PNP sues over 100 cops for failing to testify in court vs drug suspects

The Philippine National Police (PNP) is filing charges against more than 100 of its men, mostly assigned in Metro Manila, who failed to show up in court to testify on drug cases, sometimes resulting in the dismissal of the charges against the accused.

“Most of the policemen are from the National Capital Region Police Office. We are now validating where these policemen are assigned now so we can file the appropriate charges against them,” PNP Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operations Task Force spokesperson Chief Insp. Roque Merdegia said yesterday.

He added that the errant policemen, whose ranks ranged from police officer 1 to chief inspector, would be charged with criminal and administrative cases.

Policemen are called as witnesses in the prosecution of drug cases. However, one of the most common reasons for the dismissal of drug cases is their failure to show up in court. Sometimes, lawmen deliberately fail to appear hearings because they have been bribed by the accused, Merdegia said.

Courts usually give a policeman two chances to appear in court to testify after which the defense may move for the dismissal of the case, citing the right to a speedy trial.

Because of some policemen’s neglect in attending to their court duties, Deputy Director General Marcelo Garbo Jr., the deputy PNP chief for operations, has ordered the filing of cases against them.

They may be charged with serious neglect of duty—an administrative case of grave misconduct which is punishable with dismissal from the police service. They could also be slapped with a criminal case of violating Section 91 of Republic Act No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, which requires law enforcers to testify as prosecution witnesses in drug cases.

Should they be found guilty of serious neglect of duty, they face 12 to 20 years in prison on top of a P500,000 fine. Aside from a policeman’s failure to testify, drug charges are sometimes dismissed due to technicalities in handling the evidence, Merdegia said.

“We are under orders to remove these policemen because we have no space for them in the PNP. They should not be in antinarcotics units because they are bad eggs that spoil the rest,” he added.

According to him, some of the usual reasons cited for some lawmen’s failure to testify were death and reassignment to another unit. Others were being Awol (absent without official leave) or illness.

Merdegia conceded that the PNP could no longer go after retired or dead policemen although those still in the service would still be required to attend hearings even if they had been reassigned.

In case of illness, a lawman should present proof that he was indeed sick on the day of the court hearing.

“This is why we have a precharge evaluation in the PNP for administrative cases so that we can ascertain if the reason [has] merit or not,” Merdegia said.