Republic of the Philippines

NATIONAL POLICE COMMISSION

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE
NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION POLICE OFFICE
Camp Bagong Diwa, Bicutan, Taguig City

Philippine National Police Administrative Case Number:

Complainant, RIASNCR-NMP-2021-054

-versus- for:

PMAJ CARLOS R COSME, Grave Misconduct Neglect of Duty

PSSg Edison Dela Cruz, and Conduct Unbecoming of a Police
PCpl Raymann R Lagman,
Officer
Pat Benedict Senores, and
Pat Manolito Perez
Respondents.
x-------------------------------------x

DECISION
This resolves the administrative case filed by the Philippine National Police
through the Northern Police District Internal Affairs Service (NPDIAS) against the herein
respondents PMAJ CARLOS R COSME, PSSg Edison Dela Cruz, PCpl Raymann R
Lagman, Pat Benedict Senores, and Pat Manolito Perez, all members of NPD, NCRPO
for Grave Neglect of Duty and Conduct Unbecoming of a Police Officer pursuant to
Section 2(B), paragraph 3(i) and Section 1, paragraph 5 of Rule 21 of NAPOLCOM
Memorandum Circular No. 2016-002 docketed under Admin Case No. RIASNCR-MPI1-
2021-054.

ANTECEDENT FACTS

A Pre-charge Investigation ensued at the NPDIAS, after which probable cause

was found. Hence, the filing of the formal charge dated December 11, 2020, which
reads as follows:

“On August 3, 2017, at about 9:30 in the evening, Malabon City

Police Station SDEU composed of PCPT CARLOS R COSME, PSSg
Edison Dela Cruz, PCpl Raymann R Lagman, Pat Benedict Senores, and
Pat Manolito Perez conducted buy bust operation at P. Concepcion,
Barangay Tugatog, Malabon City. The operation resulted to the arrest of
three (3) suspects identified as Febric Pantallano y Aljas alias “Ric”,
Lester Dimanlig y Doromal alias “Lester” and Crisanto Caguila y Tan alias
“Jun” residents of the given address. Accused where then jointly tried for
violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. During hearing,
poseur buyer Patrolman Manolito Perez Jr repeatedly failed to appear to
testify. It also appears that the markings of evidence was done not in the
place of arrest but at SDEU office.”

The instant case arise upon the recommendation of the COMMITTEE ON

DISMISSED DRUG CASE wherein it was found that the poseur buyer failed to appear
in Court to testify and that there is failure to comply with procedures set forth by section
21, article II of RA 9165 as amended by RA 10640 which caused the eventual dismissal
of the case and release of the arrested suspects after the Demurrer to Evidence filed by
them was granted by the Court.
 In the investigation conducted by NPDIAS, it was revealed that the two main
reasons that the motion to dismiss thru demurrer to evidence filed by the accused was
granted by the court is due to the failure of the poseur buyer Pat Manolito Perez jr to
testify in Court and that there are violation of Section 21 of RA 9165 which is the
marking was not done in the place of arrest but at the police station and there is only
one insulating witness to the drug inventory and taking of photographs.

In their defense, the respondents never denied that the inventory and marking of
evidence was done not at the place of arrest or occurrence but in the SDEU office. They
however claimed that the same is justified as there is actual danger on their part if they
do the inventory and marking at the place of incident. They instead put the blame to the
prosecutor who failed to present their justification in court. They maintain that they still
observed the chain of custody and preserved the integrity of the evidence. They
likewise admit that there is indeed only one witness during the inventory and marking
which is the media representative but claimed that it is not their fault as when they
called the Department of Justice for a representative they refused to send one due to
lack of personnel. They likewise invited the barangay but due they said that they cannot
send a representative as they were all busy that time. On the part of PMAJ COSME, he
claimed that he should not be held liable as he was not subpoenaed or summoned by
the court to which he was not able to appear and insisted that the failure of Pat Perez to
appear is the main reason the case was dismissed.

ISSUES/FINDINGS

The issue of the case is whether or not the respondents guilty of the offense as
charged.

The case arise from the recommendation of the COMMITTEE ON DISMISSED

DRUGS CASES which found the respondents liable for the dismissal of the drug case
that they filed in court and recommends the filing of administrative case against the said
erring police officers.

The charge of Conduct Unbecoming of a Police Officer is so broad that may

include any act of a police officer that seriously compromises his character and standing
in the PNP and which shows his unworthiness to remain in the police service and thus
such offense include irregularities in the performance of duty and misconduct. In the
instant case, however, it may be considered as conduct unbecoming of a police officer
but it is more particularly an irregularity in the performance of duty that the police
officers committed. The act of failure to comply with the procedural guidelines provided
by law clearly is an irregularity in the performance of their job as police officers. The
neglect of duty however shall apply only to Pat Perez who failed to testify in court and to
the Chief SDEU PMAJ COSME for failure to supervise the operation and filing of the
case to ensure the compliance of all the legal requirements. These are all embodied in
Number 11 paragraph (a) and (b) of PNP Command Memorandum Circular Number
49/13 (Case Review Committee to Evaluate Dismissed Cases Related to Illegal Drugs,
Heinous, and Sensational Crimes) which provides:

“11. PENAL CLAUSE

a. The PNP personnel found to be the principal reason/s for

the dismissal of the case or acquittal of the accused shall be administratively
 sanctioned. Actions herein punishable and are deemed to constitute Serious
Irregularity in the Performance of Duty are any of the following: failure to
attend hearings/trials upon proper notice/subpoena duly received; unreasonable
negligence in following the standard procedures laid down by RA 9165 and other
applicable laws in the conduct of police operations and the preparation of
charges; planting of evidence; fabrication of offenses; testimonies inconsistent
with the sworn statement earlier executed; incredible or unbelievable testimonies
and such other actions done with evident bad faith and malice;

b. Immediate supervisors and/or heads of offices who shall fail or refuse

to take action on the prescribed guidelines shall be liable for Neglect of Duty.
The Directors shall order the conduct of a PCEI and may order the imposition of
the penalty if the case falls within his authority, otherwise he/she shall endorse
disciplinary sanction to higher authorities;”

