Republic of the Philippines
COURT OF APPEALS
Manila
***
SIXTEENTH DIVISION
EUSEBIO S. AMABA, JR., CA-G.R. SP No. 125693
Petitioner,
Members:
- versus - CASTILLO, M.,
Chairperson
LAZARO-JAVIER, A.C., and
OFFICE OF THE INTERNAL GALAPATE-LAGUILLES, Z.T., JJ.
AFFAIRS SERVICE, PHILIPPINE
NATIONAL POLICE and TECHIE Promulgated:
[Link],
Respondents. 02/13/13
x ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x
DECISION
CASTILLO, M., J.:
This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition seeking to annul
and set aside the Order dated 23 May 2012 1 and Resolution dated 11
June 2012,2 both of the public respondent Office of the Internal Affairs
Service, Philippine National Police, in Administrative Case No. IAS-
12-013, denying petitioner's motion to dismiss and his subsequent
motion for reconsideration, respectively.
The antecedents of this petition are:
In a complaint dated 14 May 2010, private respondent Techie
C. Gammad charged petitioner PO2 Eusebio S. Amaba, Jr. with
Grave Misconduct. She narrated her ordeal in the hands of the
petitioner, as follows:3
1 Rollo, pp. 20-21.
2 Rollo, pp. 22-25.
3 Complaint-Affidavit of Techie C. Gammad, Rollo, pp. 28-29.
CA-G.R. SP No. 125693 2
D e c i s i o n
==================
PO1 Eusebio Amaba, Jr, had been my fiance for three years
(since February 23, 2007). We knew each other because of his
classmate in his (sic) police training – the husband of my co-
teacher. During our relationship, I was already introduced and
mingled to (sic) his family, and I also presented him to my family,
friends and colleagues. May of 2007, he proposed to me with an
engagement ring and in August of the same year, he verbally state
(sic) to my mother, 0“Ma, may balak na po kaming magpakasal ni
Techie.” Every now and then, he was promising me that, “Huwag
kang magalala,kaya kitang panagutan kasi máy trabaho na ako.
Hindi kita niloloko.” Because of my trust and confidence that he wil
really fulfill his promise, I gave in to his desire at may nangyari sa
amin. This last January, I got delayed in my menstrual period for
about two months. I right away told him that and that prompted our
intention to get married. We secured the requirements and applied
for marriage license on February 26, 2010 in San Juan City with
Registry No. 1064. The license was issued on the 10 th of March
2010 with an O.R. No. 0221984 in the name of Eusebio S. Amaba,
Jr. The paper was raffled in the Office of the Clerk of Court
(Regional Trial Court-Makati City) on March 22; then I together with
PO1 Amaba, Jr., requested that the wedding ceremony be
scheduled on the 25th March at 10 am.
That on or about ten o'çlock in the morning of March 25,
2010, he did not appear on the scheduled solemnization of our
marriage in the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 134,
under Judge Perpetua Atal Pano. My family, relatives and friends
waited for him and tried to call him up but his phone could not be
reached anymore. This incident caused great scandal and
embarrassment physically and psychologically to me and to my
family as a whole in the sense that my mother and relatives
prepared for this occasion by coming all the way from the province,
and numerous people have known that I am going to get married
with him on the aforementioned dated. Not to mention all the
expenses made in such wedding preparations.
Because of these willful, dishonest, abusive and
unbecoming acts by him, PO1 Eusebio Amaba, Jr., he destroyed
my reputation and made me feel that as if he used me only for his
pleasure.
Upon its evaluation of the complaint, the supporting
documentary evidence and witnesses for the private respondent, the
public respondent Office of the Internal Affairs Service (IAS) found
probable cause to charge the petitioner with grave misconduct. 4
4 Pre-Charge Evaluation Report dated 07 March 2012, Rollo, pp. 30-33.
CA-G.R. SP No. 125693 3
D e c i s i o n
==================
In his Answer to the complaint, petitioner argued that the acts
complained of did not constitute the offense charged. 5
On 14 May 2012, petitioner moved for the dismissal of the
complaint, maintaining that since the charge against him might
warrant his dismissal from the service, the PLEB and the PNP Chief
and regional directors were the ones to have concurrent jurisdiction
over the case and not the public respondent IAS. 6
Citing Section 39 of Republic Act No. 8551, the public
respondent IAS denied petitioner's motion to dismiss in its assailed
Order. The IAS further denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration
in its assailed Resolution.
Hence, this petition.
