Republic of the Philippines

Court of Appeals
Manila

TENTH (10th) DIVISION

PO3* ALLAN C. CA-G.R. SP NO. 158591

TORREGOSA and PO1
ROLLIE V. BALENA, Members:
Petitioners,
GONZALES-SISON, M.B.,
Chairperson,
PEREZ, P.A., and
-versus- **
ONG, W.S., JJ.

Promulgated:
OFFICE OF THE
OMBUDSMAN, MIRADEL AUGUST 24, 2020
FRANCISCO-MODRIGO,
Respondents.

DECISION

PEREZ, J.:

By Petition for Review1 under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court,

petitioners PO3 Allan C. Torregosa (PO3 Torregosa) and
PO1_Rollie V. Balena (PO1 Balena) plead for Us to review and
reverse the February 28, 2017 Joint_Resolution2 of the Office of
the Ombudsman in OMB-P-C-15-0555 and OMB-P-A-15-0645,
finding petitioners administratively guilty of Grave Misconduct for
shooting to death detainee Mercury H. Modrigo, Jr. (Modrigo)
while in police transport, for which they were meted the penalty of
dismissal from the service with the applicable accessory penalties.

Also challenged is the Office of the Ombudsman's Joint

Order3 dated April_17, 2018, denying petitioners' subsequent
motion for reconsideration.4

*
Reffered to as SPO1 Allan C. Torregosa in the Petition for Review.
**
Acting Third Member, per Office Order No. 181-20-RSF dated July 23, 2020.
1
Rollo, pp. 3-14.
2
Ibid., pp. 124-136.
3
Ibid., pp. 171-175.
4
Ibid., pp. 137-150.
CA-G.R. SP NO. 158591 Page 2 of 14
DECISION

The Antecedents

On the evening of August 12, 2015, members of the Station

Anti-Illegal Drug/Special Operation Task Group (SAID-SOTG) of
the Navotas City Police Station conducted anti-illegal drug
surveillance5 at Barangay Northbay Boulevard-North, Navotas
City.

In the course of three (3) separate operations that night, the

SAID-SOTG arrested Modrigo6 and seven (7) other individuals for
illegal possession of dangerous drugs. All the suspects were
initially brought to the police station for booking 7 but were later
escorted to the Valenzuela City Satellite Office Crime Laboratory
for drug testing.8

At 3:30 in the morning of the next day on August 13, 2015,

the officers returned with Modrigo and the other suspects to the
Navotas City Police Station aboard two police vehicles. Petitioners
claimed that when police escort PO1 Rolando Cruz (PO1 Cruz)
was about to alight from one of the vehicles, Modrigo, who was in
handcuffs, allegedly kicked PO1 Cruz and grabbed the latter's
Glock 17 - 9mm service pistol with Serial No. PNP 07863. While
PO1 Cruz and Modrigo grappled for the possession of the firearm,
the gun allegedly accidentally went off hitting the ceiling of the
police vehicle.9 Sensing danger, PO1_Balena, who was seated on
the front passenger side, and PO3_Torregosa, who had already
alighted, opened fire at Modrigo hitting him in different parts of
the body.10 The Navotas City Hospital declared Modrigo dead on
arrival.11

As a result of Modrigo's killing, his widow private

respondent Miradel Franciso-Modrigo (Miradel), filed a
complaint against several Navotas City police officers, including
PO1 Balena and PO3 Torregosa, for Murder, Robbery in Band,
5
Rollo, p. 68, (Coordination Form/Sheet dated August 12, 2015); p. 63, (Pre-Operation Report dated
August 12, 2015); p. 71, (Police Blotter Entry No. 1574 dated August 12, 2015); p. 72.
6
Ibid., pp. 57-58, (PO1 Rollie Balena and PO1 Rolando Cruz's Joint Affidavit of Arrest dated August 14,
2015).
7
Ibid., pp. 72-73, (Police Blotter Entry No. 1575 dated August 12, 2015).
8
Ibid., p. 63, (Chemistry Report Number DT-631 to 638-2015 dated August 13, 2015).
9
Ibid., pp. 152-153, (Xerox copies of photographs of the damaged police car).
10
Ibid., p. 74, (Memorandum dated August 13, 2015).
11
Ibid., p. 75, (Medical Certificate dated October 21, 2015).
CA-G.R. SP NO. 158591 Page 3 of 14
DECISION

