MAYOR MAMBA v. BUENO

Mayor William Mamba, et. al vs Leomar Bueno

G.R. No. 191416

February 7, 2017

FACTS:

On June 13, 2009, the canteen owned by Emelita Mamba, (Emelita) in Tuao, Cagayan was robbed. Emelita is the mother of Mayor William Mamba (Mayor Mamba), then mayor of the Municipality of Tuao, Cagayan, and Atty. Mamba, then a Malacanang official. The Task Force Lingkod Bayan (Task Force), an agency created by the Sangguniang Bayan of Tuao to help the local police with the peace and order of the municipality, undertook an investigation on the robbery. On June 14, 2009, several members of the Task Force, Malana, Anggana and Sagalon, together with Barangay Officials, Cinabre and Encollado, went to the house of the respondent, then still a minor, to invite him for questioning on his supposed involvement in the robbery. The respondent and his mother, Maritess Bueno (Maritess), acceded to the invitation. Thereupon, the respondent was brought to the Tuao police station.

The parties gave different accounts of what happened after the respondent was brought to the police station:

When they reached the police station, there were no police investigators or any representative from the SWD office and so the investigation could not proceed. A certain Raymund Rodriguez was, at that time, also at the police station. He claimed that he and his brother Robin were approached by the respondent to rob the canteen. Robin, however, declined the offer. Later that night, Raymund saw the respondent and Lorenzo Haber robbing the canteen. Robin reported the incident to the Task force.

The petitioners further claim that at the time of the robbery, Mayor Mamba and Atty. Mamba were out of town for an official leave and a report to work in Malacanang, respectively. The respondent’s custody was then referred to the Task Force. Haber’s custody was also referred to the Task Force as there was also no police investigators available when he was invited to the police station.

Atty. Mamba arrived on June 17, 2009.

On June 18, 2009, while on their way to the police station, they were met by Police Supt. Joselito Buenaobra, of the PNP in Cagayan. The respondent’s custody was thereafter transferred to the PNP.

On the other hand, the respondent alleges that:

On June 14, 2009, Tumaliuan and dayag, both members of the Task Force, upon order of Baligod, then Municipal Administrator of Tuao, fetched the respondent from the police station and brought him to Mayor Mamba’s house. In the evening, the respondent was made to board a white van driven by Anggangan, where he was beaten with a gun by Malana, who later threatened him that he would be killed. Thereafter, he was brought back to Mayor Mamba’s house. Heber, a minor, was likewise brought to Mayor Mamba’s house. The respondent an Haber were then tortured. They were made to roll on the grass while being kicked and beaten with a cue stick by Malana; hot was poured over their bodies, to force them to admit to their involvement of the robbery, but they denied any involvement therein.

Maritess went to the police station to look for her son; she was told that the respondent was brought to Mayor Mamba’s house. Maritess was not permitted to see her son and she was able to talk to Mayor Mamba. Maritess then sought the assistance of P/Supt Buenaobra regarding the respondent’s disappearance. The PNP Cagayan regional Office was then preparing a case for Habeas Corpus when the respondent was released on June 18, 2009 to the local SWD office.

Maritess then sought the assistance of the Regional Office of the CHR in Cagayan as regards the case of the respondent. On August 25, 2009, the respondent, assisted by the CHR, file a Petition for the issuance of a Writ of Amparo with the CA. A summary hearing was thereafter conducted. The respondent presented in evidence his own testimony and the testimonies of Dr. Tiangco, of the Cagayan Valley Medical Center, provincial welfare officer, Elvira Layus, and Maritess. The petitioners, on the other hand, presented the testimonies of Cinabre, Incollado, Baligod and Robin.

The CA further issued subpoena duces tecum and testificandum to and heard the testimony of P/Supt Buenaobra. On January 18, 2010, the CA rendered the decision granting petition for writ of amparo against respondents.

The CA opined that the respondent’s rights to liberty and security were undeniably undermined when he was invited by the members of the Task force for investigation and was brought to Mayor Mamba’s house.

The CA further claimed that the invitation extended to the respondent by the Task Force members was in the nature of an arrest. The same amounted to an invalid warrantless arrest since the circumstances of the case do not fall within the purview of Section 2 Rule 113 of the Rules of Court.

The CA ruled that, the refusal of the members of the Task Force and especially Mayor Mamba, to admit and address the irregularities committed by its members is tantamount to continuing violation of the respondent’s right to security. The petitioners sought for reconsideration but was denied. Hence the petition.

ISSUES

Whether or not the CA erred in issuing the writ of amparo in favour of the respondent.

HELD

The petition is devoid of merit.

After a thorough review of the records of the case, the Court affirms the factual findings of the CA, which is largely based on respondent’s evidence. The totality of the evidence presented by the respondent meets the requisite evidenciary threshold. His allegation were corroborated by the testimony of Haber who further testified to their torture. He added that he and the respondent were brought to the guardhouse where they were suffocated by placing plastic bags on their heads, and that a wire was inserted to their penises.

The respondent’s claim was further corroborated by Dr. Tiangco who that she examined the respondent and found that he suffered several injuries and multiple second degree burns. It also attested that respondent had scars on his head, arms and back. What is clear is that the respondent was able to prove by substantial evidence that he was apprehended by the members of the Task Force, illegally detained, and tortured.

The fact that the respondent, after four days of detention, had been released, however, does not negate the propriety of the grant of writ of amparo.

Accordingly, a writ of amparo may still be issued in the respondents favour notwithstanding his release. Verily, the petitioners failed to point to any specific measures undertaken by them to effectively investigate the irregularities alleged by the respondent and to prosecute those who are responsible therefor. Worse, the illegal detention and torture suffered by the respondent were perpetrated by the members of the Task Force themselves.

Clearly, there is substantial evidence in this case that would warrant the conclusion that the respondent’s right to security, as a guarantee of protection by the government, was violated.

Accordingly, the CA correctly issued the writ of amparo in favour of the respondent. The petition is denied and the decision and resolution of the CA are affirmed.

JLD