Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1K views

    HIMAGAN Vs PEOPLE

    Uploaded by

    abethzkyyyy
    Ishmael Himagan, a policeman, was charged with murder and attempted murder. Pursuant to Section 47 of RA 6975, he was suspended from office pending the resolution of the case. Himagan argued that his suspension should be limited to 90 days per the Civil Service Decree. However, the Court held that Section 47 does not violate equal protection. The first sentence clearly states that suspension shall last until case termination. Further, treating police differently is justified given they carry weapons and could intimidate witnesses. Even if trial is not completed in 90 days, suspension should not automatically be lifted.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    HIMAGAN Vs PEOPLE

    Uploaded by

    abethzkyyyy
    1K views1 page
    Ishmael Himagan, a policeman, was charged with murder and attempted murder. Pursuant to Section 47 of RA 6975, he was suspended from office pending the resolution of the case. Himagan argued that his suspension should be limited to 90 days per the Civil Service Decree. However, the Court held that Section 47 does not violate equal protection. The first sentence clearly states that suspension shall last until case termination. Further, treating police differently is justified given they carry weapons and could intimidate witnesses. Even if trial is not completed in 90 days, suspension should not automatically be lifted.

    Original Description:

    CASE DIGEST

    Original Title

    \HIMAGAN vs PEOPLE

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Ishmael Himagan, a policeman, was charged with murder and attempted murder. Pursuant to Section 47 of RA 6975, he was suspended from office pending the resolution of the case. Himagan argued that his suspension should be limited to 90 days per the Civil Service Decree. However, the Court held that Section 47 does not violate equal protection. The first sentence clearly states that suspension shall last until case termination. Further, treating police differently is justified given they carry weapons and could intimidate witnesses. Even if trial is not completed in 90 days, suspension should not automatically be lifted.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    1K views1 page

    HIMAGAN Vs PEOPLE

    Uploaded by

    abethzkyyyy
    Ishmael Himagan, a policeman, was charged with murder and attempted murder. Pursuant to Section 47 of RA 6975, he was suspended from office pending the resolution of the case. Himagan argued that his suspension should be limited to 90 days per the Civil Service Decree. However, the Court held that Section 47 does not violate equal protection. The first sentence clearly states that suspension shall last until case termination. Further, treating police differently is justified given they carry weapons and could intimidate witnesses. Even if trial is not completed in 90 days, suspension should not automatically be lifted.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    ISHMAEL HIMAGAN, petitioner, vs.

    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and HON. JUDGE HILARIO


    MAPAYO, RTC, Br. 11, Davao City, respondents.

    or limit the first sentence. The two can stand independently of each
    other. The first refers to the period of suspension. The second deals
    with the time from within which the trial should be finished.

    G.R. No. 113811 October 7, 1994

    The reason why members of the PNP are treated differently from the
    other classes of persons charged criminally or administratively
    insofar as the application of the rule on preventive suspension is
    concerned is that policemen carry weapons and the badge of the law
    which can be used to harass or intimidate witnesses against them, as
    succinctly brought out in the legislative discussions.

    Equal Protection Suspension of PNP Members Charged with


    Grave Felonies
    FACTS: Himagan is a policeman assigned in Camp Catititgan, Davao
    City. He was charged for the murder of Benjamin Machitar Jr and for
    the attempted murder of Benjamins younger brother, Barnabe.
    Pursuant to Sec 47 of RA 6975, Himagan was placed into suspension
    pending the murder case. The law provides that Upon the filing of a
    complaint or information sufficient in form and substance against a
    member of the PNP for grave felonies where the penalty imposed by
    law is six (6) years and one (1) day or more, the court shall
    immediately suspend the accused from office until the case is
    terminated. Such case shall be subject to continuous trial and shall be
    terminated within ninety (90) days from arraignment of the accused.
    Himagan assailed the suspension averring that Sec 42 of PD 807 of
    the Civil Service Decree, that his suspension should be limited to
    ninety (90) days. He claims that an imposition of preventive
    suspension of over 90 days is contrary to the Civil Service Law and
    would be a violation of his constitutional right to equal protection of
    laws.
    ISSUE: Whether or not Sec 47, RA 6975 violates equal protection
    guaranteed by the Constitution.
    HELD: The language of the first sentence of Sec 47 of RA 6975 is
    clear, plain and free from ambiguity. It gives no other meaning than
    that the suspension from office of the member of the PNP charged
    with grave offense where the penalty is six years and one day or
    more shall last until the termination of the case. The suspension
    cannot be lifted before the termination of the case. The second
    sentence of the same Section providing that the trial must be
    terminated within ninety (90) days from arraignment does not qualify

    If a suspended policeman criminally charged with a serious offense


    is reinstated to his post while his case is pending, his victim and the
    witnesses against him are obviously exposed to constant threat and
    thus easily cowed to silence by the mere fact that the accused is in
    uniform and armed. The imposition of preventive suspension for
    over 90 days under Sec 47 of RA 6975 does not violate the
    suspended policemans constitutional right to equal protection of the
    laws.
    Supposing the trial is not terminated w/in 90 days from arraignment,
    the suspension of accused should NOT be lifted. While the law uses
    the mandatory word shall before the phrase be terminated within
    ninety (90) days, there is nothing in RA 6975 that suggests that
    the preventive suspension of the accused will be lifted if the trial
    is not terminated within that period. Nonetheless, the Judge who
    fails to decide the case within the period without justifiable reason
    may be subject to administrative sanctions and, in appropriate cases
    where the facts so warrant, to criminal or civil liability. If the trial
    is unreasonably delayed without fault of the accused such that he is
    deprived of his right to a speedy trial, he is not without a remedy. He
    may ask for the dismissal of the case. Should the court refuse to
    dismiss the case, the accused can compel its dismissal by certiorari,
    prohibition or mandamus, or secure his liberty by habeas corpus.
    The equal protection clause does not absolutely forbid classifications, such as the one which
    exists in the instant case. If the classification is based on real and substantial differences; is
    germane to the purpose of the law; applies to all members of the same
    class; and applies to current as well as future conditions, the classification may not be
    impugned as violating the Constitution's equal protection guarantee.

    You might also like