Perjury, and Dereliction of Duties before the Office of the

Ombudsman (OMB).12

In their Joint Counter-Affidavit13 dated November 11, 2015,

petitioners, among others, justified Modrigo's shooting as defense
of a stranger and the lawful performance of official duty.

They argued that the use of deadly force on Modrigo, who

was a suspect in the unrelated death of PO1 Julius Mendoza (PO1
Mendoza) on April 13, 2015,14 was justified after he had wrested
control of PO1 Cruz's service firearm thus putting their lives in
danger. Petitioners averred that Modrigo was hell-bent in
escaping police custody, presenting as proof the sworn statement 15
of a certain Freddie Bacsal, a detention prisoner at the Navotas
City Police Station Detention Cell at the same time as Modrigo,
and who allegedly overheard Modrigo hatching an escape plan
with another prisoner.

On February 28, 2017, the OMB rendered its Joint

Resolution16 finding probable cause to charge petitioners PO3
Torregosa and PO1 Balena with murder in OMB-P-C-15-0555 and
of Grave Misconduct in OMB -P-A-15-0645.

The fallo of the OMB's February 28, 2017 Joint Resolution

reads:

“WHEREFORE, the Office resolves as follows:

1. For lack of sufficient evidence, the herein criminal and

administrative charges against respondents P/SSUPT.
ROMEO RAZON UY, P/INSP. NOLI DE GUZMAN
a.k.a PO1 NOLI ACOSTA DE GUZMAN, PO2
JOSE S. JAVIER a.k.a. PO2 JOEL SALUGAO
JAVIER, PO2 JONNEL BARROCABOC a.k.a. PO2
JONNEL VALENCIA BARROCABOC, PO1
ROLANDO M. CRUZ a.k.a. PO1 ROLANDO
MORCELOS CRUZ, PO1 JAY-R MAWIIT a.k.a.
PO1 JAY-AR BONGNAL MAWIIT and PO1
FRANCIS MABAO a.k.a. PO1 FRANCIS
CERDEÑA MABAO are hereby DISMISSED.
12
Rollo, pp. 15-25, (Complaint-Affidavit dated September 10, 2015).
13
Ibid., pp. 43-48.
14
Ibid., pp. 78-80, (Referral to the Inquest Prosecutor dated April 14, 2015).
15
Ibid., p. 81, (Salaysay dated August 14, 2015).
16
Ibid., pp. 124-136.
CA-G.R. SP NO. 158591 Page 4 of 14
DECISION

2. There being probable cause, it is respectfully

recommended that an Information for Murder
penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code
be FILED against respondents PO3 ALLAN
TORREGOZA, a.k.a. PO3 ALLAN CAÑARES
TORREGOSA and PO1 ROLLIE BALEÑA a.k.a.
PO1 ROLLIE BALENA before the appropriate court;
and

3. There being substantial evidence, respondents PO3

ALLAN TORREGOZA, a.k.a. PO3 ALLAN
CAÑARES TORREGOSA and PO1 ROLLIE
BALEÑA a.k.a. PO1 ROLLIE BALENA are hereby
found GUILTY of GRAVE MISCONDUCT and
meted the penalty of DISMISSAL FROM THE
SERVICE with the accesorry penalties of cancellation
of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits and
disqualification from reemployment in the government
service. If the penalty of dismissal can no longer be
served by reason of separation from the service, the
alternative penalty of FINE equivalent to their salary
for ONE (1) YEAR shall be imposed, payable to this
office and shall be deducted from their retirement or
separation benefits, accrued leave credits or any
receivable from their office.

