Report of Investigation: I. Preliminary Statement

Download as doc, pdf, or txt
Download as doc, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 7

MEMORANDUM

FOR :

FROM : Summary Hearing Officer

SUBJECT :

DATE : October 13, 2021


________________________________________________________________________

1. Reference:.

2. Submitted herewith the Resolution and the entire Case Folder of the
above-subject administrative case consists of _____________ (__) pages including
this page.

3. Request acknowledged.

FOR: Grave Neglect of Duty (Fail to


appear and testify in court as
prosecution witness)

Respondent/s
x----------------------------------------------x

REPORT OF INVESTIGATION
I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT:
1. Brief statement of the case:

Contrary to the existing PNP Laws, Rules and Regulations.

1. a. In observance of administrative due process, respondent was


afforded of his right to be informed of the administrative complaint filed against
him wherein summonses were sent at the respondent’s present unit
assignment and at his last known address directing him to appear and file his
answer to shed light on the matter and adduce evidence on his defense,
however failed to submit his answer hence ex-parte investigation was
conducted relative to his administrative case.

II. FACTS OF THE CASE:


This instant administrative case stemmed from the Pre-Charge
Investigation Report prepared by Pasig City Police Station and charged the
respondent for Grave Neglect of Duty (fail to appear and testify in court as
prosecution witness….)

That after perusal of the records of the case, where they found probable
cause to indict the respondent for Grave Neglect of Duty (Fail to appear and
testify in court as prosecution witness) pursuant to Rule 21, Section 2C, para
1(i) of NAPOLCOM Memorandum Circular No. 2016-002, which provides:

III. ISSUE:
The core issue to be resolved in this case is whether respondent is guilty
or not for Grave Neglect of Duty (fail to appear and testify in court as
prosaecurtion witness pursuant to Rule 21, Section 2C, para 1(i) of
NAPOLCOM Memorandum Circular No. 2016-002.

Further, the other purpose of the proceedings is also to determine if


there was indeed a neglect of duty committed on the part of the respondent
relative to his failure to attend court duty on June 4, 2018 at 8:30 in the
morning.

Neglect of Duty has been defined under (Sec. 1, para (1), Rule 21 of
NAPOLCOM Memorandum Circular No. 2016-002) which provides that

Neglect of Duty or Negligence is the omission or refusal, without sufficient


excuse, to perform an act or duty, which it was the peace officer's legal
obligation to perform implies a duty, as well as its breach and the fact, can
never be found in the absence of duty.
The charge against the respondent is for violation of Section 2C, para 1(i)
of NAPOLCOM Memorandum Circular No. 2016-002

“ fail to appear and testify in court, prosecutor’s office, the PNP disciplinary
authorities, appellate bodies, the IAS 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”

II DISCUSSION

a) VERSION OF THE COMPLAINANT:

“That the above-named respondent while being an active member of the


Philippine National Police, and within the disciplinary jurisdiction of this Office,
failed to attend his scheduled court hearing on June 4, 2018 relative to
Criminal Case No. City
.
In support of the Formal Charge, the prosecution submitted before the Office of
the Summary Hearing Officer, the following documentary pieces of evidence exhibits for
consideration:

1. EXHIBIT “A” - Pre Charge Investigation Report conducted by


PCpl Efren Pamittan, PCIES, RIDMD, as approved by consisting two (2) pages entitled
Pre Charge Investigation Report against Patrolman Sam J Castro for Grave Neglect of
Duty dated March 5, 2021;

“A-I”—page 1

“A-2__page 2

2. EXHIBIT “B” - FORMAL CHARGE filed by, in his capacity as


C, SIDMB, Pasig City Police Station dated April 15, 2020;

3. EXHIBIT “C” - Certification and Non-Forum Shopping


executed by, in his capacity as OC, RIDMD, NCRPO dated \march 5, 2021;

During the course of summary hearing, respondent did not appear


hence, an ex parte investigation was conducted based on the available
documentts at hand. Notwithstanding, the penalty to be imposed should be
applied in its maximum period pursuant to Rule 22, Section 5, para d of
NAPOLCOM Memorandum Circular 2016-002 to wit: “i) fail to appear and
testify in court as prosecution witness………) The imposable penalty for
maximum period for Grave Negelct of Duty is Dismissal from the Police Service
pursuant to NAPOLCOM Memorandum Circular No. 2016-002, Rule 22

(Penalties) Section 3 (Grave Offensesb) under the jurisdiction of the Regional


Director NCRPO.
V. RECOMMENDATION:
WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered the undersigned recommends
that respondent be penalized from the offense charged and be meted the penalty of
Dismissal from the Police service.
.

SO RESOLVED.

Done this _________________, at City

Republic of the Philippines


PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE
NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION POLICE OFFICE
OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR
Camp Bagong Diwa, Bicutan, Taguig City
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE Administrative Case Number
Complainant NCRPO-HEPD-AC-040-
202010328

for

Patrolman Sam J Castro Grave Neglect of Duty (Fail to


appear Respondents and testify in court as
prosecution
Witness)
x----------------------------------------------x

DECISION

This resolves the administrative case filed by the Philippine National


Police through th Regional Investigation and Detective Management Division
(RIDMD), National Capital Region Police Office 9NCRPO) against Patrolman
Sam J Castro, member of Pasig City Police Station, Eastern Police District for
Grave Neglect of Duty (Failed to appear and testify in Court) docketed under
Admin Case No. NCRPO-HEPD-AC-040-202010328.

ANTECEDENT OF FACTS

A Pre Charge Investigation ensued at DIDMD, EPD after which probable


cause was determined. Hence, the filing of the formal charge dated April 15,
2018 which read as follows:

“That the above-named respondent while being an active member of the


Philippine National Police, and within the disciplinary jurisdiction of this Office,
failed to attend his scheduled court hearing on June 4, 2018 relative to
Criminal Case No. M-PSG-18-01456-CR for Alarm and Scandal pending before
MeTC Branch 72, Pasig City. Contrary to the existing PNP Laws, Rules and
Regulations.

Investigation disclosed that based on the list of E-subpoena Generated


System of NCRPO personnel who failed to attend scheduled court hearing. The
name of the respondent Patrolman Sam J Castro was included in the said list
wherein he failed to attend court hearing on June 4, 2018 at 8:30 A.M. in
Criminal Case No. M-PSG-18-01456-CR for Alarm and Scandal pending before
MeTC Branch 72, Pasig.

In observance of administrative due process, respondent was afforded of


his right to be informed of the administrative complaint filed against him
wherein summonses were sent at the respondent’s present unit assignment at
Psig City Police Station and at his last known address directing him to appear
and file his answer to shed light on the matter and adduce evidence on his
defense, however respondent failed to submit his answer hence ex-parte
investigation was conducted relative to his administrative case.

Summary Hearing Proceeding of the case was conducted by PLT


FERNANDO NIEFES, Summary Hearing Officer (SHO) who recommended that
respondent be meted the penalty of Dismissal from the Police Service on the
ground that respondent failed to adduce evidence on his favor despite
summonses sent to him to refute the allegation being imputed against him.

ISSUES/FINDINGS

The issue to be resolved in this case is whether or not the respondent is


liable of Grave Neglect of Duty (Failed to Appear and Testify in Court) under the
given circumstances.

Neglect of Duty has been defined under (Sec. 1, para (1), Rule 21 of
NAPOLCOM Memorandum Circular No. 2016-002) which provides that

Neglect of Duty or Negligence is the omission or refusal, without sufficient


excuse, to perform an act or duty, which it was the peace officer's legal
obligation to perform implies a duty, as well as its breach and the fact, can
never be found in the absence of duty.

The charge against the respondent is for violation of Section 2C, para 1(i)
of NAPOLCOM Memorandum Circular No. 2016-002

“ fail to appear and testify in court, prosecutor’s office, the PNP disciplinary
authorities, appellate bodies, the IAS 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”

Attendance of arresting as prosecution’s witness during a scheduled


hearing is a judicial duty for the proper administration of justice. Such
appearance in court is very vital. However, during the course of summary
hearing proceedings, the respondent failed to refute the allegations being
imputed against him by the complainant after he failed to submit answer
despite notice and summonses sent to him.

After a careful evaluation of the case at hand, the undersigned


concurs with the findings of the Summary Hearing Officer, that the respondent
be meted the penalty of dismissal form the police service.

WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered the undersigned


ordered that respondent Patrolman Sam J Castro’s administrative case for
Grave Neglect of Duty be penalized from the offense charged and be meted the
penalty of dismissal from the police service.

SO ORDERED this ____th day of June 2021, at Camp Bagong Diwa,


Bicutan, Taguig City.
VICENTE DUPA DANAO JR
Police Major General
RD, NCRPO

You might also like