SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. Nos. 199800-01. January 22, 2018.]
MAXIMA B. BATING, petitioner,vs. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, P/S INSP. DANILO P. ARAQUEL, ET AL., respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated22 January 2018which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. Nos. 199800-01 (Maxima B. Bating vs. Office of the Ombudsman, P/S Insp. Danilo P. Araquel, et al.). — Before the Court is a Petition for Certiorari1 under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure which seeks to annul the Joint Resolution 2 dated March 3, 2009 of the Office of the Ombudsman, and its Order 3 dated January 31, 2011, dismissing the criminal complaints for Grave Threats, Physical Injuries and Arbitrary Detention and the administrative complaints for Grave Misconduct and Oppression against Police Senior Inspector Danilo P. Araquel (P/S Insp. Araquel), Senior Police Officer 1 Diocito B. Ducil (SPO1 Ducil) and Police Officer 3 Glendalyn B. Tabia (PO3 Tabia).
The case originated from a complaint 4 dated March 6, 2006 filed with the office of the Ombudsman by Maxima B. Bating (petitioner) against P/S Insp. Araquel, SPO1 Ducil and PO3 Tabia. In her affidavit, petitioner alleged that on December 5, 2005, she was at the President Roxas Police Station to report an incident. While waiting, she heard P/S Insp. Araquel talk on his cell phone saying, "Come here, she is already here." When PO3 Tabia arrived, she grabbed the papers from SPO1 Ducil and tore them to pieces. Petitioner was sitting on a bench when PO3 Tabia hit her left arm and kicked her twice in the abdomen until she fell down. PO3 Tabia cursed petitioner, "Iho de puta ka nga puta ka" and boxed her in the mouth while holding her firearm tucked at her waist. P/S Insp. Araquel then ordered SPO1 Ducil to detain petitioner. Petitioner claimed that she was violently pushed inside the detention cell. She insisted that PO3 Tabia was mad at her because of an earlier complaint she filed against her for being arrogant and abusive. However, petitioner failed to present a medical certificate allegedly because there was no government doctor available to examine her. 5
On the other hand, PO3 Tabia countered, that sometime in June 2005, petitioner arrived at the Camp Teodorico C. Apil to see P/SSupt. Cipriano E. Querol, but she was unable to meet him. Hence, she left feeling angry at PO3 Tabia. On December 5, 2005, at the President Roxas Police Station, petitioner confronted PO3 Tabia shouting "Who are you? I'm not afraid of you." Petitioner smashed PO3 Tabia's hand, boxed her chest and struck with her with a sandal. PO3 Tabia then pushed petitioner causing her to fall down on the floor. Thereafter, PO3 Tabia, who suffered multiple abrasions on her right hand, filed a criminal complaint for Direct Assault against petitioner on December 6, 2005. Likewise, Ralph Bertuldo and Philip Santillan executed a joint affidavit corroborating PO3 Tabia's allegations. Meanwhile, SPO1 Ducil materially corroborated the allegations of PO3 Tabia. He claimed that petitioner resisted arrest and in the process of their struggle, she fell down on the ground. 6
On March 3, 2009, the Office of the Ombudsman issued a Joint Resolution, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing premises, it is respectfully recommended that the criminal complaints for Grave Threats, Physical Injuries, and Arbitrary Detention and the administrative complaints for Grave Misconduct and Oppression against P/SINSP. DANILO P. ARAQUEL, SPO1 DIOCITO B. DUCIL, and PO3 GLENDALYN B. TABIA be DISMISSED.
SO RESOLVED. 7
Unsatisfied, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration. 8 Thereafter, the Office of the Ombudsman issued an Order dated January 31, 2011 partially granting the motion, to wit:
WHEREFORE, foregoing considered, the Motion for reconsideration is hereby partially GRANTED. The findings as to the dismissal of the criminal case against respondents PSINSP. DANILO P. ARAQUEL, SPO1 DIOCITO B. DUCIL and PO3 GLENDALYN B. TABIA is hereby affirmed.
The findings in the administrative case in the Joint Resolution dated March 3, 2009 is hereby modified. The dismissal of the administrative case against respondents PSINSP. DANILO P. ARAQUEL and SPO1 DIOCITO B. DUCIL is affirmed. However, respondent PO3 GLENDALYN B. TABIA is hereby found GUILTY of Simple Misconduct and is meted the penalty of SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE FOR ONE (1) MONTH WITHOUT PAY pursuant to RA 6770 (The Ombudsman Act).
The Secretary, Department of the Interior and Local Government and the Chief, Philippine National Police, are hereby directed to implement this Order in accordance with law and promptly inform this Office of the compliance therewith.
SO ORDERED. 9
Issue
The issue is whether the Office of the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion when it dismissed, except for slight physical injuries against PO3 Tabia, the criminal and administrative complaints filed by petitioner. aScITE
Our Ruling
The petition is bereft of merit.
It is well-settled that findings of fact and conclusions by the Office of the Ombudsman are conclusive when supported by substantial evidence. Their factual findings are generally accorded great weight and respect, if not finality by the courts, by reason of their special knowledge and expertise over matters falling under their jurisdiction. 10 In this case, the Court finds that the Office of the Ombudsman was correct in dismissing the complaints.
In the criminal complaint for physical injuries, while the Ombudsman found that the injuries sustained by petitioner were consistent with her claim that she was hit in the arm and mouth by PO3 Tabia, it ruled that prescription had already set in. It explained that the crime of slight physical injury is a light offense and prescribes in two (2) months. 11 The Ombudsman pointed out that the offense was committed on December 5, 2005, yet the complaint was executed only on March 8, 2006, and copies thereof were sent by registered mail only on April 21, 2006. Therefore, the period within which to file the complaint has already lapsed.
With regard to the charge of grave threat, the Ombudsman found that petitioner failed to adduce evidence to prove the same. The Ombudsman took note of the fact that the alleged threatening remark of PO3 Tabia of holding her firearm tucked at her waist, if true, was committed right after the scuffle between her and the petitioner. Thus, the alleged threats were made in the heat of anger, and that there was no showing that PO3 Tabia persisted in the idea of killing the petitioner.
Furthermore, the Court agrees with the Ombudsman that petitioner was not unlawfully detained. The police officers were merely performing their regular duty when they arrested and detained petitioner for committing an offense in their presence. Indeed, the actions of petitioner smashing PO3 Tabia's hand and boxing her chest amount to Direct Assault under Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code. In fact, Dr. Marietta Hao of the Rural Health Unit of Capiz certified that PO3 Tabia sustained multiple abrasions in her right hand, which is consistent with her claim that petitioner smashed her hand. Thus, the Ombudsman is correct in finding that the police officers were justified in arresting and detaining petitioner.
Nevertheless, the Office of the Ombudsman found that substantial evidence exists against PO3 Tabia for Simple Misconduct. It held that even if petitioner had given sufficient provocation, PO3 Tabia is still expected to act with the highest degree of professionalism, intelligence and skill.
It has been held that in the absence of grave abuse of discretion, courts should not interfere with the discretion of the Ombudsman. 12 The exercise by the Ombudsman of its constitutionally mandated investigatory and prosecutory powers absent any compelling reason must not be interfered with. 13
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition for certiorari is DISMISSED. Accordingly, the Order dated January 31, 2011 of the Office of the Ombudsman in OMB-P-C-06-0546-F and OMB-P-A-06-0501-F is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-22.
2. Penned by Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer Rolando W. Cervantes; id. at 23-31.
3. Penned by Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer Dyna I. Camba; id. at 131-136.
4.Id. at 32-33.
5.Id. at 24.
6.Id. at 24-26.
7.Id. at 30.
8.Id. at 99-104.
9.Id. at 135.
10.Office of the Ombudsman v. Mallari, 749 Phil. 224, 249 (2014).
11. REVISED PENAL CODE, Articles 25 and 90.
12.Yu v. Sandiganbayan, 410 Phil. 619, 627 (2001).
13.See PCGG v. Desierto, 402 Phil. 821, 831-832 (2001).