Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Darwin Campo

    Uploaded by

    MandaluyongCPS Admin Branch
    90 views4 pages
    This document summarizes an investigation into an administrative charge of less grave misconduct against PCpl Darwin Campo. The charge stems from an alleged violation of quarantine protocols at an MPNAG facility. However, the investigation found the respondent tested negative for COVID-19 and cooperated fully with quarantine requirements. As the complainant's evidence was based on hearsay and the respondent provided documentary evidence, the hearing officer recommends dismissing the charge for lack of merit.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    DARWIN CAMPO

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document summarizes an investigation into an administrative charge of less grave misconduct against PCpl Darwin Campo. The charge stems from an alleged violation of quarantine protocols at an MPNAG facility. However, the investigation found the respondent tested negative for COVID-19 and cooperated fully with quarantine requirements. As the complainant's evidence was based on hearsay and the respondent provided documentary evidence, the hearing officer recommends dismissing the charge for lack of merit.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    90 views4 pages

    Darwin Campo

    Uploaded by

    MandaluyongCPS Admin Branch
    This document summarizes an investigation into an administrative charge of less grave misconduct against PCpl Darwin Campo. The charge stems from an alleged violation of quarantine protocols at an MPNAG facility. However, the investigation found the respondent tested negative for COVID-19 and cooperated fully with quarantine requirements. As the complainant's evidence was based on hearsay and the respondent provided documentary evidence, the hearing officer recommends dismissing the charge for lack of merit.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 4

    REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

    PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE


    NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION POLICE OFFICE
    OFFICE OF THE SUMMARY HEARING OFFICER

    PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE, Admin Case No. HEPD –DLO-


    Nominal Complainant, AC-049-092320
    FOR: Less Grave Misconduct

    -Versus-

    PCpl Darwin Campo- 257088


    Respondent,
    x-----------------------------------------------------x

    REPORT OF INVESTIGATION
    (RESOLUTION)

    This resolves the administrative charge of the above mentioned respondent for
    Less Grave Misconduct after he was allegedly violated Special Law RA 11332 Sec. 9 (e)
    in connection to Rule 21, Section 2 (B) para 3 (i) NAPOLCOM Memorandum Circular
    2016-002.

    BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

    Respondent was assigned in Eastern Police District at Mandaluyong City


    Police Station. He is subjected to pre-charge evaluation after he allegedly violated the
    above-mentioned Memorandum Circular in-connection to Special Law. This case
    stemmed from Information Report from Dr. EMILY C DETARO Facility Manager of
    MPNAG dated July 27, 2020 conveyed to Mandaluyong City Police Station anent to
    alleged infraction of subject PNCO.

    Thus, the complaint was referred for pre-charge investigation of District


    Investigation Unit of EPD who has competent jurisdiction over the offense of Less
    Grave. Respondent was summoned to submit his Counter-Affidavit and pieces of
    evidence to support his claim and he appeared and submitted the same. He categorically
    and humbly denied the alleged infraction. He claimed that he was negative for COVID-
    19 through PCR collected on July 25, 2020. Respondent admitted in MPNAG quarantine
    facility because he was close contact of a person diagnosed infected with COVID-19 on
    July 20, 2020. (To support his claims PCpl Darwin Campo attached Molecular
    Diagnostics Laboratory result collected on July 25, 2020 marked ANNEX 1)

    After finding of probable cause, hence elevated to DLOS then to the undersigned
    Summary Hearing Officer. Respondent formally charged within the authority of DD EPD
    as Disciplinary Authority with the following allegation in the charge sheet, to wit:

    “Commit any act or omission that constitutes a crime punishable under the
    Revised Penal Code or Special Laws where the duration of the impossible penalty is
    imprisonment of one (1) month and one (1) to six (6) months. “

    On October 06, 2020, a summons were sent to Respondent police officer, which
    he personally received on the same date at around 7:47 PM commanding him to report to
    the undersigned SHO 5 days upon receipt of summons and bring with him counter
    affidavit duly administered in three (3) original copies and their evidence to support his
    claimed. (A copy of said summons is attached and marked as Annex 2 and made an
    integral part of this report.)
    Undersigned SHO received the Manifestation of respondent police officer with
    the express intention that he used his affidavit submitted during pre-charge investigation
    as his counter affidavit and attached with his pieces of evidence to support his claims.

    Upon careful examination of his counter affidavit and evidence submitted by


    PCPL DARWIN CAMPO, he set a defense of negative denial of allegation imputed
    against him by the nominal complainant through physician letter of MPNAG. Relatively,
    the defense of respondent police officer is supported by pieces of documentary evidence
    duly signed by issuing units and certified it.

