G.R. No. 257136 . October 11, 2023
Mary Ann D. Domingo, Petitioner, vs. Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Military and Other Law Enforcement Offices (MOLEO), PLT. Col. Ali Jose A. Duterte, PMAJ. Jonathan Victor M. Olveña, PMAJ. Timothy B. Aniway, Jr., PSSG Reymel A. Villanueva, PSSG John Cezar S. Mendoza, PSMS Joel J. Saludes, PSSG Harold Jake A. Dela Rosa, PCPL. Arnel De Guzman, PCPL. Johnston Alacre, PMSG. Virgilio Cervantes, PCPL. Artemio Saguros, Jr., Pat. Carlo Miguel Daniel, Pat. Randy Chua, Pat. Ruby Dumaguing, PSMS. Alberto Sucgang, PSSG. Richard Ramos, PCPL. Orland Lucky Boy De Leon, PMAJ. Avelino U. Andaya, PSSG. Edgar L. Manapat, Pat. Aldrin Matthew A. Matining, Harlem Ramos, Respondents.

FACTS

The case stemmed from a shooting incident on September 15, 2016, resulting in the deaths of petitioner’s husband, Luis Bonifacio, and son, Gabriel Lois Bonifacio. Petitioner Mary Ann D. Domingo filed a complaint with the Ombudsman alleging that the police operation was not a legitimate buy-bust but a raid, and that the unarmed victims were summarily executed. She accused the respondents of robbery, two counts of murder, gross misconduct, grave abuse of authority, gross oppression, and conduct unbecoming of a public officer.
Petitioner’s version stated that around 12:30 a.m., armed police officers barged into their house, forced the family downstairs at gunpoint, and then shot Luis and Gabriel inside. She denied any involvement of her family in the drug trade. The respondents, police officers involved in the operation, countered that it was a legitimate buy-bust operation against Luis. They claimed that after the poseur-buyers were introduced, Gabriel recognized the informant, prompting Luis and Gabriel to run inside, get firearms, and fire at the police operatives, who then returned fire in self-defense.
The Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military and Other Law Enforcement Offices (OMB-MOLEO) issued a Joint Resolution finding probable cause for the crime of homicide only against four accused-respondents (Police Master Sergeant Virgilio Q. Cervantes, Police Corporal Arnel C. De Guzman, Police Corporal Johnston M. Alacre, and Police Corporal Artemio S. Saguros, Jr.) and exonerated all other respondents from criminal liability. The OMB-MOLEO denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. Petitioner then filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 before the Supreme Court, assailing the OMB-MOLEO’s resolutions.

ISSUE

Whether the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military and Other Law Enforcement Offices committed grave abuse of discretion in finding probable cause only for homicide against four police officers and in exonerating all other respondents from criminal liability.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The Court held that the Ombudsman did not commit grave abuse of discretion in its findings. The Court emphasized that in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, the inquiry is limited to determining whether the Ombudsman acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. Grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The Court found that the Ombudsman’s findings were based on the evidence presented and the exercise of its investigatory and prosecutory powers. The Ombudsman found the respondents’ claim of a legitimate buy-bust operation and self-defense to be supported by the evidence on record, including coordination documents and the police’s narrative of events. The Court ruled that the Ombudsman’s determination of probable cause, which is based on a preliminary investigation, is generally not subject to judicial review unless shown to have been made with grave abuse of discretion. Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the Ombudsman’s conclusions were arrived at arbitrarily or capriciously. Therefore, the Court upheld the OMB-MOLEO’s Joint Resolution and Joint Order.