Doctrine of command responsibility | The Manila Times

Dear PAO,
My friend was apprehended for a crime. The apprehending officers allegedly extorted a certain amount from him in exchange for his freedom. My friend was released after paying the money, but he wants to file an appropriate criminal case against the members of the arresting team, including all of their officers. I told my friend that he cannot just implicate the officers of the arresting team since they were not directly involved in the anomalous act of their subordinates. My friend reasoned out that the officers are criminally liable because of the doctrine on "command responsibility." May these officers be made criminally liable for the acts of their subordinates?
Tracy

Dear Tracy,
Generally, criminal liability only attaches to persons whose action or inaction, whether with intent or by negligence, is prohibited by law. As an exception, command responsibility may attach to an officer for crimes committed by his or her subordinate, subject to the conditions prescribed by law and jurisprudence. The foundation of this doctrine was laid in Rubrico, et al. v. Macapagal-Arroyo, et al., GR 183871, Feb. 18, 2010, which was penned by Associate Justice Presbitero Velasco Jr.:

"The evolution of the command responsibility doctrine finds its context in the development of laws of war and armed combats. According to Fr. Bernas, 'command responsibility,' in its simplest terms, means the 'responsibility of commanders for crimes committed by subordinate members of the armed forces or other persons subject to their control in international wars or domestic conflict.' In this sense, command responsibility is properly a form of criminal complicity. The Hague Conventions of 1907 adopted the doctrine of command responsibility, foreshadowing the present-day precept of holding a superior accountable for the atrocities committed by his subordinates should he be remiss in his duty of control over them. As then formulated, command responsibility is 'an omission mode of individual criminal liability,' whereby the superior is made responsible for crimes committed by his subordinates for failing to prevent or punish the perpetrators."
There is no hard or fast rule governing the criminal liability of superior officers or immediate supervisors under the doctrine of command responsibility. Yet, the law and requirements for the proper application of said doctrine were explained in Office of the Ombudsman v. Mendoza, GR 219772, July 17, 2019, penned by Associate Justice Jose Reyes Jr.:
"E.O. No. 226 applies only when the superior had no direct participation in the act complained of "E.O. No. 226 seeks to institutionalize command responsibility in the Philippine National Police and other law enforcement agencies in recognition of the duty of superiors to closely monitor and supervise the overall activities and actions of their subordinates within their jurisdiction or command. Section 1 thereof, holds superiors administratively liable for failing to discipline their erring personnel, to wit:
"SEC. 1. Neglect of Duty Under the Doctrine of 'Command Responsibility.' - Any government official or supervisor, or officer of the Philippine National Police or that of any other law enforcement agency shall be held accountable for 'Neglect of Duty' under the doctrine of 'command responsibility' if he has knowledge that a crime or offense shall be committed, is being committed, or has been committed by his subordinates, or by others within his area of responsibility and, despite such knowledge, he did not take preventive or corrective action either before, during, or immediately after its commission. (Emphasis supplied)

"On the other hand, E.O. No. 226 presumes that superiors have knowledge of any irregularities or crimes committed by their subordinates under any of the following circumstances:
"a. When the irregularities or illegal acts are widespread within his area of jurisdiction;

"b. When the irregularities or illegal acts have been repeatedly or regularly committed within his area of responsibility; or
"c. When members of his immediate staff or office personnel are involved.

"The provisions of E.O. No. 226 clearly indicate that the law seeks to penalize the failure of superiors to take any disciplinary actions against their subordinates who have committed a crime or irregularity. It presupposes that the superior has no involvement in the actions of the subordinates, otherwise, the superior should be penalized in accordance with his or her direct participation in the questionable conduct his or her subordinates may have committed."
Applying the aforecited decision to your situation, the command responsibility doctrine pertains to the liability of superiors for their failure to take disciplinary actions against subordinates who have committed a crime or irregularity. It does not automatically apply to every situation, but rather only when the superior has knowledge, actual or presumed, of the illegal acts of his or her subordinate. Thus, you need to present proof that the officers of the arresting team who apprehended you have knowledge, or presumed to have knowledge, of the illegal activity of their subordinates.
We hope that we are able to answer your queries. This advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.
Thank you for your continued trust and support.