THE Court of Appeals (CA) has dismissed an administrative complaint filed by actor-turned politician Richard Gomez against several policemen who implicated him in the illegal drug trade of the Espinosa clan in Albuera, Leyte.
In a 12-page decision penned by Associate Justice Eleuterio Bathan, the CA’s Thirteenth Division upheld the June 28, 2019 decision and resolution dated July 24, 2020 issued by the National Police
Commission en banc which dismissed Gomez’s administrative complaint for alleged grave misconduct, dishonesty, and conduct unbecoming of a police officer against respondents chief inspectors Jovie Espenido and Leo Laraga, and PO3 Hydie Yutrago for lack of substantial evidence and legal standing.
“In light of the foregoing, we find that the petitioner, therefore, lacks the legal standing to sue,” the CA ruled.
“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,” the ruling stated.
Gomez, 4th district representative of Leyte, argued before the appellate court that the Napolcom committed a serious and reversible error when it ruled that he has no legal personality to move for reconsideration of the decision exonerating the said policemen of administrative liabilities.
But the CA upheld the Napolcom’s grounds in dismissing the solon’s petition.
“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,” the appellate court ruled.
“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.
While 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.”
In Gomez’s case it was the Inspection, Monitoring and Investigation Service (IMIS) of Napolcom that found probable cause to file a formal charge against the policemen.
The IMIS conducts continuous inspection and management audit of personnel, facilities and operations at all levels of command of the PNP, as well 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.
Gomez filed a complaint affidavit on November 16, 2016 against the policemen before the IMIS of Napolcom for grave misconduct, dishonesty, and conduct unbecoming against Espenido, Laraga and Yutrago.
The solon accused the policemen of violating the commitment orders of Marcelo Adorco, Jose Antipuesto, Jessie Ocares and Jeffrey Pesquera who were bodyguards and employees of the Espinosas.
He also claimed that Laraga publicly named him as one of those involved in the drug trade with the Espinosa family of Albuera Municipality without personal knowledge as to its veracity.
Gomez also accused Espenido and Yutrago of facilitating the execution of the “ready-made” affidavits of Max Miro, Galo Stephen Bobares and Brian Anthony Gates, purported men of self-confessed drug lord Kerwin Espinosa son of then Albuera Municipal Mayor Rolando Espinosa, Sr., assuring them that they would be placed under the Witness Protection Program of the Department of Justice (DOJ).
