Republic of the Philippines

NATIONAL POLICE COMMISSION

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE
POLICE REGIONAL OFFICE CALABARZON
Camp BGen Vicente P Lim, Calamba City

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE,     Administrative Case No.

               Complainant, PRO4A-123-4567-89-LAG
 

  -versus-     For:

 

Pat Rafoncel Q Anilao Grave Neglect of Duty (Failure to

Attend Court Hearing)
 

         Respondent.
 x-----------------------------------------x   

 
REPORT OF INVESTIGATION
 

This is an administrative case of Grave Neglect of Duty for failure to attend court
hearing pursuant to RA 8551 by nominal complainant PMAJ JANE DE LEON MARTIN,
Chief, Pre-Charge Investigation Section-Regional Investigation and Detective
Management Division (PCIS-RIDMD), PRO 4A, Philippine National Police against PCpl
Manny Santos Delos Santost assigned at Canvinti Municipal Police Station, Laguna
PPO hereinafter referred to as respondent, docketed under Administrative Case No.
PRO4A-333-0875-22-LAG.
 
The pertinent portion of the formal charges dated September 10, 2022 reads:
 
“Above named respondent being a member of the PNP was failed to attend court
hearing on April 6, 2002 in connection with Crim Case No. 000009-B2019 at RTC
Branch 143, Biñan City Laguna for Violation of RA 9165 without informing the
concerned court of his absent and without valid reason”.
 
Procedural matters undertaken are as follows:

Summons and Notice of Pre-Hearing conference (PHC) were received by the

respondent on September 12, 2022 setting the Pre-Hearing Conference at 1:00 o’clock
in the afternoon of September 22, 2022;

Conduct of PHC on September 22, 2022, where the prosecution and respondent
appeared; and

The parties were required to submit Position Paper from termination of the PHC.

Both parties manifested to adapt their previously submitted pieces of evidence in

lieu a position paper.

 STATEMENT OF FACTS

As culled from the record, this administrative case stemmed from the e-

Subpoena Generated List of personnel who failed to attend court hearing as well as the
admission of the respondent, it is uncontroverted that the herein respondent PCpl Delos
Santos was failed to attend court hearing on April 6, 2022 in connection with Criminal
Case No PRO4A-333-0875-22-LAG at RTC 143, Biñan City, Laguna for Violation of RA
9165.

ISSUE
 

WHETHER OR NOT the respondent is liable for Grave Neglect of Duty (Failure
to Attend Court Hearing) on April 6, 2022 in Criminal Case No. PRO4A-333-0875-22-
LAG for Violation of RA 9165 at RTC 143, Biñan City, Laguna, is justified?

   

DISCUSSIONS

  The charge against herein respondent for Grave Neglect of Duty (Failure to
Attend Court Hearing) is grounded on the provisions of NAPOLCOM Memorandum
Circular No. 2016-002 under Rule 21, Sec 2, Para C (1) Sub-Para (i) which states:

Grave Neglect of Duty shall include but not limited to:

 xxx xxx xxx

 
 i. Fail to appear and testify in court, without justifiable excuse, in court,
prosecutor's office, the PNP disciplinary authorities, appellate bodies, the lAS or any
other quasi-judicial body when duly notified or subpoenaed as witness. If his non-
appearance resulted in the dismissal of the case or the acquittal of the accused; or
when he is the principal witness or the arresting officer, the penalty of dismissal from the
service shall be imposed.
 
 xxx xxx xxx
 
Gross Neglect of duty denotes a flagrant and culpable refusal or unwillingness of
a person to perform a duty. It refers to negligence characterized by the want of even
slight care, acting, or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not
inadvertently, but willfully and intentionally, with a conscious indifference to
consequences insofar as other persons may be affected.
 
Under the above definition, the omission must be willful and intentional omission
which shows a flagrant and culpable refusal to perform a duty. There is a grave neglect
of duty when the breach is likewise flagrant and palpable.
 
Based on the stipulations made by both parties as well as the evidence
submitted, it is uncontroverted that the respondent’s failure to attend the court hearing
April 6, 2022 under Criminal Case No. 000009-B-2019 for Violation of RA 9165 at RTC
Branch 143, Biñan City, Laguna was due to another court hearing at MTCC Biñan City
Laguna relative to Criminal Case Number 12345, entitled People of the Philippines
versus Gregorio Cruz y Sabila, a justifiable excuse.
 
On April 6, 2022 the respondent attended another court hearing at MTCC, Biñan
City, Laguna wherein he was scheduled to testify in court as he was notified in open
court on March 6, 2022 stating that he was the next government witness to testify in the
next hearing. To establish the veracity of the documentary evidence, an original copy of
“Certificate of Appearance” of PCpl Delos Santos, respondent was presented and he
further presented a copy “Transcript of Stenographic Notes” wherein he testifies in court
as witness complainant against Gregorio Cruz y Sabila who was charge for Alarm and
Scandal wherein his complainant was retired Executive Judge of Branch 144, Biñan
City, Laguna.
  
 
Under Section 23, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, "documents consisting of
entries in public records made in the performance of a duty by a public officer are  prima
facie evidence of the facts therein stated. All other public documents are evidence,
even against a third person, of the fact which gave rise to their execution and of the
date of the latter."
 
Under Section 30, Rule 132 of the rules of court, “every instrument duly
acknowledged or proved and certified by law, may be presented in evidence without
further proof, the certificate acknowledgment being prima facie evidence of the
execution of the instrument or document involved.”

 
The undersigned Summary Hearing Officer finds no reason not to appreciate the
respondent’s submitted documents.

Further, the prosecution has not controverted nor presented any evidence in
contrast with the respondent’s claim of the justifiable reason of he was attending
another scheduled court hearing.

In this light, the prosecution failed to prove the liability of the respondent from the
charge of Grave Neglect of Duty.
 

CONCLUSION

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the undersigned Summary Hearing Officer

finds that there is no substantial evidence to hold the respondent   liable for Grave
Neglect of Duty (Failure to Attend Court Hearing) and hereby recommends that the
respondent be exonerated. 

SO RESOLVED.
Lucena City, Quezon, September 27, 2022.
 

       
   Winston Kevin R Ong
Patrolman   
          Summary Hearing Officer