G.R. No. 274387 - JUDER RACSOR P. GERALDO, VS. PLTCOL MARK NAVARETTE NALDA, PSMS JONATHAN DAYOLA GAVIOLA, PSSg JAMES ORTEGA CABERIO, PCpl ANDREW N. RAMOS, PCpl CATALINO TANTOY, and PCpl RICKY T. ABIÑON.

Ruling

WHEREFORE , respondents-movants' Motion for Reconsideration is PARTIALLY GRANTED . This Office's Joint Resolution dated 11 July 2022 is, thus, MODIFIED as follows: The charges for Arbitrary Detention and Planting of Evidence are DISMISSED for insufficiency of evidence. Respondents-movants are found GUILTY of SIMPLE MISCONDUCT and are meted the penalty of THREE [] MONTHS FINE in the amount equivalent to their respective salaries, payable to the Office of the Ombudsman, and may be deducted from their retirement benefits, accrued leave credits or any receivable from their office. In the event of failure of respondents-movants to pay the Fine or part thereof, the penalty shall be reverted to the original penalty of Suspension from the service for a period of THREE [] MONTHS without pay, irrespective of the amount of [f]ine already paid. [25] The Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military and Other Law Enforcement Offices justified its reversal on the ground of newly discovered evidence through the February 23, 2022 Resolution of the Department of Justice. This Resolution held that there was "sufficient evidence to sustain a reasonable belief that drugs were found in complainant's possession and that he sold drugs to the buy-bust team." [26] It also relied on the Chemistry Report, the Receipt of Property Seized/Certificate of Inventory signed by two public officials and a representative of the media, the Pre-Operation Form, the Certificate of Coordination, and the High Value Individual Database Certification. Geraldo's motion to enter into a plea bargaining agreement, although withdrawn, was held to "seriously [cast] doubt" on the truthfulness of the allegations in his complaint. [27] However, the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military and Other Law Enforcement Offices maintained that PLTCOL Nalda et al. still committed simple misconduct for only contacting the insulating witnesses after the buy-bust operation was completed. As such, they were each fined for three months' worth of salary. [28] Geraldo moved for reconsideration, praying that the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military and Other Law Enforcement Offices uphold its previous finding that there was probable cause that PLTCOL Nalda et al. planted evidence and arbitrarily detained him and were guilty of grave misconduct. He maintained that his withdrawn proposal for plea bargaining, as well as the Chemistry Report, the Receipt of Pre-Operation Form, and the High Value Individual Database Certification were insufficient to justify the reversal. [29] Geraldo's motion was denied in a February 17, 2023 Joint Order. [30] The Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military and Other Law Enforcement Offices held that Geraldo's assertions of innocence are matters of defense that are better ventilated in the criminal proceedings. [31] Geraldo then filed a Petition for Certiorari [32] under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals. In its September 6, 2023 Resolution, [33] the Court of