Let a copy of this Joint Resolution be furnished the

Secretary, Department of the Interior and Local Government
and the Chief, Philippine National Police, for appropriate action
and implementation.

SO ORDERED.”17

After the OMB denied petitioners' motion for

18 19
reconsideration in its Joint Order dated April 17, 2018, they
filed the instant petition questioning the administrative finding of
grave misconduct against them in OMB-P-A-15-0645.

Petitioners raise this sole issue:

“WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE OFFICE OF

THE OMBUDSMAN COMMITTED ERRORS IN THE

17
Rollo, pp. 133-134.
18
Ibid., pp. 137-150, (Respectful Motion for Reconsideration dated April 10, 2018).
19
Ibid., pp. 171-175.
CA-G.R. SP NO. 158591 Page 5 of 14
DECISION

APPRECIATION OF FACTS AND THE APPLICABLE LAW

IN RENDERING THE ASSAILED ORDER.”20

The Ruling of the Court

The petition lacks merit.

The general rule is that in a petition for review under Rule

43 of the Rules of Court, the factual findings made by the court or
agency concerned, when supported by substantial evidence, shall
be binding on this Court.21 Substantial evidence is such relevant
evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
support a conclusion, even if other minds equally reasonable
might conceivably opine otherwise.22 Substantial evidence need
not be overwhelming or even preponderant. 23 Administrative
bodies and quasi-judicial agencies possess specialized knowledge
and expertise in their respective fields, thus a review of their
findings is allowed if there is a showing of grave abuse of
discretion, or where it is clearly shown that the findings were
arrived at arbitrarily or in disregard of the evidence on record. 24

Petitioners claim that the shooting of Modrigo was lawful

and there is no evidence to support the administrative charge of
grave misconduct. While petitioners admit shooting Modrigo, they
justify the act as one done in defense of a stranger and in the
lawful performance of duty. Citing PO1 Cruz's Sinumpaang
Salaysay,25 they argue that Modrigo posed an imminent and grave
threat when he successfully grabbed and fired PO1 Cruz's firearm.
To bolster their claim, petitioners submitted the results of a
paraffin test26 showing traces of gunpowder nitrates on Modrigo's
dorsal right hand.

Petitioners' argument is not a conclusion that can be

reasonably made on the basis of the available evidence.
20
Rollo, p. 6.
21
Section 10, Rule 43, Rules of Court.
22
Casimiro vs. Tandog, G.R. No. 146137, June 8, 2005, citing Reyno vs. Manila Electric Company,
G.R._No. 148105, July_22, 2004.
23
Floralde vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 123048, August 8, 2000.
24
Japson vs. CSC, G.R. No. 189479, April 12, 2011.
25
Rollo, p. 163, (Citing PO1 Cruz's Sinumpaang Salaysay dated August 14, 2015).
26
Ibid., p. 165, (Chemistry Report No. C-063-15 dated August 14, 2015).
CA-G.R. SP NO. 158591 Page 6 of 14
DECISION

No Unlawful Aggression.

An act resulting in the death of another shall be justified as

being made in self-defense provided the following circumstances
concur: (a) unlawful aggression; (b)_reasonable necessity of the
means employed to prevent or repel the aggression; and, (c) lack of
sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.27

As People vs. Fontanilla28 stressed, an indispensable

requisite in self-defense is the unlawful aggression mounted by
the victim, with the accused merely reacting with reasonable and
proportional force to protect himself, his family or a stranger.
Without such unlawful aggression, the accused cannot invoke self-
defense to justify the victim's death at his hands. People vs.
Fontanilla elaborates:

“Unlawful aggression on the part of the victim is the

primordial element of the justifying circumstance of self-defense.
Without unlawful aggression, there can be no justified killing in
defense of oneself. The test for the presence of unlawful
aggression under the circumstances is whether the aggression
from the victim put in real peril the life or personal safety of the
person defending himself; the peril must not be an imagined or
imaginary threat. Accordingly, the accused must establish the
concurrence of three elements of unlawful aggression, namely:
(a) there must be a physical or material attack or assault; (b) the
attack or assault must be actual, or, at least, imminent; and (c)
the attack or assault must be unlawful.”

