 HOME

窗体顶端
Search...

窗体底端

 
Home of Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
www.chanrobles.com

 CHANROBLES ON-LINE BAR REVIEW
 THE FIRM
 LAWS, STATUTES & CODES
 JURISPRUDENCE
 US LEGAL RESOURCES
 WORLDWIDE LEGAL RESOURCES

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 130442. April 6, 2000.]

THE SUMMARY DISMISSAL BOARD AND THE

REGIONAL APPELLATE BOARD, PNP, REGION VI,
ILOILO CITY, Petitioners, v. C/INSP. LAZARO
TORCITA, Respondent.

DECISION

GONZAGA-REYES, J.:

Before us is a Petition for Review by way of Certiorari of

the Decision of the Court of Appeals 1 in CA-G.R. SP No.
43872, which set aside the Decision of the Regional
Director (RD) of the Philippine National Police (PNP) of
Iloilo City, through its Summary Dismissal Board (SDB),
suspending herein respondent C/Insp. Lazaro Torcita from
the service for twenty (20) days for "Simple Irregularity in
the Performance of Duty under Section 41 of R. A.
6975." chanrobles.com : virtuallawlibrary

The antecedents are as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw

library

On July 6, 1994, the following verified complaints were

filed against C/Insp. Lazaro Torcita, herein respondent, by
Manuel Puey, Jesus Puey, Alex Edwin del
Rosario:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1) Administrative Case Nr. SDHB "B6" -94-01- for Conduct

Unbecoming of a Police Officer filed by Jesus H. Puey in a
complaint dated June 25, 1994;

2) Admin. Case Nr. SDHB "B6" -94-02- for Grave Threats

filed by Jesus H. Puey;

3) Admin. Case Nr. SDHB "B6" -94-03 for Abuse of

Authority and Illegal Search filed by Jesus H. Puey;

4) Admin. Case Nr. SDHB "B6" -94-04 for Abuse of

Authority and Violation of Domicile filed by Jesus H. Puey;

5) Admin. Case Nr. SDHB "B6" -94-05 for Abuse of

Authority and Violation of COMELEC Gun Ban filed by
Jesus H. Puey;

6) Admin. Case Nr. SDHB "B6" -94-06 for Conduct

Unbecoming of a Police Officer filed by Manuel H. Puey;

7) Admin. Case Nr. SDHB "B6" -94-07 for Illegal Search

filed by Manuel H. Puey;

8) Admin. Case Nr. SDHB "B6" -94-08 for Grave Abuse of

Authority and Violation of Domicile filed by Manuel Puey;
9) Admin. Case Nr. SDHB "B6" -94-09 for Abuse of
Authority and Violation of COMELEC Gun Ban filed by
Manuel Puey;

10) Admin. Case Nr. SDHB "B6" -94-10 for Conduct

Unbecoming of a Police Officer filed by Alex Edwin del
Rosario;

11) Admin. Case Nr. SDHB "B6" -94-11 for Abuse of

Authority and Grave Threats filed by Alex Edwin del
Rosario;

12) Admin. Case Nr. SDHB "B6" 94-12 for Abuse of

Authority and Violation of COMELEC Gun Ban filed by Alex
Edwin del Rosario.

The twelve administrative complaints were the subject of

administrative hearings before the Summary Dismissal
Board of the PNP. At the pre-trial, the parties and their
respective counsels agreed that the twelve cases shall be
consolidated into one "major complaint" for "conduct
unbecoming of a police officer" under Par. e, Sec. 3, Rule
II, Memorandum Circular No. 92-006 pursuant to RA 6975
2 . The statement of the case by the Summary Dismissal
Board is as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That sometime last April 26, 1994, after attending the

birthday party of Miss Jessie Vasquez, Alex Edwin del
Rosario, together with Rosita Bistal, Carmen Braganza and
Cristita Dawa boarded Mazda pick up with plate nr. HHP-
808 and driven by Reynaldo Consejo, proceeded towards
the direction of Cadiz City.

While nearing Crossing Cadiz in the vicinity of Sitio Puting

Tubig, the aforementioned Mazda pick-up driven by
Consejo overtook a red Cortina Ford driven by Major
Lazaro Torcita; That on board the motor vehicle driven by
Torcita were three females sitted at the back;

That Major Lazaro Torcita signaled the passengers of the

Mazda pick-up to stop, however, the driver of the Mazda
pick-up refused to abide by the signal and instead
accelerated and proceeded to Hda. Aimee without
stopping.

That upon reaching Hda. Aimee Major Lazaro Torcita,

entered the compound and was approached by two
persons in civilian clothes which prevented him from
further proceeding; Moments after, the patrol car of Cadiz
PNP arrived and together with Major Torcita, approached
Jesus H. Puey and Alex Edwin del Rosario, inquiring as to
the identity of the persons who accosted him;

The complainants alleged that Major Torcita approached

and entered the compound of Hda. Aimee, very drunk,
with back-up vehicle full of armed policemen, confronted
Jesus H. Puey and Alex Edwin del Rosario as who stopped
him at the gate, shouting in a very, very loud voice,
invectives and remarks;

That such act of Major Lazaro Torcita constitute Conduct

Unbecoming of an Officer not worth of respect;

In his answer, the respondent, Lazaro R. Torcita, while

admitting that he entered the premises of the
complainants, the same was done on a regular, lawful and
proper way for he was in the performance of his official
duties in pursuing the suspect who committed a crime in
his presence;

From the affidavits of the witnesses and testimonies

presented by the complainants and the counter affidavits
and the counter testimonies of the respondent, the ISSUE
before the Board is whether the respondent is guilty of
Conduct Unbecoming of a Police Officer under Republic Act
6975 as implemented by Memorandum Circular 92-006 of
the National Police Commission under Rule II Section 3,
Paragraph C, committed thru a series of illegal acts
consisting of Grave Threats, Illegal Search, Abuse of
Authority, violation of Domicile and Violation of COMELEC
Gun Ban."cralaw virtua1aw library
The complainant presented documentary evidence and
witnesses Congressman Manuel Puey, Rosita Bistal, Alex
Edwin del Rosario and Reynaldo Consejo. Respondent
Torcita testified in his behalf and presented Nehru Java, a
member of the PNP Cadiz, who was with him during the
incident in question.

The Summary Dismissal Board made the following

findings of facts:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That sometime last April 26, 1994, at about 10:30 in the

evening, a red Cortina Ford, driven by C/Insp. Lazaro H.
Torcita, with his aide, PO2 Nehru Java, in the front seat
and his wife with two ladies at the backseat, were
overtaken by a mazda pick-up, in the vicinity of Sitio
Puting Tubig, about 10 kilometers from crossing Cadiz,
owned by Congressman Manuel Puey and driven Reynaldo
Consejo with four (4) passengers in the persons of Alex
Edwin del Rosario, the executive assistant and financial
analyst of Congressman Puey, three (3) helpers employed
under the Congressman, namely, Rosita Bistal, Carmen
Braganza and Cristina Dawa;

That both parties came from the Municipality of Victorias

where they attended some social functions on the
occasion of the town fiesta;

After the mazda pick-up has overtaken the red Cortina

Ford, it accelerated speed and proceeded to Hda. Aimee, a
sugarcane plantation in Cadiz City, also owned by
Congressman Manuel Puey; The red Cortina Ford followed
also at high speed until it reached Hda. Aimee where
C/Insp. Torcita and PO2 Java alighted and the
confrontation with Alex Edwin del Rosario and Jesus Puey,
occurred;

The Complainant tried to establish the fact that nothing

unusual occurred or transpired between the parties in the
vicinity of Sitio Puting Tubig and that Torcita has no
business pursuing them; However the Board is more
inclined to give credence to the affidavits (exhibit 5 & 6)
and the testimony of C/Insp. Torcita that a vehicular
collision almost took place due to reckless driving of the
driver of the mazda pick-up;

That it was the duty inherent to the position as Chief of

Police of Cadiz City and as deputy of the Land
Transportation Office to enforce traffic rules and
regulation to prevent chaos and accidents in roads and
highways of the country (exhibit 13); This observation is
further bolstered by the testimony of Reynaldo Consejo,
the driver of the mazda pick-up, that he was able to
overtake the red Cortina Ford only after the latter car hit
the shoulder of the road and after overtaking he increased
his speed (tsn page 131, August 30, 1994);

This sudden increase in speed of a driver involved in a

vehicular accident is a classic move for one who wants a
fast get away from the scene, to escape responsibility;

Further, Alex Edwin del Rosario testified that upon

reaching Hda. Aimee, he instructed the guard to be on
look-out for a car might be following them and might
enter the compound (TSN page 70 August 30, 1994). This
conduct would show that witness is anticipating that red
Cortina Ford would follow them because of the incident in
Sitio Puting Tubig which could have ended in a vehicular
collision and finally no proof was presented to show that
no other reason exist as to why C/Insp. Torcita would
pursue the Mazda pick up other than near occurrence of a
vehicular collision;

The Complainant presented the Joint-Affidavit of Rosita

Bistal and Reynaldo Consejo and the Affidavit of Alex
Edwin del Rosario, jointly taken, may be considered as
proof that C/Insp. Torcita has committed act or series of
acts that would constitute Grave Threat, Illegal Search,
Abuse of Authority, Violation of Domicile and Violation of
COMELEC Resolutions regarding the gun ban, thus
CONDUCT UNBECOMING OF A POLICE
OFFICER;chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
That in the Joint-Affidavit of Rosita Bistal and Reynaldo
Consejo (exhibit c; exhibit 2), Bistal attempted to
establish the fact that C/Insp. Torcita and PO2 Java
illegally entered the gate of the compound but were
stopped by the guards armed with cane stick or batuta,
however in her testimony given during the hearing (tsn
page 32, August 30, 1994) she stated that she did not
know what transpired between the two men approaching
and the guards near the gate because she, together with
her companions, were busy unloading kitchen utensil from
the pick-up to the kitchen and Consejo categorically
stated that this portion of their affidavit, specifically
paragraph 7, is NOT TRUE; Alex Edwin del Rosario, in his
testimony given in the hearing, corroborated this fact that
he also did not see or hear what happened for he was in
some distance away and he cannot see them clearly (TSN
page 73, August 30, 1994);

The only piece of evidence presented in connection with

the incident which happened near the gate of the
compound is the affidavit of C/Insp. Torcita and his
testimony given in the hearing of the case that when he
was walking towards the compound together with his
aide, PO2 Nehru Java, two armed civilian guards stopped
and threatened him; He identified himself however, the
same had no effect, and PO2 Java whispered that there
are armed men around them and that it is dangerous for
them to continue. That at this point, they radioed for
back-up; Since no proof to the contrary was presented by
the Complainant nor was there any witness or witnesses
presented to rebut this allegations, the Board had no
other choice except to consider these allegations as proof;
(Exhibit 5 & 6); The Board also resolve to take note that a
metropolitan newspaper with nationwide circulation and
with unquestionable credential, had published a news item
about the presence of armed security personnel of
Congressman Manuel Puey (exhibit 14); This evidence
give more credence to the fact that there were really
armed men in the premises where the aforementioned
incident happened; That this is corroborated further by
the affidavit of PO2 Nehru Java (exhibit 17);
This observation of the Board that there were really
armed men in the premises of Hda. Aimee, is further
enhance by the fact that Major Torcita felt their presence
when he desisted from further entering the compound, a
feeling which was developed and nurtured by years of
living under combat conditions and finally the Board also
feels that the presence of armed persons in the offices
and properties of high government officials is accepted as
a necessary consequence for their protection due to the
greater risks they are expose to;

That because of the incident in Sitio Puting Tubig which

was further aggravated by the confrontation near the gate
of the compound of Hda. Aimee, C/Insp. Torcita upon the
arrival of the back-up force of PNP Cadiz City, proceeded
to the place where Capt. Jesus Puey and Alex Edwin del
Rosario were; This fact is not disputed by the parties;
x           x          x

Chief Insp. Lazaro Torcita does not deny having taken

alcoholic drink; However, not to the point of drunkness;
The Board is more inclined to believe this allegation for no
sane person will risks the life of a member of his family by
deliberately driving when he is mentally and physically
incapable; Further, C/Insp. Torcita was able to drive from
Victorias to Cadiz City, a distance of forty kilometers, on a
dark night and raining and was able to avoid collision of
the vehicles involved by sheer reflex action despite the
admitted fact that his tire hit the shoulder of the road;

Further, at the time Chief Inspector Torcita entered the

compound he was fully aware of the presence of armed
men and reacted to this by exercising prudence while
approaching the compound of Hda. Aimee; The foregoing
facts would show that C/Insp. Torcita was in full command
of his senses and was not affected by the numbing effect
of alcohol for a drunk person does not show any caution
and behaves irrationaly."cralaw virtua1aw library
The Board did not find sufficient evidence to establish that
Torcita threatened anybody with a gun, nor that a serious
confrontation took place between the parties. The Board
also found that there was no sufficient evidence that the
urinating incident took place, and held that the charges of
violation of domicile and illegal search were not proven.
The Board found that Lazaro Torcita was "in the
performance of his official duties" when the incident
happened; however, he committed a breach of internal
discipline by taking alcoholic drinks while in the
performance of same. The dispositive portion of the
decision of the Board reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Complaint for

CONDUCT UNBECOMING OF A POLICE OFFICER under
Memo Cir. Nr. 92-006 pursuant to Sec. 42, RA 6975, be
DISMISSED for lack of sufficient evidence, however finds
C/Insp. Lazaro R. Torcita to have committed SIMPLE
IRREGULARITY IN THE PERFORMANCE OF DUTY under
Sec. 41, RA 6975, in relation to NAPOLCOM Memo Cir. Nr.
91-002 and is hereby ORDERED SUSPENDED for twenty
days (20) and forfeiture of salary for the same period of
time effective upon receipt of this Decision under Rule 7,
Section 2, Sub-par. b of the same Memo Circular."cralaw
virtua1aw library

Torcita appealed his conviction to the Regional Appellate

Board of the PNP, Region VI, Iloilo City, but the appeal
was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; Thus,

"Under the applicable provisions of Section 45 of R. A.

6975, however, the disciplinary action imposed by the
Regional Director upon a PNP member shall be final and
executory except those involving demotion in rank or
dismissal from the service. The appealed decision being
that of suspension from the service with corresponding
forfeiture of pay only the same is not subject to review by
this Board." 3

Whereupon, C/Insp. Torcita filed a petition for certiorari in

the regional trial court of Iloilo City, Branch 31,
questioning the legality of the conviction of an offense for
which he was not charged, "which conviction is a nullity
because of the lack of procedural due process of
law."cralaw virtua1aw library

Public respondent filed a motion to dismiss, which was

denied. The regional trial court granted the petition
for certiorari and annulled the dispositive portion of the
questioned decision insofar as it found Torcita guilty of
simple irregularity in the performance of duty.

Public respondent appealed from the above-mentioned

decision of the regional trial court, by petition of review to
the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the same for the
reason that the respondent could not have been guilty of
irregularity considering that "the twelve (12) cases
treated as Conduct Unbecoming of a Police Officer were
eventually dismissed."cralaw virtua1aw library

The instant petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45

seeks the reversal of the aforesaid decision of the Court of
Appeals on the following grounds:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. THE OFFENSE OF "SIMPLE IRREGULARITY IN THE

PERFORMANCE OF DUTY" IS NECESSARILY INCLUDED IN
THE CHARGE OF "CONDUCT UNBECOMING OF A POLICE
OFFICER."cralaw virtua1aw library

2. THE DECISION OF THE SUMMARY DISMISSAL BOARD

(SDB) AND THE NAPOLCOM REGIONAL APPELLATE BOARD
HAS BECOME FINAL AND EXECUTORY." 4

The petitioners submit that the offense of "Conduct

Unbecoming of a Police Officer" is broad enough to include
any act of an officer which tends to bring dishonor and
disgrace to the PNP organization, and Simple Irregularity
in the Performance of Duty is one act which brings such
disgrace and dishonor as contemplated by law. Moreover,
the dismissal has become final and executory and the trial
court erred when it proceeded with the petition in
violation of the doctrine of primary jurisdiction.

In his comment, respondent Torcita insists that his right

to due process of law was "corrosively abridged and
impaired", and pleads for an affirmance of the decision of
the Court of Appeals.

The appeal has no merit. The Court of Appeals did not err
in affirming the decision of the trial court granting the
petition for certiorari.

The administrative disciplinary machinery for dealing with

complaints or charges against any member of the
Philippine National Police (PNP) is laid down in Republic
Act No. 6975, otherwise known as the "Department of the
Interior and Local Government Act of 1990." This law
defines the summary dismissal powers of the PNP Chief
and Regional Directors, among others in cases, "where
the respondent is guilty of conduct unbecoming of a police
officer." 5 Memorandum Circular No. 92-006 prescribes
the "Rules and Regulations in the conduct of summary
dismissal proceedings against erring PNP members" and
defines conduct unbecoming of a police officer under
Section 3 (c), Rule II, as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Conduct unbecoming of a police officer" refers to any

behavior or action of a PNP member, irrespective of rank,
done in his official capacity, which, in dishonoring or
otherwise disgracing himself as a PNP member, seriously
compromise his character and standing as a gentleman in
such a manner as to indicate his vitiated or corrupt state
of moral character; it may also refer to acts or behavior of
any PNP member in an unofficial or private capacity
which, in dishonoring or disgracing himself personally as a
gentleman, seriously compromises his position as a PNP
member and exhibits himself as morally unworthy to
remain as a member of the organization."cralaw
virtua1aw library

On the other hand, the acts constituting "simple

irregularity in the performance of duty" are defined in
Memorandum Circular No. 91-002. It is a light offense,
incurred, among others, by a member of the PNP who
shall, among others, be found to "have the odor or smell
of alcohol on his breath while on duty, or possess alcoholic
beverages on his person, police vehicle, post or office."
(Sec. 2.A, Rule VI).

As above-stated, the Summary Dismissal Board absolved

the C/Insp. Torcita of the consolidated charge of "conduct
unbecoming of a police officer" but found him guilty of
simple irregularity in the performance of duty under Sec.
41, R.A. No. 6975, in relation to Napolcom Memorandum
Circular No. 91-002 and imposed a penalty of suspension
for twenty (20) days and forfeiture of salary for the same
period.

We are unable to sustain the theory of the petitioners that

the definition of "conduct unbecoming of a police officer"
as earlier granted, is broad enough to include any act of
an officer which tends to bring dishonor and disgrace to
the PNP organization, and that there is "no legal
prohibition" which would prevent the Summary Dismissal
Board from finding petitioner guilty of the lesser offense.
While the definition of the more serious offense is broad,
and almost all-encompassing a finding of guilt for an
offense, no matter how light, for which one is not properly
charged and tried cannot be countenanced without
violating the rudimentary requirements of due process.

The series of twelve complaints filed against C/Insp.

Torcita were solely based on the incident that occurred on
April 26, 1994 at about 11:00 o’clock in the evening,
wherein Torcita, who was off-duty and was in civilian
clothes, riding in his private vehicle with members of his
family, chased another vehicle which overtook his car in a
reckless manner and in violation of the Traffic Code; the
hot pursuit ended at the Hacienda Aimee, where he
allegedly entered the place without lawful warrant and
while inside, belligerently shouted invectives, challenging
everyone to a fight, pointed his gun at somebody and
urinated in full view of the persons therein. The Dismissal
Board found the above charges unsubstantiated and held
that Torcita was in the performance of official duty when
the incidents happened. "However, he committed breach
of internal discipline by taking alcoholic drinks while in the
performance of same." chanrobles.com.ph : red

It is glaringly apparent from a reading of the titles of the

twelve administrative cases filed against C/Insp. Torcita,
earlier quoted, that none of the charges or offenses
mentioned or made reference to the specific act of being
drunk while in the performance of official duty. The
records do not bear out the specific acts or conduct
constituting the charge/offense in the twelve cases which
were consolidated at the pre-hearing conference into a
single case of "Conduct Unbecoming of a Police Officer."
Thus, the Board defined the issue before the Board as
"whether the respondent is guilty of conduct unbecoming
of a police officer under Republic Act 6975, as
implemented by Memorandum Circular No. 92-006 of the
National Police Commission under Rule II, Section 3,
Paragraph c, committed though a series of illegal acts
consisting of grave threats, illegal search, abuse of
authority, violation of domicile or violation of Comelec Gun
Ban." Notably, there is no indication or warning at all in
the summary dismissal proceedings that C/Insp. Torcita
was also being charged with breach of internal discipline
consisting of taking alcoholic drinks while in the
performance of his duties.

The omission is fatal to the validity of the judgment

finding him guilty of the offense for which he was not
notified nor charged. Summary dismissal proceedings are
governed by specific requirements of notification of the
charges together with copies of affidavits and other
attachments supporting the complaints, and the filing of
an answer, together with supporting documents. It is true
that consistent with its summary nature, the duration of
the hearing is limited, and the manner of conducting the
hearing is summary, in that sworn statements may take
the place of oral testimonies of witnesses, cross-
examination is confined only to material and relevant
matters, and prolonged arguments and dilatory
proceedings shall not be entertained. (Section 4,
Memorandum Circular No. 92-006). However, notification
of the charges contemplates that respondent be informed
of the specific charges against him. Torcita was entitled to
know that he was being charged with being drunk while in
the performance of duty, so that he could traverse the
accusation squarely and adduce evidence in his defense.
Although he was given an opportunity to be heard on the
multiple and broad charges initially filed against him, the
absence of specification of the offense for which he was
eventually found guilty is not a proper observance of due
process. There can be no short-cut to the legal process
(Alonte v. Savellano Jr., 287 SCRA 245).

It is a requirement of due process that the parties be

informed of how the litigation was decided with an
explanation of the factual and legal reasons that led to the
conclusions of the Court (ABD Overseas Manpower Corp.
v. NLRC, 286 SCRA 454). Memorandum Circular No. 92-
006 specifically prescribes that the decision shall contain
"a brief statement of the material facts and the findings of
the summary dismissal authority as well as the disposition
thereof" (Sec. 6). The cursory conclusion of the Dismissal
Board that Torcita "committed breach of internal discipline
by taking drinks while in the performance of same" should
have been substantiated by factual findings referring to
this particular offense. As it turned out, the dismissal
Board believed his allegation that he was not drunk and
found that he was in full command of his senses where he
tried to apprehend the driver of the maroon Mazda pick-
up. Although Torcita did not deny that he had taken a
shot of alcoholic drink at the party which he attended
before the incident, the records show that he was then
off-duty and the party was at the Municipality of Victorias,
which was outside of his area of police jurisdiction. On the
other hand, the hot pursuit incident occurred while he was
on in his way home to Cadiz City with the members of his
family. As observed by the Dismissal Board itself, the hot
pursuit was motivated by the duty "inherent to the
position as Chief of Police of Cadiz City and as Deputy of
the Land Transportation Office to enforce traffic rules and
regulations, to prevent chaos and accidents in roads and
highways" (Decision, p. 76). The Court of Appeals
correctly pointed out that even if he was prosecuted for
irregular performance of duty, he could not have been
found to have the odor or smell of alcohol while in the
performance of duty because he was not on duty at the
time that he had a taste of liquor; he was on a private trip
fetching his wife.

Premises considered, we hold that the Court of Appeals

correctly found that the decision of the petitioners Board
was rendered without or in excess of jurisdiction, as
respondent Torcita was found guilty of an offense for
which he was not properly charged. A decision is void for
lack of due process if, as a result, a party is deprived of
the opportunity of being heard (Palu-ay v. CA, 293 SCRA
358). A void judgment never acquires finality (Heirs of
Mayor Nemencio Galvez v. CA 255 SCRA 672; Fortich v.
Corona, 298 SCRA 678). Hence, aforementioned decision
cannot be deemed to have become final and executory.

WHEREFORE, the assailed decision dated September l,

1997 of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED and the instant
petition is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallawlibrary:red

Melo, Vitug, Panganiban and Purisima, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:

1. Seventeenth Division, composed of

Associate Justices Angelina-Sandoval-
Gutierrez as Chairman, Bernardo LL.
Salas, (ponente), and Omar U. Amin;
Rollo, 31-47.

2. "An Act Establishing the Philippine

 National Police under a Reorganized
Department of the Interior and Local
Government, and for other purposes"
otherwise known as the "Department of
Interior and Local Government Act of
1990" .

3. Order dated January 16, 1995.

4. Rollo, p. 15.

5. "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:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

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

c. When the respondent is guilty of

conduct unbecoming of a police
officer."

Top of Page
 The Firm
 The Law Library
 The Legal Materials
 The Firm
Copyright © 1998 - 2020: ReDiaz