CA exonerates Pagdilao
By J.Lo
Court of Appeals (CA) Eighth Division modified Office of the President (OP)'s October 2017 decision and found former National Capital Region Police Office (NCRPO) chief Maj. Gen. Joel Pagdilao liable only for simple neglect of duty, penalizing him with reprimand.
CA has reversed decision of former president Rodrigo Duterte to dismiss from service Pagdilao over general's supposed failure to curb proliferation of illegal drugs.
Duterte had accused Pagdilao and other PNP officials of protecting drug traffickers.
In dismissing Pagdilao, Malacañang said he was administratively liable for serious neglect of duty and serious irregularity in performance of duty.
CA's Dec. 20, 2023 decision was penned by Associate Justice Jaime Fortunato Caringal. Concurring were Associate Justices Ramon Cruz and Louis Acosta.
OP had upheld recommendation of National Police Commission to dismiss Pagdilao for ignoring letter from then Quezon City Vice Mayor Ma. Josefina "Joy" Belmonte-Alimurung containing comments from residents critical of Stations Anti-Illegal Drugs-Special Operations Task Group and for assigning officers with no training and with derogatory records to task group.
Pagdilao, as then NCRPO chief, also allegedly failed to sanction police officers who contributed to large number of acquittals in drug cases before prosecutors and courts, caused by illegal arrests, unlawful searches, planting of evidence, bungling of drug cases and repeated failure of police officers to appear as prosecution witnesses, among others.
In favoring Pagdilao, CA said general was only liable for simple neglect of duty when he failed to reply to letter from Belmonte, saying this did not fall under offenses classified as "grave," under Napolcom memorandum circular.
Instead, CA said Pagdilao's action was example of failure to "coordinate or cooperate with other law enforcement agencies and their personnel," signifies " disregard of duty resulting from carelessness or indifference, but not flagrant and culpable refusal or unwillingness of person to perform duty, so as to amount to serious neglect of duty."
CA also noted Belmonte's letter was endorsed by Pagdilao's subordinate to concerned police units.
Additionally, CA said former NCRPO chief is not liable under doctrine of command responsibility for bungled drug cases because it was not proven he had knowledge of these irregularities.
CA also cleared Pagdilao of serious irregularity in performance of duty, saying police personnel who had derogatory records had served their administrative sanctions and were on active duty. Therefore they could be assigned as he saw fit.
CA disagreed with Office of the Solicitor General's position that police personnel with derogatory records should not be involved in anti-illegal drug operations, saying that having derogatory record does not automatically mean police officer no longer has trustworthiness, integrity, responsibility and expertise.
No comments:
Post a Comment