GR 228298; (June, 2021) (Digest)
G.R. No. 228298 , June 23, 2021
Junel Alaska, Petitioner, vs. SPO2 Gil M. Garcia, PO3 Romy P. Galicia and PO2 Ruzel S. Briones, Respondents.
FACTS
On September 24, 2010, a robbery with homicide occurred at a Petron Gasoline Station in Brooke’s Point, Palawan. Police officers, including respondents SPO2 Gil M. Garcia, PO3 Romy P. Galicia, and PO2 Ruzel S. Briones, conducted an investigation. Based on text message exchanges, they located and arrested petitioner Junel Alaska and Adolfo Montesa on September 29, 2010, without a warrant. They were charged with Robbery with Homicide. Prior to arraignment, Alaska and Montesa filed an Omnibus Motion to challenge the legality of their warrantless arrest and the lack of probable cause. Simultaneously, they filed administrative (Misconduct) and criminal (Arbitrary Detention) complaints against the respondent police officers before the Office of the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman dismissed both complaints, reasoning that the legality of the arrest should be raised before the trial court hearing the criminal case and that Section 20 of Republic Act No. 6770 (The Ombudsman Act) barred the investigation since an adequate remedy existed before the trial court. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Ombudsman’s dismissal, erroneously finding that Alaska and Montesa had failed to object to their arrest before arraignment and had thus waived any defect. The RTC, however, later granted the Omnibus Motion, finding insufficient evidence for the arrest and prosecution and indicating a “readiness to contrive evidence” by the law enforcers.
ISSUE
1. Whether the Court of Appeals validly dismissed the petition on the premise that Alaska raised no objection to the irregularity of his arrest before arraignment.
2. Whether the Ombudsman erred in holding that questioning the legality of the arrest before the Regional Trial Court bars the filing of administrative and criminal cases with the Ombudsman.
RULING
1. No. The Court of Appeals gravely erred. The records clearly show that Alaska timely and properly assailed the validity of his arrest through an Omnibus Motion filed prior to arraignment, which was heard and decided in his favor by the RTC. This fact was admitted by the respondents and acknowledged by the Ombudsman. The CA’s finding had no basis in the facts.
2. Yes. The Ombudsman erred. The right of an accused to assail his arrest before the trial court does not preclude the filing of separate administrative or criminal charges against the arresting officers for their alleged unlawful acts. The Ombudsman’s reliance on Section 20 of R.A. No. 6770 was misplaced. The administrative case for Misconduct and the criminal case for Arbitrary Detention involve different causes of action and standards of proof from the question of the legality of arrest in the main criminal case for Robbery with Homicide. They are not “counter-charges” that would interfere with the trial court’s jurisdiction. The Ombudsman has the constitutional and statutory duty to investigate such complaints against public officers independently. The Court found serious indications of unlawful arrest and fabrication of evidence, which the Ombudsman and CA refused to tackle without proper legal basis. The Petition was granted, and the case was remanded to the Ombudsman for appropriate proceedings.