BOAC VS.

CADAPAN
G.R. Nos. 184461-62. May 31, 2011

There is no need to file a motion for execution for an amparo or habeas corpus decision. Since the right
to life, liberty and security of a person is at stake, the proceedings should not be delayed and execution of
any decision thereon must be expedited as soon as possible since any form of delay, even for a day, may
jeopardize the very rights that these writs seek to immediately protect.

Overview
Sherlyn, Karen and Manuel were abducted from a house. Sherlyn and Karen’s parents filed a writ of
habeas corpus impleading as respondents, herein petitioner Boac, an officer of the AFP. They denied
involvement in the abduction. However, newly discovered evidence showed otherwise. Thus, the writ was
granted by the CA ordering the immediate release of the abductees.

Despite the CA order, the AFP failed to release the children. Thus, before the CA, the parents of the
abductees filed a motion to cite Boac and his men in contempt. The CA denied this motion stating that the
decision is not yet final and executory because both parties questioned the Decision/Resolution before
the SC.

Is there a need to file a motion for execution for an amparo or habeas corpus decision? NO. Time
is at stake and execution of the writ should not be delayed. Otherwise, the grant of the writs will be for
naught.

Facts
At 2:00 a.m. of June 26, 2006, armed men abducted Sherlyn Cadapan (Sherlyn), Karen Empeño (Karen)
and Manuel Merino (Manuel) from a house in San Miguel, Hagonoy, Bulacan. The three were herded
onto a jeep that sped towards an undisclosed location. The abductees’ families scoured nearby police
precincts and military camps in the hope of finding them but the same yielded nothing.

Thus, their parents, Cadapan and Empeno, filed a petition for habeas corpus before the Court of Appeals
impleading then Gen. Palparan and Lt. Col Boac as respondents. The latter denied that Sherlyn, Karen
and Manuel are in the custody of the military.

CA: Dismissed the petition, there being no strong evidence that the missing persons are in the custody of
the respondents. CA referred the case to the CHR, NBI, and PNP for investigation.

Petitioners filed a MR and moved to present newly discovered evidence consisting of the testimony of
Raymond Manalo who allegedly met Sherlyn, Karen and Manuel in the course of his detention at a
military camp. Raymond Manalo, in his sworn statement, stated that:

In one of the rooms in the Barracks, he met Sherlyn Cadapan from Laguna. She told him that she
was a student of the University of the Philippines and was abducted in Hagonoy, Bulacan. She
confided that she had been subjected to severe torture and raped. She was crying and longing to
go home and be with her parents. During the day, her chains were removed and she was made
to do the laundry. After a week, Reynaldo was also brought to Camp Tecson. Two days from his
arrival, two other captives, Karen Empeño and Manuel Merino, arrived. Karen and Manuel were
put in the room with Donald Caigas, called "master" or "commander" by his men in the 24th
Infantry Battalion. Raymond and Reynaldo were put in the adjoining room. At times, Raymond
and Reynaldo were threatened, and Reynaldo was beaten up. In the daytime, their chains were
removed, but were put back on at night. They were threatened that if they escaped, their families
would all be killed.
Despite this, the officers of the AFP still denied seeing or meeting Manalo.

During the pendency of this MR, Cadapan and Empeno filed a Writ of Amparo with Prayers for Inspection
of Place and Production of Documents. They impleaded then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and
some officers of the AFP.

CA acting on the MR:

1. GRANTED the habeas corpus case and ordered the immediate release of Sherlyn, Karen and
Manuel. The CA relied heavily on the testimony of Manalo. His testimony is a first hand account
that military and civilian personnel under the 7th Infantry Division were responsible for the
abduction of Sherlyn Cadapan, Karen Empeño and Manuel Merino. there is thus a clear and
credible evidence that the three missing persons, are being detained in military camps and bases
under the 7th Infantry Division. Being not held for a lawful cause, they should be immediately
released from detention.

2. Meanwhile, in the amparo case, the appellate court deemed it a superfluity to issue any
inspection order or production order in light of the release order. Then President Arroyo was
eventually dropped as respondent in light of her immunity from suit while in office.

