402 Phil. 638; 98 OG No. 35, 4835 (September 2, 2002)
PANGANIBAN, J.:
"Premises considered, the petition is dismissed, without pronouncement as to costs."[3]
"1. On December 7, 1977, an administrative complaint was filed before the Office of the Hearing Officer of NAPOLCOM against petitioner Manuel Miralles for Grave Misconduct committed as follows:`That on or about the 19th day of October 1977, in Quezon City Metro Manila, the above named respondent did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, without any just motive, and with intent to kill Patrolman NILO RESURRECION, assault, attack and wound the said Pat. Resurrecion with the use of firearms, directing the shots against the vital parts of the body of the latter and one Ernesto Mercullo, thereby inflicting upon them gunshot wounds which directly caused the death of Nilo Resurrecion and Ernesto Merculio, acts of the said respondent punishable by law and rules.'"2. An investigation was conducted by Rogelio A. Ringpis, Hearing Officer No. 3 of NAPOLCOM, Manila (p. 2, Petition).
(p. 1, Complaint, Annex `4' of Petition)
"3. After hearing, Hearing Officer Rogelio Ringpis submitted to the Chairman of NAPOLCOM an Investigation Report finding petitioner guilty of Grave Misconduct (Double Homicide) and recommending his dismissal from the service.
"Pertinent portion of said Investigation Report is hereby quoted:
`V. RECOMMENDATION:WHEREFORE, respondent is hereby found guilty of grave misconduct (Double Homicide) and there being no mitigating circumstances to offset the aggravating circumstance, it is respectfully recommended that the penalty of dismissal from the service be imposed with prejudice to reinstatement to the Integrated National Police.(p. 13, Report of Investigation, Annex `E', Petition).
`SO RECOMMENDED.'
"4. On September 10, 1980, the Adjudication Board No. 15 of the NAPOLCOM rendered its Decision finding petitioner guilty of Grave Misconduct and dismissing him from the service with prejudice to reinstatement, thus:`WHEREFORE, this Board finds the herein Respondent in the above-entitled case guilty as charged and is hereby DISMISSED FROM THE SERVICE WITH PREJUDICE to reinstatement.(p. 10, Decision, annex `F', Petition)
`SO ORDERED.'
"5. On April 20, 1981, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Decision but the same was denied by the Adjudication Board (p. 4, Petition).
"6. On September 23, 1981, petitioner appealed the aforestated Decision to the Special Appellate Committee of the NAPOLCOM (p. 4, Ibid).
"7. On June 6, 1983, [SAC-Napolcom] issued a Resolution which reads as follows:`On September 23, 1981, x x x Pat. Manuel Miralles filed a Notice of Appeal from the Decision finding him guilty of Grave Misconduct and ordering his dismissal from the service with prejudice. By virtue thereof, the record of the case was elevated to this Committee. Since then, however, up to the present or a period of more than one (1) year and seven (7) months, no appeal brief, memorandum or any pleading ha[s] been filed.(Annex "J", Petition)
`WHEREFORE, the Appeal is hereby DISMISSED for abandonment and lack of interest.
`SO ORDERED.'
"8. On August 30, 1983, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration with Manifestation praying that the dismissal of the Notice of Appeal be set aside and asking for time within which to submit his Memorandum.
"9. On September 27, 1983, petitioner submitted a Memorandum to [SAC-Napolcom].
"10. On April 26, 1984, [SAC-Napolcom] rendered its Decision affirming the Decision of the Adjudication Board.
"11. On June 30, 1984, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Decision.
"12. On October 30, 1989, [SAC-Napolcom] issued a Resolution denying his Motion for Reconsideration for lack of merit."[4]
Whether or not the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to take cognizance of the instant case which was elevated directly from the Napolcom in view of the fact that the Napolcom decision sought to be reviewed was rendered before the effectivity of R.A. No. 6975, otherwise known as the PNP law, which provides that such decisions should first be elevated to the Civil Service Commission before the Court of Appeals."II
Whether or not the dismissal of the petitioner from the service can be sustained on the basis of the evidence on record notwithstanding that the same overwhelmingly supports the dismissal of the instant administrative charge against the petitioner."III
Whether or not the petitioner acted in self-defense when he killed Nilo Resurrecion."[6]
"Although the Special Appellate Committee of the NAPOLCOM, which was then still operating under the old PC/INP set-up, affirmed his dismissal from the police service on April 26, 1984 and denied his motion for reconsideration on October 20, 1989, the petitioner received notice of the denial only on November 5, 1996, and he filed the instant petition on December 4, 1996. By then, as aforesaid, R.A. 6975, an Act Establishing the Philippine National Police under a Reorganized Department of Interior and Local Government was already in full force and effect. Its Section 91 provides that, "The Civil Service Law and its implementing rules and regulations shall apply to all personnel of the department."In any event, petitioner's argument on this issue is moot, considering that the CA has nonetheless resolved the merits of the case.
As expounded by the Supreme Court in Cabada vs. Alunan III, petitioner's remedy at the first instance is appeal to the Secretary of the DILG and, thereafter, to the Civil Service Commission. Thus:"x x x Complementary laws on discipline of government officials and employees must then be inquired into[,] considering that in conformity with the mandate of the Constitution that the PNP must be national in scope and civilian in character[, i]t is now a part, as a bureau, of the reorganized DILG. As such, it falls within the definition of the civil service in Section 2(1), Article IX-B of the Constitution. For this reason, Section 91 of the DILG Act of 1990 provides:"The rules and regulations implementing the Civil Service Law referred to in Section 91 of the DILG Act of 1990 is the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292 known as the Administrative Code of 1987 promulgated by the CSC, Sections 31 and 32, Rule XIV of the said Rules provide as follows:"SEC. 91. Application of Civil Service Laws. The Civil Service Law and its implementing rules and regulations shall apply to all personnel of the Department.
"The Civil Service Law referred to in Section 91 of the DILG Act of 1990 in Subtitle A. title I, Book V of the Administrative Code of 1987 (E.O. No. 292). Section 47 of Chapter 6 thereof provides, inter alia, That in cases where the decision rendered by a bureau or office is appealable to the Commission, the same may initially be appealed to the department and finally to the Commission."SEC. 31. Except as otherwise provided by the Constitution or by law, the Commission shall have the final authority to pass upon the removal, separation and suspension of all officers and employees in the civil service and upon all matters relating to the conduct, discipline and efficiency of such officers and employees.
"SEC. 32. The secretaries and heads of agencies and instrumentalities, provinces, cities and municipalities shall have jurisdiction to Investigate and decide matters involving disciplinary action against officers and employees under their jurisdiction. Their decisions shall be final in case the penalty imposed is suspension for not more than thirty (30) days or fine in an amount not exceeding thirty (30) days' salary. In case the decision rendered by a bureau or office head is appealable to the Commission, the same may be initially appealed to the department, then to the Merit Systems Protection Board, and finally to the Commission and pending appeal, the same shall be executory except when the penalty is removal, in which case the same shall be executory only after confirmation by the Secretary concerned."[8]
"We readily agree with the petitioner but only insofar as Exhibits `B' and `C' are concerned because, without the affiants taking the witness stand[,] the contents of their respective sworn statements relating to the sequence of events that led to the incident in question and the other details thereof are hearsay for lack of cross-examination.Lamsen's Testimony
"On the other hand, Exhibits `D' to `O' are official reports of public officials of their official acts or proceedings and as such are public documents which are prima facie evidence of the truth of the facts stated therein.
"We are not, of course, saying that Exhibits `B' and `C', the sworn statements of eye-witness, are not public documents for in fact they, too, are but there can be no escaping the primordial rule that the testimony of witnesses shall be given orally in open court and under oath or affirmation. Otherwise put, although a document may be subsumed under the category of a public document, if it is excluded by an exclusionary rule, it will be denied admission as evidence."
"The testimony of the taxi driver, Alejandro Lamsen, which was taken immediately after the incident by police investigator Det. Enrique Madura of Quezon City Police Station, NPD, is deemed a more reliable version of the incident than that of respondent[,] as it was [a] true narration of what actually transpired at the scene of incident, [the] witness having had no ample time to concoct a different story to favor the assailant at the time.Dismissal of Criminal Case
"The claim of respondent in this case that he shot the victim in utter self-defense of his own person is devoid of any credit. After having admitted the wounding or killing of his adversary, he is to be held liable for the offense unless he establishes satisfactorily the fact of legitimate self-defense. In this particular case, the claim of the respondent is not supported by strong and convincing evidence required in proving self-defense. It is a settle[d] jurisprudence that he who seeks justification for his act must prove it to be so by clear and convincing evidence.
"[The f]oregoing considered, the evidence of the prosecution that Pat Resurreccion was shot by the respondent for no justifiable reason is entitled to much weight and credit, the victim at the time being in the act of performing a police duty."
"It should be emphasized that a finding of guilt in the criminal case will not necessarily result in a finding of liability in the administrative case. Conversely, respondent's acquittal does not necessarily exculpate him administratively. In the same vein, the trial court's finding of civil liability against the respondent will not inexorably lead to a similar finding in the administrative action before this Court. Neither will a favorable disposition in the civil action absolve the administrative liability of the lawyer. The basic premise is that criminal and civil cases are altogether different from administrative matters, such that the disposition in the first two will not inevitably govern the third and vice versa."WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby DENIED. The assailed Decision is AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.
[12] Sec. 19 (a) of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court provides that public documents are "[t] written official acts, or records of the official acts of the sovereign authority, official bodies and tribunals, and public officers, whether of the Philippines or of a foreign country."
"Exhibit `B' Sworn Statement of Mr. Roberto Caguioa y Sagum "Exhibit `C' Sworn Statement of Pat. Filipino de Leon y Bundang "Exhibit `D' Arrest Report of Pat. Filipino de Leon "Exhibit `E' Medico-Legal Certificate of N.V. Resurreccion "Exhibit `F' Necropsy Report No. N-77-1682 submitted by Dr. Romeo V. Bertulfo "Exhibit `G' Necropsy Report No. N-77-1683 submitted by Dr. Bertulfo "Exhibit `H' Chemistry Report No. 77-173 "Exhibit `I' Chemistry Report No. 77-7141 "Exhibit `J' Chemistry Report No. C-77-715 "Exhibit `K' Chemistry Report No. C-77-723 "Exhibit `L' Chemistry Report No. C-1237-77 "Exhibit `M' Chemistry Report No. C-12471-77 "Exhibit `N' Chemistry Report No. C-1248-77 "Exhibit `O Ballistic Report No. B-165-77"