Criminal, administrative cases

independent of each other

Dear PAO,

My father is a member of the Philippine National Police (PNP). He was

involved in a shooting incident with our neighbor sometime in 2014, when he

and our neighbor had an altercation. My father was charged with frustrated

homicide but the case was dismissed in February 2016 for insufficiency of

evidence. He was also administratively charged for gross misconduct and

removed by the PNP in 2015.

Suppose my father will present the court’s decision dismissing the case filed

against him, will he be reinstated as a policeman?

Nanding

Dear Nanding,

The criminal case filed against your father is independent of the

administrative case filed against him. A government employee like him who

has committed a crime may face criminal, administrative and even civil cases
arising from the act or omission and these cases can proceed independently of
each other.

Since your father is a member of the Philippine National Police (PNP), the

administrative case that was filed against him is governed by Napolcom

Memorandum Circular No. 2016-002 or the Revised Rules of Procedure

Before the Administrative Disciplinary Authorities and the Internal Affairs

Service of the Philippine National Police. The previous rules governing

administrative cases filed against PNP members is Napolcom Memorandum

Circular No. 2007-001. The prevailing rule now is Napolcom Memorandum

Circular No. 2016-002. Substantial evidence is necessary to penalize PNP

members who commit any transgression of PNP policies. Under Section 1 (z)

(cc) of Napolcom Memorandum Circular No. 2016-002, substantial evidence

is defined as such relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as

adequate to support a conclusion.

Even if the criminal case filed against your father was dismissed by the court,

the latter’s decision cannot be made as a basis for his reinstatement in the

police service. The quantum of evidence necessary to convict the accused in

criminal cases is proof beyond reasonable doubt, whereas, only substantial

evidence is necessary in administrative cases. This finds support in the case
of Hernandez et al. vs. Ombudsman (G.R. No. 197307, February 26, 2014),
where Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. said:

“Petitioner Aguilar’s acquittal in Crim. Case No. 08–263022 of the Manila

RTC [Regional Trial Court] on the ground of insufficiency of evidence would

not carry the day for her. The dismissal of the criminal aspect of the

complaint filed against Aguilar has hardly any bearing on the administrative

case mainly because the quantum of evidence required to support a finding of

guilt in a criminal case is proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Administrative cases are, as a rule, separate and independent from criminal

suits and are governed by differing evidentiary criteria. The acquittal of an

accused who is also a respondent in an administrative case does not conclude

the administrative proceedings, nor carry with it relief from administrative

liability. This is because unlike in criminal cases where the threshold

quantum of evidence required is proof beyond reasonable doubt, only

substantial evidence is necessary in administrative cases.”

Again, we find it necessary to mention that this opinion is solely based on the

facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. The opinion may

vary when the facts are changed or elaborated.

We hope that we were able to enlighten you on the matter.
Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office.
Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to dearpao@www.manilatimes.net