Such agression may be actual or material, or imminent or

impending, but not merely threatened or feared:

“Unlawful aggression is of two kinds: (a) actual or

material unlawful aggression; and (b) imminent unlawful
aggression. Actual or material unlawful aggression means an
attack with physical force or with a weapon, an offensive act that
positively determines the intent of the aggressor to cause the
injury. Imminent unlawful aggression means an attack
that is impending or at the point of happening; it must
not consist in a mere threatening attitude, nor must it be
merely imaginary, but must be offensive and positively
strong (like aiming a revolver at another with intent to
shoot or opening a knife and making a motion as if to
27
Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code.
28
G.R. No. 177743, January 25, 2012.
CA-G.R. SP NO. 158591 Page 7 of 14
DECISION

attack). Imminent unlawful aggression must not be a mere

threatening attitude of the victim, such as pressing his right
hand to his hip where a revolver was holstered, accompanied by
an angry countenance, or like aiming to throw a pot.”
(Citation Omitted; Emphasis Ours)

In finding petitioners guilty of grave misconduct, the OMB

concluded that at the time of Modrigo's shooting, Modrigo was at
the back seat of a police vehicle and in restraints, and while
Modrigo allegedly tried to acquire the service firearm of his escort,
he did not acquire control29 of PO1 Cruz's firearm in the ensuing
scuffle. The evidence does not corroborate the claim that Modrigo
had successfully wrested the firearm from his escort and was able
to aim30 the firearm at the police officers to justify the multiple
shots fired at him.

First, PO1 Cruz in his Sinumpaang Salaysay31 belies that

Modrigo gained control of his firearm, viz.:

xxx
“Na, matapos noon at habang kami ay sumapit na sa
compound ng Navotas Police Station. Na [sic] matatagpuan sa
M. Naval St., Bgy Sipac almasen Navotas City. [sic] at habang
ako ay naghihintay ng aking pagkakataon upang alalayan ang
isang Suspect detainee na aking nakilala na si MERCURY
MODRIGO Jr Y HABAÑA alyas @Jay-ar 28 years old, single and
resident of Pier 1 PFDA, Bgy North Bay Boulevard North this
City, [sic] na aking aalalayan at habang ako ay pababa na sa
aking gawing kinaluluguran sa loob ng M-001 Mobile Patrol
Unit sasakyan ay mangyaring tadyakan sa aking gawing kanan
bewang at matapos noon ay mabilis niyang inagaw ang aking
service firearm na isang Gloc [sic] 17 with SN# PNP07863 na
nakalagay sa aking bewang at matapos noon ay agad kaming
nag agawan sa control nito upang hindi niya ito tuluyang
magamit laban sa amin.

Na, sa aming pag aagawan nito (firearm) ay makailang

beses itong pumutok paitaas at pababa at sa puntong iyon sa
aking mga kasamahan na si PO1 ROLLIE BALEÑA ay
nagtangakang [sic] ako ay tulungan ngunit sya ay nasugatan sa
kanyang pagtatangka, at nang ako ay nagagapi na ni
Mercury (suspect) ay napilitan siyang paputukan na ito
at ang pangyayaring iyon ay hindi na lingid sa kaalaman
29
Rollo, p. 128, (page 5 of the OMB's Joint Resolution dated February 28, 2017).
30
Ibid., p. 132, (page 9 of the OMB's Joint Resolution dated February 28, 2017).
31
Ibid., p. 163.
CA-G.R. SP NO. 158591 Page 8 of 14
DECISION

ni PO3 Allan Toregosa [sic] na nag paputok din ng

kanyang service firearm.”
xxx
(Emphasis Ours)

