Case Digest (G.R. No. 234789-91)
Facts:
Felicitas D. Nacino, Helen E. Ramacula, and the Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption, Inc., G.R. Nos. 234789-91, September 03, 2019, Supreme Court En Banc, Jardeleza, J., writing for the Court. This is a Rule 65 certiorari petition challenging the Office of the Ombudsman’s Consolidated Resolution (June 13, 2017) and Consolidated Order (September 5, 2017) that dismissed complaints for 44 counts of reckless imprudence resulting in multiple homicide against respondents Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III, Alan L.M. Purisima, and Getulio P. Napenas.The background is the January 25, 2015 “Oplan Exodus” operation in Mamasapano, Maguindanao, which resulted in the death of 44 PNP-SAF troopers. The Senate Committee Report (No. 120) and the PNP Board of Inquiry (PNP-BOI) report examined planning, coordination, intelligence, and execution failures. Parents of slain SAF members and VACC filed three essentially identical complaints with the Ombudsman accusing the three respondents of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide and alleging various acts of imprudence, negligence, and unlawful usurpation of authority.
The Ombudsman’s June 13, 2017 Consolidated Resolution dismissed the negligent-homicide complaints against all three private respondents for lack of probable cause, finding instead that the proximate cause of the deaths was the intentional shooting by hostile forces (MILF, BIFF, PAGs), an efficient intervening cause; the Ombudsman, however, found probable cause to charge Aquino alone with usurpation of official functions (Art. 177, RPC) and violation of Section 3(a), RA 3019. Motions for reconsideration were denied in the Ombudsman’s September 5, 2017 Consolidated Order.
Petitioners filed this certiorari petition alleging grave abuse of discretion by the Ombudsman in dismissing the reckless-imprudence complaints, arguing the killings were foreseeable and thus causally traceable to respondents’ negligent planning and execution. The Office of the Solicitor General manifested as the People’s Tribune and later supported elevation en banc. Respondents Aquino, Purisima, and Napenas filed oppositions and counter-affidavits denying culpability or asserting limited roles; Purisima stressed delegation of operational authority to SAF and his preventive suspension; Napenas admitted leadership of SAF operations but denied criminal negligence; Aquino denied commanding the PNP and invoked limited, advisory participation.
The Supreme Court First Division referred the consolidated matter to the Court En Banc. The Court issued a TRO (Feb. 7, 2018) restraining implementation of the Ombudsman’s resolutions and arraignment in the Sandiganbayan. Later, the Ombudsman filed a motion to withdraw informations it had caused to be filed against Aqui...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Office of the Ombudsman commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in dismissing the complaints for reckless imprudence resulting in multiple homicide against Aquino, Purisima, and Napenas for lack of...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)