Boac, of the AFP appealed the grant of the writ of habeas corpus. Cadapan and Empeno appealed the
Decision of the appellate court only insofar as the amparo aspect is concerned.

Despite the grant of the habeas corpus case, the children were still not released. Thus, Cadapan and
Empeno filed before the appellate court a Motion to Cite Respondents in Contempt of Court for failure of
the respondents in the amparo and habeas corpus cases to comply with the directive of the appellate
court. The Court denied such motion stating that the decision is not yet final and executory because both
parties questioned the Decision/Resolution.

ISSUE: W/N THE PETITION[S] FOR HABEAS CORPUS AND WRIT OF AMPARO SHOULD BE
DISMISSED BECAUSE RESPONDENTS FAILED TO PROVE BY THE REQUIRED QUANTUM OF
EVIDENCE THAT PETITIONERS HAVE SHERLYN CADAPAN, KAREN EMPEÑO AND MANUEL
MERINO ARE IN THEIR CUSTODY.

Ruling: No.
The Court takes judicial notice of its Decision in Secretary of National Defense v. Manalo which assessed
the account of Manalo to be a candid and forthright narrative of his and his brother Reynaldo's abduction
by the military in 2006; and of the corroborative testimonies, in the same case, of Manalo's brother
Reynaldo and a forensic specialist, as well as Manalo's graphic description of the detention area. There is
thus no compelling reason for the Court, in the present case, to disturb its appreciation in Manalo's
testimony. The outright denial of petitioners Boac, et al. thus crumbles.

However, the respective parents of Sherlyn and Karen, Cadapan and Empeno, do not have the requisite
standing to file the amparo petition on behalf of Manuel.

Section 2 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo provides:

The petition may be filed by the aggrieved party or by any qualified person or entity in the
following order:
(a) Any member of the immediate family, namely: the spouse, children and parents of the
aggrieved party;
(b) Any ascendant, descendant or collateral relative of the aggrieved party within the fourth civil
degree of consanguinity or affinity, in default of those mentioned in the preceding paragraph; or
 (c) Any concerned citizen, organization, association or institution, if there is no known
member of the immediate family or relative of the aggrieved party.

Indeed, the parents of Sherlyn and Karen failed to allege that there were no known members of the
immediate family or relatives of Manuel. The exclusive and successive order mandated by the above-
quoted provision must be followed. The order of priority is not without reason — "to prevent the
indiscriminate and groundless filing of petitions for amparo which may even prejudice the right to life,
liberty or security of the aggrieved party."

The Court notes that the parents of Sherlyn and Karen also filed the petition for habeas corpus on
Manuel's behalf. No objection was raised therein for, in a habeas corpus proceeding, any person may
apply for the writ on behalf of the aggrieved party. It is thus only with respect to the amparo petition that
the parents of Sherlyn and Karen are precluded from filing the application on Manuel's behalf as they are
not authorized parties under the Rule.

ISSUE: W/N THERE IS A NEED TO FILE A MOTION FOR EXECUTION FOR AN AMPARO OR
HABEAS CORPUS DECISION
RULING: NO.
Contrary to the ruling of the appellate court, there is no need to file a motion for execution for an amparo
or habeas corpus decision. Since the right to life, liberty and security of a person is at stake, the
proceedings should not be delayed and execution of any decision thereon must be expedited as soon as
possible since any form of delay, even for a day, may jeopardize the very rights that these writs seek to
immediately protect.

In fine, the appellate court erred in ruling that its directive to immediately release Sherlyn, Karen and
Merino was not automatically executory. For that would defeat the very purpose of having summary
proceedings in amparo petitions.

Disposition:
1. G.R. Nos. 184461-62 and G.R. No. 184495
Boac’s Petition assailing the grant of the Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED; CA Decision is
AFFIRMED. Respondents are ordered to immediately release Sherlyn Cadapan, Karen Empeño and
Manuel Merino from detention.

2. G.R. No. 187109

REVERSED the CA decision. There is no need to file a motion for execution for an amparo or habeas
corpus decision.

Further investigation to determine the respective criminal and administrative liabilities of respondents to
follow.