PSSg Anna Mae Roxas was charged with simple neglect of duty for being absent from her post without approval. She claimed her daughter had a medical emergency. Records showed Roxas brought her daughter to a clinic in the early morning for abdominal pain and informed her supervisor. Her supervisor acknowledged this in an affidavit permitting her absence. While the prosecution failed to prove the neglect of duty allegation, Roxas provided evidence that her absence was due to a family emergency, that she informed her supervisor, and had approval to be absent. As such, the decision dismissed the case against Roxas for lack of evidence that she committed neglect of duty.
PSSg Anna Mae Roxas was charged with simple neglect of duty for being absent from her post without approval. She claimed her daughter had a medical emergency. Records showed Roxas brought her daughter to a clinic in the early morning for abdominal pain and informed her supervisor. Her supervisor acknowledged this in an affidavit permitting her absence. While the prosecution failed to prove the neglect of duty allegation, Roxas provided evidence that her absence was due to a family emergency, that she informed her supervisor, and had approval to be absent. As such, the decision dismissed the case against Roxas for lack of evidence that she committed neglect of duty.
PSSg Anna Mae Roxas was charged with simple neglect of duty for being absent from her post without approval. She claimed her daughter had a medical emergency. Records showed Roxas brought her daughter to a clinic in the early morning for abdominal pain and informed her supervisor. Her supervisor acknowledged this in an affidavit permitting her absence. While the prosecution failed to prove the neglect of duty allegation, Roxas provided evidence that her absence was due to a family emergency, that she informed her supervisor, and had approval to be absent. As such, the decision dismissed the case against Roxas for lack of evidence that she committed neglect of duty.
PSSg Anna Mae Roxas was charged with simple neglect of duty for being absent from her post without approval. She claimed her daughter had a medical emergency. Records showed Roxas brought her daughter to a clinic in the early morning for abdominal pain and informed her supervisor. Her supervisor acknowledged this in an affidavit permitting her absence. While the prosecution failed to prove the neglect of duty allegation, Roxas provided evidence that her absence was due to a family emergency, that she informed her supervisor, and had approval to be absent. As such, the decision dismissed the case against Roxas for lack of evidence that she committed neglect of duty.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 4
Republic of the Philippines
NATIONAL POLICE COMMISSION
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE, POLICE REGIONAL OFFICE 3 BULACAN POLICE PROVINCIAL OFFICE Camp Gen. Alejo S. Santos, Malolos City, Bulacan
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE Admin Case Nr.: BULPPO-AC No. 2021-02
Complainant,
-versus- For: SIMPLE NEGLECT OF DUTY
“absent oneself from office without having filed the necessary application for leave or secured the approval of the superior officer for a period not exceeding three (3) days in a month;”
This pertains to the administrative case filed against respondent PSSg Anna Mae Roxas, PNP member presently assigned at Pandi Municipal Police Station, Bulacan Police Provincial Office, Police Regional Office 3, for Simple Neglect of Duty in violation of NAPOLCOM Memorandum Circular No. 2016-002.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The present case stemmed from an inspection conducted by PMAJ ARNOLD
G GAMIDO, DPDO on May 10, 2020 at about 10:17 AM at the ECQ Control Pointof Pandi MPS located at Brgy. San Roque, Pandi-Sta. Maria Road wherein he discovered that no PNP Personnel was manning the said post. Upon verification made by POMU, Bulacan PPO on the ECQ Deployment submitted by Pandi MPS revealed that PSSg Anna Mae Roxas was the assigned personnel (day shift) on the said post.
During the conduct of Pre-Charge Investigation, the respondent stated that the reason for her absence was due to her daughter’s emergency situation. Said PNCO alleged that she brought her daughter to Sta Maria Diagnostic and Imaging Center due to complaint of abdominal pain which the latter cannot tolerate anymore. Nevertheless, subject PNCO alleged that she informed PCPT MARK DAYRIT, former COP, Pandi MPS regarding the situation which the said PCO acknowledged thru an Affidavit.
In a Formal Charge dated August 26, 2020 executed by PMAJ MARIO B
CULAPA, C PIDMU, the herein respondent was charged for Simple Neglect of Duty under Rule 21, Section 2 (A) paragraph 1 (w) “absent oneself from office without having filed the necessary application for leave or secured the approval of the superior officer for a period not exceeding three (3) days in a month;”. A portion of which has the following tenor:
“The above-mentioned PNCO was marked absent during the
random inspection of personnel on May 10, 2010 at about 10:39 in the morning at ECQ control point in Brgy. San Roque, Pandi, Bulacan. That after thorough investigation, the said PNCO may be held liable under NAPOLCOM MC 2010-002 for Simple Neglect of Duty under Rule 21, Section 2 (A) paragraph 1 (w) “absent oneself from office without having filed the necessary application for leave or secured the approval of the superior officer for a period not exceeding three (3) days in a month;”
To comply with the statutory requirements of due process, this office
designated PLTCOL GILBERT N JOSEPH, COP, Sta Maria MPS to act as the Summary Hearing Officer. On January 15, 2021, the Summary Hearing Officer (SHO) sent a Notice of Pre-Hearing Conference and copy of the complaint to the respondent notifying her to attend the pre-hearing conference and to file an Answer. The office of PIDMU was likewise notified with the scheduled Pre-Hearing Conference and to send a representative/prosecutor.
