Republic of the Philippines

NATIONAL POLICE COMMISSION

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE
POLICE REGIONAL OFFICE 3
OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR
Camp Captain Julian Olivas, City of San Fernando, Pampanga

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE,

Complainant, Admin Case No.
PRO3-RHQ-RHSG-2017-0048
-versus- For: Grave Neglect of Duty
(555 days AWOL)

PO1 Francis P Macam,

Respondent.
x------------------------------------------x

RESOLUTION

This resolves the Motion for Reconsideration (MR) filed by PO1 Francis P
Macam (Movant), assailing the Decision by then Regional Director, PRO 3 dated
March 23, 2017, the dispositive portion of which states:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondent PO1 Francis

Pamintuan Macam is hereby found GUILTY of the offence charged
and is hereby meted with the penalty of DISMISSAL from the police
service.”

Records show that movant was assigned at the Mexico Municipal Police
Station, Pampanga Police Provincial Office, failed to report for duty from May 24,
2015 to November 28, 2016, or for a total period of Five Hundred Fifty Five (555)
days. He was charged, found guilty and meted the penalty of Dismissal from the
service. Hence, this MR claiming that movant committed unauthorized absences due
to family problem, thus, the penalty of dismissal from the service is excessive.

This Office finds that the MR is not meritorious. It does not raise valid ground
to warrant the reversal or modification of the Decision sought to be reconsidered.

Section 20, Rule 17 of NAPOLCOM Memorandum Circular No. 2016-002

provides that: “The party adversely affected by the decision may file a motion for
reconsideration with the Disciplinary Authority which rendered the same within ten
(10) days from receipt of a copy thereof based on any of the following grounds:

a) Newly discovered evidence which, if presented, would materially affect the

decision rendered; or
b) Errors of law or irregularities have been committed prejudicial to the
substantial rights and interest of the movant; or
c) The decision is not supported by the evidence on record.”
 The ground raised by the movant does not fall under any of the following
valid/legal grounds above-cited.

Movant claimed that the notice from the SHO which was allegedly received by
his sister Pia Macam was not delivered to him, resulting in his failure to present
evidence for his defense. Also, movant had a constant quarrel with his wife which
almost led to their break-up. Movant did not desire his family to break, he committed
AWOL and spent his entire time to rebuild and reconstruct whatever has been
damage in his relationship with his wife and family.

The above circumstance is not sufficient excuse for him to inform his superior
officers or supervisors of his predicament if he is a responsible police officer. His
claim that he needs to tend to family problem is not a valid excuse to justify his
AWOL. In fact, as admitted by him in his MR, he is willing to sacrifice anything and
everything to save the unity and sanctity of his family even though his current job is
on jeopardy. Such unauthorized absences for a long period do not merit
reconsideration or a second chance. It would have been excusable if the period of
AWOL is less than thirty (30) days. Thus, there is no valid reason to disturb the
decision rendered based on substantial evidence and had already attained finality.

WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, the motion for reconsideration

filed by PO1 Francis P Macam, is hereby DENIED FOR LACK OF MERIT.

SO RESOLVED.

Done this _____ day of ____________ at Camp Captain Julian Olivas, City of
San Fernando, Pampanga.

AMADOR V CORPUS
Police Chief Superintendent
Regional Director, PRO 3
 Republic of the Philippines
NATIONAL POLICE COMMISSION
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE
POLICE REGIONAL OFFICE 3
REGIONAL LEGAL OFFICE 3
Camp Captain Julian Olivas, City of San Fernando, Pampanga

MEMORANDUM

FOR : RD, PRO3

THRU : DRDA ____________

: RCDS ____________

: AC, RPHRDD _________

FROM : AC, RLO3

SUBJECT : Motion for Reconsideration of PO1 Francis P Macam

DATE : June 7, 2018

1. Reference: AC, RPHRDD memorandum dated May 28, 2018 with attached
records of the case.

2. This pertains to the motion for reconsideration (MR) filed by PO1 Francis P
Macam (Movant), assailing the Decision by then Regional Director, PRO 3 dated
March 23, 2017, the dispositive portion of which states:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondent PO1 Francis

Pamintuan Macam is hereby found GUILTY of the offence charged
and is hereby meted with the penalty of DISMISSAL from the police
service.”

3. This Office finds that the MR is not meritorious. Hence, recommend denial.

4. Respectfully submitted for consideration and signature on the attached

draft Resolution.

ANSELMO E ANDAYAN
Police Superintendent