Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-22355 September 30, 1969
ANTOLIN GALENO, petitioner-appellant,
vs.
REINERIO TICAO in his capacity as Mayor of the City of Iloilo, respondent-appellee.
German M. Lopez for petitioner-appellant.
Acting City Fiscal Alfredo R. Illenberger and Special Counsel Raymundo Magat for respondent-appellee.
ZALDIVAR, J.:
Appeal from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, Judge F. Imperial Reyes, presiding, in Civil Case No. 6215, dismissing the petition for mandamus, filed by petitioner-appellant Antolin Galeno against respondent-appelle Mayor Reinerio Ticao of the City of Iloilo to compel the latter to prefer administrative charges before the City Board against a captain of detectives in the police force of the City.
The facts are undisputed. On October 16, 1962, petitioner Antolin Galeno sent a letter to the City Board of the City of Iloilo, complaining against Detective Captain Emeterio Verde, charging him with grave misconduct as a police officer in connection with an incident between them which occurred in the afternoon of October 8, 1962. The letter was not under oath, nor was it accompanied by any sworn statement. A copy of that letter was furnished respondent City Mayor. The City Board of Iloilo, by resolution, furnished a copy of the letter to respondent City Mayor "requesting appropriate action." On November 1, 1962, respondent City Mayor endorsed the letter to the City of Police of the City of Iloilo, with instructions that Captain Rafael D. Lavente, Chief of the Patrol Division and Legal Officer of the Police Department of the City conduct an investigation on the complaint contained in said letter. After conducting the corresponding investigation, Captain Rafael D. Lavente submitted, through the Chief of Police, to respondent Mayor a report, dated November 6, 1962, recommending dismissal of the complaint.
On November 27, 1962, petitioner wrote an amended letter-complaint, addressed to respondent Mayor, reiterating the same allegations contained in his letter to the City Board of October 16, 1962. This time petitioner's amended letter was under oath but, like his former letter-complaint, it was not accompanied by any sworn statement. On November 28, 1962 respondent Mayor answered petitioner, attaching therewith a copy of the report submitted by Captain Rafael D. Lavente.
On November 29, 1962, Attorney German Lopez, in behalf of the petitioner, wrote a letter to respondent Mayor questioning the propriety of respondent's action in endorsing petitioner's letter-complaint to the Legal Officer of the Iloilo City Police Department for investigation, instead of endorsing same to the City Board; and at the same time complaining that petitioner was not given a chance to be heard by Captain Lavente. Atty. Lopez requested respondent Mayor to prefer administrative charges against Detective Captain Emeterio Verde before the City Board, on the basis of petitioner's letter-complaint of October 16, 1962 and his sworn amended letter-complaint of November 27, 1962.
The record shows that on October 8, 1962, petitioner Antolin Galeno filed a complaint with the Office of the City Fiscal of Iloilo against Detective Captain Emeterio Verde for threats and slander in connection with the same incident which was the basis of his complaint against the same police officer, as stated in his letter-complaint of October 16, 1962 to the City Board and of his amended letter-complaint of November 27, 1962 address to respondent City Mayor. It appears that after due investigation Assistant City Fiscal Vicente P. Gengos dismissed the complaint for insufficiency of evidence.
On December 10, 1962 respondent Mayor answered the letter of Atty. Lopez of November 29, 1962, stating "that no administrative case against any member of the Iloilo City Police Force can be filed without ascertaining the truth of the complaint, unless said member of the police force had been accused in court of any felony or violation of law." Respondent Mayor further stated, in bolstering his refusal to prefer charges against Detective Captain Verde, that he had been informed that Fiscal Vicente Gengos dismissed the criminal complaint against Captain Emeterio Verde after conducting a preliminary investigation, and added: "Under the present circumstances the undersigned cannot file said administrative case considering that the Office of the Chief of Police of the City of Iloilo had submitted an investigation report recommending dismissal of said charge."
In view of the refusal of respondent Mayor to file the administrative charges, petitioner filed, on January 22, 1963, before the Court of First Instance of Iloilo a petition for mandamus, alleging refusal of respondent Mayor to perform a "ministerial duty" to prefer charges with the Municipal Board of Iloilo City against the said Detective Captain Emeterio Verde in spite of the demands made on him by the petitioner, to the damage and prejudice of the latter. The petition prayed that respondent Mayor be ordered to prefer charges with, or endorse the sworn letter-complaint of November 27, 1962 of petitioner to the City Board of Iloilo City for its appropriate action in accordance with law to pay petitioner the sum of P3,000.00 for moral damages, P500.00 for attorney's fees and the costs of the suit.