Upon the filing of private respondent's Comment on the petition
as well as petitioner's Reply thereto, the case was submitted for
decision.
Practically reiterating his arguments in the motion to dismiss,
petitioner imputes grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction on the part of the public respondent IAS in
refusing to dismiss the case instituted by the private respondent
against him.
There is no question that the PLEB and the PNP Chief and
regional directors have concurrent jurisdiction over administrative
cases filed against members of the PNP which may warrant dismissal
from the service. Indeed, any question on this matter has been put to
rest in the case of Deputy Director General Roberto Lastimoso, et. al.
v. P/Inspector Jose J. Asayo,7 where it was held:
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6975 or the Department of the
Interior and Local Government Act of 1990, which took effect on 1
January 1991, x x x delineates the procedural framework in
pursuing administrative complaints against erring members of the
police organization. Section 41 of the law enumerates the
authorities to which a complaint against an erring member of the
PNP may be filed, thus:
5 Rollo, pp. 34-41.
6 Motion to Dismiss (For Lack of Jurisdiction), Rollo, pp. 42-49.
7 G.R. No. 154243, March 6, 2007, citing Quiambao v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 128305, March 28,
2005, 454 SCRA 17.
CA-G.R. SP No. 125693 4
D e c i s i o n
==================
Section 41. (a) Citizen's Complaints. - Any
complaint by an individual person against any member
of the PNP shall be brought before the following:
(1) Chiefs of police, where the
offense is punishable by withholding of
privileges, restriction to specified limits,
suspension or forfeiture of salary, or any
combination thereof, for a period not
exceeding fifteen (15) days;
(2) Mayors of cities or
municipalities where the offense is
punishable by withholding of privileges,
restriction to specified limits, suspension
or forfeiture of salary, or any
combination thereof, for a period of not
less than sixteen (16) days but not
exceeding thirty (30) days;
(3) People's Law Enforcement
Board, as created under Section 43
hereof, where the offense is punishable
by withholding of privileges, restriction to
specified limits, suspension or forfeiture
of salary, or any combination thereof, for
a period exceeding thirty (30) days; or
by dismissal. . . .
It is readily apparent that a complaint against a PNP member
which would warrant dismissal from service is within the jurisdiction
of the PLEB. However, Section 41 should be read in conjunction
with Section 42 of the same statute which reads, thus:
Sec. 42. Summary Dismissal Powers of the
PNP Chief and Regional Directors. - The Chief of the
PNP and regional directors, after due notice and
summary hearings, may immediately remove or
dismiss any respondent PNP member in any of the
following cases:
(a) When the charge is serious
and the evidence of guilt is strong;
(b) When the respondent is a
recidivist or has been repeatedly charged
and there are reasonable grounds to
believe that he is guilty of the charges;
and
CA-G.R. SP No. 125693 5
D e c i s i o n
==================
(c) When the respondent is
guilty of conduct unbecoming of a police
officer.
Evidently, the PNP Chief and regional directors are vested with the
power to summarily dismiss erring PNP members if any of the
causes for summary dismissal enumerated in Section 42 is
attendant. Thus, the power to dismiss PNP members is not only
the prerogative of PLEB but concurrently exercised by the PNP
Chief and regional directors. This shared power is likewise evident
in Section 45.
SEC. 45. Finality of Disciplinary Action. - The
disciplinary action imposed upon a member of the
PNP shall be final and executory: Provided, That a
disciplinary action imposed by the regional
director or by the PLEB involving demotion or
dismissal from the service may be appealed to the
regional appellate board within ten (10) days from
receipt of the copy of the notice of decision: Provided,
further, That the disciplinary action imposed by
the Chief of the PNP involving demotion or
dismissal may be appealed to the National
Appellate Board within ten (10) days from receipt
thereof: Provided, furthermore, That the regional or
National Appellate Board, as the case may be, shall
decide the appeal within sixty (60) days from receipt
of the notice of appeal: Provided, finally, That failure
of the regional appellate board to act on the appeal
within said period shall render the decision final and
executory without prejudice, however, to the filing of
an appeal by either party with the Secretary.
(Emphasis ours).
Once a complaint is filed with any of the
disciplining authorities under R.A. No. 6975, the latter
shall acquire exclusive original jurisdiction over the
case although other disciplining authority has
concurrent jurisdiction over the case. Paragraph (c) of
Section 41 explicitly declares this point.
