Sorry, wrong venue, court tells 3 cops facing dismissal

A judge has thrown out the petition filed by five policemen who were ordered dismissed from the service by the Office of the Ombudsman for their wrongful arrest of a man accused of being a terrorist.

Citing lack of jurisdiction, Judge Charito B. Gonzales of the Quezon City Regional Trial Court Branch 80 dismissed the appeal of Superintendent Roger James Brillantes and his coaccused that she stop the implementation of the dismissal order.

According to her, appeals concerning orders issued by the Office of the Ombudsman should be filed with the Court of Appeals under Section 7, Rule 3, of the Rules of Procedure.

The same provision also stated that a pending appeal may not be used to stop the implementation of the order.

In addition, the court cited three cases filed with the Supreme Court, which ruled that a decision from the Office of the Ombudsman was immediately executory pending an appeal and may not be stayed by an injunction.

“It is the court’s position that jurisdictions over petitions for prohibition involving decisions of the Ombudsman likewise lies with the Court of Appeals,” Gonzales said.

She added: “It bears emphasizing that in these cases, the parties who sought to stay the execution of the decision of the Ombudsman questioned the same before the Court of Appeals and not before the Regional Trial Court.”

The petition for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and injunction was filed by Brillantes, Police Officers 3 Noel Fabia and Peter Paul Pablico, PO2 Reynaldo Yap and PO1 Dante Yang.

Named as respondents in were Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales and Philippine National Police chief Director General Nicanor Bartolome.

The dismissal order, issued on January 20, was based on the case filed by Allan Almoite who was arrested in 2003 on suspicion of being a terrorist. He was later released after he was cleared by a court of the accusations against him.

The Ombudsman had said in its order that there was sufficient evidence to hold the policemen liable for grave misconduct.

The policemen, however, argued that they had filed a motion for reconsideration, which was still pending before the Office of the Ombudsman.