1.

BURGOS VS ARROYO, ET AL
Topic: Writ of Amparo/Contempt
- A case regarding writ of amparo and habeas corpus due to disappearance of
Jonas Burgos
- the PNP and the AFP have so far failed to conduct an ehaustive and meaningful
investigation into the disappearance of Jonas Burgos! and to eercise the
etraordinar" diligence #in the performance of their duties$
- because of this %C cannot rule on the case until a more meaningful
investigation! using etraordinar" diligence! is underta&en'hence! reinvestigation
ensued
- refer bac& the petition for habeas corpus to the same (ivision of the Court of
Appeals which shall continue to hear this case
OUR RULING
%ection )* of the +ule on the Writ of Amparo provides that an" person who otherwise
disobe"s or resists a lawful process or order of the court ma" be punished for contempt!
vi,-
%.C' )*' Contempt' / 0he court! 1ustice or 1udge ma" order the respondent who refuses
to ma&e a return! or who ma&es a false return! or an" person who otherwise disobe"s or
resists a lawful process or order of the court to be punished for contempt' 0he
contemnor ma" be imprisoned or imposed a fine
2n 3ontenegro v' 3ontenegro!)4 we eplained the t"pes and nature of contempt! as
follows-
Contempt of court involves the doing of an act! or the failure to do an act! in such a
manner as to create an affront to the court and the sovereign dignit" with which it is
clothed' 2t is defined as 5disobedience to the court b" acting in opposition to its authorit"!
1ustice and dignit"'56 0he power to punish contempt is inherent in all courts! because it
is essential to the preservation of order in 1udicial proceedings! and to the enforcement
of 1udgments! orders and mandates of the courts7 and! conse8uentl"! to the due
administration of 1ustice'

Contempt! whether direct or indirect! ma" be civil or criminal depending on the nature
and effect of the contemptuous act' Criminal contempt is 5conduct directed against the
authorit" and dignit" of the court or a 1udge acting 1udiciall"7 it is an act obstructing the
administration of 1ustice which tends to bring the court into disrepute or disrespect'5 9n
the other hand! civil contempt is the failure to do something ordered to be done b" a
court or a 1udge for the benefit of the opposing part" therein and is therefore! an offense
against the part" in whose behalf the violated order was made' 2f the purpose is to
punish! then it is criminal in nature7 but if to compensate! then it is civil' :emphasis
supplied;
We agree with the CA that indirect contempt is the appropriate characteri,ation of the
charge filed b" the petitioner against the respondents and that the charge is criminal in
nature' .videntl"! the charge of filing a false return constitutes improper conduct that
serves no other purpose but to mislead! impede and obstruct the administration of
1ustice b" the Court' 2n People v' <odo"!)= which the CA cited! we specificall" held that
under paragraph #d$ of %ection >! +ule 6) of the +ules of Court! an" improper conduct
tending! directl" or indirectl"! to impede! obstruct or degrade the administration of 1ustice
constitutes criminal contempt'
A criminal contempt proceeding has been characteri,ed as sui generis as it parta&es
some of the elements of both a civil and criminal proceeding! without completel" falling
under either proceeding' 2ts identification with a criminal proceeding is in the use of the
principles and rules applicable to criminal cases! to the etent that criminal procedure is
consistent with the summar" nature of a contempt proceeding' We have consistentl"
held and established that the strict rules that govern criminal prosecutions appl" to a
prosecution for criminal contempt7 that the accused is afforded man" of the protections
provided in regular criminal cases7 and that proceedings under statutes governing them
are to be strictl" construed'?@
Contempt! too! is not presumed' 2n proceedings for criminal contempt! the defendant is
presumed innocent and the burden is on the prosecution to prove the charges be"ond
reasonable doubt'?) 0he presumption of innocence can be overcome onl" b" proof of
guilt be"ond reasonable doubt! which means proof to the satisfaction of the court and
&eeping in mind the presumption of innocence that precludes ever" reasonable
h"pothesis ecept that for which it is given' 2t is not sufficient for the proof to establish a
probabilit"! even though strong! that the fact charged is more li&el" true than the
contrar"' 2t must establish the truth of the fact to a reasonable certaint" and moral
certaint" / a certaint" that convinces and satisfies the reason and conscience of those
who are to act upon it'??
For the petitioner to succeed in her petition to declare the respondents in contempt for
filing false returns in the habeas corpus proceedings before the CA! she has the burden
of proving be"ond reasonable doubt that the respondents had custod" of Jonas' As the
CA did! we find that the pieces of evidence on record as of the time of the CA
proceedings were merel" circumstantial and did not provide a direct lin& between the
respondents and the abduction of Jonas7 the evidence did not prove be"ond reasonable
doubt that the respondents had a hand in the abduction of Jonas! and conse8uentl"!
had custod" of him at the time the" filed their returns to the Writ of habeas corpus
den"ing custod" of Jonas'
2n light of the dismissal of the petitions against President <loria 3acapagal-Arro"o who
is no the longer the President of the +epublic of the Philippines! she should now be
dropped as a part"-respondent in these petitions'