MANILA, Philippines - The Court of Appeals (CA) has nullified an order of the National Police Commission (Napolcom) placing eight Quezon City police officers under preventive suspension for killing suspected carjackers in a shootout along EDSA in February last year.
In a 20-page decision, the first division of the appellate court also enjoined Napolcom from further hearing the case until after a formal complaint is filed against Inspector Angelo Nicolas, Senior Police Officer 1 Frederick Torres, Police Officers 3 Honey Besas and Glicerio Manacpo, Police Officers 2 Eugene Martinez and Randy Barrameda, and Police Officers 1 Raymond Escober and Freddie Suliva.
In granting the petition of the police officers, the CA ruled there was grave abuse of discretion on the part of Napolcom in violating basic rules of procedure when it started proceedings against the petitioners without a formal charge against them.
“Without said evidence or other evidence showing the compliance with the rules to debunk the allegations of petitioners, the petitioners’ claim that there was no formal charge becomes convincing. This adversely affects the due process right of petitioners… This is basic and this cannot be liberally construed,” the Court held in the ruling penned by Associate Justice Andres Reyes Jr.
The CA stressed that the lack of a formal charge “can only be cured by filing one,” adding that Napolcom is not barred from making corrective acts, such as properly docketing the evaluation report and thus filing a formal charge against the policemen.
In the assailed Napolcom resolution dated Feb. 23, 2009, which was affirmed on Mar. 30, 2009, the police officers were placed under a 90-day preventive suspension for shooting suspected carjackers Romeo de Guzman, Alfredo Pimentel Jr. and Roland Batapa during an encounter on Feb. 17, 2009 at the corner of EDSA and NIA Road.
The incident gained a lot of public attention after it was caught on video by a news team of ABS-CBN.
The CA sustained the arguments of petitioners that the issuance of the order for their preventive suspension was void because there was no formal charge by a private complainant against them.
The next procedure after the formal filing of the case is the receipt of the pre-evaluation report with the complete records of the complaint and the docketing and transmitting of the same to a hearing officer. At this time, preventive suspension may be issued at the instance of the complainant.
“We reviewed thoroughly the records before us and found that these procedures are wanting… The documentary evidence presented by the accused did not show that there was such a pre-charge evaluation report,” the CA ruled.
The rules of are clear that the pre-charge evaluation report, in order for it to be deemed formally filed and consequently be considered a formal charge, must be received and entered in the official docket of the disciplinary authority, in this case the Napolcom, it added.
The appellate court further noticed that there was no proof that respondents were properly served with summons, while the summons attached to the petition did not have the pre-charge evaluation report, merely the affidavits executed by the private complainants.
The CA further said the report submitted, entitled first indorsement, was undocketed, with no stamp bearing the date when it was received, nor a case number assigned to it. Even the affidavits executed by private complainants were not stamped properly as there was no time indicated on it.
“It is basic in our rules of procedure that an undated pleading is considered a scrap of paper. There is no reason why it would not apply to documents issued by the administrative agency especially when its issuances would be a source of a right or would diminish a right of the person,” said the CA.
The CA said respondents could have presented a docket book that was supposed to be maintained by the Napolcom, but chose not to present it. - By Edu Punay
