Scribd
Upload
6 views1 page

Caram vs. Segui

Case Brief/Diges

Uploaded by

Alljun Serenado
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as ODT, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
6 views1 page

Caram vs. Segui

Case Brief/Diges

Uploaded by

Alljun Serenado
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as ODT, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

CARAM v. SEGUI (G.R. No. 193652.

August 5, 2014)

Topic: Who May Appeal

Doctrine: The privilege of the writ of amparo is a remedy available to victims of extra-
judicial killings and enforced disappearances or threats of a similar nature, regardless of
whether the perpetrator of the unlawful act or omission is a public official or employee or
a private individual.

FACTS:
After giving up her illegitimate child for adoption right, Miss Ma’am Christina (Xtina)
informed the DSWD of her decision to take back her child.

DSWD informed her that the certificate declaring her baby legally available for adoption
had already attained finality 3 months after Xtina signed the Deed of Voluntary
Commitment which terminated her parental authority.

Xtina then filed a petition for the issuance of a Writ of Amparo with the RTC, seeking to
obtain custody of her child.

The RTC held that Xtina availed of the wrong remedy to regain custody of her child. She
should have filed a civil case for custody of her child as laid down in the Family Code and
the Rule on Custody of Minors and Writ of Habeas Corpus in Relation to Custody of
Minors. RTC also denied Xtina’s MR.

Xtina elevated the case to the SC in a petition for certiorari under R45 in relation to
section 19 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo. She argued that DSWD officers caused her
"enforced separation" from Baby Julian and that their action amounted to an "enforced
disappearance" within the context of the Amparo rule

RULING:
SC denied the petition. As it stands, the writ of amparo is confined only to cases of
extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances, or to threats thereof.

The elements constituting "enforced disappearances" are:


(a) that there be an arrest, detention, abduction or any form of deprivation of liberty;
(b) that it be carried out by, or with the authorization, support or acquiescence of, the
State or a political organization;
(c) that it be followed by the State or political organization's refusal to acknowledge
or give information on the fate or whereabouts of the person subject of the
amparo petition; and,
(d) that the intention for such refusal is to remove subject person from the protection
of the law for a prolonged period of time.

Here, the respondent DSWD officers never concealed the baby;s whereabouts. In fact,
Xtina obtained a copy of the DSWD's Memorandum explicitly stating that Baby Julian was
in the custody of the Medina Spouses when she filed her petition before the RTC.

Furthermore, she even admitted in her present petition that respondent DSWD officers
presented her baby before the RTC. There is therefore, no "enforced disappearance" as
used in the context of the Amparo rule as the third and fourth elements are missing.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy