ISHMAEL HIMAGAN,

petitioner, vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and HON. JUDGE HILARIOMAPAYO, RTC, Br. 11, Davao City,
respondents.
G.R. No. 113811 October 7, 1994
“Equal

Protection”

–
Suspension of PNP Members Charged withGrave Felonies

FACTS:
Himagan is a policeman assigned in Camp Catititgan, DavaoCity. He was charged for the murder of Benjamin
Machitar Jr and for
the attempted murder of Benjamin’s younger brother, Barnabe.
Pursuant to Sec 47 of RA 6975, Himagan was placed into suspension pending th
e murder case. The law provides that “Upon the filing of a
complaint or information sufficient in form and substance against amember of the PNP for grave felonies where
the penalty imposed bylaw is six (6) years and one (1) day or more, the court shallimmediately suspend the accused from office
until the case isterminated
. Such case shall be subject to continuous trial and shall beterminated within ninety (90) days from arraignment of
the accused.Himagan assailed the suspension averring that Sec 42 of PD 807 ofthe Civil Service Decree, that his
suspension should be limited toninety (90) days. He claims that an imposition of preventivesuspension of over 90
days is contrary to the Civil Service Law andwould be a violation of his constitutional right to equal protection oflaws.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Sec 47, RA 6975 violates equal protectionguaranteed by the Constitution.
HELD:
The language of the first sentence of Sec 47 of RA 6975 isclear, plain and free from ambiguity. It gives no other
meaning thanthat the suspension from office of the member of the PNP chargedwith grave offense where the penalty is
six years and one day ormore shall last until the termination of the case. The suspensioncannot be lifted before the
termination of the case. The secondsentence of the same Section providing that the trial must beterminated
within ninety (90) days from arraignment does not qualifyor limit the first sentence. The two can stand independently of
eachother.
The first refers to the period of suspension. The second dealswith the time from within which the trial
should be finished.

The reason why members of the PNP are treated differently from theother classes of persons charged
criminally or administrativelyinsofar as the application of the rule on preventive suspension isconcerned
is that policemen carry weapons and the badge of the lawwhich can be used to harass or intimidate
witnesses against them, assuccinctly brought out in the legislative discussions.If a suspended policeman
criminally charged with a serious offenseis reinstated to his post while his case is pending, his victim and thewitnesses against
him are obviously exposed to constant threat andthus easily cowed to silence by the mere fact that the accused is
inuniform and armed. The imposition of preventive suspension forover 90 days under Sec 47 of RA 6975 does
not violate the
suspended policeman’s constitutional right to equal protection of the
laws.Supposing the trial is not terminated w/in 90 days from arraignment,the suspension of accused should NOT be lifted.
While the law uses
the mandatory word “shall” before the phrase “be terminated withinninety (90) days”,
there is nothing in RA 6975 that suggests thatthe preventive suspension of the accused will be lifted
if the trialis not terminated within that period
. Nonetheless, the Judge whofails to decide the case within the period without justifiable reasonmay be subject to
administrative sanctions and, in appropriate caseswhere the facts so warrant, to criminal or
civil liability. If the trialis unreasonably delayed without fault of the accused such that he isdeprived of his right to a speedy
trial, he is not without a remedy. Hemay ask for the dismissal of the case. Should the court refuse todismiss the
case, the accused can compel its dismissal by certiorari, prohibition or mandamus, or secure his liberty by
habeas corpus.
The equal protection clause does not absolutely forbid classifications, such as the one whichexists in the
instant case. If the classification is based on real and substantial differences; isgermane to the purpose of
the law;

applies to all members of the sameclass; and applies to current as well as future conditions, the
classification may not beimpugned as violating the Constitution's equal protection guarantee.

“Equal Protection” – Suspension of PNP Members Charged with Grave Felonies

FACTS: Himagan is a policeman assigned in Camp Catititgan, Davao City. He was charged for
the murder of and attempted murder. Pursuant to Sec 47 of RA 6975, Himagan was placed into
suspension pending the murder case. The law provides that “Upon the filing of a complaint or
information sufficient in form and substance against a member of the PNP for grave felonies
where the penalty imposed by law is six (6) years and one (1) day or more, the court shall
immediately suspend the accused from office until the case is terminated. Such case shall be
subject to continuous trial and shall be terminated within ninety (90) days from arraignment of
the accused. Himagan assailed the suspension averring that Sec 42 of PD 807 of the Civil Service
Decree, that his suspension should be limited to ninety (90) days. He claims that an imposition
of preventive suspension of over 90 days is contrary to the Civil Service Law and would be a
violation of his constitutional right to equal protection of laws.

ISSUE: Whether or not Sec 47, RA 6975 violates equal protection guaranteed by the Constitution.

HELD: No. The reason why members of the PNP are treated differently from the other classes
of persons charged criminally or administratively insofar as the application of the rule on
preventive suspension is concerned is that policemen carry weapons and the badge of the law
which can be used to harass or intimidate witnesses against them, as succinctly brought out in
the legislative discussions. If a suspended policeman criminally charged with a serious offense is
reinstated to his post while his case is pending, his victim and the witnesses against him are
obviously exposed to constant threat and thus easily cowed to silence by the mere fact that the
accused is in uniform and armed. The imposition of preventive suspension for over 90 days under
Sec 47 of RA 6975 does not violate the suspended policeman’s constitutional right to equal
protection of the laws.