2/6/2021 OneNote

(42) Republic vs. Cayanan

Thursday, February 4, 2021 1:47 PM

Case Name   Republic v. Cayanan, G.R. No. 181796

Topic   Writ of Amparo 
Date   November 7, 2017
Ponente   J. Bersamin 
Case summary   Pablo Cayanan, a used car dealer, and Ronaldo Perez, a fixer, were forcibly taken by a
group of armed men led by SPO2 Rolando Pascua (Note: Perez was released but Cayanan
has not been seen nor heard from since then). Pascua denied the allegations and claimed
that he was also abducted in the same incited by unknown men. A writ of amparo was
issued, ordering the Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG) Director to
conduct further investigations and for Pascua to appear before the proper forum. The
CIDG argued that the applicant for the writ failed to prove the substantial evidence of the
involvement of CIDG in the disappearance of Cayanan and contended that the issuance of
the writ violated Pascua’s right to presumption of innocence. However, the Court was
convinced that there was indeed substantial evidence; hence, privilege of the writ of
amparo was granted.
Ruling   The Court granted the privilege of the writ of amparo, ordered CIDG Director and the
Director of the National Bureau of Investigation to cause the speedy conduct of a
thorough investigation of the disappearance of Cayanan, and required the full
investigation of SPO2 Pascua others involved.

1. What is the factual background of the case?

Pablo Cayanan, a used car dealer, and Ronaldo Perez, a fixer, were forcibly taken
by a group of armed men led by SPO2 Rolando Pascua (Note: Perez was released
but Cayanan has not been seen nor heard from since then). Pascua denied the
allegations and claimed that he was also abducted in the same incited by
unknown men. A writ of amparo was issued, ordering the Criminal Investigation
and Detection Group (CIDG) Director to conduct further investigations and for
Pascua to appear before the proper forum. The CIDG argued that the applicant
for the writ failed to prove the substantial evidence of the involvement of CIDG
in the disappearance of Cayanan and contended that the issuance of the writ
violated Pascua’s right to presumption of innocence. However, the Court was
convinced that there was indeed substantial evidence; hence, privilege of the
writ of amparo was granted.

2. What is the law/measure/act being challenged?

The CIDG claimed that there was no sufficient evidence to ascertain the granting
of writ of amparo.

3. What was it (/m/a) seeking to achieve/address?

Writ of amparo – remedy available to any person whose right to life, liberty,
and security is violated/threatened with violation by an unlawful act.

The writ of amparo provides judicial relief as it partakes of a summary

proceeding that requires only substantial evidence – such relevant evidence as
a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. It is not
an action to determine criminal guilt requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt,
or liability for damages requiring preponderance of evidence, or administrative
https://feueduph-my.sharepoint.com/personal/2020008181_feu_edu_ph/_layouts/15/Doc.aspx?sourcedoc={cec8d525-0798-434e-ac19-07a8c38fafeb}&action=edit&… 1/2
2/6/2021 OneNote
responsibility requiring substantial evidence that will require full and
exhaustive proceedings.

4. What was the fundamental state power involved (if any)?

None.

5. Was there compliance with requisites of judicial review?

None. The case merely discussed the procedures of writ of amparo.

6. What was the ruling of the court?

The Court granted the privilege of the writ of amparo, ordered CIDG Director
and the Director of the National Bureau of Investigation to cause the speedy
conduct of a thorough investigation of the disappearance of Cayanan, and
required the full investigation of SPO2 Pascua others involved.

7. What was the constitutional law doctrine/principle involved?

“Substantial evidence is sufficient in proceedings involving petitions for the writ

of amparo. The respondent must show in the return on the writ of amparo the
observance of extraordinary diligence. Once an enforced disappearance is
established by substantial evidence, the relevant State agencies should be tasked
to assiduously investigate and determine the disappearance, and, if warranted,
to bring to the bar of justice whoever may be responsible for the
disappearance.”

8. What do you think is the most important passage and why?

“While the need for substantial evidence remains the rule, flexibility must be
observed where appropriate for the protection of the precious rights to life,
liberty, and security. This flexibility, we noted, requires that 'we should take a
close look at the available evidence to determine the correct import of every
piece of evidence - even of those usually considered inadmissible under the
general rules of evidence - taking into account the surrounding circumstances
and the test of reason that we can use as basic minimum admissibility
requirement.”

9. Which modality of constitutional argumentation did the Justices use?

Prudential Argument – The Court went beyond the text of the writ of amparo
and relaxed the burden of proof. In such case, hearsay evidence may be admitted
as the circumstances of the case maybe, provided that the totality of the
obtaining situation and the consistency of the hearsay evidence with the other.

https://feueduph-my.sharepoint.com/personal/2020008181_feu_edu_ph/_layouts/15/Doc.aspx?sourcedoc={cec8d525-0798-434e-ac19-07a8c38fafeb}&action=edit&… 2/2