Case Digest (G.R. No. 257298)
Facts:
Espina v. Gicole, G.R. No. 257298, February 01, 2023, Supreme Court Third Division, Caguioa, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner is PO2 Reny D. Espina; respondent is Norberto P. Gicole, the father and complainant for the deaths of his sons Emilio and Butch Gicole.On November 25, 2016 two brothers, Emilio and Butch, were shot outside Harakhak Restobar in Wao, Lanao del Sur. Norberto filed a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman alleging Murder, Grave Misconduct, and Conduct Unbecoming of a Public Officer against Espina and two other PNP members, PO1 Isaac Kirt Q. Sipin and PO3 Junie Lee Besas. Affidavits from three civilian witnesses described a commotion outside the restobar; Emilio allegedly tried to pacify the groups and was seen with a gun, whereupon Espina, in civilian clothes and not identifying himself as a police officer, fired warning shots and then shot Emilio and, shortly after, shot Butch as he rushed to his brother’s aid. The police officers submitted counter-affidavits asserting they were on an operation, that Espina fired because he perceived an imminent threat (Emilio allegedly pointing a gun), and that a warning shot was first fired.
The Office of the Ombudsman — Military and Other Law Enforcement Offices (OMB‑MOLEO) issued a Joint Resolution dated January 25, 2018 dismissing the criminal and administrative charges against the three officers, finding (a) the provincial prosecutor first acquired jurisdiction over the criminal complaint and (b) the officers “reacted in a way as every trained police officer should,” leaving the presumption of regularity intact. A motion for reconsideration was denied by Joint Order dated May 3, 2018. Norberto filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals (CA). In a November 22, 2018 resolution the CA dismissed the petition insofar as the criminal aspect was concerned for lack of jurisdiction. By Decision dated October 23, 2020 (Twenty‑Second Division, penned by Justice Richard D. Mordeno, with Justices Lloren and Posadas‑Kahulugan concurring), the CA set aside the Ombudsman’s Joint Resolution as to the administrative charges and found Espina guilty of Grave Misconduct and Conduct Unbecoming of a Police Officer, ordering his dismissal; it affirmed the dismissal of charges against Sipin and Besas. The CA denied Espina’s motion for reconsideration in a May 6, 2021 resolution.
Espina bro...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in finding PO2 Reny D. Espina guilty of Grave Misconduct and Conduct Unbecoming of a Public Officer and ordering his dismissal from the...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)