Title
Commission on Human Rights vs. Office of the Ombudsman
Case
G.R. No. 257685
Decision Date
Jan 24, 2024
CHR challenged Ombudsman dismissals of criminal complaints against police for arbitrary detention and torture allegations, citing insufficient evidence to support claims, leading to the Supreme Court's denial of the petition.
ombudsman
commission on human rights
arbitrary detention

Case Summary (G.R. No. 257685)

Procedural Posture and Nature of the Petition

The CHR filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 assailing the Ombudsman’s dismissal of its complaints against respondents. The CHR targeted the Ombudsman’s determination that there was no probable cause to indict respondents for the charged offenses. The Court’s task was not to substitute its own assessment of evidence for that of the Ombudsman. It was to determine whether the CHR demonstrated that the Ombudsman’s action was tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to a capricious, whimsical, or arbitrary exercise of judgment tantamount to lack of jurisdiction.

Factual Background: CHR Visit and Allegations

The CHR initiated the complaint after receiving information about a “secret detention cell” at Raxabago Police Station 1. In the early evening of April 27, 2017, the CHR visited the station and found what it described as a room inside the Drug Enforcement Unit (DEU) office. The CHR characterized the setup as a cramped area measuring approximately one meter by five meters, with an entrance covered by a wooden shelf. The CHR described the space as cramped, dingy, fetid, and dark, with no lights and windows, and only one male urinal, which allegedly caused detainees to urinate and defecate in plastic bags.

Inside the area, the CHR claimed there were three women and nine men detainees who had been arrested for alleged violations of Republic Act No. 9165. The CHR identified twelve detainees and alleged periods of confinement from April 20, 2017 to April 25, 2017, and for some as short as two days or about one week. The CHR further alleged, among others, that the detainees’ names were not recorded in the station’s logbooks; they were unlawfully arrested; they were not subjected to inquest proceedings as of the CHR’s visit date; they were not provided food; certain officers demanded money for release, taking PHP 12,000.00 from one detainee; a detainee feared being killed; and detainees were physically assaulted and electrocuted with a taser.

To support these claims, the CHR submitted a video of its confrontation with station personnel and the detention area, photographs of the station and the interior, sworn statements of certain individuals, and CHR affidavits. In substance, much of the torture and coercion narrative was said to have been relayed to the CHR by detainees.

Respondents’ Defense Before the Ombudsman

Respondent PSUPT Domingo filed a counter-affidavit and offered an alternative explanation. He asserted that the detainees were lawfully arrested during a legitimate police operation at around 4:30 a.m. on April 27, 2017. He explained that because relevant documents were still being processed, detainees were placed in a “holding room” (which the CHR referred to as the “secret detention cell”) for specific operational reasons: to separate them from persons already undergoing court proceedings, to expedite processing because the holding room was near the DEU office, to decongest regular detention cells, to implement stricter security measures within the DEU, and to safeguard the welfare of police officers.

After inquest, PSUPT Domingo stated that detainees either were transferred to main detention cells or released based on the inquest prosecutor’s findings. As to the holding room’s visibility and accessibility, he explained that the DEU office had a separate ingress and egress along Capulong Street and that the holding room could be seen from that side depending on the perspective and removal of the shelf used as a partition. He also claimed the holding room had sufficient lighting and ventilation using electric and exhaust fans, water supply, and urinals. He further alleged that on the day of the CHR visit, the number of detainees exceeded capacity—78 men and 18 women with capacity purportedly only 50 detainees.

PSUPT Domingo denied allegations of torture, unlawful arrest, and extortion. Notably, respondents PO2 Verdan, PO2 Ubarre, and PO1 Apolonio did not submit counter-affidavits or position papers.

Ombudsman’s Joint Resolution of July 28, 2020

In its Joint Resolution dated July 28, 2020, the Ombudsman dismissed both the criminal and administrative complaints for lack of probable cause. With respect to allegations of arbitrary detention and delay in the delivery of detained persons, the Ombudsman found that the CHR failed to show—by clear and convincing evidence—that detainees were held beyond the period allowed by law without the filing of a complaint.

