Title
Herminio A. Besmonte vs. National Police Commission-National Capital Region
Case
G.R. No. 260148
Decision Date
Apr 3, 2024
Police officer Herminio Besmonte used excessive force during a buy-bust operation, leading to charges of grave misconduct. The Supreme Court reclassified the offense to simple misconduct, imposing a six-month suspension instead of dismissal.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 260148)

Factual Background

A buy‑bust operation was conducted on April 11, 2003, in Las Piñas City after a confidential informant tipped that Evangeline Abenojar was illegally peddling shabu. The arrest team comprised Besmonte (designated poseur‑buyer), PO2 Anos and PO2 Tuldanes. According to the officers’ joint account, Besmonte purchased PHP 100.00 worth of suspected shabu from Abenojar, identified himself, and the three officers restrained her after she resisted. According to Abenojar, the officers in civilian clothes accosted her, demanded money, and when she refused, she was physically assaulted, brought to an open lot, later taken to the police station and detained.

Complaints, Medical Evidence, and Administrative Charge

Abenojar filed a handwritten complaint before NAPOLCOM alleging unlawful arrest, search, detention and physical injury. She procured a Medical Certificate from Dr. Eusebio (April 14, 2003) describing swelling and tenderness of the left zygomatic area and right inguinal area. A Temporary Medical Certificate from Dr. Ferrer (issued the day after arrest) asserted no pertinent external physical injury noted but was initialed rather than formally offered before NAPOLCOM. The NAPOLCOM Regional Investigation Unit filed administrative charges for Grave Misconduct against Besmonte, Anos and Tuldanes, alleging willful, unlawful arrest, physical injury and deprivation of liberty.

NAPOLCOM Findings and Penalty

In its March 9, 2011 Decision, NAPOLCOM validated the buy‑bust operation, exonerated PO2 Anos and PO2 Tuldanes for lack of substantial evidence, but found Besmonte culpable of unnecessary coercion and violence. NAPOLCOM concluded that Besmonte could have neutralized the suspect without resort to excessive force given the numerical advantage and imposed the administrative penalty of one rank demotion. A motion for reconsideration was denied (May 16, 2017).

CSC Proceedings and Ruling

Besmonte appealed to the Civil Service Commission under Rule 12 RRACS, stressing his unblemished record and contesting the medical evidence and the sufficiency of proof. The CSC, however, gave greater weight to Dr. Eusebio’s medical testimony and noted that Dr. Ferrer’s temporary certificate was not formally offered before NAPOLCOM and bore only initials. The CSC concluded that Besmonte employed exorbitant physical force and, differing from NAPOLCOM’s penalty, imposed the penalty of dismissal from the service with accessory penalties including cancellation of eligibility, perpetual disqualification from public office, bar from civil service examinations, and forfeiture of retirement benefits (except terminal leave and personal contributions). Besmonte’s motion for reconsideration before CSC was denied (Resolution No. 1900696, June 18, 2019).

Court of Appeals Proceedings and Ruling

Besmonte filed a Rule 43 petition for review with the Court of Appeals, arguing insufficiency of evidence, lack of corroboration that he caused the injuries, that only reasonable force was used, and that dismissal was disproportionate given his long unblemished service. The CA affirmed the CSC in toto, finding that substantial evidence supported the grave misconduct finding and that Besmonte should have exercised prudence in employing force against a lone female suspect while accompanied by two officers. The CA dismissed Besmonte’s petition and denied reconsideration.

Issue Presented to the Supreme Court

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the CSC’s finding of Grave Misconduct against Besmonte and in upholding the penalty of dismissal with accessory penalties.

Governing Legal Standards on Misconduct and Evidentiary Burden

The Court reiterated distinctions between simple and grave misconduct: simple misconduct is a transgression of established rules without elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of an established rule; grave misconduct requires one or more of those elements and is punishable by dismissal. The applicable burden of proof in administrative proceedings is substantial evidence — relevant evidence that a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The Supreme Court generally confines appellate review in Rule 45 petitions to questions of law, accords respect and sometimes finality to factual findings of administrative agencies and the CA when supported by substantial evidence, and will not reassess factual weight when not warranted.

Supreme Court’s Analysis — Finding of Excessive Force but Characterization of Offense

The Supreme Court found that Besmonte did not deny striking Abenojar but failed to justify how a punch to the face and a kick to the groin were reasonable and necessary under the circumstances. Applying PNP standards on necessary and reasonable force, and considering the operational context (three officers versus a lone female suspect), the administrative findings that Besmonte used excessive force were upheld. However, the Court determined that the record did not show elements that elevate the misconduct to “grave” (i.e., corruption, clear intent to violate law, or flagrant disregard of an established rule). The NAPOLCOM, CSC and CA focused on a lapse

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms