THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 215545, January 07, 2019
QUIRINO T. DELA CRUZ, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL POLICE COMMISSION, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
LEONEN, J.:
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 assailing the June 27, 2014 Decision2 and November 18, 2014 Resolution3 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 131189. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Civil Service Commission September 11, 2012 Decision4 holding that petitioner's appeal was filed out of time, and thus affirmed the January 12, 2010 National Police Commission Decision5 dismissing petitioner for grave misconduct.6
In an October 15, 2001 Information,7 a certain Sonny H. Villarias was charged with violation of Presidential Decree No. 1866 after he was arrested on October 13, 2001 for allegedly possessing two (2) firearms without permits.8
On August 15, 2002, Villarias filed before the National Police Commission a Complaint-Affidavit,9 where he narrated what happened when he was arrested. By filing the Complaint against the four (4) officers who arrested him, Villarias said that he would be doing his share in helping the police force rid itself of bad elements.10
He narrated that at about 8:00 p.m. that night, he was awakened by four (4) uniformed officers, namely: Special Police Officer 4 Quirino Dela Cruz (SPO4 Dela Cruz), Police Officer 1 Ariel Cantorna (PO1 Cantorna), whom he said he had known, and two others. He said that SPO4 Dela Cruz poked an armalite rifle at him, pulled him up, and frisked him without any explanation despite him repeatedly asking what he had done wrong. They still did not say anything even after they had handcuffed him. He only stopped asking after SPO4 Dela Cruz poked him with his armalite rifle again and, along with the others, took him to their patrol vehicle and handcuffed him to its steering wheel. The officers then returned to his house.11
Villarias stated that while he was handcuffed to the vehicle, he saw his common-law wife, Claudia Nicar (Nicar), approaching their house. He then told her that the police officers were in their house and that they might do something to their belongings. When the officers returned to the vehicle, they had with them eight (8) of Villarias's most valuable fighting cocks, a large plastic bag containing items from his house, two (2) air guns, and two (2) bolos.
After the officers left with Villarias, Nicar took photos of their personal belongings in the house, which had been left in disarray when the officers ransacked their home. While Villarias was in jail, she informed him that the police officers had stolen a pair of wedding rings, a necklace, a coin bank filled with P5.00 coins, cash worth P12,000.00, and a bottle of men's cologne. At the precinct, the officers told Villarias to admit to owning two (2) old and defective-looking handguns, which SPO4 Dela Cruz had earlier shown him.12
Later, Villarias learned that his arrest had been instigated by the complaint of his neighbor, Ruby Carambas, whom he said was angry at him because he refused to let her build a house on a lot of which he was a caretaker. He also learned that Carambas had previously filed a complaint against him for Illegal Discharge of Firearm and Grave Threats against him. He alleged that Carambas was the friend of POl Cantorna, a cockfighting fanatic who frequently visited Carambas' father, a gaffer at cockfights. Villarias believed that the officers concocted this plan to simultaneously benefit Carambas and steal Villarias's fighting cocks and valuables. He pointed out that, as of his sworn statement, Carambas and her family had gone into hiding.13
Based on Villarias's Complaint, the National Police Commission, represented by Inspector IV Pedro T. Magcinnon, Acting Chief, Technical Service Division, National Capital Region, filed a Complaint14 against SPO4 Dela Cruz and PO2 Cantorna. It charged them as follows:
That on October 13, 2001 at about 8:00 o'clock in the evening at No. 20 Williams Street, Subdivision, Tandang Sora, Quezon City, and within the administrative jurisdiction of this Honorable Commission, respondents, conspiring and confederating and mutually helping one another, with intent to gain and with grave abuse of authority being police officers, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously without any legal grounds enter and search the house of complainant against his will. Thereafter, respondent SPO4 Quirino dela Cruz poked his armalite rifle on the side of complainant, pull[ed] him out of the house and handcuff[ed] the latter on the steering wheel of respondent's patrol vehicle. After that[,] respondents went back inside the house of complainant and carted away some personal belongings of herein complainant, to wit: one (1) piece wedding ring; one (1) piece 18 karats necklace; one (1) coin bank filled with 5 cents coins; cash amount of P12,000.00; one (1) bottle men's cologne; eight (8) live fighting cocks; two (2) airguns[,] and two (2) bolos, to the damage and prejudice of complainant Sonny Villarias in the amount of more or less SEVENTY THOUSAND PESOS (Php70,000.00).Pending resolution of the administrative complaint against SPO4 Dela Cruz and PO2 Cantorna, Villarias was exonerated by the Regional Trial Court in its July 23, 2009 Decision.16 The Decision read:
Acts contrary to law and existing rules and regulations.15
The accused, at the time of his arrest, had not committed, nor was he actually committing or attempting to commit an offense in the presence of the arresting officers. Neither was there probable cause for them to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the accused committed the crime.In its January 12, 2010 Decision,18 the National Police Commission declared SPO4 Dela Cruz and PO2 Cantorna culpable of grave misconduct.19 It found that Villarias had substantiated his case, and was convinced that the officers did what they were accused of doing.20 It also noted that the Regional Trial Court July 23, 2009 Decision cited the testimony of a witness, Eneceto Gargallano (Gargallano), who saw four (4) police officers enter Villarias's home and take out cartons containing fighting cocks, with one (1) carrying two (2) air guns.21
Verily, the warrantless arrest of the accused was unlawful being outside the scope of Sec. 5, Rule 113. He was arrested solely on the basis of a call from a woman claiming he illegally fired a gun, and upon being pointed to, while he was inside his house doing nothing. Consequently, the guns seized from the accused, if ever the same came from him, are inadmissible in evidence being the 'fruit of the poisonous tree.
. . . .
The Court entertains very serious doubt as to the culpability of the accused and cannot in conscience pronounce verdict of guilt for the crime with which he was charged.
WHEREFORE, for failure of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused, the Court finds Sonny H. Villarias NOT GUILTY. His ACQUITTAL is hereby pronounced.17
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the COMMISSION finds SPO4 QUIRINO DE LA CRUZ and PO2 ARIEL CANTORNA culpable of Grave Misconduct and are hereby meted the penalty of DISMISSAL from the service.SPO4 Dela Cruz filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but it was denied in the National Police Commission December 15, 2010 Resolution.25 In its Resolution, the National Police Commission found that SP04 Dela Cruz neither presented newly discovered evidence nor cited errors of law or irregularities that would affect the assailed Decision. Further, it found that he filed the Motion on September 21, 2010, well beyond the ten (10)-day non-extendible period after he received the Decision on September 8, 2010.26
SO ORDERED.24
WHEREFORE, the appeal of Quirino Dela Cruz is hereby DISMISSED. Accordingly, the Resolution dated December 15, 2010 of the National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM), finding him guilty of the offense Grave Misconduct, and imposing upon him the penalty of dismissal from the service, STANDS. It shall be clarified that the accessory penalties of cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, perpetual disqualification from reemployment in the government service, and bar from taking any Civil Service examination are likewise imposed.30SPO4 Dela Cruz moved for reconsideration,31 insisting that he filed his Appeal within the allowable period, but it was denied for lack of merit. In its July 9, 2013 Resolution,32 the Civil Service Commission said the Motion failed to provide substantial evidence under the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service to establish that he had timely perfected his appeal.33
The relaxation or suspension of procedural rules or the exemption of a case from their operation is warranted only by compelling reasons or when the purpose of justice requires it.This is not a case that calls for relaxation of the rules. This Court will not tolerate abuse of police authority over civilians. Where a police officer has been shown to have committed atrocities against a civilian, such as in this case, and is punished for his actions, he will find no relief in this Court.