As to allegations of grave threats, grave coercion, and robbery/extortion, and related claims of maltreatment and violations of Republic Act No. 9745 and the 2013 Revised Philippine National Police Operational Procedures (2013 RPNPOP), the Ombudsman ruled that the CHR failed to substantiate these allegations with independent, impartial, and credible evidence. It emphasized that the CHR did not sufficiently controvert the defenses regarding: (a) the supposed separate ingress and egress of the DEU area; and (b) the shelf’s function as a partition separating the room from the investigator’s area and the regular detention cells.

The Ombudsman also relied on sworn statements and arrest-related documentation indicating that detainees were arrested either on April 26, 2017 or April 27, 2017 during a “one time, big time” operation. It further noted that given the number of newly arrested persons, the station detained them in a confined and cramped space. However, the Ombudsman was not persuaded that the evidence supported the specific criminal claims of torture and coercion as charged.

CHR’s Motion for Reconsideration and the Joint Order of May 18, 2021

The CHR sought reconsideration, but the Ombudsman denied it in a Joint Order dated May 18, 2021. The Ombudsman maintained its finding that the CHR failed to establish probable cause.

The Ombudsman noted that, as to the detainees in the room in issue, all except Robert Muro executed affidavits that contradicted the CHR’s allegations. It also addressed Cesar De Guzman, who allegedly recanted an earlier affidavit and executed a new one supporting the CHR’s claims of arbitrary detention, delay, maltreatment, and torture. The Ombudsman questioned his credibility because the official documentation allegedly contradicted his recantation.

The Ombudsman further pointed to medical checkups on different dates that allegedly showed no external signs of physical injury. It also noted that arrest records established that, for violation of Republic Act No. 9165, the detainees were arrested on April 27, 2017 (except Sonny Iglesias and Grace De Guzman, who were arrested the previous day). Thus, it concluded that De Guzman’s affidavit could not be credited. It also described the CHR’s video as showing only a dark room with limited details, and it declined to treat the CHR’s description of conditions as fact due to insufficient lighting in the footage.

The Ombudsman additionally recognized that the detention conditions reflected a congested situation, noting that on April 27, 2017 the detainees exceeded capacity. It reasoned that although the detention cell might be inadequate, respondents had limited alternatives under the circumstances.

Issues for the Court

The principal issue was whether the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the criminal aspect of the CHR complaint for lack of probable cause.

Supreme Court Ruling: Petition Denied; Ombudsman’s Dismissal Affirmed

The Court denied the petition and affirmed the Ombudsman’s Joint Resolution dated July 28, 2020 and Joint Order dated May 18, 2021.

Procedural Defect: Failure to Attach Documents

The Court first noted a procedural deficiency. The CHR failed to include in its petition the attachments to PSUPT Domingo’s counter-affidavit, which were considered relevant documents. The Court treated this as a violation of Rule 65, Section 1, second paragraph of the Rules of Court. The Court observed that PSUPT Domingo provided the attachments later in a supplemental comment.

Deference to the Ombudsman; Grave Abuse Standard

On the merits, the Court reiterated the settled principle that the Ombudsman has full discretion to determine whether to file or not file an information, including the discretion to dismiss a complaint if it finds the complaint insufficient in form or substance or lacking probable cause. Consistent with the principle of separation of powers, the Court adopted a policy of non-interference with the Ombudsman’s constitutional mandate.

The Court acknowledged that certiorari under Article VIII, Section 1(2) remains available when the Ombudsman acts with grave abuse of discretion defined as a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment tantamount to lack of jurisdiction. Still, it required the CHR to prove such grave abuse.

Quantum of Evidence Language: Clarification of “Clear and Convincing” References

The CHR argued that the Ombudsman used the wrong quantum of evidence. It claimed the Ombudsman dismissed the complaint using “clear and convincing evidence” instead of “probable cause.”

The Court disagreed. It held that the Ombudsman’s use of phrases such as “clear and convincing evidence” and “clear and strong evidence” did not establish a different quantum governing the probable-cause inquiry. Rather, those phrases described the inadequacy of the CHR’s evidentiary submissions in supporting probable cause. The Court pointed to the Ombudsman’s own statement that the CHR failed to establish probable cause and noted that immediately thereafter the Ombudsman referred to the CHR’s failure to show by clear and strong evidence that detainees were held beyond the allowable period. Thus, the Court treated the references as characterizations of evidence, not as an incorrect standard for probable cause.

Probable Cause and the Court’s Evaluation of the CHR’s Evidence

The Court then proceeded to assess whether probable cause existed. It restated the definition of probable cause as the existence of facts and

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms