Darwin Campo
Darwin Campo
Darwin Campo
-Versus-
REPORT OF INVESTIGATION
(RESOLUTION)
This resolves the administrative charge of the above mentioned respondent for
Less Grave Misconduct after he was allegedly violated Special Law RA 11332 Sec. 9 (e)
in connection to Rule 21, Section 2 (B) para 3 (i) NAPOLCOM Memorandum Circular
2016-002.
After finding of probable cause, hence elevated to DLOS then to the undersigned
Summary Hearing Officer. Respondent formally charged within the authority of DD EPD
as Disciplinary Authority with the following allegation in the charge sheet, to wit:
“Commit any act or omission that constitutes a crime punishable under the
Revised Penal Code or Special Laws where the duration of the impossible penalty is
imprisonment of one (1) month and one (1) to six (6) months. “
On October 06, 2020, a summons were sent to Respondent police officer, which
he personally received on the same date at around 7:47 PM commanding him to report to
the undersigned SHO 5 days upon receipt of summons and bring with him counter
affidavit duly administered in three (3) original copies and their evidence to support his
claimed. (A copy of said summons is attached and marked as Annex 2 and made an
integral part of this report.)
Undersigned SHO received the Manifestation of respondent police officer with
the express intention that he used his affidavit submitted during pre-charge investigation
as his counter affidavit and attached with his pieces of evidence to support his claims.
ISSUE:
ARGUMENTS/DISCUSSION:
(a) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
“(i) commit any act or omission that constitutes a crime punishable under the
Revised Penal Code or Special Laws where the duration of the impossible penalty is
imprisonment of one (1) month and one (1) to six (6) months. “
The issue of this case is reduced to settle the question whether or not respondent
committed the said infraction alleged in the administrative complaint. The evidence
adduced by the nominal complainant emanate from incident report from Dr. Emily C
Detaro facility manager of Mandaluyong City Quarantine Facility MPNAG.
Rules on evidence provide two (2) kinds of defenses. Affirmative and Negative
denial. When respondent interposes negative denial or negative defense considered
specific denial of the material fact or facts alleged in the complaint, essential to the
plaintiff's cause or causes of action. The consequence thereof is that the burden of proof
lies on plaintiff or nominal complainant to prove the fact or act allegedly committed by
respondent police officer.
As a rule, one who alleges something must prove it with substantial evidence
otherwise the allegation will remain an allegation. It does not produce substantial proof to
justify an administrative conviction of guilt. In this case, the records are very clear that
the complaint of Dr Emily C Detaro was based on hearsay or she has no personal
knowledge about the facts and circumstances, she only relied on information conveyed
by duty Nurse. In a addition, nothing in the records shows that the said duty nurse who
saw the incident execute his affidavit to under oath his allegation against PNP personnel.
Thus cannot produce substantial proof as basis for administrative conviction.
Respondent adduced clear and convincing evidence to prove that he did not
violate any protocol laid down by the Quarantine Facility MPNAG anent to days of
quarantine. The Certificate issued by MPNAG speak for itself that the respondent police
officer religiously cooperates with the entire isolation period. Nothing in the certificate
signed by Dr Emily Detaro that the respondent police officer commits any infractions or
disobeys any rules and condition in facility. Contrary to what alleged in a letter signed by
Dr Emily Detaro dated July 27, 2020.
Assuming arguendo, that the respondent police officer committed that offense
alleged in the complaint the Molecular Diagnostics Laboratory result collected on July
25, 2020 anent to COVID-19 resulted in negative. It is important to know or prove that he
was negative for COVID-19 on the said date or while in the quarantine facility. It is
material to the issue because the complaint anchored with the RA 11332 para (e), which
HAVING A NOTIFIABLE DISESASE is controlling/necessary to commit an offense
of the said special act. Obviously, respondent police officer tested negative for COVID-
19 while in the course of his quarantine. Thus, one of the most important elements of the
offense is absent.
Lastly, there is no case filed against respondent police officer, which constitute a
crime either RPC or Special Law. Thus the provision of said Circular of NAPOLCOM is
not applicable because it is intertwined to criminal charge before Prosecutor’s Office or
pending before court.
Therefore, it is kinder garten, that the one who alleged something has a burden of
proof to prove his allegation failure to do so is not actionable wrong or will not result to
conviction of respondent.
After careful evaluation and investigation on the facts and circumstances of this
case supported by pieces of evidence against and for the respondent, the undersigned
SHO finds that respondent is not guilty of Less Grave Misconduct.
RECOMMENDATION
SO RESOLVE.