G.R. No. 219772 - Office of the Ombudsman vs. Mendoza

On January 11, 2010, at around 9:30 P.M., Muhad Pangandaman y Makatanong was arrested by police officers from Police Station 6 while he was tending his store in Litex IBP Road, Quezon City.
Muhad was detained and subsequently released after a demand for money was made; he paid P200,000.00 for his freedom.
In his Sinumpaang Salaysay, Muhad alleged that SPO2 Dante Naguera, accompanied by five police officers in civilian clothing, arrested him and orchestrated the extortion.
It was alleged that Naguera threatened Muhad with further arrest if he divulged details of the incident.

Relatives Diamungan Pangandaman and Mampao Rasul, in their Pinagsamang Salaysay, corroborated Muhad’s account:

They witnessed the approach of police officers in civilian clothing to Muhad’s store.
They observed the arrest and later learned that a sum of P200,000.00 was demanded for Muhad’s release.
At about 1:00 A.M. on January 12, 2010, Muhad’s sister-in-law, Nanayaon Sangcopan Mute, informed them about the extortion demand, prompting them to seek assistance from Mangorsi Ampaso, president of the Muslim Vendors Association.
Ampaso accompanied them to Police Station 6 where he handed over the demanded sum, and an additional P50,000.00 was later provided as the police increased the demand.

In their subsequent Karagdagan Sinumpaang Salaysay, Diamungan and Rasul stated that before leaving the police station, SPO2 Naguera led Rasul into the office of P/Supt. Crisostomo P. Mendoza, where Rasul saw Naguera hand P100,000.00 to Mendoza.

He claimed he was neither assigned nor detailed at Police Station 6 during the incident.
Mendoza asserted that he had no part in arresting Muhad and refuted any involvement in any extortion scheme.
He argued that the statements by Muhad, Diamungan, and Rasul were inconsistent and contradictory to Ampaso’s affidavit, which denied giving money to Naguera.
Mendoza maintained that he was attending a church service in Pasig at the time of the incident.

The OMB found Mendoza, along with other police officers, guilty of grave misconduct based primarily on the affidavits and testimonies.
The OMB ruled that there was substantial evidence supporting that extortion occurred and that Mendoza, by association, was complicit.
Penalties imposed included dismissal from service, disqualification from holding public office, forfeiture of retirement benefits, cancellation of civil service eligibilities, and a ban from future civil service examinations (with an alternative penalty of a fine if already retired).
The administrative case against other respondents like Mangorsi Ampaso was dismissed.

Despite the OMB dismissing Mendoza’s motion for reconsideration in its April 18, 2013 Joint Order, Mendoza sought further relief by petitioning for review.

The CA granted Mendoza’s petition by reversing and setting aside the January 21, 2013 OMB Decision and the April 18, 2013 Joint Order.
The CA held that there was no substantial evidence to conclusively find Mendoza guilty of grave misconduct, highlighting inconsistencies in the affidavits and the belated inclusion of Mendoza in the supplemental statements.
Moreover, the CA deemed that Mendoza’s unsubstantiated alibi of attending a church service did not warrant the imposition of liability.

The CA denied the OMB’s motion for reconsideration, thereby reinforcing its earlier decision.

Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred when it reversed and set aside the January 21, 2013 Decision and April 18, 2013 Joint Order of the Office of the Ombudsman, in light of substantial evidence alleging that respondent Mendoza was liable for grave misconduct.

Consideration of whether the evidence, largely based on the affidavits of Muhad and his witnesses, was sufficient to support a finding of grave misconduct.
Examination of the credibility and consistency of the statements provided by the complainant and corroborating witnesses, particularly in relation to the supplemental details implicating Mendoza.

Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in denying the motion for reconsideration filed by the Office of the Ombudsman, especially regarding the applicability of Executive Order (E.O.) No. 226.

Assessment of whether E.O. No. 226, which institutionalizes the doctrine of Command Responsibility, should apply given the actions attributed to Mendoza.
Analysis of whether the doctrine of command responsibility is meant to impose liability on superiors actively participating in the wrongdoing or solely on those failing to discipline subordinates.