Daquioag v. Office of the Ombudsman
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On August 10, 2008, a group of civilians, including Hadja Nihma Alabain and her companions, were on their way home from a farm in Lamitan, Basilan, when they were fired upon by patrolling Philippine Marine soldiers led by Capt. Jomar B. Daquioag. The incident resulted in the death of Robert Alviar and minor injuries to others, with some farm implements also being confiscated. Subsequently, a complaint was filed with the Commission on Human Rights (CHR), which recommended forwarding the case to the Office of the Ombudsman for Military and Other Law Enforcement Offices (OMB-MOLEO) due to the unjustified attack on civilians. Procedural History: The OMB-MOLEO found Capt. Daquioag guilty of grave misconduct and ordered his dismissal from service. This decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA) on August 10, 2015, which also upheld the OMB-MOLEO's authority to impose such a penalty. The CA found substantial evidence, primarily Hadja Alabain's positive identification, to support the grave misconduct charge. Despite a subsequent joint affidavit of desistance from some complainants, the CA ruled that such affidavits do not alter administrative liability, adhering to established jurisprudence. The Petition: Capt. Daquioag filed an Amended Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the CA's decision. He argued that he was not involved in the firefight, as his role as Civil Military Officer (CMO) prohibited him from engaging in armed combat. He presented affidavits from his commanding officers attesting to his non-involvement and stating that other officers led the troops in the encounter. Furthermore, he highlighted a joint affidavit of desistance executed by the complainants, asserting that they had mistakenly identified him and now knew the actual perpetrators. The petition contends that the CA erred in disregarding these pieces of evidence and in upholding the finding of grave misconduct against him.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the finding of grave misconduct against Capt. Daquioag and ordering his dismissal from the service, specifically regarding the sufficiency of evidence and identification. Whether there was substantial evidence to prove Capt. Daquioag's involvement in the incident, considering his defense and alibi, and the authority of the Ombudsman. Whether the joint affidavit of desistance should have been considered, and its impact on the finding of administrative liability.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals, and dismissed the complaint against Captain Jomar B. Daquioag for grave misconduct.
Ratio Decidendi
On the sufficiency of evidence and identification: The Court found that the CA and OMB-MOLEO unduly gave weight to Hadja Alabain's identification of Capt. Daquioag. Her affidavit did not specify when she saw him or how she identified him as one of the approximately 100 armed men who fired upon them, and she only mentioned him once in relation to filing charges. Crucially, none of her companions corroborated her statement that Capt. Daquioag commanded the soldiers who attacked them. Hadji Alabain, who was not present during the incident, was the only one who claimed Capt. Daquioag led the soldiers. This lack of corroboration and specificity rendered the identification insufficient to establish substantial evidence. On Capt. Daquioag's defense and alibi, and the authority of the Ombudsman: The Court found Capt. Daquioag's explanation more credible. As the Civil Military Officer (CMO), he was prohibited from engaging in armed combat. His commanding officers, LtCol. Teodoro and 2Lt. Eribal, provided affidavits attesting that Capt. Daquioag was not involved in the firefight and only accompanied LtCol. Teodoro to the scene later to collect a body. 2Lt. Eribal's affidavit specifically stated Capt. Daquioag was not directly involved in the operation and was merely accompanying the Battalion Commander. These detailed statements, which established Capt. Daquioag's role and absence from the actual combat, should have been appreciated by the CA and OMB-MOLEO. The Court reiterated that findings of fact by the Ombudsman, when supported by substantial evidence, are generally conclusive. However, it also affirmed that petitions for review on certiorari can delve into factual matters when there is a misapprehension of facts or the conclusion is based on speculation, which was found to be the case here. On the joint affidavit of desistance and administrative liability: While acknowledging that affidavits of desistance are viewed with suspicion and are not binding on the Ombudsman, the Court noted that they can be considered, especially when they expressly repudiate material points in the complaint-affidavit, absent proof of fraud or duress. In this case, the joint affidavit, executed after the OMB-MOLEO decision but before the CA ruling, was significant because Hadja Alabain expressly stated she mistakenly identified Capt. Daquioag and identified the actual culprits, 2nd Lt. Eribal and 1st Lt. Talingdan. There was no proof of coercion, and the criminal cases against Capt. Daquioag were dismissed based on this affidavit, making the finding that he headed the attack lack factual basis. The Court concluded that based on the lack of substantial evidence for identification and the credible evidence presented by Capt. Daquioag, including the joint affidavit of desistance, there was no proof that he committed an act constituting grave misconduct. Therefore, the CA erred in upholding the OMB-MOLEO's decision.
Main Doctrine
The Court reversed the dismissal of Captain Jomar B. Daquioag from service, finding that the identification of Capt. Daquioag as the leader of the group that fired upon civilians lacked substantial evidence, especially in light of a subsequent joint affidavit of desistance and corroborating testimonies from superior officers.