The Court of Appeals. (Photo from the Philippine Daily Inquirer)
MANILA, Philippines – The Court of Appeals (CA) has dismissed the administrative complaint by actor-turned-politician Richard Gomez against several policemen for tagging him in the illegal drug trade, together with the Espinosa clan of Albuera, Leyte.
In a 12-page decision, the appeals court’s Thirteenth Division affirmed the June 28, 2019 and the resolution dated July 24, 2020, by the National Police Commission (Napolcom) en banc that dismisses the cases for or grave misconduct, dishonesty, and conduct unbecoming of a police officer against respondents Police Chief Inspector Jovie Espenido, Police Chief Inspector Leo Laraga and Police Officer 3 Hydie Yutrago for lack of substantial evidence and legal standing.
Gomez told CA that Napolcom committed a serious and reversible error when it said that he had no legal personality to file the case against the policemen.
But the CA, through Associate Justice Eleuterio Bathan said: “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.”
READ: Bongbong Marcos names new Court of Appeals presiding justice
READ: SMNI asks Court of Appeals to stop NTC suspension order
“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.
It explained that the Revised Rules of Procedure before the Administrative Disciplinary Authorities and Internal Affairs Service of PNP or Napolcom Memorandum Circular No. 2016-0002 (MC No. 2016-0002)24 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 (PLEB); Chief of the Philippine National Police (PNP); 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.”
But the CA said the Inspection, Monitoring, and Investigation Service (IMIS) of Napolcom found probable cause to file a formal charge against the police officers.
The IMIS conducts continuous inspection and management audit of personnel, facilities, and operations at all levels of command of the PNP, as well as 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.
“In light of the foregoing, we find that the petitioner, therefore, lacks the legal standing to sue,” the CA said.
It added: “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.”
Gomez filed a complaint affidavit on November 16, 2016, against the police officers before the IMIS of Napolcom for grave misconduct, dishonesty, and conduct unbecoming against Espenido, Laraga, and Yutrago.
He said, the policemen violated the commitment orders issued for Marcelo Adorco, Jose Antipuesto, Jessie Ocares, and Jeffrey Pesquera, who were bodyguards and employees of the Espinosas.
Gomez added that Laraga publicly identified him as involved in the illegal drug trade with the Espinosas without personal knowledge.