PNP CHIEF's Power of Reinstatement and Dismissal

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6975

Sec. 48. Entitlement to Reinstatement and Salary. – A member of the PNP who
may have been suspended from office in accordance with the provisions of this
Act or who shall have been terminated or separated from office shall, upon
acquittal from the charges against him, be entitled to reinstatement and to
prompt payment of salary, allowances and other benefits withheld from him by
reason of such suspension or termination.

Section 42. Summary Dismissal Powers of the PNP Chief and Regional
Directors. – The Chief of the PNP and regional directors, after due notice and
summary hearings, may immediately remove or dismiss any respondent PNP
member in any of the following cases:

(a) When the charge is serious and the evidence of guilt is strong;

(b) When the respondent is a recidivist or has been repeatedly charged and
there are reasonable grounds to believe that he is guilty of the charges; and

(c) When the respondent is guilty of conduct unbecoming of a police officer.

Grave Misconduct

G.R. No. 212641

July 5, 2017

ANGELICA A. FAJARDO vs. MARIO J. CORRAL

Grave misconduct is defined as the transgression of some established and

definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence
by a public officer coupled with the elements of corruption, willful intent to
violate the law or to disregard established rules.25

A.M. No. RTJ-03-1760 January 15, 2004

FELICIDAD B. DADIZON vs. JUDGE ENRIQUE C. ASIS

Misconduct is defined as any unlawful conduct on the part of a person
concerned in the administration of justice prejudicial to the rights of parties or
to the right determination of the cause.13 It generally means wrongful,
improper or unlawful conduct motivated by a premeditated, obstinate or
intentional purpose.14 To justify the taking of drastic disciplinary action, the
law requires that the error or mistake must be gross or patent, malicious,
deliberate or in bad faith.15

Bad faith is the ground for liability in misconduct.17 Here, this ground is
inapplicable, since there is no showing of any wrongful, improper or unlawful
conduct on respondent’s part.

RECANTATIONS

G.R. No. L-47747, February 15, 1990

TAN ANG BUN vs. COURT OF APPEALS and THE PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES

The general rule is that recantations are hardly given much weight in the
determination of a case and in the granting of a new trial. The rare exception is
when there is no evidence sustaining the judgment of conviction other than the
testimony of a witness or witnesses who are shown to have made contradictory
statements as to material facts under which circumstances the court may be
led to a different conclusion so that a new trial or a reversal of the judgment
may be called for.

G.R. No. 109279-80, PEOPLE vs. OCTAVIO MENDOZA

In the case of PEOPLE vs. OCTAVIO MENDOZA, G.R. No. 109279-80,

January 18, 1999, it was held that mere retraction by a prosecution witness
does not necessarily vitiate his original testimony; and that a testimony
solemnly given in court should not be lightly set aside and that before this can
be done, both the previous testimony and the subsequent one be carefully
compared, the circumstances under which each was given be carefully
scrutinized, the reasons or motives for the change carefully scrutinized, in other
words, all the expedients devised by man to determine the credibility of
witnesses should be utilized to determine which of the contradictory
testimonies represents the truth.
 OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR vs. ATTY. EDGAR ALLAN C.
MORANTE, CLERK OF COURT,

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, LAS PINAS CITY, BRANCH 275,

A.M. No. P-02-1555

April 16, 2004

Where a witness recants his testimony, courts must not automatically exclude
the original testimony solely on the basis of recantation. They should
determine which testimony should be given credence through a comparison of
the original testimony and the new testimony, applying the general rules of
evidence.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs P/SUPT. ARTEMIO E. LAMSEN, PO2

ANTHONY D. ABULENCIA, and SPO1 WILFREDO L. RAMOS

Mere retraction by a prosecution witness does not necessarily vitiate the

original testimony if credible.1âwphi1 The rule is settled that in cases where
previous testimony is retracted and a subsequent different, if not contrary,
testimony is made by the same witness, the test to decide which testimony to
believe is one of comparison coupled with the application of the general rules of
evidence. A testimony solemnly given in court should not be set aside and
disregarded lightly, and before this can be done, both the previous testimony
and the subsequent one should be carefully compared and juxtaposed, the
circumstances under which each was made, carefully and keenly scrutinized,
and the reasons or motives for the change, discriminatingly analyzed. The
unreliable character of the affidavit of recantation executed by a complaining
witness is also shown by the incredulity of the fact that after going through the
burdensome process of reporting to and/or having the accused arrested by the
law enforcers, executing a criminal complaint-affidavit against the accused,
attending trial and testifying against the accused, the said complaining witness
would later on declare that all the foregoing is actually a farce and the truth is
now what he says it to be in his affidavit of recantation. And in situations, like
the instant case, where testimony is recanted by an affidavit subsequently
executed by the recanting witness, we are properly guided by the well-settled
rules that an affidavit is hearsay unless the affiant is presented on the witness
stand and that affidavits taken ex-parte are generally considered inferior to the
testimony given in open court.14 (Emphases and underscoring supplied

IMPEACHMENT OF WITNESS

RULE 132 Presentation of Evidence

 A. Examination of Witnesses

Section 13. How witness impeached by evidence of inconsistent statements. —

Before a witness can be impeached by evidence that he has made at other times
statements inconsistent with his present testimony, the statements must be
related to him, with the circumstances of the times and places and the persons
present, and he must be asked whether he made such statements, and if so,
allowed to explain them. If the statements be in writing they must be shown to
the witness before any question is put to him concerning them. (16)

OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE

Section 1. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period, or a fine

ranging from 1,000 to 6,000 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon any person
who knowingly or willfully obstructs, impedes, frustrates or delays the
apprehension of suspects and the investigation and prosecution of criminal
cases by committing any of the following acts:

(a) preventing witnesses from testifying in any criminal proceeding or from

reporting the commission of any offense or the identity of any offender/s by
means of bribery, misrepresentation, deceit, intimidation, force or threats;

(b) altering, destroying, suppressing or concealing any paper, record, document,

or object, with intent to impair its verity, authenticity, legibility, availability, or
admissibility as evidence in any investigation of or official proceedings in,
criminal cases, or to be used in the investigation of, or official proceedings in,
criminal cases;

(c) harboring or concealing, or facilitating the escape of, any person he knows,
or has reasonable ground to believe or suspect, has committed any offense
under existing penal laws in order to prevent his arrest prosecution and
conviction;

(d) publicly using a fictitious name for the purpose of concealing a crime,
evading prosecution or the execution of a judgment, or concealing his true
name and other personal circumstances for the same purpose or purposes;

(e) delaying the prosecution of criminal cases by obstructing the service of

process or court orders or disturbing proceedings in the fiscal's offices, in
Tanodbayan, or in the courts;

(f) making, presenting or using any record, document, paper or object with
knowledge of its falsity and with intent to affect the course or outcome of the
investigation of, or official proceedings in, criminal cases;

(g) soliciting, accepting, or agreeing to accept any benefit in consideration of

abstaining from, discounting, or impeding the prosecution of a criminal
offender;

(h) threatening directly or indirectly another with the infliction of any wrong
upon his person, honor or property or that of any immediate member or
members of his family in order to prevent such person from appearing in the
investigation of, or official proceedings in, criminal cases, or imposing a
condition, whether lawful or unlawful, in order to prevent a person from
appearing in the investigation of or in official proceedings in, criminal cases;

(i) giving of false or fabricated information to mislead or prevent the law

enforcement agencies from apprehending the offender or from protecting the life
or property of the victim; or fabricating information from the data gathered in
confidence by investigating authorities for purposes of background information
and not for publication and publishing or disseminating the same to mislead
the investigator or to the court.