Title
Tabian vs. Gonzales
Case
G.R. No. 247211
Decision Date
Aug 1, 2022
Joselito Gonzales died in a 2016 police operation; his wife alleged extralegal killing, citing threats and procedural lapses. The Supreme Court affirmed it as an extralegal killing, issuing a Writ of Amparo and holding officers accountable.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 247211)

Petitioner and Respondents

Petitioner: Christina Macandog Gonzales
Respondents: PCSupt. Tabian; PCSupt. Enong; PSupt. Gran; PInsp. Dogwe; SPO1 Cadag; PO2 Canilon; John Does (Antipolo CPS AIDSOTF & Provincial SOPU Team)

Key Dates

• March 2015 – Arrest of Christina and Joselito for drug use and sale; released after P50,000 payment.
• August 2015 – Single transaction of “batong-bakal” supplied by police via PO2 Canilon and Marlon Olaco.
• June 2016 – SPO1 Cadag supplied two bags of shabu; threats made against respondent.
• July 4–5, 2016 – Joselito leaves with a police confidential agent; subsequently killed in a buy-bust operation.
• February 17, 2017 – CA grants writ of amparo and interim protection in favor of Christina.
• November 26, 2018 – CA Decision recognizes extralegal killing and issues permanent protection order.
• August 1, 2022 – Supreme Court denies petition for review, affirms CA findings.

Applicable Law

• 1987 Philippine Constitution, Article III, Sections 1 and 2 (rights to life, liberty, security).
• Rule on the Writ of Amparo (A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC).
• Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act (R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640).
• PNP Criminal Investigation Manual (Revised 2011).
• Republic Act No. 6975 (National Police Commission’s control over PNP).

Factual Background

  1. Christina and Joselito’s prior arrest in March 2015 and subsequent release on payment established rapport with police officers.
  2. In August 2015, PO2 Canilon and Olaco supplied Joselito with illegal drug “batong-bakal” on consignment.
  3. In June 2016, SPO1 Cadag and driver Paulo Austria delivered two more bags of shabu and threatened that “police can kill women.”
  4. Police visits in June 2016 included a failed house search and extortion attempt (demanding P1,000).
  5. On July 4, Christina’s mother saw Joselito leave with Christian Raye “Ian” Cleopas, a police confidential agent; Joselito feared being shot.
  6. July 5, 2016 – A buy-bust operation led by PInsp. Dogwe and PSSupt. Garcia resulted in Joselito’s death by multiple gunshot wounds; no clear evidence of legal procedure compliance.

Court of Appeals Findings

• Recognized Joselito’s death as extralegal killing.
• Declared PInsp. Dogwe, PO2 Canilon, and John Doe operatives responsible for killing.
• Held PCSupts. Tabian, Enong, PSupt. Gran (and successors) accountable for procedural lapses and supervisory failures.
• Found SPO1 Cadag and PO2 Canilon responsible for threats against Christina’s life and security.
• Recommended filing of civil, criminal, and administrative cases against responsible officers.
• Issued permanent protection order preventing respondents and agents from approaching Christina within one kilometer.

Issue on Appeal

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in (a) finding an extralegal killing of Joselito P. Gonzales, and (b) holding petitioners liable under the writ of amparo.

Legal Analysis: Writ of Amparo Standard

• The writ protects rights to life, liberty, security against unlawful acts or omissions by public officials.
• Extralegal killing: deprivation of life without due process (Mayor Mamba v. Bueno).
• Petitioners must establish threats or violations by substantial evidence, viewed in totality.

Analysis of Evidence and Procedure

• Police reports (SOCO, Investigation Report) lacked identities of poseur-buyers, backup, and clear operation details.
• No documentary or testimonial account showing who fired first or complied with R.A. 9165 procedures (e.g., inventory in presence of witnesses).
• Inconsistencies: team leader misidentification, absence of pre-ops coordination, missing spot reports, no marked money record, scant location details.
• Threats to respond­ent corroborated by prior extortion demands, direct warnings (“we can kill women”), and suspicious persons at the wake.
• Procedural lapses negated presumption of regularity and cast doubt on legitimacy of buy-bust, satisfying prima facie Amparo threshold.

Duty to Investigate and Accountability

• Under the Amparo Rule and Secretary of National Defense v. Manalo, the State has a positive obligation to investigate extralegal killings with “extraordinary diligence.”
• Superior officers (Tabian, Enong, Gran) failed to ensure compliance with PNP Investigation Manua






...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.