G.R. No. 221978 - DMCI Project Developers, Inc. vs. Bernadas

Petitioner Edgar M. Go was a member of the Olongapo City Police Department since April 18, 1974.
On December 16, 1983, he was dismissed from service for alleged involvement in illegal gambling, specifically the operation of jai-alai bookies.

On January 21, 1983, at around 9:00 in the evening, a military team raided the petitioner’s residence located at No. 18 Murphy St., Pag-asa, Olongapo City.

During the raid, fifteen persons were apprehended inside the house, including his wife, Minda Go.
The raiding team, led by Lieutenant Paterno Ding, confiscated P1,000.00, assorted papelitos, a ballpen, and a calculator purportedly used in the operation of the jai-alai bookies.

A second raid was conducted on June 16, 1983, which further established that illegal jai-alai activities were still ongoing at the petitioner’s residence.

Major Jaime Garcia reported that on the said date, petitioner Edgar Go, together with his brother Lolito Go, were actively involved in operating jai-alai bookies.
Witnesses such as Rodolfo Ablaza and Rolando de la Fuente admitted to acting as collectors for petitioner and his brother.

The Summary Dismissal Board (Board No. 2 of the PC/INP Regional Command No. 3) convened its hearings based on raid reports and incident findings despite petitioner’s non-appearance.

Although several notices were issued, petitioner repeatedly failed to appear before the board.
The Board considered his non-appearance as a waiver of his right to present evidence and testimonies in his defense.

The Board's decision was based solely on investigation reports referring to the raids and witness statements, without a formal filing of a complaint supported by detailed affidavits.

He claimed he was not furnished a copy of the complaint with supporting affidavits, as required by NAPOLCOM Resolution No. 81-01.
He contended that he was merely ordered to appear by radio, without proper notice, and the hearings lacked the presence of the complainant and his witnesses.
He argued that his right to cross-examine witnesses was effectively denied.
Additionally, petitioner claimed that his dismissal should have become effective upon his receipt of the dismissal decision on February 20, 1984, rather than on December 16, 1983.

His appeal was ultimately denied by the Director General of the PC/INP in 1990 and subsequently by the National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM) on appeal in 1992.

The administrative record did not contain a formal written complaint with detailed supporting affidavits or testimonies.
The Board’s findings appeared to rely on externally conducted raid reports and uncorroborated witness accounts, rather than on a properly conducted investigation.

Whether petitioner Edgar M. Go was afforded the constitutional right to due process in the course of summary dismissal proceedings.

Did the petitioner receive a copy of the complaint, along with all supporting affidavits and documents?
Was he given a reasonable opportunity to file counter-statements and present evidence in his defense?

Whether the non-appearance of petitioner in successive hearings, when challenged on procedural grounds, constituted a waiver of his right to be heard.

To what extent can the failure to appear, amid alleged deficiencies in notification, be taken as a waiver of his right to due process?

Whether the administrative proceedings, particularly under P.D. No. 971 as amended by P.D. No. 1707, complied with the minimum requirements of due process in disciplinary action against an INP member.