Also, it is provided in Section 2(C), paragraph 1(i) of NAPOLCOM Memorandum

Circular 2016-002 that:

“i) fail to appear and testify, without justifiable excuse, in court,

prosecutor's office, the PNP disciplinary authorities, appellate bodies, the LAS or
any other quasijudicial body when duly notified or subpoenaed as witness. If his
non-appearance resulted in the dismissal of the case or the acquittal of the
accused; or when he is the principal witness or the arresting officer, the penalty
of dismissal from the service shall be imposed;”

Based on the above cited provisions, it is clear that a case for Grave Irregularity
in the Performance of Duty applies to all the operating personnel except the Chief,
SDEU who did not took part of the operation but merely through direct supervision and
monitoring while the case of Neglect of Duty be charged on him for failure to ensure that
the team followed and observed the guidelines prescribed by law for illegal drug
operations. Another case of Grave Neglect of Duty however should be charged against
Pat Manolito Perez for failure to appear and testify in court which caused the eventual
dismissal of the case.

With respect to Pat Manolito Dela Cruz, however, the case against him must be
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction over his person as he was charged only on December
11, 2020 or after he was separated or retired from police service on March 3, 2020
through General Orders Number NCRPO-GO-DS-2021-1920. It must be noted that
Rule 1, Section 2 of NAPOLCOM Memorandum Circular No. 2016-002, provides that
“These Rules shall apply to all administrative cases filed against uniformed members of
the Philippine National Police (PNP) before the different administrative Disciplinary
Authorities and the Internal Affairs Service (IAS)” and thus the administrative machinery
shall apply only to cases against a Uniformed Member of the PNP and not to a
separated one. Given that the respondent was separated to the service before he was
formally charged, there is therefore no jurisdiction over his person and thus warrants the
eventual dismissal of the case against him.

With respect to the other operating personnel, all the defects noted by the court
in the conduct of the operation are never denied but openly admitted by them. Their
claim that they still preserve the integrity of the evidence despite the irregularities is
definitely untenable. In fact, it is due to those irregularities that the court questioned the
integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence they submitted. Chain of custody is not
just a mere technical rule that should be given less value. It is time and time again the
reason of the dismissal of drug cases filed in court and thus must be given great
attention and due compliance. It is already established by the court and the PNP that in
filing drug cases in court, the marking and inventory must be done in the place of arrest
and failure to do the same must be supported by a sufficient justification which must be
expressly provided in the affidavit or statements of the operating personnel and thus the
respondents cannot pass the fault to the prosecutor for failure to present their
justification in court. The court likewise did not believe their contention that they are I
danger in the area as the said claim was not supported by any convincing evidence.

Also, the failure of the respondents to produce the required witness provided by
law in drug cases is a blatant disregard of the procedural requirements of the law. it is
provided in RA 10640 that physical inventory and photograph of the seized illegal drugs
must be witnessed by and done in the presence of elected public official and a
representative from the National prosecution Service or media. The claim that the
barangay official and DOJ representative are busy or lacking of personnel is not an
acceptable justification. Be it noted that the requirement will secure the integrity and
evidentiary value of the illegal drugs seized and thus non-compliance thereon requires
more than just a shallow justification. In this view, it is clear that the respondent failed to
perform their duty with the prescribed guidelines which caused the unfortunate
dismissal of the case and thus amount to grave irregularity in the performance of duty.

With respect to PMAJ COSME, the blatant and obvious failure of his personnel to
comply with the requirements and follow the guidelines set by law for illegal drug
operations is a clear negligence on his part. The mistakes committed by his
subordinates are not mere small mistakes but are substantial once which in fact caused
the dismissal of the case by mere filing of demurrer to evidence by the accused. As the
Chief of the investigation unit, he should be diligent on supervising the acts of his men
and be accountable if he failed to oversee their actions. The mere reminder on this
instant case will not suffice as these documents and evidences passed through him but
still he was not able to look into and correct them before it was filed in court. In this
regard, the Chief SDEU must be held liable for simple neglect of duty for failure to
effectively supervise to operation of his men and the filing of the case in court.

Considering that the prosecution and respondents failed to plead and prove any
aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the proper penalty to be imposed therefore is
penalty for Grave Irregularity in the Performance of Duty and Simple Neglect of Duty in
their minimum period.

CONCLUSION

This Disciplinary Authority, after careful review of the Report of Investigation

submitted by RIAS, NCRPO, disagrees with the findings of the SHO that there is no
substantial evidence to hold the respondents liable.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION

WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Disciplinary Authority finds herein

respondent PMAJ CARLOS R COSME GUILTY of Simple Neglect of Duty and is
hereby meted with the penalty of ELEVEN (11) DAYS SUSPENSION, respondents
PSSg Edison Dela Cruz, PCpl Raymann R Lagman, and Pat Benedict Senores are
found GUILTY of Grave Irregularity in the Performance of Duty and are hereby
meted with the penalty of ONE (1) RANK DEMOTION, and the case against Pat
Manolito Perez be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of jurisdiction.

SO ORDERED.

Done this ______________________________________ at National Capital

Region Police Office, Camp Bagong Diwa, Bicutan, Taguig City.

VICENTE D DANAO, JR
Police Major General
Regional Director