Title
Daquioag vs. Office of the Ombudsman
Case
G.R. No. 228509
Decision Date
Oct 14, 2019
Marine captain accused of firing on civilians in Basilan exonerated by Supreme Court due to insufficient evidence and credible alibi.
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 228509)

Antecedent Events

On August 10, 2008, an incident occurred involving civilians Hadja Nihma Alabain, her grandson Qamar Mujanil, among others, and military personnel led by Capt. Daquioag in Lamitan, Basilan. During the encounter, Francisco, one of the civilians, raised his hands and claimed they were civilians. Despite this, Capt. Daquioag's team opened fire, resulting in the death of Alviar, a civilian, and injuries to Palces, who was with the group. Following the event, an interrogation of the civilians ensued, leading to confiscation of their belongings.

Human Rights Complaint and Investigation

Subsequent to the shooting, Hadji and Hadja Alabain, along with the other implicated individuals, filed a complaint with the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) against Capt. Daquioag. The CHR found that Capt. Daquioag and his team had not verified their targets, concluding that the shooting was unjustifiable due to the civilian status of Alviar and his companions. This led to a referral of the case to the Office of the Ombudsman for further action.

Office of the Ombudsman Ruling

On November 27, 2009, the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military and Other Law Enforcement Offices (OMB-MOLEO) ruled against Capt. Daquioag, finding him guilty of grave misconduct and imposing a penalty of dismissal from service. The OMB-MOLEO emphasized substantial evidence, notably witness identification by Hadja Alabain. Furthermore, it dismissed Daquioag's claims of not being present as unconvincing, citing that the incident took place nearby.

Court of Appeals Affirmation

The CA upheld the Office of the Ombudsman decision on August 10, 2015, affirming the findings of grave misconduct. The CA stated that findings supported by substantial evidence are conclusive under the Ombudsman Act and that Capt. Daquioag was indeed the leader of the assault. The CA additionally found merit in the identification made by Hadja Alabain, thus rejecting Daquioag's motion for reconsideration.

Petition to the Supreme Court

In appealing to the Supreme Court, Capt. Daquioag contended that he was acting in his capacity as the Civil-Military Officer and was prohibited from engaging in combat. He presented affidavits from LtCol. Teodoro, asserting that Daquioag was not involved in the firefight, and emphasized the execution of a joint affidavit of desistance by the complainants, claiming it invalidated the administrative findings against him.

Supreme Court Ruling

The Supreme Court found merit in Capt. Daquioag's petition, stating that the CA and OMB-MOLEO had essentially based their conclusions on the identification made by Hadja Alabain without suffi

...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.