Case Digest (G.R. No. 177878)
Facts:
In SPO1 Leonito Acuzar v. Aproniano Jorolan and Hon. Eduardo A. Apresa, People’s Law Enforcement Board, the complainant, Aproniano Jorolan, filed on May 2, 2000 an administrative charge for Grave Misconduct before the PLEB of New Corella, Davao del Norte, accusing petitioner SPO1 Leonito Acuzar of having an illicit relationship with his minor daughter. Eleven days later, a criminal charge under Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. 7610 (the Child Abuse Act) was lodged before the Municipal Trial Court (Criminal Case No. 1712). Petitioner filed a counter-affidavit on May 15, 2000, denying all allegations and attaching an affidavit from the complainant’s daughter. He also moved on July 24, 2000 to suspend the administrative hearings pending resolution of the criminal case; the PLEB denied his motion and held several hearings between June and August 2000, during which petitioner and counsel repeatedly asked for postponements then walked out of the final session. On August 17, 2000, theCase Digest (G.R. No. 177878)
Facts:
- Initiation of proceedings
- May 2, 2000: Administrative Case No. 2000-01 filed by Aproniano Jorolan with the People’s Law Enforcement Board (PLEB) of New Corella, Davao del Norte, charging SPO1 Leonito Acuzar with grave misconduct for allegedly engaging in an illicit relationship with Jorolan’s minor daughter.
- May 11, 2000: Criminal Case No. 1712 for violation of Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. 7610 (Child Abuse Act) filed by the same complainant before the Municipal Trial Court of New Corella.
- Administrative and judicial actions
- May–August 2000: Petitioner filed a counter-affidavit (May 15) denying all allegations and attaching the minor’s own affidavit; moved to suspend PLEB proceedings (July 24) and for reconsideration (Aug 9), all denied; PLEB conducted multiple hearings and on August 17, 2000 rendered a decision dismissing petitioner from the PNP for grave misconduct.
- September 2000–October 2002: Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with prayer for injunction before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tagum City (Special Civil Case No. 384), alleging lack of jurisdiction and denial of due process by the PLEB; RTC on October 15, 2002 annulled the PLEB decision for failure to afford petitioner an opportunity to present evidence.
- March 23, 2007: Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 77110 reversed the RTC, holding that certiorari was inapt because appeal to the PNP Regional Appellate Board was available and issues involved mixed questions of fact and law.
- April 7, 2010: Supreme Court granted petitioner’s petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 to resolve (a) the proper remedy to challenge the PLEB decision and (b) whether due process was observed.
Issues:
- Remedy and jurisdiction
- Was certiorari before the RTC a proper remedy despite the availability of appeal under Section 43(e) of R.A. 6975?
- Were the questions raised pure issues of law warranting certiorari, or mixed questions of fact and law better addressed on appeal?
- Due process and PLEB authority
- Did the PLEB lack jurisdiction to proceed absent a prior criminal conviction?
- Was petitioner denied procedural due process by allegedly not being allowed to present his evidence?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)