Second, the August 13, 2015 Memorandum32 (Subject: Spot

Report) of the PNP on-case investigator on Modrigo's shooting
death did not conclude that PO1 Cruz lost control of his firearm
and Modrigo had control of said firearm when he was shot by
petitioners, viz.:

xxx
“1. At about 3:30 AM August 13, 2015 in front of Navotas
City Police Station Headquarters located along M. Naval St.,
Bgy Sipac Almacen Navotas City, after combined elements of
SAID-SOU, Follow-Up, Section and Station Intelligence Unit
accompanied eight (8) suspects who were earlier arrested for
Violation of RA 9165 and were subjected for Drug Testing
Examination at Valenzuela NPDO-CLO, on board M-304 and M-
001. Suspects from M-001 alighted and one (1) of them identified
as MERCURY MODRIGO Jr Y HABAÑA alyas @Jay-ar 28 years
old, single and resident of Pier 1 PFDA, Bgy North Bay
Boulevard North this City [sic] grabbed the service firearm of
PO1 ROLANDO CRUZ, who was then about to alight the police
mobile car, and upon opening the car's door suspect
apparently kicked him and grabbed his service pistol, one
(1) Gloc [sic] 17 9mm pistol with serial No# [sic] PNP07863,
a scuffled [sic] ensued between the suspect and the cited
Police Officer. During the scuffle for the possession of
said firearm same [sic] accidentally went off hitting the
ceiling of the car. At that moment PO2 [sic] ROLLIE
BALEÑA [sic] who was then seated in front of the
passenger side and PO3 ALLAN TOREGOSA [sic] who was
[sic] already alighted the said vehicle and witnessed the
incident, sensing danger on the life of PO1 ROLANDO
CRUZ, and had no other options but to fire the suspect,
hitting the latter on his body.”
xxx
(Emphasis Ours)

PO1 Cruz's Sinumpaang Salaysay and the PNP's

Memorandum (Subject: Spot Report) uniformly conclude that
when Modrigo attempted a grab of PO1 Cruz' firearm while in

32
Rollo, p. 74.
CA-G.R. SP NO. 158591 Page 9 of 14
DECISION

handcuffs, the latter and Modrigo wrestled for control of the

firearm during which the gun was accidentally fired.

The positive paraffin test result on Modrigo's dorsal right

hand does not establish that Modrigo gained control of and fired
PO1 Cruz's firearm at petitioners. For one, People vs. Pascua, Jr.33
reiterates that juriprudence has consistently held paraffin tests as
unreliable. For another, the available proof that in the course of
Modrigo grappling for PO1 Cruz' weapon, the gun was fired
several times.

As the party claiming a justifying circumstance, petitioners'

defense must rise on its own merit. Velasquez vs. People34
underscores that when an accused admits harming the victim but
invokes self-defense to escape criminal liability, the accused
assumes the burden to establish his plea by credible, clear and
convincing evidence; otherwise, conviction would follow from his
admission that he harmed the victim. Indeed, in invoking self-
defense, the burden of evidence is shifted and the accused
claiming self-defense must rely on the strength of his own
evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution.

Third, there is serious doubt as to the veracity of petitioners'

claim that Modrigo's death occurred in his attempt to escape
police custody. At the time of the shooting, Modrigo and the other
detainees and their escort police officers had just returned to the
Navotas City Police Station, where there were at least four (4)
other police officers.

Petitioners alleged that Modrigo was cuffed with his hands

in front of him , thus he was able to grab PO1 Cruz's firearm.
If this is true, they violated Rule 20.3(b) 35 of the Revised
Philippine National Police Operational Procedures36 (RPNPOP)

33
G.R. No. 130963, November 27, 2001.
34
G.R. No. 195021, March 15, 2017, citing Belbis vs. People, G.R. No. 181052, November 14, 2012,
citing People vs. Tagana, G.R. No. 133027, March 4, 2004 and Marzonia vs. People, G.R. No. 153794,
June 26, 2006.
35
20.3 Transporting Detention Prisoner
xxx
b. If transported by a patrol car, subject must be seated on the right rear seat and the PNP escort
personnel shall sit on the left rear seat. Hands of the subject should be secured by handcuffs under his
knees.
36
Philippine National Police Handbook (PNPM-DO-DS-3-2-13), December 2013.
CA-G.R. SP NO. 158591 Page 10 of 14
DECISION

which requires the “hands of detention prisoners in transport to

be secured by handcuffs under the knees” precisely to obviate
these “nang-agaw ng baril” incidents.