After hearing, the trial court, on November 20, 1963, rendered a decision dismissing the petition. Hence, this appeal.
The question to be resolved in this case is: Under Section 1 of Republic Act 557, upon the mere filing by any person or entity with the city mayor of a complaint against a city police officer, is it the mandatory duty of the city mayor to prefer charges against the police officer with the city council?
We rule that it is not mandatory, and so mandamus will not lie to compel the city mayor to prefer the charges against a police officer with the city council. We fully concur with the view of the learned trial judge when he resolved this question, as follows:.1awphîl.nèt
En apoyo de la solicitud, la representacion del solicitante sostiene que, despues de recibir las dos cartas del solicitante (Exhs. A y C), el recurrido tenia el deber ministerial de formular cargos contra el secreta Emeterio Verde. La del recurrido sostiene lo contrario — que el recurrido tiene discrecion de formular cargos o no, dependiendo de si hay pruebas o no para establecer dichos cargos.
Despues de estudiadas las pruebas en autos, el Juzgado encuentra que la pretension del solicitante es insostenible.
Antes de la aprobacion de la Ley No. 557 de la Republica, el Art. 2272 del Codigo Administrativo Revisado, que habla de la presentacion de cargos contra un policia y de la investigacion de dichos cargos, dice lo siguiente:
Section 2272. Members of the municipal police shall not be removed and, except in cases of resignation, shall not be discharged except for misconduct or incompetency, dishonesty, disloyalty to the Philippine government, serious irregularities in the performance of their duties, and violation of law or duty and in such cases charges shall be preferred under oath by the mayor or by any other person and investigated by the municipal council, or a committee of three councilor, designated for said purpose by a majority of the council, in public hearing and the accused shall be given opportunity to make their defense. (Emphasis ours)
El Art. 1 de la Ley No. 557 de la Republica, que ahora habla de la presentacion de cargos contra un policia y de su investigacion, reza como sigue:
"Members of the provincial guards, city police and municipal police shall not be removed and, except in cases of resignation shall not be discharged, except for misconduct or incompetency, dishonesty, disloyalty to the Philippine government, serious irregularities in the performance of their duties, and violation of law or duty, and in such cases charges shall be preferred by the provincial governor in matters against any member of the provincial guards the city mayor in cases against a member of the city police, and the municipal mayor in cases involving a member of the municipal police, and investigated by the provincial board, the city or municipal council, as the case may be, in public hearing, and the accused shall be given opportunity to make their defense." (Emphasis ours)
Mientras segun el Art. 2272 del Codigo Administrativo Revisado cualquier ciudadano podia formular cargos contra un policia, esta facultad, conferida a un ciudadano cualquiera fue omitida en la disposicion del Art. 1 de la Ley No. 557 de la Republica. Tal omision es significativa. Al omitir en la disposicion del Art. 1 de la Ley No. 557 de la Republica la facultad de un ciudadano cualquiera de formular cargos contra un policia, el Congreso, indudablemente, ha tratado de librar a un policia de la molestia de tener que afrontar cargos maliciosos, arbitrarios y sin meritos. Si esto es asi, no puede sostenerse con razon que el recurrido, a mera peticion de un ciudadano, esta obligado a formular cargos contra el secreta Emeterio Verde sin cerciorarse siquiera de si la peticion o queja es meritoria o no. Ademas, no puede concebirse que, al aprobar la Ley No. 557 de la Republica, el Congreso ha tratado de convertir a un Alcalde, sobretodo de un Alcalde de una Ciudad, como lo es el recurrido, como un mero instrumento de un ciudadano.
Del lenguaje usado en la redaccion del Art. 1 de la Ley No. 557 de la Republica, no puede decirse que, previa peticion simple de un ciudadano cualquiera, un Alcalde tiene la obligacion ministerial de formular cargos contra un policia, a peticion de un ciudadano, sin certiorari se siquiera de si dichos cargos son a no meritorios.
Ademas, consultado sobre si el formular cargo contra un policia, a peticion de un ciudadano, es mandatorio o discrecional de parte de un Alcalde, la oficina del "Head, Local Governments and Civil Affairs Office, Office of the President, Malacañang, Manila," que tiene supervision por no decir control de los gobiernos locales, en su endoso de fecha 26 de Abril de 1963, dijo lo siguiente:
x x x x x x x x x
"As to whether a City Mayor should file with the Municipal Board a complaint against a member of the city police is for him to decide as he is vested exclusively by Republic Act No. 557 with such discretion."
