Environmental activist Francisco Dangla III, who was abducted last year by unidentified men in San Carlos City, Pangasinan, asked the Court of Appeals (CA) not to consider the investigation reports of the police on his disappearance.
He told the justices that the law enforcement agency failed to probe into his case with ‘extraordinary diligence’ and the cops reportedly even caused stress and anxiety to him and his relatives.
‘To render the respondents’ compliance and reports as sufficient compliance would substantially undermine the remedial character of the writ of amparo and contradict what justice and fundamental rights truly demand,’ Dangla said in his pleading filed on Monday.
He was represented by the National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers.
He asked the CA not to consider the Oct. 23 submission of the respondents, which include Police Brig. Gen. Lou Evangelista, regional director of PNP Regional Office I; and Col. Jeff Fanged, provincial director of the Pangasinan Provincial Police Office.
Dangla, instead, urged the appellate court to direct the respondents to conduct a more ‘proactive and genuine’ investigation that would pursue one of the key leads in the case.
Dangla and fellow activist Joxelle Tiong were abducted in March 2024, when unidentified men forced them into a gray pickup truck after a community consultation in Barangay Polo, San Carlos City.
On Sept. 23, the CA ordered the police and military to further investigate his case to identify and prosecute those behind his abduction, even as it denied his petition for a writ of amparo.
In a counter-manifestation to the respondents’ compliance, Dangla alleged that the police failed to pursue what he described as one of the strongest leads in his case – the GCash number supposedly used to extort money from Tiong’s friend while they were missing.
He argued that the San Carlos City police prematurely terminated its investigation into the GCash number after being told that his and Tiong’s affidavits were required to apply for a warrant to disclose the owner’s data and identity.
Dangla added that his judicial affidavit, which contains all the information he knows on the identity of their perpetrators, is already a public record and available to the respondents.
‘Accordingly, it is inexcusable for the respondents to cite lack of cooperation on the part of the petitioner and his relatives as an excuse to evade their duty to fully and genuinely investigate any possible leads as to the identity of the petitioner’s abductors,’ he said.
The activist likewise lamented the respondents’ visits to his and his relatives’ homes, along with the questioning of them done without a lawyer present, which he said caused ‘much stress and anxiety’ to them.