In their Joint-Counter Affidavit,37 petitioners declared that

Modrigo is a suspected cop-killer38 who with others killed a certain
PO1_Mendoza at the Sampaloc fish port area on April 13, 2015. If
so, with more reason that the police escorts should have made
certain of the proper restraints on Modrigo's person.

Unreasonable Necessity of the Means

Employed to Repel the Aggression.

In repelling unlawful agression, the accused is required to

exert only such means and force reasonably necessary to defend
against the danger. In the performance of their duties, police
officers who find themselves the subject of agression are thus
expected to exercise reasonable force to comply with Rule 7.6 of
the RPNPOP which provides:

“7.6 Factors to Consider in the Reasonableness of the

Force Employed

A police officer, however, is not required to afford

offender/s attacking him the opportunity for a fair or equal
struggle. The reasonableness of the force employed will
depend upon the number of aggressors, nature and
characteristic of the weapon used, physical condition, size
and other circumstances to include the place and occasion of
the assault. The police officer is given the sound discretion to
consider these factors in employing reasonable force.”

Medico Legal Report No. A15-424 39 concludes that Modrigo's

death was caused by “multiple gunshot wounds [to the] head,
trunk and right lower extremity”. Surprisingly however, the same
Report did not detail the exact location and the actual number of
gunshot wounds Modrigo received. Based on the available
accounts of the shooting, it is clearly established that when he
37
Rollo, pp. 43-48.
38
Ibid., pp. 78-80, (Referral to the Inquest Prosecutor dated April 14, 2015).
39
Ibid., p. 34.
CA-G.R. SP NO. 158591 Page 11 of 14
DECISION

was shot, Modrigo was in handcuffs, was grappling with PO1 Cruz
for the latter's firearm, and was at the back of a police transport
vehicle. Under the circumstances, a firing by petitioners of their
firearms at Modrigo does not appear reasonable necessary to
subdue Modrigo without danger to their own persons.

It is beyond cavil that in the performance of duty, a

policeman is justified in using such force as is reasonably
necessary to secure and detain the offender, overcome his
resistance, prevent his escape, recapture him if he escapes, and
protect himself from bodily harm.40 If injury or death results from
the policeman’s exercise of such force, no liability should arise if
such injury or death was the outcome of reasonably necessary
force. In fact, because of the nature of a policeman’s duty and the
risks he assumes, the force exerted by the policeman may differ
from that which ordinarily may be offered in self-defense. 41 All
this having been said, a policeman is however never justified in
using excessive force or in treating the offender with wanton
violence, or in resorting to dangerous means when the arrest could
be affected otherwise.42

No Due Performance of Duty.

Since the killing of Modrigo was not justified and in violation

of the prevailing norms of official conduct of police officers,
petitioners cannot seek safe haven in the performance of lawful
duty as the same has the following requisites: (a) the accused
acted in the performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a
right or office; (b) the injury caused or the offense committed be
the necessary consequence of the due performance of duty or the
lawful exercise of such right or office.43

Grave Misconduct.

