In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of the Philippines affirmed the admissibility of hearsay evidence under the totality of evidence standard in amparo proceedings, as seen in the case of Bautista v. Salucon. This ruling recognizes the unique challenges in proving enforced disappearances and extrajudicial killings, where direct evidence is often suppressed. The court emphasized that flexibility in evidence consideration is necessary to protect individuals’ rights to life, liberty, and security, especially those of human rights advocates facing potential threats.

When Shadows Lurk: Can Surveillance Fears Justify Amparo Relief?

The case of Gen. Emmanuel Bautista, et al. v. Atty. Maria Catherine Dannug-Salucon arose from a petition for writs of amparo and habeas data filed by Atty. Salucon, a human rights lawyer. She claimed that she was under surveillance by military and police personnel due to her representation of alleged communist rebels. Atty. Salucon cited various incidents, including suspicious inquiries about her whereabouts, surveillance of her office, and the fatal shooting of her paralegal, as evidence of the threats to her life, liberty, and security. The petitioners, military and police generals, denied these allegations and challenged the admissibility of Atty. Salucon’s evidence, arguing that it was based on hearsay.

The Supreme Court, in its decision, addressed the crucial issue of whether the Court of Appeals (CA) erred in admitting and considering Atty. Salucon’s evidence, despite it being largely based on hearsay information. The Court emphasized the unique difficulties presented by enforced disappearances and extrajudicial killings. Citing Razon, Jr. v. Tagitis, it underscored the need for courts to adopt evidentiary standards appropriate and responsive to the circumstances. The Court referenced the standard of totality of evidence, explaining, “The fair and proper rule, to our mind, is to consider all the pieces of evidence adduced in their totality, and to consider any evidence otherwise inadmissible under our usual rules to be admissible if it is consistent with the admissible evidence adduced. In other words, we reduce our rules to the most basic test of reason —i.e., to the relevance of the evidence to the issue at hand and its consistency with all other pieces of adduced evidence. Thus, even hearsay evidence can be admitted if it satisfies this basic minimum test.“

Building on this principle, the Supreme Court recognized the State’s virtual monopoly of access to pertinent evidence in cases of enforced disappearances. This often deliberate use of state power to destroy evidence inherent in the practice of enforced disappearances necessitates a flexible approach to evidence. This approach contrasts with typical civil and criminal cases where strict rules of evidence are applied. Moreover, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR), in Velasquez Rodriguez, noted that enforced disappearances could generally be proved only through circumstantial or indirect evidence, or by logical inference. This aligns with the Supreme Court’s view that denying the admissibility of circumstantial evidence would make it impossible to prove enforced disappearances.

The Supreme Court found that Atty. Salucon presented substantial evidence sufficient to justify the issuance of the writ of amparo. The facts and circumstances presented by Atty. Salucon included her status as a human rights lawyer taking on cases involving political detainees, the surveillance operations observed by her paralegal, the directive from the PNP Isabela Provincial Office to conduct a background investigation on her, and the inquiries made about her whereabouts by individuals appearing to be military or police personnel. These circumstances, viewed in their totality, led the Court to conclude that the threats to Atty. Salucon’s life, liberty, and security were real and probable.

The Court further addressed the issue of the writ of habeas data, a remedy available to any person whose right to privacy in life, liberty, or security is violated or threatened by an unlawful act. The civilian asset of the PNP Intelligence Section relayed to Atty. Salucon that there was a standing order to conduct a background investigation to confirm if she was a “Red Lawyer.” She was also under actual surveillance. Given these circumstances, the Court found it warranted for the CA to direct the petitioners to produce and disclose any information and data pertaining to Atty. Salucon for possible destruction.

Moreover, the Supreme Court emphasized the extraordinary diligence required of public officials or employees in amparo proceedings. Section 17 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo explicitly states that the respondent public official or employee must prove that extraordinary diligence was observed in the performance of duty. The Court found that the petitioners, by merely issuing orders to their subordinates without conducting independent investigations, did not discharge this burden. They failed to exercise the required extraordinary diligence.

The Court rejected the petitioners’ recommendation for the creation of an independent body to investigate the harassments suffered by Atty. Salucon, viewing it as an act of evasion. The Court stated that the military and police establishments had the competence and resources to conduct such investigations themselves. They could not escape the responsibility of conducting the investigation with extraordinary diligence by deflecting the responsibility to other investigatory agencies of the Government.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the Court of Appeals erred in admitting hearsay evidence and granting the privilege of the writs of amparo and habeas data based on that evidence. The Supreme Court ultimately upheld the CA’s decision, affirming the admissibility of hearsay evidence in amparo proceedings under specific circumstances.
What is a writ of amparo?	A writ of amparo is a remedy available to any person whose right to life, liberty, and security is violated or threatened. It provides a mechanism for courts to investigate and address enforced disappearances and extrajudicial killings.
What is a writ of habeas data?	A writ of habeas data is a remedy available to any person whose right to privacy in life, liberty, or security is violated or threatened by the unlawful gathering, collecting, or storing of data or information about them. It aims to protect an individual’s right to control information about themselves.
What does “totality of evidence” mean in this context?	“Totality of evidence” means considering all pieces of evidence presented, even those that might be inadmissible under normal rules, if they are relevant and consistent with other admissible evidence. This standard is used in amparo proceedings to address the difficulty of obtaining direct evidence in cases of enforced disappearances.
Why was hearsay evidence admitted in this case?	Hearsay evidence was admitted because the court recognized the challenges in obtaining direct evidence in cases involving potential human rights violations. The court deemed the hearsay evidence relevant and consistent with other evidence presented, thus satisfying the test for admissibility under the totality of evidence standard.
What is “extraordinary diligence” in the context of amparo proceedings?	“Extraordinary diligence” is the standard of care required of public officials or employees who are respondents in amparo proceedings. They must prove that they took all possible steps to investigate and address the alleged violations or threats.
What was the significance of Razon, Jr. v. Tagitis in this case?	Razon, Jr. v. Tagitis established the standard of totality of evidence for granting the privilege of the writ of amparo. It clarified that the burden on public authorities is to ensure all efforts at disclosure and investigation are undertaken, addressing the disappearance and preserving the victim’s life, liberty, and security.
What was the Court’s ruling on the petitioners’ responsibility?	The Court ruled that the petitioners, as military and police generals, failed to discharge their responsibility to conduct a thorough and independent investigation into Atty. Salucon’s allegations. Their reliance on subordinates’ reports without further inquiry was deemed insufficient to meet the standard of extraordinary diligence.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Bautista v. Salucon reinforces the importance of protecting human rights and ensuring that individuals can seek redress when their rights are threatened. The ruling highlights the need for flexibility in evidentiary standards and underscores the extraordinary diligence required of public officials in safeguarding the life, liberty, and security of all citizens. This case serves as a crucial precedent for future amparo proceedings, particularly those involving human rights advocates and potential state-sponsored threats.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Gen. Emmanuel Bautista, et al. v. Atty. Maria Catherine Dannug-Salucon, G.R. No. 221862, January 23, 2018