Republic of the Philippines
Philippine National Police NATIONAL POLICEAdministrative
COMMISSION Case Number:
Complainant, PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE
________________________
NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION POLICE OFFICE
Camp Bagong Diwa, Bicutan, Taguig City
-versus- for:
Pat AAAA Grave Neglect of Duty (AWOL)
Respondent.
x---------------------------------x
DECISION
This resolves the administrative filed by the Philippine National Police through
the Regional Investigation and Detective Management Division (RIDMD) NCRPO
against the herein respondent Pat AAA 238229, member of
________________________, NCRPO for Grave Neglect of Duty (AWOL)
docketed under Admin Case No. ________________________.
ANTECEDENT FACTS
A Pre-Charge Investigation ensued at the _______________________, after
which probable cause was found. Hence, the filing of the formal charge dated
September 24, 2019 which read as follows:
“The undersigned nominal complainant hereby accuse the
above-named respondent for Grave Neglect of Duty (absenting
oneself from office without having filed the necessary application for or
secured approval of the authorized official for a period of more than
fifteen (15) days prior to the enjoyment of the leave) committed as
follows:
Based on the consolidated Daily PNP Personnel Accounting
Report (DPPAR) of _______________________, MPD, NCRPO,
aforementioned respondent was marked absent from May 8, 2019 to
July 11, 2019 thereby incurring a total number of 65 days of
continuous absences.”
Investigation disclosed that based on the Daily PNP Personnel Accounting
Report (DPPAR) of ________________________(Name of Unit), signed by
______________________ (designation or position) respondent has committed
sixty-five (65) days unauthorized absences from May 8, 2019 to July 11, 2019
without filing an application for leave and prior approval of the authorized officer or
official.
Page 1 of 5
A Memorandum signed by____________________ dated ______________
was sent to Pat AAA to explain the reasons for the said absences. Likewise, Return
to Work Orders were sent at his last known address and duly received by the latter.
(If respondent was suffering from illness or confined in hospital, verify if his
unit submitted a Sick Inspection Report)
Pursuant to Special Orders Number ________________________ dated
_______________ issued by the Regional Personnel and Records Management
Division (RPRMD), NCRPO, dated ____________ which states that Pat AAA was
placed on Absent Without Official Leave (AWOL) status effective ______________.
Upon finding of probable cause, summary hearing of the administrative complaint for
Grave Neglect of Duty against the respondent ensued.
Matters that should be included in your antecedent facts:
1. Issued firearm of the respondent (did he surrendered it to the supply
officer or not);
2. Certification of Travel Abroad
3. Last Payment of Salary
4. If the reason for his absences was due to illness, Medical Certificate
validated by the Regional Health Service should be attached.
In the observance of administrative due process, respondent was afforded of
his right to be informed of the administrative complaint against him wherein
summonses were sent at the respondent’s present unit assignment at
________________________ and last known address, directing him to appear and
file an Answer in order to shed light on the matter and adduce evidence for his
defense.
In the respondent’s Answer, he averred that
____________________________________ ___________________
___________________. ____________________, _____________________
____________ _______________ _____________
_________________________________________________________________
______________________________.
Report of Investigation dated _________________, signed by
_________________________________, Summary Hearing Officer (SHO) found
substantial evidence to hold the respondent liable from the administrative charge and
recommended the penalty of DISMISSAL from the police service.
ISSUES/FINDINGS
Page 2 of 5
The issue of the case is whether or not the respondent is guilty for Grave
Neglect of Duty (AWOL) under the given circumstances.
Under Section 2C, 1(j) Rule 21 of NAPOLCOM Memorandum Circular (NMC)
No. 2016-002, it provides that:
C. GRAVE OFFENSES
1. Grave Neglect of Duty - shall include but not limited to the following:
j. absent oneself from office without having filed the
necessary application for leave or secured approval of the authorized
official for a period of more than fifteen (15) days prior to the
enjoyment of the leave.
The elements to determine the culpability of the respondent are the
following:
a. He was marked absent in the attendance report (DPPAR);
b. He did not file an application for leave;
c. His absence from duty is without prior approval of authorized official;
and
d. He incurred absences for a period more than fifteen (15) days.
In this case, respondent was marked absent in the DPPAR and based on
records, no application for leave concerning the dates when he did not report for duty
was filed or received by the Admin officer of his unit. Respondent incurred absences
from _______________ to _____________ totaling to sixty-five (65) days without
prior approval by authorized official. Evidently, the aforementioned provision of NMC
2016-002 was violated.
The contentions of the respondent that ______________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
____ are untenable and should not be countenanced for lack of merit.
Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must at all times
be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty,
and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice and, lead modest lives.
In cases involving public officials, there is gross neglect when a breach of duty
is flagrant and palpable (GOLANGCO VS. FUNG, G.R. No. 147640, October 16,
Page 3 of 5
2006). Respondent as a police officer is mandated by law to be mindful of his
professional responsibility to the public and refrain from committing internal breach of
discipline. The PNP cannot and will not succumb to any malfeasance or misfeasance
by any member in the organization. Performing police duty is imbued with public
interest, the inability of a police officer to perform his function without justifiable or
valid reason should be disallowed.
CONCLUSION
This Disciplinary Authority, after careful review of the Report of Investigation
submitted by the Summary Hearing Officer (SHO), agreed with the findings of the
SHO, that there was substantial evidence to hold the respondent liable of the
administrative charge against him.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Disciplinary Authority finds the
herein respondent, Pat AAA is GUILTY from the charged of Grave Neglect of Duty
and meted the supreme penalty of DISMISSAL from the PNP service.
SO ORDERED.
Done this ________________________________________ at National
Capital Region Police Office, Camp Bagong Diwa, Bicutan, Taguig City.
VICENTE D DANAO, JR
Police Brigadier General
Acting Regional Director
Checklist of necessary Attachments:
For AWOL Cases:
5. Verify the issued firearm of the respondent
6. Bureau of Immigration, Certification of Travel Abroad
7. Finance Service- Last Payment of Salary
Page 4 of 5
8. Personal Service of Return to Work Orders/Demand Letters, if residing
within NCR
9. Affidavit of the person who caused personal service
10. If the reason for his absences was due to illness, Medical Certificate
validated by the Regional Health Service should be attached.
For Failure to Attend Court Hearing:
1. E-Subpoena generated list of PNP Personnel who failed to attend
hearing;
2. Counter-Affidavit or Answer of the respondent;
3. Certificate of Attendance or Minutes of Hearing issued by the
concerned court indicating that he attended on the date of scheduled
hearing for which he was charged absent;
4. If the reason for his absence was due to illness, Medical Certificate
validated by the Regional Health Service should be attached;
5. Minutes of Hearing or Certification from the court that respondent
attended or the scheduled hearing was Reset;
6. Certification from the court that respondent had attended the
succeeding schedules of hearing;
7. Certification from the court regarding the present status of the case;
Page 5 of 5
