The Supreme Court (SC) has ordered the suspension of a police officer who has been found guilty of simple misconduct for using unnecessary coercion and violence while conducting a buy-bust operation.
In a Decision written by Associate Justice Samuel Gaerlan, the SC’s Third Division ordered that Police Officer 2 Herminio A. Besmonte be suspended from office for six months, for having used excessive force against a suspect.
Besmonte was the designated poseur-buyer in a buy-bust operation conducted in Las Piñas City to apprehend a person suspected of illegally peddling dangerous drugs.
With two other colleagues, Besmonte tried to apprehend the suspect upon consummation of the buy-bust transaction.
When the suspect resisted, Besmonte and his colleagues exerted force to restrain and arrest her, with Besmonte punching the left side of the suspect’s face, kicking her knee, and kicking her abdomen.
The suspect filed a complaint against Besmonte and two other colleagues before the National Police Commission for physical abuse. She presented a medical certificate reporting that her left cheek and groin area were swollen and tender.
While the NAPOLCOM upheld the buy-bust operation, it found Besmonte administratively liable for inflicting unnecessary violence and coercion against the suspect. Besmonte was punished with a demotion by one rank.
Besmonte filed an appeal before the Civil Service Commission, but the CSC affirmed the NAPOLCOM’s findings and increased his penalty to dismissal from the service.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the CSC’s ruling, prompting Besmonte to file a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court.
In partially granting Besmonte’s petition, the SC found the appellant administratively liable not for grave misconduct, but for simple misconduct, and imposed on him the penalty of suspension for six months.
The high court ruled that without an explanation as to how Besmonte’s punch to the suspect and kick to her groin area were reasonable and necessary, the force he employed against the suspect was excessive.
According to the tribunal, Besmonte should have been more circumspect in following the operational guidelines of the Philippine National Police (PNP) on the use of reasonable force.
Citing the PNP guidelines, the SC stressed that the police officer should have considered the number of aggressors, the nature and characteristics of the weapon used, physical condition, size, and other circumstances.
Nonetheless, the SC said that since it was not sufficiently shown that Besmonte’s actions were tainted with corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of a rule that would qualify his transgression as grave misconduct under the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, the Court held that Besmonte could only be made liable for simple misconduct.
The high court also issued a reminder to the law enforcers that it does not condone the indiscriminate use of force by police officers against persons under arrest.
“We no longer live in a society where might is right and the lives of the people are at the mercy of the whims of those in positions of power. No less than the Constitution sanctifies the principle that public office is a public trust, and enjoins all officers and employees to serve with the highest degree of responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency,” the SC emphasized.
