CA junks ‘Goma’ admin complaints

CA junks ‘Goma’ admin complaints | Daily Tribune

The Court of Appeals announced on Monday that it has dismissed the administrative complaint filed by Leyte Fourth District Representative Richard Gomez against several policemen who implicated him in the illegal drug trade of the Espinosa clan in Albuera municipality in Leyte.

In a 12-page ruling, CA Thirteenth Division’s Associate Justice Eleuterio Bathan affirmed the 28 June 2019 decision and the resolution dated 24 July 2020 issued by the National Police Commission en banc.

The resolution dismissed the administrative cases for grave misconduct, dishonesty, and conduct unbecoming of a police officer against Police Chief Inspector Jovie Espenido, Police Chief Inspector Leo Laraga and Police Officer 3 Hydie Yutrago for lack of substantial evidence and legal standing.

To recall, Gomez argued before the CA that the Napolcom committed a serious and reversible error when it ruled that he has no legal personality to move for reconsideration of the decision exonerating the said policemen of administrative liabilities.

However, the CA upheld Napolcom’s grounds in dismissing the solon’s petition, saying that “in administrative cases, appeals are extended to the party adversely affected by the decision, which refers to the government employee against whom the administrative case is filed for the purpose of disciplinary action, or the disciplining authority whose decision is in question.”

“The fact that the petitioner is the then mayor of Ormoc City is of no moment. It is established that in administrative cases, a complainant is a mere witness. No private interest is involved in an administrative case as the offense committed is against the government,” the CA said.

“In fact, the Supreme Court has held that a private complainant in an administrative case has no right to appeal the decision of the disciplining authority,” it added.

While the Revised Rules of Procedure before the Administrative Disciplinary Authorities and Internal Affairs Service of PNP or Napolcom Memorandum Circular 2016-0002 states that the disciplinary authorities are obliged to refer to the city or municipal mayors; chiefs of police or equivalent supervisors; provincial directors or equivalent supervisors; regional directors or equivalent supervisors; People’s Law Enforcement Board Chief of the Philippine National Police and the Napolcom, the CA pointed out that “it is the Napolcom that shall have primary jurisdiction over grave administrative cases defined and penalized under said rules.”

In Gomez’s case, it was the Inspection, Monitoring and Investigation Service of the Napolcom which found probable cause to file a formal charge against the policemen.

The IMIS conducts continuous inspection and management audit of personnel, facilities and operations at all levels of command of the PNP, as well Napolcom’s regional and field offices; monitors the implementation of the agency’s programs and projects relative to law enforcement; and monitors and investigates police anomalies and irregularities.

The CA said it found Gomez lacking the legal standing to sue.

“Considering that the petitioner has no legal interest or standing to appeal and seek the nullification of the assailed decision and resolution exonerating the individual respondents from the administrative charge of grave misconduct, dishonesty and conduct unbecoming of a police officer, we thus find no need to delve on the merits of this case,” said the CA.

The complaint affidavit was filed by Gomez on 16 November 2016 against the policemen before the Napolcom’s IMIS as he accused them of violating the commitment orders of Marcelo Adorco, Jose Antipuesto, Jessie Ocares and Jeffrey Pesquera who were bodyguards and employees of the Espinosas.

He also claimed that Laraga publicly named him as one of those involved in the drug trade with the Espinosa family of Albuera Municipality without personal knowledge as to its veracity.