CASE: Sanchez v. Darroca, 15 October 2019, e.b., Leonen, J.

FACTS:
● Sanchez learned that her estranged husband, Eldie Labinghisa (Labinghisa),
was among the seven (7) alleged members of the New People's Army who
were gunned down by the Philippine National Police in Barangay Atabay,
San Jose, Antique.
● Sanchez went there to verify the news of her husband's death. At the
funeral home, however, the police officers stationed there took photos of
her without her permission. Fearing what the officers had done, she left
without being able to see or identify her husband's body
● The following day, Sanchez went back to the funeral home, where she was
confronted by three (3) police officers who threatened to apprehend and
charge her with obstruction of justice if she refused to answer their
questions. Again fearing for her safety, Sanchez hurried home without
confirming the identity of her husband's body.
● In the following days, Sanchez noticed the frequent drive-bys of a police
car in front of her house and a vehicle that tailed her and her family when
they went to Iloilo to attend her husband's wake.[9] She also noticed
someone shadowing her when she was outside her house, causing her to
fear for her and her children's safety
● In 2019, Writ of Amparo was granted
● This is a resolution for MR.

ISSUE: Whether petitioner was entitled to writ of amparo?

RULING:
Yes.

SECTION 17. Burden of Proof and Standard of Diligence Required. — The parties
shall establish their claims by substantial evidence.
 The respondent who is a private individual or entity must prove that
ordinary diligence as required by applicable laws, rules and regulations was
observed in the performance of duty.
The respondent who is a public official or employee must prove that
extraordinary diligence as required by applicable laws, rules and regulations was
observed in the performance of duty.
The respondent public official or employee cannot invoke the presumption
that official duty has been regularly performed to evade responsibility or liability.

This Court, through Razon v. Tagitis, stated that courts must consider the "totality
of the obtaining situation" in determining whether a petitioner is entitled to a
writ of amparo.

The totality of petitioner's evidence convincingly shows that she and her family
became subject of unwarranted police surveillance due to their relationship with
a suspected member of the New People's Army,despite her separated in fact ,
resulting in an actual threat to their life, liberty, and security due to the
government's unparalleled zeal in eradicating communism.