FACTS:

The case involves a complaint for slander filed by the petitioner against the private respondent. The private respondent allegedly made defamatory statements against the petitioner during a confrontation in the workplace. The criminal complaint was dismissed by the investigating prosecutor for lack of probable cause, citing affidavits of desistance executed by the private respondents. The petitioner sought reconsideration but was denied. The petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari before the RTC, which was also denied. The petitioner appealed the RTC's decision before the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the ruling of the lower court.

ISSUES:

1. Whether petitioners are liable for grave misconduct.

2. Whether the evidence on record is substantial enough to prove that petitioners willfully and treacherously killed the relatives of private respondents.

3. Whether the theory of murder and rub-out based on the alleged conversation between Michael and his sister, Rochelle, is more credible than the intelligence reports.

4. Whether the lack of cartridge cases originating from the firearms recovered from the group of Michael is sufficient to prove that Michael and his group did not fire upon petitioners.

5. Whether the positioning of Michael and his group in the cramped vehicle indicates that petitioners murdered them.

6. Whether the bullet holes in the car boarded by Michael and his group indicate that they were rubbed out.

7. Whether or not the police officers are liable for grave misconduct.

RULING:

1. The Court grants the motion for reconsideration and finds the petitioners liable for grave misconduct. Misconduct, to warrant dismissal from service, must be grave, serious, important, weighty, momentous, and not trifling. It must imply wrongful intention and have a direct relation to and be connected with the performance of the public officer's official duties. In this case, the Court found that there was substantial evidence to support the finding of grave misconduct against the petitioners. The evidence showed that they acted unlawfully and negligently in the performance of their duties, resulting in the deaths of the victims. Therefore, the petitioners are held liable for grave misconduct.

2. The evidence on record is not substantial enough to prove that petitioners willfully and treacherously killed the relatives of private respondents. It was found that Michael and his group planned and executed an ambush against the group of P/Supt. Rafael, only for the latter to retaliate and defend themselves. The evidence supports the conclusion that the shooting was a result of self-defense rather than an intentional killing.

3. The theory of murder and rub-out based on the alleged conversation between Michael and his sister, Rochelle, is less credible than the intelligence reports. It was established that Michael was a member of a gun-for-hire group contracted to eliminate P/Supt. Rafael, based on intelligence reports and previous admissions made by Michael. The theory that P/Supt. Rafael hired Michael as his security escort is implausible and unsupported by evidence.

4. The lack of cartridge cases originating from the firearms recovered from the group of Michael is not sufficient to prove that Michael and his group did not fire upon petitioners. Two members of Michael's group tested positive for gun powder nitrates and the magazines of the firearms contained less than the full capacity of bullets. It is possible that the cartridge cases were expelled outside the car during the shooting.

5. The positioning of Michael and his group in the cramped vehicle does not indicate that petitioners murdered them. It merely shows how their bodies settled after the shoot-out occurred and cannot be used as evidence of intentional killing by petitioners.

6. The bullet holes in the car boarded by Michael and his group do not necessarily indicate that they were rubbed out. It supports the narration of petitioners that they fired in self-defense when the car continued moving and shot at them. The bullet holes confirm the defensive shots fired by petitioners against the occupants of the vehicle.

7. No, the police officers are not liable for grave misconduct.

PRINCIPLES:

• Misconduct is a transgression of an established and definite rule of action, involving unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer.

• Misconduct must be grave, serious, important, weighty, momentous, and not trifling in order to warrant dismissal from service.

• Misconduct must imply wrongful intention and have a direct relation to and be connected with the performance of the public officer's official duties.

• Substantial evidence is necessary to support a finding of grave misconduct in an administrative case.

• The Court may evaluate factual findings of the administrative body and the Court of Appeals in cases where judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts.

• Substantial evidence is sufficient to prove an act or omission, even if the evidence may not be overwhelming. The requirement is satisfied as long as there is reasonable ground to believe that the respondent is guilty of the act or omission complained of.

• Hearsay evidence is less credible than established intelligence reports or other reliable sources of information.

• Lack of direct evidence, such as cartridge cases, does not necessarily disprove the occurrence of a certain event if there are other circumstances that support its likelihood.

• The positioning of bodies in a crime scene does not necessarily indicate the manner in which they were killed. It may show how their bodies settled after the occurrence of the incident.

• Bullet holes in a vehicle may indicate defensive shots fired by individuals who were being shot at, rather than evidence of intentional killing.

• Police officers are trained to use unequal force to suppress any challenge to their authority.

• The dismissal of the informations for murder based on affidavits of desistance may be considered in certain cases, absent proof of fraud or duress in its execution.

• Affidavits of desistance dilute the foundation of the charges filed against the accused.