[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
448 views2 pages

NAPOLCOM vs. Dela Cruz: Appeal Dismissal

SPO4 Quirino dela Cruz appealed a decision by the National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM) finding him guilty of grave misconduct for unlawfully arresting and searching someone's home without legal grounds. The Civil Service Commission (CSC) dismissed his appeal as it was filed beyond the 15-day period for review. Dela Cruz insists his appeal was timely filed. The Supreme Court upheld the CSC's decision, finding the issues raised were questions of fact not appropriate for review. It noted Dela Cruz did not provide evidence to support his claim that he received the NAPOLCOM resolution late or to substantiate that the evidence was insufficient to find him liable.

Uploaded by

Christine Rose Bonilla Likigan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
448 views2 pages

NAPOLCOM vs. Dela Cruz: Appeal Dismissal

SPO4 Quirino dela Cruz appealed a decision by the National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM) finding him guilty of grave misconduct for unlawfully arresting and searching someone's home without legal grounds. The Civil Service Commission (CSC) dismissed his appeal as it was filed beyond the 15-day period for review. Dela Cruz insists his appeal was timely filed. The Supreme Court upheld the CSC's decision, finding the issues raised were questions of fact not appropriate for review. It noted Dela Cruz did not provide evidence to support his claim that he received the NAPOLCOM resolution late or to substantiate that the evidence was insufficient to find him liable.

Uploaded by

Christine Rose Bonilla Likigan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

QUIRINO DELA CRUZ VS NAPOLCOM

GR NO. 215545, JAN 7,2019

FACTS:
For unlawfully arresting Sony Villarias and for searching his house against his will without
legal grounds, SPA4 Quirino dela Cruz, PO1 Cantorna were found by the NAPOLCOM guilty of
grave misconduct.
SPO4 dela Cruz filed before the CSC an appeal, which was dismissed. In its Sept. 11, 2012
Decision, the CSC found that the appeal had been filed out of time, as SPO4 dela Cruz did so on
Jan. 14,2011, beyond the 15-day period after the Decision for review was promulgated on Dec.
15, 2010. thus, the questioned Resolution had attained finality.
SPO4 dela Cruz moved for reconsideration, insisting that he filed his appeal within the
allowable period, but it was denied for lack of merit. Thus, he filed a Petition for Review on
Certiorari under Rule 45 before the SC.
SPO4 dela Cruz insists that the CA erred when it held that his appeal was filed beyond the
allowable period. He pointed out that the CSC reckoned his period for appeal from the
Resolution’s promulgation dated Dec 15,2010, as opposed to the date he said he actually
received it, which was on Jan. 4,2011. moreover, SPO4 dela Cruz points out that when the
NAPOLCOM held him liable for grave misconduct, it committed errors as it did not expound on
his alleged grave misconduct, and summarily disregarded the evidence he presented in his
defense. He also argues that the evidence Villarias submitted was insufficient to justify SPO4
dela Cruz’s dismissal.

ISSUES:whether the issues raised by SPO4 dela Cruz are proper for review under Rule 45

NO. Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, a petition for review on certiorari shall only pertain to
questions of law. The factual findings of the Court of Appeals bind this Court. While several
exceptions to these rules were provided by jurisprudence, they must be alleged, substantiated,
and proved by the parties so this Court may evaluate and review the facts of the case.
Both of SPO4 Dela Cruz ‘s arguments are questions of fact not proper for review in this case.
The date he received the assailed National Police Commission Resolution is a question of fact
that was resolved by the Civil Service Commission. As the Court of Appeals pointed out, the Civil
Service Commission might have resolved his motion for reconsideration differently, had SPO4
Dela Cruz  substantiated his claim with evidence that he received the National Police
Commission Resolution on January 4, 2011. Yet, SPO4 Dela Cruz  failed to do so. It is not this
Court’s role to review the evidence to resolve this question. Further, SPO4 Dela Cruz  has not
addressed the December 15, 2010 Resolution of the National Police Commission, which found
that his motion for reconsideration was filed out of time. Thus, the January 12, 2010 Decision
would have already attained finality when he failed to timely seek its reconsideration,
regardless of whether the December 15, 2010 Resolution was received on January 4, 2011.

Similarly, whether there was sufficient evidence to find SPO4 Dela Cruz liable of grave
misconduct is also an evidentiary matter, which this Court will not look into. He claims that the
judgment was based on a misapprehension of factsto persuade this Court to review the case’s
factual questions. However, he has failed to sufficiently substantiate this claim to convince this
Court to look into the evidence.

You might also like