Misconduct is a transgression of some established and

definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or

40
People vs. Oanis, G.R. No. L-47722, July 27, 1943, as cited in Cabanlig vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.
148431, July 28, 2005.
41
Cabanlig vs. Sandiganbayan, supra.
42
People vs. Oanis, supra as cited in Cabanlig vs. Sandiganbayan, supra.
43
People vs. Oanis, supra.
CA-G.R. SP NO. 158591 Page 12 of 14
DECISION

gross negligence by the public officer. To warrant dismissal from

the service, the misconduct must be grave, serious, important,
weighty, momentous, and not trifling. The misconduct must imply
wrongful intention and not a mere error of judgment and must
also have a direct relation to and be connected with the
performance of the public officer's official duties amounting either
to maladministration or willful, intentional neglect, or failure to
discharge the duties of the office. Misconduct is considered grave if
accompanied by corruption, a clear intent to violate the law, or a
flagrant disregard of established rules, which must all be
supported by substantial evidence.44

Section 2-C (3-r),45 Rule 21 of the Uniform Rules of

Procedure before the Administrative Disciplinary Authorities and
the Internal Affairs Service of the Philippine National Police 46
treats as grave misconduct the commission by a police officer of
any act that constitutes a crime punishable under the Revised
Penal Code.

Petitioners PO3 Torregosa and PO1 Balena shot Modrigo

while the latter was in their custody multiple times that led to his
demise. The killing of a prisoner when not justified is a crime
punishable under the Revised Penal Code as either murder or
homicide. The OMB thus did not err in finding petitioners guilty
of grave misconduct.

As a final word, when an officer or employee is disciplined,

the object sought is not the punishment of that officer or
employee, but the improvement of the public service and
the preservation of the public's faith and confidence in the
44
Echano, Jr. vs. Toledo, G.R. No. 173930, September 15, 2010; Civil Service Commission vs. Ledesma,
G.R. No. 154521, September 30, 2005, citing Bureau of Internal Revenue vs. Organo, G.R. No. 149549,
February 26, 2004; Castelo vs. Florendo, A.M. No. P-96-1179, October 10, 2003.
45
Section 2. Classification of Offenses. – For purposes of determining jurisdiction and applying the
appropriate penalty, administrative offenses are classified into light, less grave and grave.
xxx
C. GRAVE OFFENSES:
xxx
3) Grave Misconduct – Shall include but not limited to the following:
xxx
r) commit any act or omission that constitutes a crime punishable under the Revised Penal Code or
Special Laws.
46
Memorandum Circular No. 2007-001 issued on March 6, 2007.
CA-G.R. SP NO. 158591 Page 13 of 14
DECISION

government.47 By this decision, no judgment is made with respect

to petitioners' guilt or innocence for the crime of murder for which
they now stand charged. By dismissing this petition, this Court
simply affirms that the challenged finding of the respondent OMB
as to petitioners' administrative liability for grave misconduct is
supported by substantial evidence, thus should be allowed to
stand.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition for review

is_DENIED. The February 28, 2017 Joint_Resolution and
the April_17, 2018 Joint Order of the Office of the Ombudsman
in OMB-P-C-15-0555 and OMB-P-A-15-0645 finding petitioners
PO3 Allan C. Torregosa and PO1_Rollie V. Balena guilty of
GRAVE MISCONDUCT and imposing on them the penalty
of DISMISSAL FROM THE SERVICE with the accessory
penalties of cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement
benefits and disqualification from reemployment in the
government service, is hereby AFFIRMED. If the penalty of
dismissal can no longer be served by reason of separation
from the service, the alternative penalty of FINE equivalent to
their salary for ONE (1) YEAR shall be imposed to this office
and shall be deducted from their retirement or separation
benefits, accrued leave credits or any receivable from their
office.

SO ORDERED.

PABLITO A. PEREZ
Associate Justice

47
Civil Service Commission vs. Cortez, G.R. No. 155732, June 3, 2004, citing Bautista vs. Negado, G.R.
No. L-14319, May_26, 1960.
CA-G.R. SP NO. 158591 Page 14 of 14
DECISION

WE CONCUR:

MARLENE B. GONZALES-SISON
Associate Justice

WALTER S. ONG
Associate Justice

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is

hereby certified that the conclusions in the above decision were
reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer
of the opinion of the Court.

MARLENE B. GONZALES-SISON
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Tenth (10TH) Division