(c) Exclusive Jurisdiction- A com-
plaint or a charge filed against a PNP
member shall be heard and decided
exclusively by the disciplining
authority who has acquired original
jurisdiction over the case and
notwithstanding the existence of
CA-G.R. SP No. 125693 6
D e c i s i o n
==================
concurrent jurisdiction as regards the
offense; Provided, That offenses which
carry higher penalties referred to a
disciplinary authority shall be referred to
the appropriate authority which has
jurisdiction over the offense.
Clearly, the PLEB and the PNP Chief and regional directors
have concurrent jurisdiction over administrative cases filed against
members of the PNP which may warrant dismissal from service.
The concurrent jurisdiction of the PLEB, the PNP Chief and
regional directors to investigate, hear and decide administrative
cases filed against members of the PNP which may warrant
dismissal from service is not however, exclusive. It is shared with
the Internal Affairs Service pursuant to Section 39 of Republic Act
No. 8551 (AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE REFORM AND
REORGANIZATION OF THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE AND
FOR OTHER PURPOSES, AMENDING CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF
REPUBLIC ACT NUMBERED SIXTY-NINE HUNDRED AND
SEVENTY-FIVE ENTITLED, ÄN ACT ESTABLISHING THE
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE UNDER A RE-ORGANIZED
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT,
AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES”).
Section 39 of R. A. No. 8551, provides:
Section 39. Creation, Powers, and Functions. – An Internal Affairs
Service (IAS) of the PNP is hereby created which shall:
a) pro-actively conduct inspections and audits on PNP
personnel and units;
b) investigate complaints and gather evidence in
support of an open investigation;
c) conduct summary hearings on PNP members facing
administrative charges;
d) submit a periodic report on the assessment, analysis, and
evaluation of the character and behavior of PNP personnel and
units to the Chief PNP and the Commission;
e) file appropriate criminal cases against PNP members
before the court as evidence warrants and assist in the prosecution
of the case;
f) provide assistance to the Office of the Ombudsman in
cases involving the personnel of the PNP.
CA-G.R. SP No. 125693 7
D e c i s i o n
==================
The IAS shall also conduct, motu proprio, automatic investigation of
the following cases:
a) incidents where a police personnel discharges a firearm;
b) incidents where death, serious physical injury, or any
violation of human rights occurred in the conduct of a police
operation;
c) incidents where evidence was compromised, tampered with,
obliterated, or lost while in the custody of police personnel;
d) incidents where a suspect in the custody of the police
was seriously injured; and
e) incidents where the established rules of engagement have
been violated.
Finally, the IAS shall provide documents or recommendations as regards
to the promotion of the members of the PNP or the assignment of PNP
personnel to any key position.
Significantly, the aforequoted law is defeaningly silent as to the
type/kind of administrative charges which may be heard by the
Internal Affairs Service. On the contrary, it states in unequivocal
terms that the IAS shall conduct summary hearings on PNP
members facing administrative charges. Such being the case, this
mandate covers all administrative charges/cases against members of
the PNP. Ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distinguire debemus. When
the law does not distinguish, We must not distinguish.
Nevertheless, where a uniformed PNP personnel is found guilty
of the administrative charge leveled against him which carries with it
the penalty of dismissal or demotion, the decision of the IAS is
subject to the approval of the appropriate disciplining authority. Thus,
Section 49 of R. A. No. 8551, reads:
Section 49. Disciplinary Recommendations of the IAS. – (a) Any
uniformed PNP personnel found guilty of any of the cases
mentioned in Section 39 of this Act and any immediate superior or
supervisor found negligent under Section 48 shall be recommended
automatically for dismissal or demotion, as the case may be.
(b) Recommendations by the IAS for the imposition of
disciplinary measures against an erring PNP personnel, once final,
cannot be revised, set-aside, or unduly delayed by any disciplining
authority without just cause. Any disciplining authority who fails to
act or who acts with abuse of discretion on the recommendation of
the IAS shall be made liable for gross neglect of duty. The case of
CA-G.R. SP No. 125693 8
D e c i s i o n
==================
erring disciplinary authority shall be submitted to the Director
General for proper disposition.
All told, We find that the public respondent IAS did not act with
grave abuse of discretion in issuing its assailed Order and
Resolution.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
MARIFLOR P. PUNZALAN CASTILLO
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
AMY C. LAZARO-JAVIER ZENAIDA T. GALAPATE-LAGUILLES
Associate Justice Associate Justice
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is
hereby certified that the conclusions in the above decision were
reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of
the opinion of the Court.
MARIFLOR P. PUNZALAN CASTILLO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Sixteenth Division
minnie
february13