On January 20, 2021, the Pre-Hearing Conference was held wherein both parties presented, submitted and marked their respective pieces of evidence. Also, both parties agreed to dispense with the summary hearing proceedings and submit instead their respective Position Papers. The nominal complainant, thru PMAJ MAC MARIBAO, Chief, CMS, Bulacan PPO, manifested that he is adopting the Pre- Charge Investigation Report and its attached supporting documents as theirPosition Paper.
POSITION OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent alleged in her Position Paper that on May 8, 2020, at about 2:00 o’ clock in the morning, she brought her daughter at the abovementioned clinic due to complaint of intolerable abdominal pain. Said PNCO averred that such incident was emergency so that it is impossible for her to file the require leave. However, subject PNCO averred that she informed her immediate supervisor (PCPT MARK DAYRIT, the OIC of Pandi) regarding the precidament on hand.To corroborate her allegation,subject PNCO presented a Sworn Affidavit executed by the above named PCOstating and admitting therein that he wasduly informed regarding the former’s emergency situation.
After the parties’ presentation of evidences, the SHO recommended that the case be dismissed for lack of substantial evidence. DISCUSSION
Neglect of Duty is "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. As promulgated in the case of OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN and THE FACT-FINDING INVESTIGATION BUREAU (FFIB), OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR THE MILITARY AND OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICES (MOLEO), Petitioners vs PS/SUPT. RAINIER A. ESPINA, Respondent, it was held that:
“Gross neglect of duty is defined as "negligence characterized by want of even slight
care, or by 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 the consequences, insofar as other persons may be affected. It is the omission of that care that even inattentive and thoughtless men never fail to give to their own property." In contrast, Simple Neglect Of Duty is the failure of an employee or official to give proper attention to a task expected of him or her, signifying a "disregard of a duty resulting from carelessness or indifference."
To construe the alleged absence as Simple Negligence under Rule 21,
Section 2 (A) paragraph 1 (w), the following requisites shall be present, to wit:
a. absent oneself from office;
b. without having filed the necessary application for leave; or c. secured the approval of the superior officer ;
In the case at bar, the failure of herein respondent to attend the said inspection was due to the sickness of her daughter. Accordingly, the herein respondent rushed her daughter at Sta Maria Diagnostic and Imaging Center on May 8, 2020 at about 2:00 AM due to severe abdominal pain. To corroborate her allegations, the herein respondent presented a Medical Recordissued by said clinic during the Summary Hearing Procedure.
Also, the respondent was able to inform her immediate supervisor regarding the urgency of the situation as shown on the copy of their text messages. Moreover, the respondent’s allegation was galvanized by a Notarized Sworn Affidavit executed by PCPT MARK DAYRIT (former OIC, Pandi MPS) permitting her to be absent that day May 08, 2020 (Friday) and on the following days (May 08 and 09, 2020.) These documentary evidences were already adduced by the respondent during the Pre- Charge Investigation conducted by the PIDMU.
Therefore, filing the appropriate leave is impossible because the situation was so urgent and emergency. More so, having secured the approval of her superior officer, (the second ground which the respondent should had secured the approval of the superior officer) is validly complied with. In fine, her absences cannot be construed as Simple Neglect of Duty within the ambit of Rule 21, Section 2 (A) paragraph 1 (w). Basic is the rule that “he who alleges has the burden of proof” allegata et non probata. The burden of proof lies on the prosecution and it may not be allowed to presumed substantial evidence without substantial proof. He who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it and a mere allegation is not evidence" (Luxuria Homes Inc. vs. CA, 302 SCRA 315). The basic rule is that he who alleges must prove his case. (Lim vs. Equitable PCI Bank; G.R. No. 183918; January 15, 2014.
Therefore, considering that it is the duty of the complainant to prove, by
substantial evidence all the allegations in the complaint, it is very clear that the prosecution has failed to fulfil this administrative obligation. Undoubtedly, in this case there is/are no other pieces of evidence presented that will support that the undersigned respondent liable under Simple Neglect of Duty.
Finally, Social Justice gives the courts the disciplinary tolerance to lessen the harsh effects of wrongdoings where the same principle may be applied in dealing with administrative proceedings. Besides, there is no clear showing that respondent has been neglectful by the mere fact of absence in order to attend to a family emergency. The respondent’s absencein her post was brought about by an urgent situation and such was done in good faith.
After careful evaluation of the records of the case, the undersigned finds no cogent reason to disturb the findings of the SHO, that is to dismiss the present administrative case.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Disciplinary Authority finds that
PSSg Anna Mae Roxas NOT GUILTY for the offense charged.
Done this _______ of March, 2021 at Camp Alejo S Santos, City of Malolos, Bulacan.
DAMIAN F VELASQUEZ Police Colonel Provincial Director
