Case Digest (G.R. No. 257685)
Facts:
Commission on Human Rights, Rep. by Commissioner Karen S. Gomez-Dumpit v. Office of the Ombudsman, Psupt Robert C. Domingo, PO2 Dylan Verdan, PO2 Jonathan Ubarre, PO1 Berly Apolnio, and Other John Does, G.R. No. 257685, January 24, 2024, Supreme Court Second Division, Kho, Jr., J., writing for the Court.The Commission on Human Rights (CHR) filed a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman arising from its visit on April 27, 2017 to Raxabago Police Station 1 (Raxabago PS 1) in Tondo, Manila, after receiving information about a purported “secret detention cell.” The CHR reported that it found a one-by-five metre room inside the Drug Enforcement Unit with a wooden shelf covering its entrance, occupied by 12 detainees (three women, nine men), allegedly cramped, dark, without windows or lights, and with only one male urinal; the CHR alleged unlawful arrests, absence of inquest, lack of food, physical assaults (including electric shocks), extortion, and that detainees’ names were not logged. The CHR submitted a video of its confrontation (not filed with the Supreme Court), photographs, sworn statements from visitors, and attorneys’ affidavits in support.
Respondents included PSUPT Robert C. Domingo, who alone filed a counter-affidavit and later a supplemental comment with attachments; he described the room as a “holding room” used for separation, expediency, and decongestion during a “one time, big time” police operation and denied torture, extortion, or unlawful detention. Three other police respondents did not file counter-affidavits or position papers. Documentary exhibits before the Ombudsman included indorsements to the inquest prosecutor, joint affidavits of arrest, receipts/inventories, chain-of-custody forms, and medical certificates for detainees.
The Ombudsman, in a Joint Resolution dated July 28, 2020, dismissed both the criminal docket OMB‑P‑C‑17‑0193 and the administrative docket OMB‑P‑A‑17‑0211 for lack of probable cause, finding the CHR’s evidence not sufficiently independent, impartial, or credible, that ten of the twelve detainees executed sworn statements contradicting CHR allegations, that medical examinations showed no external injuries, and that overcrowding explained the holding-room conditions. Reconsideration was denied in a Joint Order dated May 18, 2021, which reaffirmed the finding that CHR failed to show clear and convincing evidence supporting the allegations and questioned the credibility of a recanted affidavit by one detainee.
CHR filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 before the Court, alleging that the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion by applying a “clear and convincing evidence” standard rather than the civil prosecutor’s “proba...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Ombudsman commit grave abuse of discretion by applying a “clear and convincing evidence” standard instead of the “probable cause” standard when dismissing the criminal complaint?
- Was there probable cause to indict respondents for the crimes charged (arbitrary detention, delay in delivery of detained persons, grave threats, grave coercion, robbery/extortion, and violations of the Anti‑Torture...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)