Case Summary (G.R. No. 211478)
Applicable Law
The case primarily involves allegations surrounding violations of Republic Act No. 3019, also known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, specifically Sections 3(e) and 3(f), alongside the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees under Republic Act No. 6713.
Background of the Case
The complaint against Cayton and Geslani emerged from a Joint-Complaint Affidavit filed by the petitioners and others on January 19, 2010. They accused the respondents of grave misconduct due to their failure to extend security to the Mangudadatu convoy, which was ambushed on November 23, 2009, leading to the deaths of fifty-seven individuals, including journalists.
Legal Proceedings
The Office of the Ombudsman investigated and ultimately dismissed both criminal and administrative complaints against the respondents, stating that there was insufficient evidence to support allegations of manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable neglect. The Ombudsman clarified that the respondents acted in accordance with operational guidelines which prohibit military personnel from providing security escorts to candidates in electoral activities.
Grounds for Dismissal
The Ombudsman found that the petitioners failed to demonstrate that Cayton and Geslani had acted with the intent required under the relevant statutes. It noted that, while the respondents had the duty to protect civilians, the complaint's contingency hinged on the specific facts: both officers believed intelligence reports did not justify security measures at the time of the incident. Also, the existing operational guidelines precluded the military from engaging in the provision of security escorts for election-related activities.
Petitioners' Arguments
The petitioners contended that Cayton and Geslani showed manifest partiality towards the Ampatuans by providing security to them while denying the same to the Mangudadatu convoy. They referred to allegations that military personnel had been assigned to protect Ampatuan, Jr. and that the respondents' actions reflected discriminatory neglect of their duties that led to the tragic consequences.
Respondents' Defense
Cayton and Geslani rebuffed the allegations by stating that they were bound by operational guidelines prohibiting the military from providing protection to election candidates. Both emphasized that the potential threat level and the operational readiness of their forces were significant factors in their decision not to extend security. They maintained that their actions were based on legal rationale and were not aimed at favoring or discriminating against any party.
Conclusion of the Ombudsman
The Ombudsman affirmed that there was no evidence to suggest that the respondents acted with manifest partiality or gross negligence. The dismissal of the complaints was upheld on the grounds that the duty to protect civilians must be balanced against the legal constraints impacting military operations during
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 211478)
Facts of the Case
- Petitioners (relatives of journalists ambushed in Maguindanao in 2009) filed complaints against Major General Alfredo Cayton, Jr. and Colonel Medardo Geslani for failing to provide security escorts to the Mangudadatu convoy amidst known threats.
- The convoy was ambushed leading to the massacre of 57 individuals at Barangay Salman, Ampatuan.
- Cayton was the Commanding General of the 6th Infantry Division; Geslani was the commander of the 601st Infantry Brigade during the incident.
- Petitioners accused respondents of violation of Anti-Graft Law (RA 3019) and Code of Conduct for public officials (RA 6713), citing manifest partiality, evident bad faith, gross inexcusable neglect, and dereliction of duty.
- Respondents denied charges, explaining legal constraints and operational reasons for referring security request to Philippine National Police (PNP).
Legal Issues
- Whether the Office of the Ombudsman gravely abused its discretion by dismissing complaints against respondents for failure to provide security escorts.
- Whether probable cause existed to indict respondents for violations of Section 3(e) and 3(f) of Republic Act No. 3019.
- Whether respondents acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross negligence in refusing security escorts.
Allegations of the Complaint
- Respondents caused undue injury by giving unwarranted advantage to the Ampatuans while refusing protection to Mangudadatus and journalists.
- Refusal to act on security requests constituted neglect and violation of duty.
- Respondents impaired the rights and safety of journalists under their responsibility.
Respondents' Defense
- AFP and military were constitutionally barred and operationally constrained from providing security escorts to candidates or political activities per Memorandum of Agreement between DND and COMELEC.
- The request was law enforcement function of the PNP.
- Military faced personnel shortages after pull-out of battalions; priority given to internal security operations against insurgents.
- Any security given to the Ampatuans was non-political and based on their role as force multipliers against insurgency threats.
- Respondents exercised due diligence and acted within laws and guidelines.
Ombudsman's Findings and Resolution
- Dismissed criminal and administrative complaints against Cayton and Geslani.
- Found no manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable neglect on part of respondents.
- Petitioners fai