[Admin] | [Proceedings (judicial and administrative) arising from the same 1

facts]
[Digest maker]

Manuel MIRALLES v Hon. Sergio GO, Chair of

National Police Commission and Pablo
Villanueva
[GR NO. 139943] | [18 Jan 2001] | [Panganiban, J.]

FACTS
An administrative complaint was filed before the Office of the Hearing Officer of
NAPOLCOM against petitioner Miralles for Grave M
isconduct
He assaulted, attacked and wounded Patrolman Nilo Resurreccion, with
intent to kill, using firearms. He directed the shots against the vital
parts of the body of Resurreccion and one Ernesto Mercullo which
directly caused the death of the two.
Hearing Officer Rogelio Ringpis submitted his report to NAPOLCOM Chair finding
Miralles guilty of Grave Misconduct (Double Homicide) and recommending his
dismissal from the service.
NAPOLCOM found him guilty and dismissed him from the service, with prejudice
to reinstatement.
Miralles motions for reconsideration was denied both by the Adjudication Board
and Special Appellate Committee of the NAPOLCOM (SAC-NAPOLCOM).
On appeal at the CA, the court ruled that petitioners recourse was premature
because the SAC-NAPOLCOMs decision should have been appealed first before
the CSC pursuant to RA 6975.
Still, his appeal must fail in view of the documents presented and the
eyewitness account testifying that petitioner shot the patrolman. His
claim of self-defense is unsubstantiated.

ISSUE
1. WON the CA has jurisdiction to take cognizance of the case directly elevated
from NAPOLCOM in view of the fact that the decision was rendered before the
effectivity of RA 6975 NO.
2. WON petitioners dismissal from service can be sustained on the basis
of the evidence on record notwithstanding that the same
overwhelmingly supports the dismissal of the administrative charge
against petitioner YES

RATIO
1. WON the CA has jurisdiction to take cognizance of the case directly elevated
from NAPOLCOM in view of the fact that the decision was rendered before the
effectivity of RA 6975 NO.
a. By the time petitioner filed his appeal to the CA, RA 6975 is already in
force. It had already prescribed that appeals from the Decision of NAPOLCOM
should be lodged first with the DILG then the CSC. Since the rule on appeal had
 already been modified at the time he received the assailed Resolution, he
should have followed the modified rule.
b. But this is already moot since CA had decided on the merits.
2. WON petitioners dismissal from service can be sustained on the basis
of the evidence on record notwithstanding that the same
overwhelmingly supports the dismissal of the administrative charge
against petitioner YES.
a. As a rule, administrative agencies factual findings that are affirmed by
the CA are conclusive on the parties and not reviewable by the Court. Petitioner
now asks that the SC review the ruling of the NAPOLCOM hearing officer, the
Adjudication Baord, the SAC and the CA all finding him administratively liable for
killing Resureccion and Merculio.
b. The documentary evidences heavily relied on by SAC-NAPOLCOM are
public documents consisting of reports made by government officials in the
performance of their functions. They are prima facie evidence of the facts
stated.
c. Alejandro Lamsen had readily identified and pointed to petitioner as the
shooter and killer. His recantation was not made on cross-examination but was
done when he appeared as a witness for the defense. His testimony was
stricken off the records for he never appeared for cross-examination.
d. Petitioners claim of self-defense is devoid of any credit. It was not
supported by strong and convincing evidence required in proving self-defense.
e. Petitioners argument that the QC RTCs dismissal of the
criminal case for homicide instituted against him was conclusive of his
evidence is bereft of merit. An administrative proceeding is different
from a criminal case and may proceed independently thereof. The
quantum of proof is different, such that the verdict in one need not
necessarily be the same as in the other.
f. A finding of guilt in the criminal case will not necessarily result
in a finding of liability in the administrative case. Conversely,
respondents acquittal does not necessarily exculpate him
administratively. The trial courts finding of civil liability against the
respondent will not inexorable lead to a similar finding in the
administrative action before the Court. The basic premise is that
criminal and civil cases are altogether different from administrative
matters, such that the disposition in the first two will not inevitable
govern the third and vice versa.

DECISION
Petition denied. CA decision affirmed.