DND vs Manalo

The Secretary of National Defense, the Chief of Staff, Armed Forces of the Philippines vs Raymond Manalo and Reynaldo Manalo FACTS: Bein s!spected as mem"ers and s!pporters of the Ne# People$s Army, the "rothers Raymond Manalo and Reynaldo Manalo #ere a"d!cted "y military men% The petitioners #ere detained as captives for &' months #here they #ere also tort!red "y their captors% (vent!ally, the "rothers planned to escape and on A!!st &), *++ they #e re a"le to evade their captors% After their escape the "rothers filed a Petition for Prohi"ition, -n.!nction, and Temporary Restrainin /rder to stop the military officers and aents from deprivin them of their riht to li"erty and other "asic rihts% 0hile their case #as pendin the R!le on the 0rit of Amparo too1 effect on /cto"er *2, *++ and then the "rothers s!"se3!ently filed a manifestation and omni"!s motion to treat their e4istin petition as Amparo petition% /n Decem"er *5, *++, the Co!rt of Appeals 6CA7 rendered a decision in their favor rantin them the privilee of the 0rit of Amparo% The CA ordered the Secretary of the Department of National Defense and the Chief of Staff of the AFP, their aents, representatives, or persons actin in their stead, incl!din "! t not limited to the CAF89 to s!"mit their Comment and en.oined them from ca!sin the arrest of therein  petitioners, or other#ise restrictin, restrictin, c!rtailin, a"ridin, or deprivin them of their riht to life, li"erty,and other "asic rihts as ! aranteed !nder Article ---, Section &2 of the &' Constit!tion% The Secretary of National Defense and the Chief of Staff of the AFP appealed to the SC see1in to reverse and set aside the decision prom!lated "y the CA% -SS9(: 0hether or% ;( The petition for a #rit of Amparo Amparo is a remedy availa"le to any  person #hose riht to life, li"erty and sec!rity is violated violated or threatened #ith violation "y an !nla#f!l act or omission of a p!"lic official or employee, or of a private individ!al or entity%

The #rit shall cover e4traleal 1illins and enforced disappearances or threats thereof% Sections & and &', on the other hand, provide for the deree of proof re3!ired, #hich is s!"stantial evidence% S!"stantial evidence has "een defined as s!ch relevant evidence as a reasona"le mind miht accept as ade3!ate to s!pport a concl!sion% After revie# of the evidence presented, s!ch as the affidavits of the petitioners and the medical reports and other pertinent evidence, the SC affirmed the findins of the CA and the "!rden of proof as presented "y the "rothers #ere satisfied th!s the rantin of the 0rit of Amparo #hich is an appropriate remedy iven the foreoin facts in the case% After their escape, the petitioners have "een in hidin and is "ein protected "y private citi?ens "eca!se of the threat to their life, li"erty, and sec!rity% The circ!mstances of respondents@ a"d!ction, detention, tort!re and escape reasona"ly s!pport a concl!sion that there is an apparent threat that they #ill aain "e a"d!cted, tort!red, and this time, even e4ec!ted% These facts therefore constit!te threats to their li"erty, sec!rity, and life, actiona"le thro!h a petition for a 0rit of Amparo%