Case Summary (G.R. No. 132413)
Petitioner
PO2 EspiAa was investigated and initially absolved by the Office of the Ombudsman — Military and Other Law Enforcement Offices (OMB‑MOLEO). The Court of Appeals (CA) later found him administratively liable and ordered dismissal from service. EspiAa sought review by the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45.
Respondent and Complaint
Norberto filed complaints with the Ombudsman alleging Murder, Grave Misconduct, and Conduct Unbecoming against EspiAa, Sipin, and Besas. Eyewitness affidavits stated that the two victims were shot during a commotion outside the restobar on November 25, 2016, and described EspiAa firing first and shooting both brothers. The police officers submitted counter-affidavits describing an operation, a perceived threat, and a sequence in which EspiAa fired after perceiving threats.
Key Dates
- Incident: November 25, 2016 (shootings of Emilio and Butch Gicole).
- OMB‑MOLEO Joint Resolution dismissing criminal and administrative charges: January 25, 2018.
- OMB‑MOLEO Joint Order denying reconsideration: May 3, 2018.
- CA Decision (administrative liability): October 23, 2020; CA Resolution denying reconsideration: May 6, 2021.
- Supreme Court Decision affirming CA: February 1, 2023.
Applicable Law and Authorities
- Constitution: 1987 Constitution (applicable due to decision date after 1990).
- Rules of Court: Rule 45 (Petition for Review on Certiorari).
- PNP internal rules: Revised PNP Operational Procedures — particularly Rule 7 on use of force and Rule 6.3 prohibiting warning shots.
- National Police Commission Memorandum Circular No. 94‑022 (MC 94‑022) — Revised Rules on summary dismissal proceedings and definition of “conduct unbecoming of a police officer.”
- Governing jurisprudence cited: Yapyuco v. Sandiganbayan; People v. Ulep; Rejas v. Office of the Ombudsman; Commission on Elections v. Mamalinta; People v. Catalan.
Factual Background (competing accounts)
Eyewitnesses reported that a commotion outside the restobar involved two groups about to fight; Emilio attempted to pacify them and was seen with a gun by at least one witness. Witnesses allege EspiAa, in civilian clothes and without identifying himself as a police officer, went outside, fired a warning shot, then shot Emilio (who fell and died on the spot) and then shot Butch (who later died en route to a hospital). The police officers’ counter‑affidavits state they were conducting an operation, that EspiAa fired in response to being threatened (allegedly Emilio pointed a 9mm at him), and that Butch attacked EspiAa. The post‑mortem certificates recorded a single fatal thoracic gunshot for each victim.
Administrative and Ombudsman Proceedings
OMB‑MOLEO dismissed both criminal and administrative charges, finding that the provincial prosecutor first acquired jurisdiction over the criminal aspect and, administratively, that the officers “reacted in a way as every trained police officer should” and that the presumption of regularity was not overcome. Reconsideration to the Ombudsman was denied. Norberto then sought relief in the CA.
Court of Appeals Ruling
The CA dismissed Norberto’s certiorari petition insofar as it attacked the Ombudsman’s criminal jurisdiction ruling (for lack of jurisdiction in that procedural posture) but on the administrative side set aside the Ombudsman’s dismissal as to EspiAa. The CA concluded EspiAa committed Grave Misconduct and Conduct Unbecoming of a Police Officer and ordered dismissal. The CA exonerated Sipin and Besas administratively for lack of evidence they participated in the shootings or conspired with EspiAa.
Issues Presented to the Supreme Court
Whether the CA erred in finding PO2 EspiAa administratively liable for Grave Misconduct and Conduct Unbecoming of a Public Officer and in imposing the penalty of dismissal.
Supreme Court Ruling — Standards and Legal Reasoning
- Misconduct standard: For dismissal, misconduct must be grave — involving wrongful intention, flagrant disregard of established rules, or elements of corruption. Mere errors of judgment do not suffice. (Citing Commission on Elections v. Mamalinta and related authorities.)
- PNP Operational Procedures: Rule 7 requires verbal warning before use of force except when imminent threat to life or property makes warning impractical; Rule 7.4 prescribes graded use of force; Rule 6.3 expressly prohibits warning shots. Use of force must be necessary and reasonable, restrained to overcome resistance or to meet clear and imminent danger, and consistent with principles of self‑defense and defense of others.
- Application to facts: The Court accepted the CA’s factual findings that EspiAa fired a warning shot while in civilian clothes and without identifying himself as police, then resorted to lethal force against Emilio and Butch despite an unclear characterization of the commotion and the absence of demonstrated imminent danger that would excuse omission of a verbal warning or allowance for de‑escalation. The issuance of a warning shot (prohibited by Rule 6.3) and the immediate resort to lethal force evidenced a flagrant disregard of operational rules and the graded approach
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 132413)
Case Caption, Procedural Posture, and Relief Sought
- G.R. No. 257298, Third Division; Decision promulgated February 01, 2023 by the Supreme Court (CAGUIOA, J.).
- Petition for Review on Certiorari filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, challenging:
- Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA), Twenty-Second Division, dated October 23, 2020 in CA-G.R. SP No. 08899-MIN (finding PO2 Reny D. EspiAa guilty of Grave Misconduct and Conduct Unbecoming of a Police Officer and ordering dismissal from service).
- Resolution of the Court of Appeals (Former Twenty-Second Division) dated May 6, 2021 denying reconsideration.
- Petitioner: PO2 Reny D. EspiAa (police officer sought to be reinstated / relieved of administrative liability).
- Respondent / complainant: Norberto P. Gicole (father of victims Emilio and Butch Gicole), who originally filed administrative and criminal complaints before the Office of the Ombudsman.
