G.R. No. L-68126 - Mactan Rural Bank, Inc. vs. Leogardo, Jr.

On the night of September 14, 2016, Mary Ann D. Domingo (petitioner), her husband Luis Bonifacio (Luis), and their three minor children were home in Caloocan City.
Around 12:30 a.m. on September 15, their son Gabriel Lois Bonifacio (Gabriel) was let into the house by their eldest daughter, Maria Kaila Bonifacio.
Shortly thereafter, a group of armed police officers wearing vests and carrying flashlights entered the house, announcing they were conducting a search.
Luis was found on his knees with guns pointed at his head; Gabriel pleaded with the police not to harm their father.
Gunshots were heard during the police operation, which led to the deaths of Luis and Gabriel.

Petitioner denied involvement of Luis and Gabriel in any illegal drug activities.
She alleged the incident was a raid or "tokhang," not a buy-bust operation as claimed by police.
Petitioner claimed the police took items from their home after the shooting and that her family members witnessed irregularities.
She filed a criminal complaint with the Ombudsman alleging robbery, murder, gross misconduct, gross abuse of authority, gross oppression, and conduct unbecoming a public officer against several police officers involved in the operation.

Police respondents denied wrongdoing and asserted the incident was a legitimate buy-bust operation conducted by combined teams from the DAID-SOTG and DSOU.
They claimed Luis and Gabriel fired first at the police officers, who then used reasonable force in self-defense.
Various respondents who held different roles during and after the operation denied involvement or wrongdoing.

The Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Military and Other Law Enforcement Offices (OMB-MOLEO) conducted a preliminary investigation.
The OMB-MOLEO found probable cause to charge four respondents with homicide but dismissed other criminal complaints such as murder and robbery against all respondents.
Several respondents were administratively found guilty of grave misconduct or simple neglect and suspended.
Numerous respondents were exonerated from any criminal liability based on the evidence.

Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari challenging the OMB-MOLEO’s findings, contending that the killings constituted murder, not homicide, based on qualifying circumstances including treachery and abuse of superior strength.
Petitioner argued that all respondents conspired to commit murder and should be held liable.
The Supreme Court required respondents to comment; some failed to do so.
The Ombudsman Office manifested it would not participate in defending respondents.

Whether the OMB-MOLEO gravely abused its discretion in finding probable cause that the crime committed was homicide and not murder, despite the presence of qualifying circumstances of treachery and abuse of superior strength.
Whether the OMB-MOLEO gravely abused its discretion in absolving or exonerating certain respondents from any criminal liability despite their participation in the police operation.