A juzgar por dicha opinion, el Alcalde tiene discrecion de formular cargos a no contra un policia.
De las pruebas en autos es aparente que el recurrido se nego a formular cargos contra el secretara Emeterio Verde por que el Capitan Rafael D. Lavente, recomendo el sobreseimiento de la quieja del solicitante contenida en su primera carta (Exh. A) como resultado de su investigacion practicada (Exh. 6) y tambien porque la oficina del Fiscal de la Ciudad donde el solicitante habia acudido para que se incoaran causas criminales contra el secreta Emeterio Verde como resultado del mismo incidente de la tarde del 8 de Octubre de 1962, objeto de las dos cartas tantas veces mencionadas del solicitante (Exhs. A y C), tambien se nego a tomar accion, por falta de pruebas, contra dicho secreta.
Como ya se dijo arriba, despues de recibir las dos cartas del recurrido, una de fecha 28 de Noviembre de 1962, dirigida al solicitante (Exh. 2), y otra de fecha 10 de Diciembre de 1962, dirigida al abogado Sr. Lopez (G), en representacion del solicitante (Exh. 3), la presente solicitud de mandamus fue incoada sin que el solicitante haya acudido al "Head, Local Governments and Civil Affairs Office, Office of the President, Malacañang, Manila," lo que decididamente demuestra que el solicitante no ha agotado los remedios administrativos antes de la incoacion de dicha solicitud.
Si bien es verdad que en el parrafo 7 de la solicitud se alega que el solicitante "has no speedy, plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law against the illegal act and neglect of duty on the part of the respondent except by a writ of mandamus," no es menos verdad que en ninguna parte de dicha solicitud se ha alegado que el solicitante ha agotado los remedios administrativos antes de incoar la presents solicitud. No puede decirse, pues que el solicitante "has no speedy, plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law against the illegal act and neglect of duty on the part of the respondent except by a writ of mandamus."
We wish to state, however, that the procedure provided for in Section 1 of Republic Act 557 is not followed any more, because Republic Act 557 has been repealed by Republic Act 4864 known as the Police Act of 1966, which was enacted on September 8, 1966. The new procedure in the matter of preferring charges against police officers and the conduct of the investigation of the charges are now provided in Sections 14 and 15 of said Police Act or 1966, as follows:
SEC. 14. Removal and suspension of members of the Police Force or Agency. — Members of the local police agency shall not be suspended or removed except upon written complaint filed under oath with the Board of Investigators herein provided for misconduct or incompetency, dishonesty, disloyalty to the Government, serious irregularities in the performance of their duties, and violation of law.
SEC. 15. Board of Investigators. — In every local police agency there shall be a Board of Investigators. Charges against any member of the city and/or municipal police agency shall be investigated by a Board of Investigators of three member composed of the city or municipal treasurer as chairman, a representative of the Provincial Commander, and a councilor, elected by a majority of the city or municipal council concerned, as members.
Copy of the charges shall be furnished the respondent by the Chairman of the Board of Investigators within five days from the date of filing of said charges, and the respondent shall answer within five days from receipt thereof. The Board of Investigators shall conduct its investigation in public within five days from receipt of respondent's answer to the charges or from the expiration of respondent's period to answer, whichever is earlier and unless for good cause shown the investigation shall be finished within thirty days thereafter and the Board shall submit the records of the investigation, its findings and recommendations to the Police Commission within thirty days after the termination of the investigation. The decision of the Police Commission shall be final from the time of receipt of the findings of the Board. Disciplinary jurisdiction of offenses involving suspension of not more than ten days or forfeiture of not more than fifteen days' pay is vested in the chief of the police agency concerned whose decision shall be final.
We affirm the decision appealed from, but We declare that the ruling embodied therein regarding the preferment of charges against a police officer may now be considered academic because of the repeal of Republic Act 557 by Republic Act 4864 known as the Police Act of 1966. Costs against the petitioner-appellant. It is so ordered.
Concepcion, C.J., Dizon, Makalintal, Sanchez, Castro, Fernando, Capistrano, Teehankee and Barredo, JJ., concur.
Reyes, J.B.L., J., is on leave.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
