THE Supreme Court (SC) has affirmed the 2021 ruling of the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) to file two counts of homicide, instead of murder, against four policemen for the deaths of a father and his son during the 2016 illegal drugs operation in Caloocan City.

In a decision made public last Jan. 22, the SC denied the petition filed by Mary Ann D. Domingo, husband of Luis and mother of Gabriel, that all the 21 policemen who participated in a buy-bust operation on Sept. 15, 2016 should be charged with murder instead of homicide.

On Jan. 15, 2020, the deputy Ombudsman for the Military and Other Law Enforcement Offices (OMB-MOLEO) found probable cause to charge only four of the 21 accused policemen with two counts of homicide. OMB-MOLEO’s resolution was converted into a joint order on the filing of the charges on March 8, 2021.

With the denial of her complaints, Domingo elevated the issue before the SC.

Domingo said that when she, her husband, and three minor children were about to sleep on Sept. 14, 2016, her son Gabriel arrived and told them that he had just been accepted as a regular worker in a catering firm.

Thereafter, she said a family friend arrived and asked her daughter if her husband was in the house.  Her daughter confirmed the presence of her father at home, she said.

Suddenly, she said a group of armed police officers who were wearing vests, fully armed, and carrying flashlights barged into their house and went straight to the second floor.

She said she and her children were forced to go downstairs by policemen who were pointing their guns at them.  She also said she saw her husband on his knees with guns pointed at his head.  She added that her son Gabriel was pleading the policemen not to hurt his father.

Then, she said, she heard gunshots which prompted her to run to the nearest barangay hall to seek help.  She said the barangay officials did not heed her plea as they pointed out that the incident was an illegal drugs operation by the police.

She said she was barred by policemen when she attempted to go inside their house.  Thereafter, she learned that her husband and son were brought to the hospital where they were pronounced dead.

She denied that her husband, who was once a barangay tanod (village watchman), and her son, a waiter, were not involved in illegal drugs trade.

She then filed a complaint for two counts of murder, robbery, grave misconduct, grave abuse of authority, gross oppression and conduct unbecoming of a public officer against the policemen involved in the operation.

In their defense, the policemen said they were conducting a legitimate illegal drugs operation when the husband and his son were killed.

They said that Gabriel recognized the informant and police asset during the buy-bust operation and ran upstairs for he and his father to take their firearms and fired towards the police operatives.

They said that when their call to stop firing was unheeded, they fought back and used reasonable force to repel their attackers and defend themselves.

They also said Luis and Gabriel sustained gunshot wounds and rushed to the hospital where they were declared dead.

They pointed out that the testimonies of Domingo “are bare, self-serving, and hearsay” because she had no personal knowledge of what actually transpired during the operation.

The OMB-MOLEO ordered the filing of two counts of homicide against P/MSgt. Virgilio Cervantes, P/Cpl. Arnel De Guzman,  P/Cpl. Johnston Alacre,  and P/Cpl. Artemio Saguros Jr.  The 17 other policemen who participated in the operation were exonerated.

In affirming the filing of homicide and not murder, the SC – in a decision written by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting – took note of testimonies that the policemen who entered Domingo’s house declared their purpose and introduced themselves as police officers. It also took note of Domingo’s admission that she did not see the shooting incident.

“They wore police vests with weapons readily visible and pointed at their family members. Evidently, it cannot be said that accused-respondents' (policemen) act of using their firearms was sudden and unexpected,” the SC said.  

“Thus, petitioner's contention that what was conducted by respondents was a raid, a 'sona,’ or ‘tokhang' -- not a buy-bust operation --  and such means, manner and method were deliberately and consciously adopted by respondents to kill Luis and Gabriel is a mere opinion. To stress, the qualifying circumstance of treachery cannot be inferred from a mere opinion, presumption, or speculation,” it pointed out.

Also, the SC ruled out abuse of superior strength by the raiding policemen since they are required to have their service firearms on their persons while they are on duty, more so, when they are conducting a police operation where their lives are at risk.  

At the same time, the SC said that the law enforcers’ superior number in relation to their target is practical for it would deter most people from resisting with violence.

“To rule that police officers should disarm themselves or ensure that their number is not more than their targets in every police operation would be the height of absurdity,” the SC stressed.

The SC also said:

“In fine, the Court finds that the OMB-MOLEO's determination of probable cause was consistent with the basic precepts of criminal law and based on the evidence presented during the preliminary investigation.

“Thus, the assailed Joint Qrder and Joint Resolution were not tainted with grave abuse of discretion as there were no indication that these were issued capriciously, whimsically, arbitrarily, or in a despotic manner.

“Wherefore, the petition is hereby dismissed. The Joint Resolution dated Jan. 15, 2020, and Joint Order dated March 8, 2021, of the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military and Other Law Enforcement Office in OMB-P-C-17-0149 and OMB-P-A-17-0160 are affirmed.

“The prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction is denied. So ordered.”