1. BOAC vs. Cadapan, GR No.

184461-62, May 31, 2011

FACTS:
Following the abduction of Sherlyn Cadapan (Sherlyn), Karen
Empeo(Karen) and Manuel Merino (Merino) by armed men from a
house in San Miguel, agonoy, !ulacan, spouses "sher and Erlinda
Cadapan (Spouses Cadapan) and Concepcion Empeo (Empeo) filed a
petition for habeas corpus before the Court, impeding then #enerals
$omeo %olentino and &o'ito (alparan, )t* Col* $ogelio !oac, "rnel
Enri+ue, and )t* Francis Mirabelle Samson as respondents* !y
$esolution of the Court, a writ of habeas corpus was issued, returnable to
the (residing &ustice of the Court of "ppeals* !y $eturn of the -rit, the
respondents in the habeas corpus petition denied that Sherlyn, Karen and
Merino are in the custody of the military* %o the $eturn were attached
affida'its from the respondents, e.cept Enri+ue,, who all attested that
they do not /now Sherlyn, Karen and Merino0 that they had in+uired
from their subordinates about the reported abduction* !y $eturn of the
-rit, the respondents in the habeas corpus petition denied that Sherlyn,
Karen and Merino are in the custody of the military* %o the $eturn were
attached affida'its from the respondents, e.cept Enri+ue,, who all
attested that they do not /now Sherlyn, Karen and Merino0 that they had
in+uired from their subordinates about the reported abduction and
disappearance of the three yielded to nothing* 1n reconsidering the
decision on the habeas corpus case, the Court relied hea'ily on the
testimony of Manalo* 1t held that there is now a clear and credible
e'idence that the three missing persons, (Sherlyn, Karen and Merino),
are being detained in military camps and bases under the2th 1nfantry
3i'ision* !eing not held for a lawful cause they should immediately be
released from detention* 1n the amparo case, the appellate court deemed
it a superfluity to issue any inspection order or production order in light
of the release order* "s it earlier ruled in the habeas corpus case, it found
that the three detainees4 right to life, liberty and security was being
'iolated, hence, the need to immediately release them, or cause their
release* %he appellate court went on to direct the (5( to proceed further
with its in'estigation since there were enough leads as indicated in the
records to ascertain the truth and file the appropriate charges against
those responsible for the abduction and detention of the three*
SS!"S
-hether or not there is a need to file a motion for e.ecution in a abeas
Corpus decision or in an "mparo case to cause the release of the
aggrie'ed parties*
R!#NG
5o* %here is no need to file a motion for e.ecution for an amparo or a
habeas corpus decision* "n amparo proceeding is not criminal in nature
nor does it ascertain the criminal liabilities of indi'iduals in'ol'ed*
5either is it a administrati'e or ci'il suit* $ather it is a remedial measure
designed to courses of action to go'ernment agencies to safeguard the
constitutional right to life, liberty and security of aggrie'ed indi'iduals*
Contrary to the ruling of the appellate court, there is no need to file a
motion for e.ecution for an "mparo or habeas corpus decision* Since the
right to life, liberty and security of a person is at sta/e, the proceedings
should not be delayed and e.ecution of any decision thereon must be
e.pedited as soon as possible since any form of delay, e'en for a day,
may 6eopardi,e the 'ery rights that these writs see/ to immediately
protect* %he Solicitor #eneral4s argument that the $ules of Court
supplement the$ule on the -rit of "mparo is misplaced* %he $ules of
Court only find suppletory application in an "mparo proceeding if the
$ules strengthen, rather than wea/en, the procedural efficacy of the writ*
"s it is, the $ule dispenses with dilatory motions in 'iew of the urgency
in securing the life, liberty or security of the aggrie'ed party*