THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 213699, September 28, 2016
THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, Petitioner, v. P/SUPT. ROGER JAMES BRILLANTES, PO3 PETER PAUL PABLICO, AND PO11 NOEL FABIA, Respondents.
G.R. No. 215008
THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, Petitioner, v. POLICE SENIOR INSPECTOR2 DANTE G. YANG, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
PERALTA, J.:
Before the Court are two consolidated petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
In G.R. No. 213699, petitioner assails the Decision3 and Resolution4 of the Court of Appeals (CA), dated January 14, 2014 and July 21, 2014, respectively, in CA-G.R. SP No. 127487. The assailed CA Decision nullified and set aside the Decision dated January 20, 2012, as well as the Order dated May 16, 2012 of the Ombudsman, which dismissed respondents Brillantes, Pablico and Fabia from the Philippine National Police (PNP), in an administrative case for oppression, grave misconduct and conduct unbecoming of a police officer; while the CA Resolution denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration and modified the appellate court's January 14, 2014 Decision.
In G.R. No. 215008, petitioner questions the Decision5 dated July 24, 2014 and Amended Decision6 dated October 15, 2014, of the CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 127647. The questioned CA Decision reversed and set aside the same Decision dated January 20, 2012, and Order dated May 16, 2012 of the Ombudsman which also dismissed respondent Yang from the PNP. The assailed Amended Decision denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration and modified the July 24, 2014 CA Decision.
The facts of the case are as follows:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryHerein respondents were officers of the PNP who, at the time material to this case, were assigned at the District Intelligence and Investigation Division, Quezon City District Command, Camp Karingal, Quezon City.
On October 15, 2003, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City, Branch 162, issued an Order of Arrest7 against twenty-three (23) persons who stand charged in an Information for twenty-one (21) counts of kidnapping and serious illegal detention with ransom. Among those ordered to be arrested was "a certain Ali."8chanrobleslaw
Subsequently, a group of police officers, consisting of thirty-eight (38) members, who all belonged to the Quezon City District Command's Anti Terrorism Operations Team, was formed in order to effect the arrest or the persons named in the above Order of Arrest. This group included herein respondents, together with a certain PO2 ReynaIdo Yap (PO2 Yap). As a result of the group's operation on March 10, 2006, a certain Allan Almoite (Almoite) was arrested in Quezon City. In respondents' Joint Affidavit of Arrest,9 as well as respondent Brillantes' Special Report10 dated March 12, 2006, Almoite was identified as the same person who carries the aliases "Alih Ambing" and "Alih Bin Nasser" and that his identification and subsequent arrest was the product of a series of surveillance and other follow-up operations. The report alleged that he is a bomb expert of the Rajah Sulaiman Islamic Movement which has close ties with the Abu Sayyaf Group and that he is linked to a series of bombings in Zamboanga City as well as the 2005 Valentine's Day bombing in Makati City. As incident to Almoite's arrest, the anti-terrorism team conducted a search of his residence which yielded unlicensed explosives consisting of an "MK2 fragmentation grenade," three (3) pieces of "40 MM Ammunition (live)," "one (1) pc. 1/2 lbs. C4 Explosive," "one (1) pc. 1/4 lb. block of C4," "two 2-and-1/2 meters of detonating cord," "twenty-seven (27) pcs. non-electric blasting cap with time fuse," and several strands of electric wire.11chanrobleslaw
Almoite was then detained at Camp Crame in Quezon City and was subsequently charged with violation of P.D. No. 1866,12 as amended by R.A. No. 8294,13 for his unlawful possession of explosives.14chanrobleslaw
On March 17, 2006, the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) conducted a physical and psychological examination of Almoite based on the latter's complaint that he was tortured during his detention. Subsequently, the Forensic and Medical Division of the CHR issued a report indicating that physical injuries were found on different parts of Almoite's body and that these injuries are consistent with torture and ill-treatment.15chanrobleslaw
On June 21, 2006, the RTC which issued the arrest warrant came out with an Order which, among others, directed the release of Almoite on the ground that he was not identified as the same person mentioned in the Information as "Ali" and that neither was the name "Allan Almoite y Morales" mentioned in the same Information for kidnapping and serious illegal detention with ransom.16chanrobleslaw
Thereafter, Almoite filed an administrative complaint against herein respondents for oppression, grave misconduct and conduct unbecoming a police officer before the Office of the Ombudsman.
The Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military and Other Law Enforcement Offices then came up with a report finding respondents guilty of simple misconduct and recommending to the Ombudsman that they be penalized with suspension from office for three (3) months without pay.17chanrobleslaw
However, on January 20, 2012, the Ombudsman issued its questioned Decision finding respondents administratively liable for grave misconduct and imposed upon them the penalty of dismissal from the service. The dispositive portion of the Ombudsman's Decision reads, thus:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
WHEREFORE, [this] Office finds respondents P/SUPT. ROGER JAMES BRILLANTES, PO3 NOEL FABIA, PO3 PETER PAUL PABLICO, PO2 REYNALDO YAP and PO1 DANTE YANG GUILTY or Grave Misconduct and hereby metes upon them the penalty of DISMISSAL FROM THE SERVICE with cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, and perpetual disqualification from reemployment in the government service.Respondents filed a motion tor reconsideration but the Office of the Ombudsman denied it in its Order19 dated May 16, 2012.
SO ORDERED.18chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is GRANTED. The Decision of public respondent Ombudsman dated January 20, 2012 and the Order dated May 16, 2012 are NULLIFIED and SET ASIDE Petitioners are ABSOLVED from administrative liability. The Chief PNP, Camp Crame Quezon City is DIRECTED to REINSTATE PETITIONERS to their former positions.The Office of the Ombudsman filed a motion for reconsideration. On the other hand, respondents filed a Manifestation with Motion21 praying that the above dispositive portion of the CA Decision be amended to include the payment of respondents' backwages from the time of their illegal dismissal up to the date of their actual reinstatement. Respondents also prayed that the CA Decision which orders their reinstatement be immediately enforced.
SO ORDERED.20chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision of public respondent Ombudsman elated January 20, 2012 and the Order dated May 16, 2012 are NULLIFIED and SET ASIDE. Petitioners are absolved from administrative liability. The Chief Philippine National Police (PNP), Camp Crame, Quezon City is directed to reinstate petitioners to their former positions upon receipt or this decision. Likewise, the said office must pay their backwages and other monetary benefits from the time of their dismissal up to the time of their reinstatement upon finality of this decision.Subsequently, the CA rendered its Decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 127647 on July 24, 2014, granting POI Yang's petition for review by reversing the Decision of the Ombudsman and also absolving him from administrative liability. The dispositive portion of the CA Decision reads, thus:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
SO ORDERED.22chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated January 20, 2012 and the Order dated May 16, 2012 of the Office or the Ombudsman are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner Police Senior Inspector Dante G. Yang is ABSOLVED from administrative liability and is deemed ENTITLED to retirement benefits.The Office of the Ombudsman also filed a Motion for Reconsideration. On the other hand, respondent Yang filed an Omnibus Motion consisting of an Opposition to herein petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration and a Motion to Amend/Modify Decision to Include Payment of Backwages.24 Yang prayed that petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration be denied and that the CA Decision be affirmed with modification by requiring the payment of his backwages and other monetary benefits from the time of his dismissal up to the date of his reinstatement.
SO ORDERED.23chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED for lack of merit. The assailed Decision dated July 24, 2014 of this Court is MODIFIED to the extent that petitioner is likewise deemed ENTITLED to backwages and other monetary benefits from the time of his dismissal up to the date of his retirement, plus retirement benefits.Hence, the present petitions filed by the Office of the Ombudsman. In G.R. No. 213699, petitioner contends that:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
SO ORDERED.25cralawredchanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN REVERSING THE FINDING OF THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN THAT RESPONDENTS ARE GUILTY OF GRAVE MISCONDUCT BASED ON SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.26chanroblesvirtuallawlibraryIn the same manner, the Office of the Ombudsman raised the following ground in G.R. No. 215008, to wit:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN REVERSING THE OMBUDSMAN'S FINDINGS SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, THEREBY SUBSTITUTING ITS OWN JUDGMENT FOR THAT OF A CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICE.27chanroblesvirtuallawlibraryPetitioner's basic contention in both petitions is that the Ombudsman properly found respondents liable for grave misconduct based on substantial evidence. In support of its position, petitioner's mam argument is that respondents failed to establish that Almoite was the same person referred to as "Ali" in the RTC's order of arrest.