    ISSUE:

    1. WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT IS GUILTY OF


    CHARGE IMPUTED AGAINST HIS PERSON?

    ARGUMENTS/DISCUSSION:

    Republic Act 11332

    Section 9. Prohibited Acts. -The following shall be prohibited under this Act:

    (a) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    (e) Non-cooperation of the person or entities identified as HAVING THE


    NOTIFIABLE DISEASE, or affected by the health event of public concern.

    NAPOLCOM MEMORANDUM CIRCULAR 2016-002 RULE 21

    Paragraph B sub paragraph 3

    “(i) commit any act or omission that constitutes a crime punishable under the
    Revised Penal Code or Special Laws where the duration of the impossible penalty is
    imprisonment of one (1) month and one (1) to six (6) months. “

    The issue of this case is reduced to settle the question whether or not respondent
    committed the said infraction alleged in the administrative complaint. The evidence
    adduced by the nominal complainant emanate from incident report from Dr. Emily C
    Detaro facility manager of Mandaluyong City Quarantine Facility MPNAG.

    Rules on evidence provide two (2) kinds of defenses. Affirmative and Negative
    denial. When respondent interposes negative denial or negative defense considered
    specific denial of the material fact or facts alleged in the complaint, essential to the
    plaintiff's cause or causes of action. The consequence thereof is that the burden of proof
    lies on plaintiff or nominal complainant to prove the fact or act allegedly committed by
    respondent police officer.

    As a rule, one who alleges something must prove it with substantial evidence
    otherwise the allegation will remain an allegation. It does not produce substantial proof to
    justify an administrative conviction of guilt. In this case, the records are very clear that
    the complaint of Dr Emily C Detaro was based on hearsay or she has no personal
    knowledge about the facts and circumstances, she only relied on information conveyed
    by duty Nurse. In a addition, nothing in the records shows that the said duty nurse who
    saw the incident execute his affidavit to under oath his allegation against PNP personnel.
    Thus cannot produce substantial proof as basis for administrative conviction.

    Undersigned SHO agreed to contentions of PCpl Darwin Campo.

    Respondent adduced clear and convincing evidence to prove that he did not
    violate any protocol laid down by the Quarantine Facility MPNAG anent to days of
    quarantine. The Certificate issued by MPNAG speak for itself that the respondent police
    officer religiously cooperates with the entire isolation period. Nothing in the certificate
    signed by Dr Emily Detaro that the respondent police officer commits any infractions or
    disobeys any rules and condition in facility. Contrary to what alleged in a letter signed by
    Dr Emily Detaro dated July 27, 2020.

    China Banking Corporation Incorporation


    VS
    Court of Appeals
    528 scra 103

    “The rule of evidence requiring the opinion of expert witnesses applies


    only to such matters clearly within the domain of medical science, and not
    to matters that are within the common knowledge of mankind which may
    be testified to by anyone familiar with the facts.xxxx”

    Assuming arguendo, that the respondent police officer committed that offense
    alleged in the complaint the Molecular Diagnostics Laboratory result collected on July
    25, 2020 anent to COVID-19 resulted in negative. It is important to know or prove that he
    was negative for COVID-19 on the said date or while in the quarantine facility. It is
    material to the issue because the complaint anchored with the RA 11332 para (e), which
    HAVING A NOTIFIABLE DISESASE is controlling/necessary to commit an offense
    of the said special act. Obviously, respondent police officer tested negative for COVID-
    19 while in the course of his quarantine. Thus, one of the most important elements of the
    offense is absent.

    Lastly, there is no case filed against respondent police officer, which constitute a
    crime either RPC or Special Law. Thus the provision of said Circular of NAPOLCOM is
    not applicable because it is intertwined to criminal charge before Prosecutor’s Office or
    pending before court.

    Therefore, it is kinder garten, that the one who alleged something has a burden of
    proof to prove his allegation failure to do so is not actionable wrong or will not result to
    conviction of respondent.

    After careful evaluation and investigation on the facts and circumstances of this
    case supported by pieces of evidence against and for the respondent, the undersigned
    SHO finds that respondent is not guilty of Less Grave Misconduct.

    RECOMMENDATION

    WHEREFORE, for purpose of fair play in heart and justice mind, it is


    recommended that the charge against PCPL DARWIN CAMPO be DISMISSED for
    lack of merit.

    SO RESOLVE.

    This ______day of October 26, 2020 in Mandaluyong City, Philippines

    PLT RYAN A MARCELO


    SUMMARY HEARING OFFICER

    You might also like