G.R. Nos. 234789-91, September 03, 2019
FELICITAS D. NACINO, HELEN E. RAMACULA, AND THE VOLUNTEERS AGAINST CRIME AND CORRUPTION, INC., PETITIONERS, V. THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, REPRESENTED BY OMBUDSMAN CONCHITA CARPIO-MORALES, BENIGNO SIMEON C. AQUINO III, ALAN LM. PURISIMA, AND GETULIO P. NAPEÑAS, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioners, mostly parents of slain SAF troopers and the Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption, Inc., filed a petition for certiorari seeking to annul the Office of the Ombudsman’s Consolidated Resolution (June 13, 2017) and Consolidated Order (September 5, 2017). These Ombudsman issuances dismissed the complaints for 44 counts of reckless imprudence resulting in multiple homicide against former President Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III, former PNP Chief Alan LM. Purisima, and former PNP-SAF Director Getulio P. Napeñas in relation to the Mamasapano incident of January 25, 2015. In that incident, 44 SAF troopers were killed during Oplan Exodus, an operation to capture terrorists Marwan and Usman. The Ombudsman, however, found probable cause to charge Aquino with Usurpation of Official Functions (Article 177, RPC) and violation of Section 3(a) of R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act), in conspiracy with Purisima and Napeñas. The complaints alleged that Aquino negligently approved and participated in the flawed plan, allowed the suspended Purisima to plan and run the operation, and failed to timely deploy rescue forces. Purisima was accused of keeping the operation secret from key officials, disregarding coordination protocols, and providing inaccurate intelligence. Napeñas was accused of unlawfully taking orders from the suspended Purisima, negligent planning, and failing to coordinate timely with the AFP.

ISSUE

Whether the Office of the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaints for reckless imprudence resulting in multiple homicide against respondents Aquino, Purisima, and Napeñas for lack of probable cause.

RULING

No, the Office of the Ombudsman did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Ombudsman’s findings. The Court held that the determination of probable cause is an executive function vested in the Ombudsman, and its findings will not be disturbed absent a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion. The Court found that the Ombudsman correctly applied the elements of reckless imprudence under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code. The evidence did not establish that the respondents’ actions constituted the reckless imprudence that directly caused the deaths. The deaths were primarily the result of a legitimate police operation that escalated into a firefight with armed groups, which was a risk inherent in such operations. The alleged negligence in planning and coordination pertained to the respondents’ performance of their official duties and did not amount to the criminal negligence required for reckless imprudence. The Court distinguished between errors in judgment in the exercise of official functions and criminal negligence. The Ombudsman’s conclusion that the elements of probable cause for reckless imprudence were not present was not arrived at arbitrarily. Therefore, there was no grave abuse of discretion warranting the Court’s reversal of the Ombudsman’s dismissal of the homicide complaints.