As early as 1998, in Hon. Fortich v. Hon. Coronate expounded on these guiding principles:
Procedural rules, we must stress, should be treated with utmost respect and due regard since they are designed to facilitate the adjudication of cases to remedy the worsening problem of delay in the resolution of rival claims and in the administration of justice. The requirement is in pursuance to the [B]ill of [R]ights inscribed in the Constitution which guarantees that "all persons shall have a right to the speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative bodies." The adjudicatory bodies and the parties to a case are thus enjoined to abide strictly by the rules. While it is true that a litigation is not a game of technicalities, it is equally true that every case must be prosecuted in accordance with the prescribed procedure to ensure an orderly and speedy administration of justice. There have been some instances wherein this Court allowed a relaxation in the application of the rules, but this flexibility was "never intended to forge a bastion for erring litigants to violate the rules with impunity." A liberal interpretation and application of the rules of procedure can be resorted to only in proper cases and under justifiable causes and circumstances.56 (Citations omitted; emphasis supplied)
Very truly yours, (SGD) WILFREDO V. LAPITAN Division Clerk of Court |
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 12-34.
2 Id. at 36-41. The Decision was penned by Associate Justice Franchito N. Diamante, and concurred in by Associate Justices Celia C. Librea-Leagogo and Melchor Q.C. Sadang of the Fourteenth Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
3 Id. at 43-44. The Resolution was penned by Associate Justice Franchito N. Diamante, and concurred in by Associate Justices Celia C. Librea-Leagogo and Melchor Q.C. Sadang of the Former Fourteenth Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
4 Id. at 96-99. The Decision (120576) was signed by Commissioner Mary Ann Z. Fernandez-Mendoza, Chairman Francisco T. Duque III, Commissioner Robert S. Martinez, and attested by Commission on Secretariat and Liaison Office Director IV Dolores B. Bonifacio.
5 Id. at 78-82. The Decision in the administrative case docketed as SD Case No. 2003-016 (NCR) was signed by Commissioners Eduardo U. Escueta, Luis Mario M. General, and Jesus A. Verzosa. Chairman Ronaldo V. Puno did not sign.
6 Id. at 82.
7 Id. at 76.
8 Id.
9 Id. at 65-67.
10 Id. at 66.
11 Id. at 65.
12 Id. at 66.
13 Id.
14 Id. at 63-64.
15 Id. at 63.
16 Id. at 103-104. The full copy of the Regional Trial Court Decision was not attached to the rollo.
17 Id.
18 Id. at 78-82.
19 Id. at 82.
20 Id. at 80.
21 Id. at 81.
22 Id.
23 Id.
24 Id. at 82.
25 Id. at 87-89. The Resolution, docketed as SD Case No. 2003-016 (NCR), was signed by Chairman Jesse M. Robredo, Commissioners Eduardo U. Escueta, Luisito T. Palmera, Alejandro S. Urro, Constancia P. De Guzman, and Raul M. Bacalzo.
26 Id. at 89.
27 Id. at 90-94.
28 Id. at 96-99.
29 Id. at 98.
30 Id. at 99.
31Rollo, p. 100.
32 Id. at 102-105.
33 Id. at 104.
34 Id. at 36-41.
35 Id. at 40.
36 Id. at 43-44.
37 Id. at 12-34.
38 Id. at 132-149.
39 Id. at 151.
40 Id. at 163-168.
41 Id. at 22.
42 Id. at 25.
43 Id.
44 Id. at 26.
45 Id. at 27.
46 Id. at 138-139.
47 Id. at 139-140.
48 Id. at 143.
49 Id. at 144.
50 RULES OF COURT, Rule 45, sec. 1.
51Pascual v. Burgos, et al., 116 Phil. 167 (2016) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
52Rollo, p. 89.
53 Id. at 20.
54Pascual v. Burgos, et al., 116 Phil. 167 (2016) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
55 650 Phil. 174 (2010) [Per J. Nachura, Second Division].
56 Id. at 183-184.