Case Summary (G.R. No. L-67573)
Relevant Facts
Delia BuAo filed an administrative complaint against Asayo for abuse of authority and harassment, alleging he obstructed the police from arresting his brother, a suspect in the shooting of her son. The Inspector General of the PNP conducted a pre-charge investigation after being summoned. Asayo contested the jurisdiction of the case, claiming it belonged to the People’s Law Enforcement Board (PLEB). Following this, a report recommending Asayo's dismissal was issued, culminating in the PNP Chief's decision to dismiss him from service on January 22, 1999.
Judicial Proceedings
Asayo filed a motion for reconsideration, later withdrawing it and pursuing a petition for certiorari and prohibition in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila. The RTC ruled in Asayo's favor, finding that the PNP Chief had acted with grave abuse of discretion. The PNP subsequently appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which initially overturned the RTC’s decision in August 2001, asserting the PNP Chief's jurisdiction over the case and emphasizing the necessity of exhausting administrative remedies.
CA's Resolutions
However, the CA reversed its position in March 2002, reinstating the RTC’s ruling, determining that the PLEB held jurisdiction over cases involving potential dismissal. In July 2002, the CA denied the petitioners' motion for reconsideration, leading to the current petition before the court questioning the applicability of administrative remedy exhaustion and the jurisdiction of the PNP Chief.
Issues of Jurisdiction
The court examined whether the PNP Chief possessed the authority, as provided by Republic Act No. 6975, to hear and adjudicate the complaint against Asayo. It was concluded that while both the PLEB and the PNP Chief have concurrent jurisdiction over cases that could warrant dismissal, the circumstances surrounding Asayo's charges constituted serious misconduct, allowing the PNP Chief to act on the complaint directly.
Conduct Unbecoming a Police Officer
The Court emphasized that the allegations against Asayo amounted to “conduct unbecoming of a police officer,” fitting within the definitions outlined in both the law and accompanying memoranda. Such conduct refers to actions that disgrace or dishonor a police officer, necessitating disciplinary measures. This substantiated the PNP Chief's jurisdiction and the propriety of summarily dismissing Asayo.
Right to Cross-examine
Asayo contended that procedural errors were made, specifically the denial of his right to cross-examine witnesses. However, it was found that he had voluntarily waived this right after being adequa
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-67573)
Case Citation
- G.R. NO. 154243, March 06, 2007
- 546 Phil. 351
- Third Division
Background of the Case
- In 1997, Delia BuAo filed an administrative complaint for abuse of authority and harassment against P/Senior Inspector Jose J. Asayo.
- The complaint arose from Asayo allegedly obstructing the arrest of his brother, Lamberto Asayo, a suspect in the shooting of BuAo's son.
- The Office of the Inspector General of the PNP was tasked to investigate the complaint.
Procedural History
- Asayo did not appear for the summons but filed a motion to dismiss, asserting jurisdiction belonged to the People's Law Enforcement Board (PLEB).
- On September 23, 1998, the Inspector General recommended summary dismissal proceedings against Asayo.
- The PNP Chief approved this recommendation, and a summary hearing was conducted.
- Asayo submitted a counter-affidavit and declined the opportunity to cross-examine the complainant and witnesses, opting instead to submit the case based on pleadings.
- The summary hearing officer recommended Asayo's dismissal for grave misconduct on December 28, 1998, leading to a dismissal decision by the PNP Chief on January 22, 1999.
- Asayo filed a motion for reconsideration but later withdrew it, opting for a petition for certiorari and prohibition in the RTC.
RTC Decision
- The RTC granted Asayo's petition, annulling the PNP Chief's dismissal decision due to grave abuse of discretion, thus enjoining the execution of the decision against him.