang,
Claimant-Appellant

X - - - - - - - - - - - - - X

APPELLANT’S MEMORANDUM

CLAIMANT-APPELLANT and by way of this Appellant’s Memorandum, unto

this Honorable Office, most respectfully avers THAT:

PREFATORY STATEMENT:

Basic is the rule that after the failure of the defendant to appeal the resolution
within the period required, the Honorable Office shall render the decision becomes final.

TIMELINESS OF APPEAL

This claimant-appellant received the Order of the Honorable Office on January 22, 2017
requiring the undersigned to submit an appeal. Thus, the foregoing appeal is filed within the
reglementary period set forth by the rules. We now submit this Appellant’s Brief.

BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The instant case is an appeal to the Resolution dated December 16, 2016(hereinafter
referred to as the assailed Decision) promulgated by the Honorable Chairman, First Divission of
HUMAN RIGHTS VICTIM’S CLAIM BOARD Quezon, City (hereinafter referred to as the
Honorable Office a quo), in the case docketed No. 2014-02-00362”, the dispositive portion of
such Resolution is hereto quoted:

“WHEREFORE, the board, through this Division, DENIES the claim

for reparation and recognition under R.A. 10368 of
SaturninoBernagaTaguicana.”

The antecedents of the complaint:

The appeal stemmed from the Complaint filed by the above-named claimant-appellant.

The Complaint1 alleged inter alia thus:

1
 1. That sometime in 1976, her father was mauled by the members of the
Philippine Army accusing him being PASABILIS a member of the New
People’s Army (NPA) and brought to their camp;

2. After Mauling him, the soldiers brought home his father unconscious and
with a lot of bruises.

3. That due to that maltreatment, hisentire body was in pain.

4. That, he suffered seriousanxiety, emotional outburst, besmirched

reputation, moral shock, mental anguish, social humiliation and even
sleepless night because of the incident.

5. Plaintiff-Appelant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for in the foregoing

complaint, pursuant to R.A. 10368;

Resolving the case, the Honorable Office a quo issued the assailed Resolution dismissing
the complaint.

Claimant-appellant timely filed this Appeal2.

Thus, the instant appeal.

ISSUES:

1. The Honorable Office a quo erred in not appreciating the presence of the elements of
torture;

2. The Honorable Court a quo erred in not appreciating the sufficiency of the allegations
in the Complaint;

ARGUMENTS/DISCUSSION:

With all the highest respect, the Honorable Office a quo gravely erred in declaring that
claimant-appellant failed to prove the commission of torture against him.

Under R.A No. 9745 otherwise known as the “Anti-Torture Act of 2009” the law does
not totally require the absolute existence of purposive element and certain degree of severity of
the pain inflicted and does not strictly requires that the victim should be under the custody or
detention of state agents. And it does not require a systematic act were shown to have been
employed by the soldiers.

On the issue as to whether or not the pain or suffering is inflicted by or the

instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a person in authority or agent of a
person in authority. As we have painstakingly explained in Secretary of Defense v. Manalo and
Razon v. Tagitis, on other grounds of criminal responsibility for crimes defined and penalized
under this act, State are responsible for acts within his control. Under the Doctrine of Command
responsibility, a superior shall be criminally responsible as principal for such crimes committed
by subordinate under his/her effective command and control, or effective authority and control as
the case maybe as a result of his/her failure to properly exercise control over subordinates where:

2
 1. such superior either knew or, owing to the circumstances at that time, should have
known that the subordinates were committing or about to commit such crime and

2. When a superior failed to take reasonable and necessary measures within his/her
power to prevent or repress their commission shall be criminally responsible as a
principal.

Hence, deprivation of the constitutional guaranty of life, liberty and property is not
required to prove the direct and immediate participation of the State so long as it can be proved
that such breach is with the authorization, support or acquiescence of the state or political
organization.

On the issue that I was never held under the custody or detention of State agents.
International covenant on civil and political rights, discuss that Inhuman conditions are not
limited to material conditions of detention, but may include psychological violence. In my
statement that the armed men let me go only after my parents cried and begged for me and that
due to that maltreatment, my entire body was in pain but I was not allowed to see a doctor. Has
considered an atmosphere of terror or fear threats to life or permanent intimidation as inhuman
treatment. Where suffering is sufficiently severe and the purposive element is met, conditions of
detention may also amount to torture.

On the issue that there should be intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering.
Assessing the severity of physical or mental pain or suffering includes a subjective element.
Where the state agent inflicting pain or suffering or acquiescing and in its infliction is aware that
the victim is particularly sensitive, it is possible that acts which would not otherwise reach the
threshold of severity to constitute torture may do so.

The assessment of whether particular treatment constitutes a violation against torture

depends on all circumstances of the case, such as the duration and manner of the treatment, its
physical or mental effects as well as the sex, age and state of health of the victim.” Elements
such as the victim’s age and mental health may therefore aggravate the effect of certain treatment
so as to bring it within the definition of torture. However, it is not sufficient that treatment be
capable of producing an adverse physical or mental effect; it must be proven that this has
occurred in a specific case.

Hence, it does not specifically require to allege and show the acts done to satisfy the
required elements of torture or that acts were systematically done for any purpose enumerated
nor to assert the seriousness of the consequence and the over-all gravity of the suffering.

In fine, the resolution should have been based on the allegations contained in the
complaint without regard to any evidence aliunde..

It is thus imperative to painstakingly peruse the allegations contained in the complaint 3 to

determine the sufficiency of the allegations contained therein to support the claim:

3.
 PRAYER:

WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed unto this

Honorable Office to issue an Order in favor of the complainant-appellant:
1. SETTING ASIDE the assailed resolution of the Honorable office a quo;
And GRANTING the relief prayed by the complainant-appellant.

EVELYNDA T.
CURIBANG
Claimant-Appellant