“x x x.
The doctrine of totality of evidence in amparo cases was
first laid down in this Courts ruling in Razon,[94] to wit:
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.[95] (Emphasis supplied.)
In the case at bar, we find no reason to depart from the
factual findings of the Court of Appeals, the same being supported by
substantial evidence. A careful examination of the records of this case reveals
that the totality of the evidence adduced by Rodriguez indubitably prove the
responsibility and accountability of some respondents in G.R. No. 191805 for
violating his right to life, liberty and security.
a. The
totality of evidence proved by substantial evidence the responsibility or
accountability of respondents for the violation of or threat to Rodriguezs
right to life, liberty and security.
After a careful examination of the records of these cases,
we are convinced that the Court of Appeals correctly found sufficient evidence
proving that the soldiers of the 17th Infantry Battalion, 5th Infantry Division
of the military abducted Rodriguez on 6 September 2009, and detained and
tortured him until 17 September 2009.
Rodriguezs Sinumpaang Salaysay dated 4 December 2009 was a
meticulous and straightforward account of his horrific ordeal with the
military, detailing the manner in which he was captured and maltreated on
account of his suspected membership in the NPA.[96] His narration of his
suffering included an exhaustive description of his physical surroundings,
personal circumstances and perceived observations. He likewise positively
identified respondents 1st Lt. Matutina and Lt. Col. Mina to be present during
his abduction, detention and torture,[97] and respondents Cruz, Pasicolan and
Callagan as the CHR representatives who appeared during his release.[98]
More particularly, the fact of Rodriguezs abduction was corroborated by Carlos in his Sinumpaang Salaysay dated 16 September 2009,[99] wherein he recounted in detail the circumstances surrounding the victims capture.
As regards the allegation of torture, the respective Certifications of Dr. Ramil and Dr. Pamugas validate the physical maltreatment Rodriguez suffered in the hands of the soldiers of the 17th Infantry Battalion, 5th Infantry Division. According to the Certification dated 12 October 2009 executed by Dr. Ramil,[100] she examined Rodriguez in the Alfonso Ponce Enrile Memorial District Hospital on 16 September 2009 and arrived at the following findings: x x x.
In assessing the weight of the Certifications, the Court of Appeals correctly relied on the medical finding that the injuries suffered by Rodriguez matched his account of the maltreatment inflicted on him by the soldiers of the 17th Infantry Battalion, 5th Infantry Division of the Philippine Army. Further, the kind of injuries he sustained showed that he could not have sustained them from merely falling, thus making respondents claim highly implausible.
Despite these medical findings that overwhelmingly supported and lent credibility to the allegations of Rodriguez in his Sinumpaang Salaysay, respondents in G.R. No. 191805 still stubbornly clung to their argument that he was neither abducted nor detained. Rather, they claimed that he was a double agent, whose relationship with the military was at all times congenial. This contention cannot be sustained, as it is far removed from ordinary human experience.
If it were true that Rodriguez maintained amicable relations with the military, then he should have unhesitatingly assured his family on 17 September 2009 that he was among friends. Instead, he vigorously pleaded with them to get him out of the military facility. In fact, in the Sinumpaang Salaysay dated 4 December 2009[104] Wilma executed, she made the following averments: x x x.
Moreover, the Court of Appeals likewise aptly pointed out
the illogical, if not outrightly contradictory, contention of respondents in
G.R. No. 191805 that while Rodriguez had complained of his exhaustion from his
activities as a member of the CPP-NPA, he nevertheless willingly volunteered to
return to his life in the NPA to become a double-agent for the military. The
lower court ruled in this manner: x x x.
Furthermore, the appellate court also properly ruled that
aside from the abduction, detention and torture of Rodriguez, respondents,
specifically 1st Lt. Matutina, had violated and threatened the formers right to
security when they made a visual recording of his house, as well as the photos
of his relatives, to wit: x x x.
Taken in their totality, the pieces of evidence adduced by
Rodriguez, as well as the contradictory defenses presented by respondents in
G.R. No. 191805, give credence to his claim that he had been abducted, detained
and tortured by soldiers belonging to the 17th Infantry Battalion, 5th Infantry
Division of the military.
X x x.”
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR THE WRIT OF AMPARO AND HABEAS DATA IN FAVOR OF NORIEL H. RODRIGUEZ: NORIEL H. RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, versus GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, GEN. VICTOR S. IBRADO, PDG JESUS AME VERSOZA, LT. GEN. DELFIN BANGIT, MAJ. GEN. NESTOR Z. OCHOA, P/CSUPT. AMETO G. TOLENTINO, P/SSUPT. JUDE W. SANTOS, COL. REMIGIO M. DE VERA, an officer named MATUTINA, LT. COL. MINA, CALOG, GEORGE PALACPAC under the name HARRY, ANTONIO CRUZ, ALDWIN BONG PASICOLAN and VINCENT CALLAGAN, Respondents. G.R. No. 191805, November 15, 2011.