One should however not expect too much of an ordinary policeman. He is not presumed to exercise the subtle reasoning of a judicial officer. Often he has no opportunity to make proper investigation but must act in haste on his own belief to prevent the escape of the criminal. To err is human. Even the most conscientious officer must at times be misled. If, therefore, under trying circumstances and in a zealous effort to obey the orders of his superior officer and to enforce the law, a peace officer makes a mere mistake in good faith, he should be exculpated. Otherwise, the courts will put a premium on crime and will terrorize peace officers through a fear of themselves violating the law.While the issue in the said case is the liability of a police officer who arrested and detained suspected criminals in the absence of a warrant, the Court finds that the principle enunciated therein, as quoted above, is applicable to the instant case.
Endnotes:
* Designated Additional Member in lieu of Associate Justice Francis H. Jardeleza, per Raffle dated September 10, 2014.
1 Also referred to as PO3 in some parts of the rollo and records.
2 Also referred to as PO1 in some parts of the rollo and records.
3 Penned by Associate Justice Leoncia Real-Dimagiba, with Associate Justices Amelita G. Tolentino and Ricardo R. Rosario, concurring; Annex "A" to Petition, rollo (G.R. No. 213699), pp. 71-85.
4 Penned by Associate Justice Leoncia Real-Dimagiba, with Associate Justices Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando and Ricardo R. Rosario, concurring; Annex "B" to Petition, id. at 86-88.
5 Penned by Associate Justice Hakim S. Abdulwahid, with Associate Justices Romeo F. Barza and Ramon A. Cruz, concurring; Annex "A" to Petition, rollo (G.R. No. 215008), pp. 49-61.
6 Annex "B" to Petition, id. at 62-65.
7 CA rollo (G.R. No. 213699), p. 133.
8Id.
9Id. at 74.
10Id. at 162-163.
11Id. at 158.
12Codifying the Laws on Illegal/Unlawful Possession, Manufacture, Dealing in, Acquisition or Disposition, of Firearms, Ammunition or Explosives or Instruments Used in the Manufacture of Firearms, Ammunition or Explosives, and Imposing Stiffer Penalties for Certain Violations Thereof and or Relevant Purposes. It took effect on June 29, 1983.
13 Took effect on June 6, 1997.
14 See Resolution dated March 14, 2006, CA rollo (G.R. No. 213699), pp. 165-167.
15 CA rollo, pp. 196-201.
16 See Records (G.R. No. 215008), pp. 30-31.
17Id. at 100-108.
18Rollo (G.R. No. 213699), p. 97.
19Id. at 99-101.
20Id. at 84-85. (Emphasis in the original)
21 CA rollo (G.R. No. 213699), pp. 278-280.
22Rollo (G.R. No. 213699), pp. 87-88. (Emphasis in the original)
23Rollo (G.R. No. 215008), pp. 60-61. (Emphasis in the original)
24 CA rollo (G.R. No. 215008), pp. 296-301.
25cralawred Rollo (G.R. No. 215008), p. 64. (Emphasis in the original)
26Rollo (G.R. No. 213699), p. 53.
27Rollo (G.R. No. 215008), p. 35.
28Seville v. Commission on Audit, 699 Phil. 27, 31 (2012).
29Imperial, Jr. v. Government Service Insurance System, 674 Phil. 286, 296 (2011).
30Alejandro v. Office of the Ombudsman Fact-Finding and Intelligence Bureau, 708 Phil. 32, 47 (2013).
31Id. at 47-48.
32Office oft he Ombudsman-Visayas, et al. v. Mary Ann T. Castro, G.R. No. 172637, April 22, 2015.
33Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas, et al. v. Mary Ann T. Castro, G.R. No. 172637, April 22, 2015.
34People v. Babac, 281 Phil. 1074, 1081 (1991).
35Rollo (G.R. No. 215008), p. 95.
36 See Tactical Interrogation Report, records (G.R. No. 215008), p. 73.
37Civil Service Commission v. Maala, 504 Phil. 646, 654 (2005).
38Id.
39Id.
40 79 F.3d 68 (7th Cir. 1996), as cited in the case of People v. Gordon decided by the Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District No. 2-98-0093, January 28, 2000.
41 401 U.S. 797 (1971).
42 36 Phil. 853, 855 (1917).
43 See result of examination conducted by the Commission on Human Rights, Records (G.R. No. 215008), pp. 7-14.
44Id.
45 Records(G.R. No. 215008), pp. 1-6.
46Dr. De Jesus v. Guerrero III, et al., 614 Phil. 520, 529 (2009).