Foreigner found living with 2 unrelated minors loses SC bid to stop his case
A foreign national who was arrested after social workers found him living with two minors who were not related to him has lost his bid to use the writ of amparo against the police, social workers, prosecutors and the judge handling his case.
In a decision promulgated on July 15, 2026 and penned by Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario, the Supreme Court (SC) En Banc denied both the appeal under Rule 45 and the second petition for a writ of amparo filed by Joseph Mark Inman, also known as Muhammed Yusef Malek Iman. He is a citizen of the State of Saint Christopher and Nevis.
The Court ruled that the extraordinary remedy cannot be used to sidestep a pending criminal prosecution. It added that even a liberal reading of the rules would not save his petitions.
“However, even if We relax the rules and apply them liberally in this case, the Petition must be denied due to procedural and substantive defects,” the Court said.
Anonymous tip
Records showed that Inman, described in the decision as an asylum seeker residing in the country through a Special Resident Retiree’s Visa, lived in a rented property in Angeles City with his partner and two minors. The children’s parents had executed affidavits allowing him to adopt them.
On February 1, 2024, social workers received an anonymous text message that a foreigner would bring a three-year-old child to Cebu without legal documents. After verifying the report and alerting the local police, they went to Inman’s residence and asked for documents justifying his living with two minors who were not related to him.
Inman could produce only the parents’ affidavits. He was arrested in flagrante delicto for supposed child trafficking and attempted child prostitution under Republic Act No. 7610, or the Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act.
The Office of the City Prosecutor of Angeles City, however, did not indict him for child trafficking. It found probable cause to charge him instead under Article VI, Section 10(b) of RA 7610. The provision penalizes any person who keeps in his company a minor 12 years old or under, or one who is 10 years or more his junior. It does not apply to a person related to the child within the fourth degree, or bound to the child by a bond recognized by law, local custom and tradition, or acting in the performance of a social, moral or legal duty.
In his counter-affidavit, Inman said his live-in partner had custody of the children and that they were in the process of adopting them. A certification from his lawyer stated that he had tried to adopt one of the minors but failed because of changes in the adoption rules, the COVID-19 pandemic and changes in circumstances.
The Information filed before Branch 10 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Angeles City alleged that the minors were 10 and three years old, while Inman was 44. On March 22, 2024, the RTC found probable cause and fixed his bail at PHP 120,000. He was released after posting bail.
Two amparo petitions
While the criminal case was pending, Inman filed a petition for a writ of amparo before the Court of Appeals (CA). He claimed he was unlawfully arrested, subjected to torture through an unlawful trial, and discriminated against because of his religion and ethnicity. The CA dismissed it mainly on procedural grounds, including his failure to have the verification notarized.
He elevated the case to the SC on December 19, 2024. On May 5, 2025, he filed a second amparo petition, adding the arresting officers, social workers, his former caretakers and a former employee as respondents.
In his second petition, Inman claimed that Muslim civil practices allow guardianship without formal adoption papers. He also alleged psychological and physical abuse while in detention and accused the trial judge of bias for consistently ruling in favor of the prosecution. He further claimed that social welfare officials unlawfully took the children from his care, and that the State’s coordinated actions amounted to persecution based on ethnicity and religion.
In short, he asked for the writ to shield him “from further psychological persecution and unlawful prosecution.”
Wrong remedy, wrong forum
The SC said the first amparo petition should never have been filed with the CA. Under Section 22 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo, once a criminal action has been commenced, the reliefs under the writ must be sought through a motion in the criminal case.
“Therefore, the pendency of a criminal action bars the filing of a separate action,” the Court said.
The Court cited Rev. Fr. Reyes v. Court of Appeals, where it held that once an information is filed in court, any disposition of the case rests on the sound discretion of that court, to the exclusion of other courts.
The Court also found that Inman’s Rule 45 appeal failed to comply with Section 4 of Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The appeal lacked proof of service to the CA, a legible duplicate original or certified true copy of the assailed CA judgment, a sworn certification against forum shopping and a verification. It also failed to state the material dates. His second petition, though filed as a supplement, still did not attach the CA judgment.
Treated as a separate petition, the second amparo plea fared no better. The Court said the CA had already acquired jurisdiction over the case when it took cognizance of the first petition, and that the case did not fall under any exception to the hierarchy of courts.
The Court also ruled that Inman committed forum shopping by simultaneously pursuing an amparo petition and a Rule 45 appeal.
“The simultaneous filing of two separate remedies exposes this Court to the risk of incompatible rulings over the same issues,” the decision read.
No enforced disappearance
On the merits, the Court reiterated that the amparo rule was promulgated “to address the problem of extralegal killings and enforced disappearances.” It cited the elements of enforced disappearance laid down in Navia v. Pardico, as quoted in Spouses Lucena v. Elago.
The Court acknowledged that Inman was arrested and detained by law enforcers. It said, however, that the last two elements were absent: the State’s refusal to acknowledge or give information on the person’s fate or whereabouts, and the intent to remove him from the protection of the law for a prolonged period.
“Petitioner’s location during detention is known, and respondents have no intention of depriving him of legal protection,” the Court said. “They respected his right to due process and allowed him to avail himself of available remedies, such as a preliminary investigation, posting bail, and filing a motion to quash the information.”
The Court noted that the RTC had denied Inman’s Motion to Quash Information.
Citing the 2025 case of In re Castro, the Court explained that prima facie evidence is needed to issue the writ itself, while substantial evidence is required to grant the privilege of the writ. Inman met neither standard, the Court ruled.
“His apprehensions of being unlawfully detained again are, at best, speculative,” the Court said.
Writ not for every grievance
The Court stressed that while it will act promptly on genuine amparo cases, it will not let the writ be stretched beyond its intended scope.
“This Court will not hesitate or delay in prioritizing amparo petitions to protect the people’s lives, liberty, and security. However, We cannot devote time and resources to issues outside the scope of the writ,” the Court said.
Doing otherwise, it added, “would dilute and undermine the purpose of the writ through the indiscriminate filing of petitions aimed at less than genuine relief and protection based on unsubstantiated allegations.”
As for Inman’s claim of guardianship over the minors under Muslim civil practices, the Court said this was irrelevant to whether he was entitled to the writ.
“It is a factual matter that requires the presentation of evidence. Therefore, it should be resolved in a full-blown trial,” the Court said.