Writ of Amparo vs. Extrajudicial Killing related to Tokhang drug war

Read - https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/29098/


"SC Upholds Amparo as Remedy vs Extralegal Killings, Threats

August 9, 2022


The Supreme Court has affirmed the issuance of a writ of amparo in favor of widow Christina Gonzales, whose husband was a victim of a drug-related extralegal killing perpetrated by police officers in Antipolo City.

“The writ of amparo is a protective remedy aimed at providing judicial relief consisting of the appropriate remedial measures and directives that may be crafted by the court, in order to address specific violations or threats of violation of the constitutional rights to life, liberty, or security,” the Court held.

In a Decision penned by Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez, the High Court’s Second Division unanimously denied the petition for review filed by law enforcement officers from Antipolo City questioning the November 26, 2018 Decision and the April 29, 2019 Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) which upheld the writ of amparo issued in favor of Christina. The said CA Decision likewise recommended the filing of appropriate civil, criminal, and administrative charges against petitioner law enforcement officers, and issued a Permanent Protection Order prohibiting them and any of their agents from entering within a radius of one kilometer from Christina’s residences and work addresses.

In denying the petition, the Court explicitly recognized the death of Christina’s husband, Joselito Gonzales, as an extralegal killing, and upheld the finding of the CA that Christina had reason to fear her life would be met with the same fate as that of her slain husband. The couple had been previously arrested for using and selling illegal drugs, but were eventually released after paying the amount of ₱50,000 demanded by the police.

The Supreme Court acknowledged the various threats to Christina’s life, liberty, and security, including the allegations that prior to the issuance of the writ of amparo in 2017, Christina and Joselito were both solicited by law enforcement agents to sell illegal drugs and were threatened on several occasions that they would be entrapped or killed. The Court also gave credence to the claim that following Joselito’s death, there were several unknown and suspicious-looking individuals who attended his funeral asking for Christina’s whereabouts.

On February 17, 2017, Christina filed before the Supreme Court a petition for a writ of amparo and Temporary Protection Order against petitioner law enforcement officers. On January 21, 2017, the Supreme Court En Banc issued a resolution granting Christina a Temporary Protection Order and directing the CA to conduct a hearing on the matter. On November 26, 2018, the CA granted a Permanent Protection Order in favor of Christina, prompting the law enforcement officers to challenge the CA ruling before the Supreme Court.

After examining the totality of evidence, the Supreme Court found that threats to the life of Christina were indeed present, and that the CA’s issuance of the writ of amparo was proper.

The Court also noted major lapses in the conduct of the police operation that resulted in Joselito’s death, raising doubts as to whether a legitimate buy-bust operation really took place. It was also noted by the Court how the law enforcement agents failed to follow several directives to reopen the investigation of Joselito’s case. The High Tribunal further stressed that no documentation was provided to show that the usual procedure under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, was observed when the illegal drugs were seized.

“The fact that respondent (Christina) and Joselito were previously arrested for selling illegal drugs is beside the point. As stated earlier, even if the respondent committed a crime, the petitioners, as law enforcement agents, are not at liberty to disregard the respondent’s constitutionally guaranteed rights to life, liberty, and security,” the Court added.

The SC Public Information Office will upload the full text of the decision on the SC website once available."