Case Digest (G.R. No. 219772)
Facts:
Office of the Ombudsman v. P/Supt. Crisostomo P. Mendoza, G.R. No. 219772, July 17, 2019, Supreme Court Second Division, Reyes, J. Jr., J., writing for the Court.The case arose from the January 11–12, 2010 arrest and alleged extortion of Muhad Pangandaman y Makatanong by police officers of Police Station 6. Muhad complained to the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) that he was arrested by officers in civilian clothing, brought to Police Station 6 in Batasan Hills, and released only after P200,000.00 was delivered. Muhad’s relatives, Diamungan Pangandaman and Mampao Rasul, executed sworn statements corroborating Muhad’s account; they stated that Mangorsi Ampaso accompanied them to the station and gave the money, and later Rasul averred in a supplemental affidavit that he saw SPO2 Dante Naguera hand P100,000.00 to respondent P/Supt. Crisostomo P. Mendoza inside Mendoza’s office.
Mendoza filed a counter-affidavit denying involvement, claiming Naguera was not assigned to Police Station 6, that he was not the arresting officer, and that he was at a church attending religious services at the relevant time. Ampaso’s affidavit acknowledged a demand and payment but denied giving money to Naguera.
The OMB investigated and—through a decision appearing in the rollo as dated February 8, 2013 (assailed in the petitions as the January 21, 2013 Decision)—found Mendoza and several police officers guilty of grave misconduct and imposed dismissal from the service (with alternative fine if already retired) while dismissing charges against others. Mendoza’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the OMB in an April 18, 2013 Joint Order.
Mendoza elevated the administrative case to the Court of Appeals by a petition for review. In its October 10, 2014 Decision, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed and set aside the OMB decision, absolving Mendoza for lack of substantial evidence, reasoning that the OMB relied primarily on affidavits that contained inconsistencies (notably that Mendoza was implicated only in a supplemental affidavit) and that Mendoza’s denial and alibi required no documentary corroboration. The CA also held it had no jurisdiction over the OMB’s Joint Order insofar as it concerned criminal aspects. The CA denied the OMB’s motion for reconsideration in a July 31, 2015 Resolution.
The OMB then filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking reversal of the CA’s October 10, 2014 Decision and July 31, 2015 Resolution and reinstatement of the OMB’s January 21, 2013 Decision and April 18, 2013 Joint Order. Mendoza moved to dismiss the petition for lack of verification and certification against forum shopping and, on the merits, argued that affidavits in administrative proceedings carry limited weight and t...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals gravely err in reversing and setting aside the OMB’s January 21, 2013 Decision and April 18, 2013 Joint Order finding Mendoza guilty of grave misconduct?
- Did the Court of Appeals gravely err in holding that E.O. No. 226 (institutionalizing the doctrine of command responsibility) is inapp...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)