HAZEL M.

ADORABLE BS-CRIMINOLOGY 4
CRIM 200 PART 2 MIDTERM EXAM
1. The inordinate and unjustified delay in the resolution of Captain Mendoza’s Motion for
Reconsideration timely filed on 5 November 2009, or within five (5) days from Mendoza’s receipt
of a copy of respondent’s Decision on 30 October 2009, amounted to gross neglect of duty
and/or inefficiency in the performance of official duty. The delay in the resolution of Mendoza’s
Motion for Reconsideration that spanned nine (9) long months constituted a flagrant disregard of
the Office of the Ombudsman’s own Rules of Procedure.  The Rules require that the resolution
of a motion for reconsideration be made within a period of only five (5) days from the
submission thereof. Gross neglect of duty refers to negligence characterized by the want of
even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not
inadvertently but willfully and intentionally, with a conscious indifference to consequences,
insofar as other persons may be affected.  It is the omission of that care which even inattentive
and thoughtless men never fail to give to their own property.  In cases involving public officials,
there is gross negligence when a breach of duty is flagrant and palpable (Golangco v. Fung,
G.R. no. 147640, 16 October 2006).
2. The respondent may be further held liable for gross misconduct for allegedly demanding from
Mendoza the amount of one hundred fifty thousand pesos (P150, 000.00), there is substantial
evidence to support the same in the light of the circumstances surrounding the incident.  As the
Supreme Court has taught us, only substantial evidence, that is, that amount of relevant
evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion is
necessary in administrative cases (Vide: Adap v. Comelec, 516 SCRA 309). Misconduct is a
transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful
behavior or gross negligence by a public officer, and the misconduct is grave if it violates any of
the additional elements of corruption, willful intent to violate the law or to disregard established
rules (Santos v. Rasalan, 515 SCRA 97; Rodriguez v. Eugenio, 512 SCRA 489).
3. The opinion of Justice Malcom implies that the officer/employee of that public office has been
entrusted with power by the public. That the officer/employee of that public office should use
that trust for the benefit of all and never for the benefit of himself. That the officer/employee of
that public office are just instruments to attain a certain goal, following laws to uphold their
mission, vision and goals. That the officer/employee of that public office has no control over the
people but simply represents the public office. That the officer/employee of that public office
should not abuse for example collecting a certain amount of money to reconsider a case like
what Gonzalez did to Mendoza.
4. Alevosia or treachery is when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons,
employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to
insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party
might make.
5. In the case of People vs. Villamor, there was no showing that accused-appellant took
advantage of his being a policeman to shoot Jelord Velez or that he used his influence, prestige
or ascendancy in killing the victim. Accused-appellant could have shot Velez even without being
a policeman. In other words, if the accused could have perpetrated the crime even without
occupying his position, there is no abuse of public position. Only recently, in People v. Herrera,
the Court emphatically said that the mere fact that accused- appellant is a policeman and used
his government issued .38 caliber revolver to kill is not sufficient to establish that he misused his
public position in the commission of the crime.