Arrest of Abu suspect lawful–CA

 

 

Prior to his release, representatives from the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) conducted an investigation with regard to the allegations that he was tortured during his detention.

 

Eventually, the CHR issued a report on March 21, 2006, which concluded that there are physical findings consistent with torture, without mentioning the persons responsible for the abuse.    

Subsequently, Almoite filed an administrative case for oppression, grave misconduct and conduct unbecoming a police officer before the Ombudsman against the police officers who arrested him.

 

They were identified as Supt. Roger James Brillantes, Police Officer (PO) 3 Peter Paul Pablico and PO1 Noel Fabia.

 

On January 20, 2012, the Ombudsman found the police officers liable for grave misconduct, and imposed upon them the penalty of dismissal from the service.

 

The Ombudsman held that the policemen committed grave misconduct for arresting Almoite even if his name did not specifically appear in the warrant of arrest issued by the RTC in Pasig City.

 

However, in a 15-page ruling written by Associate Justice Leoncia Real-Dimagiba, the CA’s Fourth Division granted the petition filed by three police officers seeking their reinstatement to their positions.

 

The appellate court noted that it is of common knowledge that criminal elements oftentimes use different aliases or fictitious names to hide their true identities in order to avoid arrest and criminal prosecution for their illegal activities.

 

The CA said this could be true in the case of Almoite, who may have adopted the name Ali Ambing when he was integrated or become a member of the Abu Sayyaf.

 

“The arrest of complainant was not a violation of law or established rule. The complainant was arrested by virtue of a valid warrant of arrest where his alias was duly printed in the warrant and when arrested, explosives were found in his possession,” the CA ruled.

 

The appellate court added that the warrant of arrest names Almoite as a certain Ali, thus it was up to the police officers to establish his real identify, which they were able to do as it was shown that Almoite’s alias is Ali Ambing and his photograph attached to the warrant of arrest shows that Ali Ambing and the private complainant are one and the same person.

 

“How then could petitioners be liable for grave misconduct when the person they arrested is the same person they perceived to be that in the arrest warrant?” the CA added.

 

In addition, the CA also belittled the report of the CHR, as it only showed that Almoite suffered a brasions and contusions, which was contrary to his claim of torture and maltreatment.

 

It also noted that Almoite failed to identify the policemen who allegedly tortured him.

“It is clear that the arrest having been lawful, the petitioners acted in good faith and in the performance of their duties as police officers tasked with the keeping of law and order consistent with their oath of office,” the CA said.

 

“Even if we grant that there was a mistake in the arrest, still the mistake cannot be classified as a grave misconduct, considering that the petitioners acted in their belief that the person they arrested was the same person in the warrant of arrest,” the ruling added.

 

Concurring with the ruling were Associate Justices Leoncia Real-Dimagiba, Amelita Tolentino and Ricardo Rosario.

 

Court records showed that Almoite was arrested by the petitioners in his residence in Quezon City pursuant to an arrest warrant issued by Branch 162 of the RTC in Pasig City, for kidnapping and serious illegal detention with ransom.