Factual Antecedents — Incident Overview (as alleged by complainant witnesses)
- Date and place of incident: November 25, 2016, outside the Harakhak Restobar in Wao, Lanao del Sur.
- Victims: Emilio and Butch Gicole (sons of Norberto P. Gicole); both sustained fatal gunshot wounds and died (Emilio died on the spot; Butch died en route to the second hospital after referral).
- Witnesses for the complainant: Jomar Delfin, Arvie Clarito, Charine Paul TaAan (and presence of one Craig Embargo).
- Sequence according to complainant witnesses:
- Two groups outside the restobar were about to engage in a fight; Emilio allegedly went out to pacify them.
- Clarito allegedly saw Emilio with a gun while he was pacifying the groups; neither Emilio nor Butch were direct participants in the commotion.
- EspiAa allegedly went outside shortly after the commotion started, did not identify himself as a police officer nor was he in uniform, fired a warning shot, pointed his gun at Clarito, and then approached and shot Emilio, who fell immediately.
- While Emilio lay on the ground, witnesses heard another gunshot from EspiAa aimed at Emilio.
- Butch allegedly attempted to attack EspiAa and was shot by EspiAa before he could get close; Delfin tried to help Butch but was fired upon and missed; Delfin then fled and bumped into PO2 Sipin, who initially pointed his gun at Delfin but released him.
- Charine Paul TaAan and Alinor Pagul transported Butch by motorcycle to Wao District Hospital, then referred to another hospital where Butch died before arrival.
- One Junie Lee Besas (later identified) allegedly pointed a gun at the motorcycle party but they ignored him.
- Witness accounts included inconsistencies on the number of shots fired at Emilio (three per a Wao Chief of Police transmittal, two per Delfin and Clarito, one per Besas); Post Mortem Certificate indicates a single fatal gunshot to Emilio’s thorax and a single fatal gunshot to Butch’s left chest.
Factual Antecedents — Counter-Affidavits and Police Account
- Private respondents: PO2 Reny D. EspiAa, PO1 Isaac Kirt Q. Sipin, PO3 Junie Lee Besas submitted counter-affidavits.
- Besas’ narrative (most detailed): team operation planned as early as November 2, 2016, target operation scheduled for November 25, 2016; case build-up/intelligence prepared; on November 24, 2016 the RIU15 Chief instructed to serve an arrest warrant; team traveled from Cotabato City to Wao on November 25, arriving ~7:00 p.m.; coordinated with Wao Police at ~9:45 p.m.; went to Harakhak Restobar where target frequented; seated near target’s relative.
- Sequence according to Besas and fellow officers:
- At around 11:20 p.m., Sipin went outside; a woman informed EspiAa and Besas of a commotion; EspiAa went out ahead of Besas.
- Besas alleges he saw Emilio point a gun at EspiAa, after which EspiAa shot Emilio and saw him fall.
- Besas observed Butch preparing to attack EspiAa, prompting EspiAa to fire at Butch.
- EspiAa’s account: he fired a warning shot; Emilio turned and pointed a 9mm Ingram at him, prompting EspiAa to fire at Emilio; claimed Butch kicked him, prompting a shot at Butch.
- Besas also recounted stopping two men on a motorcycle who were approaching, who proved to be unarmed and were allowed to leave.
Ombudsman Proceedings and Rulings
- Office involved: Office of the Ombudsman — Military and Other Law Enforcement Offices (OMB-MOLEO).
- Joint Resolution dated January 25, 2018:
- Dismissed all criminal and administrative charges against EspiAa, Sipin, and Besas.
- Criminal aspect rationale: found that a complaint for two counts of Murder had been earlier filed with the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Marawi City, Lanao del Sur, which first acquired jurisdiction to the exclusion of the Ombudsman (concurrent jurisdictions between Ombudsman and DOJ for employees outside Sandiganbayan).
- Administrative aspect rationale: OMB-MOLEO found the officers “reacted in a way as every trained police officer should” and that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty was not overturned by Norberto.
- Motion for Reconsideration:
- Filed by Norberto on March 16, 2018.
- Denied by OMB-MOLEO via Joint Order dated May 3, 2018 (reiterating lack of evidence to show officers did not properly perform duties).
Certiorari Petition to the Court of Appeals — CA Rulings
- Norberto filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the CA contesting the OMB-MOLEO actions.
- CA Resolution (November 22, 2018): dismissed Norberto’s petition as to the criminal aspect for lack of jurisdiction (noting the CA’s jurisdiction over Ombudsman decisions in criminal cases).
- CA Decision (October 23, 2020), Twenty-Second Division:
- Partially granted Norberto’s petition as to the administrative aspect.
- Affirmed dismissal of administrative charges against PO1 Isaac Kirt Sipin and PO3 Junie Lee Besas due to lack of evidence implicating them in the shootings or in conspiracy.
- Found PO2 Reny EspiAa guilty of Grave Misconduct and Conduct Unbecoming of a Police Officer; meted penalty of dismissal from service.
- CA’s factual and legal findings:
- The commotion’s nature was not fully described by officers; neither EspiAa nor Besas provided sufficient particulars (number of protagonists, hostility, whether they were armed) to justify immediate use of deadly force.
- EspiAa was in civilian clothes, did not identify himself as police, and fired a warning shot despite the PNP Operational Procedures’ prohibition on warning shots.
- EspiAa’s response was irregular, excessive, and disproportionate — an overkill — particularly vis-à-vis Butch who was unarmed; claim of self-defense unavailing.
- The PNP Operational Procedures require issuance of a verbal warning and identification before escalating force; prohibit warning shots; authorize a stagg