The Supreme Court denied the appeal and petition for writ of amparo filed by a man identified as Inman, who sought protection while facing a criminal case for violation of Republic Act No. 7610. The Court ruled that he failed to prove any unlawful state action that violated or threatened to violate his right to life, liberty, or security.
The Case
A criminal case for violation of Section 10(b) of Republic Act No. 7610 was filed against Inman before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). On March 22, 2024, the RTC issued an Order finding probable cause and fixing Inman's bail at PHP 120,000.00. Upon posting bail, Inman was released from detention.
While the case was pending before the RTC, Inman filed a Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Amparo (first Amparo Petition) before the Court of Appeals (CA). He argued that he was unlawfully arrested, subjected to torture as a result of an unlawful trial, and discriminated against because of his religion and ethnicity. The first Amparo Petition named the People of the Philippines, the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD), the Head of the City Social Welfare and Development Office-Angeles City (CSWDO-AC) Edna Duaso, Presiding Judge Katrina Nora Buan-Factora of the RTC, Public Prosecutor Oliver S. Garcia, and Assistant Prosecutor Junnie T. Esplana as respondents.
The CA dismissed the first Amparo Petition primarily on procedural grounds, including Inman's failure to have the verification notarized. He then filed an Appeal Under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court on December 19, 2024. On May 5, 2025, he filed a second Amparo Petition, which he asked the Court to consider as full procedural compliance.
In his second Amparo Petition, Inman claimed he was arrested without a warrant on February 1, 2024, based on child trafficking charges, even though he said Muslim civil practices allow guardianship without formal adoption paperwork. He alleged psychological and physical abuse during detention, judicial bias, and the unlawful removal of his children, PPP and SSS, from his care.
The Issue
As the Court framed it, the sole issue was whether petitioner proved his entitlement to a writ of amparo.
The Ruling
The Court denied the petitions for both procedural and substantive defects. It explained that under Section 22 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo, when a criminal action has been commenced, the reliefs under the writ should be filed through a motion in the criminal case. The pendency of a criminal action bars the filing of a separate action. The Court also found that filing both amparo petitions constituted forum shopping.
On the substance, the Court held that the petitions failed to show any threat to or violation of petitioner's right to life, liberty, and security arising from respondents' unlawful acts. It found that the last two elements of enforced disappearance were absent because petitioner's location during detention was known, and respondents had no intention of depriving him of legal protection.
The Court's disposition reads: "ACCORDINGLY, the Appeal under Rule 45 dated December 19, 2024, as well as the Petition for Writ of Amparo dated May 5, 2025, are DENIED."
By the Numbers
- Bail set at PHP 120,000.00
- RTC Order finding probable cause: March 22, 2024
- Warrantless arrest: February 1, 2024
- Appeal Under Rule 45 filed: December 19, 2024
- Second Amparo Petition filed: May 5, 2025
- Court Resolution requiring payment and verification: January 21, 2025
- Compliance filed: March 14, 2025
- Charge: violation of Section 10(b) of Republic Act No. 7610
- G.R. No. 277788
The Court's Reasoning
The Court noted that petitioner was arrested in flagrante delicto and detained because he was in custody of a minor not related to him. He availed of a preliminary investigation and filed a counter-affidavit. The Office of the City Prosecutor found probable cause to hold him liable for violating Article VI, Section 10(b) of Republic Act No. 7610, and not for child trafficking. The RTC ordered his release after he posted bail, and he later filed a Motion to Quash Information, which the RTC denied.
The Court stated that respondents respected his right to due process by allowing him to avail of a preliminary investigation, post bail, and file a motion to quash. It held that these circumstances do not qualify as enforced disappearance. It added that a writ shall not issue on amorphous and uncertain grounds or where the alleged threat has ceased and is no longer imminent or continuing, and that petitioner's apprehensions of being unlawfully detained again are, at best, speculative.
The Court distinguished between prima facie evidence, which is necessary to issue a writ of amparo, and substantial evidence, which is required to issue the privilege of the writ. It also held that petitioner's claim of guardianship over the minors, as permitted by Muslim civil practices, is irrelevant to the question of entitlement to a writ of amparo and should be resolved in a full-blown trial.
Source: Supreme Court Decision, G.R. No. 277788.
This report summarizes a public Supreme Court decision and is not legal advice.