Domingo v. Office of the Deputy Ombudsman
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The underlying dispute arose from a shooting incident on September 15, 2016, which resulted in the deaths of Luis Bonifacio and his son, Gabriel Lois Bonifacio. The petitioner, Mary Ann D. Domingo, alleged that her husband and son were killed by police officers during a raid, not a buy-bust operation, and that their belongings were stolen. She claimed the incident was a murder, not homicide, due to treachery and abuse of superior strength. Procedural History: The petitioner filed a complaint-affidavit with the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military and Other Law Enforcement Offices (OMB-MOLEO) against several police officers, alleging robbery, murder, and misconduct. A supplemental complaint-affidavit impleaded additional respondents. The OMB-MOLEO issued a Joint Resolution finding probable cause for homicide against four officers and exonerating others from criminal liability, while also finding some guilty of grave misconduct and simple neglect of duty. The OMB-MOLEO's Joint Order denied the petitioner's motion for reconsideration. The Petition: The petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, assailing the OMB-MOLEO's Joint Resolution and Joint Order. She argued that the OMB-MOLEO gravely abused its discretion by finding probable cause only for homicide instead of murder, despite alleged treachery and abuse of superior strength, and by absolving several respondents from criminal liability. The petitioner also sought a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction to prevent the filing of Informations for homicide.
Issue(s)
Whether the OMB-MOLEO gravely abused its discretion when it found probable cause that the crime committed was homicide instead of murder. Whether the OMB-MOLEO gravely abused its discretion when it absolved exonerated-respondents from any criminal liability.
Ruling
The petition is bereft of merit. The Supreme Court affirmed the Joint Resolution dated January 15, 2020, and the Joint Order dated March 8, 2021, of the OMB-MOLEO. The prayer for a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction was denied.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of homicide versus murder: The Court held that the OMB-MOLEO did not act with grave abuse of discretion in finding probable cause for homicide and not murder. The Court reiterated that for murder, the killing must be attended by qualifying circumstances such as treachery, evident premeditation, or abuse of superior strength. Regarding treachery, the Court noted that the police officers announced their presence and purpose, and the victims' actions, such as Gabriel's attempt to obstruct the arrest, could have been a spur-of-the-moment reaction, negating the element of deliberate adoption of means to ensure the commission of the crime without risk to the assailants. The Court also found no evident premeditation as there was no showing that the police operation was conceived for the purpose of killing the deceased. As for abuse of superior strength, the Court explained that while the police were armed and outnumbered the deceased, this is inherent in a police operation and does not automatically constitute abuse of superior strength unless there was a deliberate intent to take advantage of superior strength to facilitate the killing, which was not sufficiently proven. The Court also invoked the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties by police officers. On the issue of absolving exonerated-respondents: The Court found no grave abuse of discretion in absolving the other respondents. The Court agreed with the OMB-MOLEO that some respondents, like the Investigators-On-Case and those from the Crime Laboratory, were involved only after the fact and not in the actual operation. For the other exonerated respondents, the Court noted that the records lacked details of their participation in the actual shooting incident, unlike the accused-respondents who admitted to firing their weapons. The petitioner failed to present clear and convincing evidence of conspiracy among all respondents or that the sole purpose of the operation was to kill the deceased. The Court emphasized that mere participation in a police operation or receiving a commendation does not automatically establish conspiracy or criminal liability for murder.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court affirmed the Ombudsman's finding of probable cause for homicide, not murder, and the exoneration of certain police officers, holding that the evidence did not sufficiently establish the qualifying circumstances of treachery or abuse of superior strength, and that the police operation, while resulting in death, was presumed regular and not a premeditated killing. The Court also reiterated that it will not interfere with the Ombudsman's determination of probable cause unless tainted with grave abuse of discretion.