In P/Supt. Alexander Rafael and SPO3 Marino Manuel v. Rochell Bermudez, the Supreme Court reversed its earlier decision, ruling that police officers P/Supt. Alexander Rafael and SPO3 Marino Manuel were not liable for grave misconduct in the deaths of several individuals during what was initially deemed a rub-out. The Court found that substantial evidence supported the officers’ claim of self-defense, as the deceased were found to have initiated the confrontation and possessed firearms, leading to a legitimate police encounter. This decision emphasizes the importance of considering the totality of circumstances and intelligence reports in evaluating claims of self-defense by law enforcement officers.

When a Hired Gun Becomes the Target: Justifiable Use of Force or Grave Misconduct?

This case revolves around an incident on May 1, 2012, in Lal-lo, Cagayan, where Michael Bermudez and his companions were killed during an encounter with P/Supt. Alexander Rafael and his security detail. Initially, private respondents, relatives of the deceased, filed complaints alleging that their kin were murdered. The Ombudsman initially found Rafael and Manuel liable for grave misconduct, a decision later affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA). However, the Supreme Court re-evaluated the evidence and reversed these findings, highlighting the critical role of intelligence reports and the circumstances surrounding the encounter.

The central legal question is whether the actions of P/Supt. Rafael and SPO3 Manuel constituted grave misconduct or were justified as self-defense in the lawful performance of their duties. To establish grave misconduct, it must be shown that the officers transgressed an established rule of action with wrongful intention, amounting to mal-administration or willful neglect of duty. However, the Court noted that the evidence did not substantially support a finding of grave misconduct, particularly considering the intelligence reports indicating that Michael was a hired gun targeting P/Supt. Rafael. This intelligence, combined with the evidence at the scene, shifted the narrative from a potential rub-out to a legitimate police encounter where the officers acted in self-defense.

Building on this principle, the Court highlighted the importance of affording great weight and respect to the findings of fact by administrative agencies like the Ombudsman. However, this deference is not absolute. The Court can evaluate factual findings where the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts. The re-evaluation was pivotal in this case, as the initial findings failed to adequately consider the intelligence reports and the circumstances indicating an ambush by Michael’s group. The pieces of evidence recovered from the crime scene, including the firearms possessed by the deceased and their positive gunpowder residue tests, corroborated the officers’ claim of self-defense.

The Court then analyzed the elements of self-defense in the context of the police encounter. The established and uncontroverted intelligence report from then Regional Director Magalong stated that Michael was contracted by a middleperson working for Mayor Ting to assassinate certain personalities including P/Supt. Rafael. Further adding weight to the case, the report also mentioned that P/Supt. Rafael was included in the list of targets because of his close association with retired Police General Jefferson Soriano, who planned then to run for Mayor of Tuguegarao City. To carry out the assassination, Michael recruited freelance killers based in Abra. The Court also noted a report where as early as April 1, 2012, when Michael was arrested for illegal possession of firearms, it was already known within the intelligence community, which Michael even admitted, that he is a hired killer utilized by different politicians in Abra and Cagayan provinces. Given the circumstances, the Court weighed the evidence of petitioners against the hearsay evidence presented by Rochelle and private respondents.

The Court critically assessed the reasoning of the Ombudsman and the CA, which had relied on three main points: the absence of cartridge cases from the deceased’s firearms, the cramped conditions of the sedan, and the bullet holes on the vehicle. The Court found these points unpersuasive. Two of the five members of Michael’s group tested positive for gun powder nitrates and that the magazines of the firearms recovered in the possession of Michael’s group contained less than the full capacity of bullets. The Court reasoned that the absence of cartridge cases did not definitively prove that Michael’s group did not fire upon the officers, especially considering the lapse in time before the investigators arrived. The positioning of Michael’s group in the sedan was deemed inconclusive and the bullet holes on the car, rather than indicating a rub-out, supported the officers’ account of a defensive shootout. As police officers, they are taught not to risk their lives in equal combat with criminals – especially when the latter are armed and dangerous – but are trained to use unequal force to suppress any challenge to their authority. Hence, a single suspicious move by the criminal elements would elicit an uneven response from the well-prepared police officers, trained to answer violence with superior force.

The decision also gave weight to the affidavits of desistance executed by the private respondents, who stated that after their own investigation, they found no clear evidence of a rub-out and that the officers had no motive to kill their relatives. While affidavits of desistance are viewed with suspicion, the Court cited Marcelo v. Bungubung and Daquioag v. Ombudsman, noting that such affidavits can be considered when they retract previous accusations and undermine the foundation of the charges. As the Court held in Marcelo, the express repudiation in the affidavit of desistance of the material points in the complaint-affidavit may be admitted into evidence, absent proof of fraud or duress in its execution. In this case, the shift in testimony weakened the very basis of the allegations against the officers, further supporting the conclusion that their actions were in self-defense.

In sum, the Supreme Court’s decision hinged on a comprehensive re-evaluation of the facts, giving due consideration to intelligence reports, the circumstances of the encounter, and the subsequent affidavits of desistance. The Court concluded that the evidence did not establish grave misconduct, but rather supported the officers’ claim of self-defense in the performance of their duties. This case underscores the importance of considering the totality of circumstances and the potential for self-defense in evaluating the conduct of law enforcement officers in armed encounters.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the actions of P/Supt. Alexander Rafael and SPO3 Marino Manuel constituted grave misconduct or were justified as self-defense during an encounter where several individuals were killed. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of self-defense.
What is grave misconduct?	Grave misconduct is a transgression of established rules, involving unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer. It implies wrongful intention, directly related to official duties, and may involve mal-administration or willful neglect.
What role did intelligence reports play in the Supreme Court’s decision?	Intelligence reports indicating that the deceased, Michael Bermudez, was a hired gun with a contract to assassinate P/Supt. Rafael were critical. These reports supported the officers’ claim that they were ambushed and acted in self-defense.
How did the Court address the initial findings of the Ombudsman and Court of Appeals?	The Court re-evaluated the facts, finding that the initial findings were based on a misapprehension of the circumstances. They did not adequately consider the intelligence reports and the defensive nature of the officers’ actions.
What significance did the affidavits of desistance hold in this case?	The affidavits of desistance, where the private respondents recanted their initial accusations, were significant. The Court considered these affidavits as undermining the foundation of the charges against the officers.
What evidence supported the officers’ claim of self-defense?	Evidence supporting the self-defense claim included intelligence reports, the presence of firearms with the deceased, positive gunpowder residue tests on the deceased, and the bullet hole patterns on the vehicle. The bullet holes on the car, rather than indicating a rub-out, supported the officers’ account of a defensive shootout.
What does this decision mean for law enforcement officers facing similar accusations?	This decision reinforces the importance of considering the totality of circumstances and intelligence reports when evaluating claims of self-defense by law enforcement officers. It allows for a more nuanced understanding of police encounters.
What is the standard of proof required to establish grave misconduct?	Substantial evidence is required, meaning relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. It does not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but more than a mere suspicion is needed.

The Supreme Court’s decision in P/Supt. Alexander Rafael and SPO3 Marino Manuel v. Rochell Bermudez provides valuable insights into the complexities of evaluating law enforcement actions in armed encounters. The ruling highlights the importance of a comprehensive factual analysis, consideration of intelligence reports, and the potential for self-defense in determining liability for grave misconduct. The Court ultimately concluded that the officers’ actions were justified, reinforcing the legal protections afforded to law enforcement officers acting in the line of duty.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: P/Supt. Alexander Rafael and SPO3 Marino Manuel v. Rochell Bermudez, G.R. No. 246128, September 15, 2021