IN FAVOR OF HENRY V. TAYO, JR., ALIAS "MAGELAN TAYO," HIEZEL V. TAYO, MERLINA V. TAYO, AND HENRY C. TAYO, SR., VS. PMAJ JOERY T. PUERTO, STATION COMMANDER OF BACOLOD CITY POLICE STATION 8, PSSG ROBERTO P. GAURANA, JR., DUTY JAILER OF BACOLOD CITY POLICE STATION 8, AND PATROLMAN GARRY BUGANOTAN, DESK

Ruling

Accordingly, the Tayo family entreat the Court to reverse the RTC's ruling and grant the following reliefs: A writ of amparo be issued against respondents PMAJ JOERY T. PUERTO, Station Commander of Bacolod City Police Station 8, [PSSg] ROBERTO P. GAURANA, JR., Duty Jailer of Bacolod City Police Station 8, and PATROLMAN GARRY BUGANOTAN, Desk Officer/Records Custodian of Bacolod City Police Station 8; A Production Order be issued pursuant to Section 14 (c) of A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC or the Rule on the Writ of Amparo commanding the police officers of BCPS 8 to produce and permit inspection of documents, as well as the production and copying of the CCTV footage relating to the alleged release of Henry V. Tayo, Jr. on September 27, 2022; and An Order commanding the respondents to locate the whereabouts of Henry V. Tayo, Jr., alias "Magelan," and upon locating him, to turn over his custody to the herein petitioners. [28] On August 1, 2023, the Court issued a Notice of Resolution, [29] requiring PMAJ Puerto et al. to submit their Comment on the Petition. [30] Complying therewith, PMAJ Puerto et al. averred in their Comment [31] that the RTC committed no reversible error in dismissing the Petition for a Writ of Amparo and denying the issuance of a Production Order. In their Reply, [32] the Tayo family iterated their reasons in the Petition for Review on Certiorari , namely: one , PMAJ Puerto et al. failed to explain why they sent the request to access the footage to PCpl Tornea "only on October 23, 2022 or almost a month after the Tayo family requested for a copy of the footage;" [33] two , the police officers' negligence and failure to provide the footage evinced their "refusal to give information on the fate or whereabouts" of Tayo, Jr. [34] ; and three , Pat Buganotan's act of taking Tayo, Jr.'s video while he was signing the release logbook showed hallmarks of suspicious behavior as it was highly irregular and deviated from the standard procedure. [35] The Issue The jugular issue for this Court's resolution is whether the members of Tayo, Jr.'s family were able to prove, through substantial evidence, their entitlement to the privilege of the writ of amparo . The Court's Ruling The Petition is impressed with merit. Section 19 [36] of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo [37] is explicit that both questions of fact and law can be raised before the Court in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. As a rule then, the Court is not bound by the factual findings made by the lower court which rendered the judgment in a petition for the issuance of the writ of amparo . [38] Withal, Section 1 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo defines a petition for a writ of amparo as "a remedy available to any person whose right to life, liberty, and security is violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity." The Court promulgated the Amparo Rule "in light of the prevalence of extra