SCpetition - Rule45 1 REV 1 OCT4

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
SUPREME COURT
MANILA
NATIONAL POLICE COMMISSION

(NAPOLCOM),
Petitioner,
G.R. No. _____________

-versus- (CA-G.R. SP No. 108431)
P/INSP. ANGELO B. NICOLAS,

SPO1 FREDERICK TORRES, PO3
HONEY BESAS, PO3 GLICERIO
MANACPO, PO2 EUGENE
MARTINEZ, PO2 RANDY
BARRAMEDA, PO1 RAYMOND
ESCOBER and PO1 FREDIE
SULIVA, members of the Anti-
Carnapping (ANCAR) Unit of the
Philippine National Police-Quezon
City Police District,
Respondents.
x-------------------------x
PETITION FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI

(with Prayer for the Issuance of a
Temporary Restraining Order and/or
Writ of Preliminary Injunction)
PETITIONER, by counsel, respectfully states:
NATURE OF THE PETITION
This petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court seeks to set aside (a) the Decision of the Court of
Petition for Review on Certiorari 2
NAPOLCOM vs. Nicolas et al.
G.R. No. __________________
/---------------------------------------------/
Appeals promulgated on May 18, 2010 which nullified
petitioner’s Resolutions dated February 23, 2009 and March 30,
2009 placing herein respondents under preventive suspension
and denied their motion for reconsideration, respectively; and
(b) the Resolution promulgated on August 23, 2010 which denied
petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
Original duplicate copies of the aforesaid Decision and
Resolution are hereto attached as Annexes “A” and “B”,
respectively.
THE PARTIES
1. Petitioner National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM) is
one of the respondents in CA-G.R. SP No. 108431 which issued
the assailed Resolutions dated February 23, 2009 and March 30,
2009. Said resolutions placed respondents under preventive
suspension in the administrative case entitled “Ma. Theresa U.
Cartalla, et al. vs. P/Insp. Angelo B. Nicolas, et al.”
docketed as SD Case No. 2009-1621.

G.R. No. __________________
/---------------------------------------------/
2. Respondents P/Insp. Angelo B. Nicolas, SPO1 Frederick
Torres, PO3 Honey Besas, PO3 Glicerio Manacpo, PO2 Eugene
Martinez, PO2 Randy Barrameda, PO1 Raymond Escober and
PO1 Fredie Suliva, are the petitioners in CA-G.R. SP No. 108431
in whose favor the assailed resolutions were rendered. They may
be served with pleadings and court processes through their
counsel, the Public Attorney’s Office at DOJ Agencies Building,
NIA Road corner East Avenue, Diliman, Quezon City.
STATEMENT OF MATERIAL DATES AND

TIMELINESS OF THE PETITION
On May 24, 2010, petitioner received a copy of the Court of
Appeals’ Decision promulgated on May 18, 2010 which nullified
petitioner’s Resolutions dated February 23, 2009 and March 30,
2009 in NAPOLCOM SD Case No. 2009-1621.1
On June 8, 2010, petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals
a motion for reconsideration2 of the said decision.
1
Copies of the aforesaid resolutions are hereto attached as Annexes “C” and “D.”
2
A copy is hereto attached as Annex “E.”
G.R. No. __________________
/---------------------------------------------/
On August 26, 2010, petitioner received the Court of
Appeals’ Resolution promulgated on August 23, 2010 which
denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
On September 9, 2010, or within the reglementary period
within which to file a petition for review on certiorari, petitioner
filed a motion3 for extension praying for an additional period of
thirty (30) days from September 10, 2010, or until October 10,
2010, within which to file Petition for Review on Certiorari.
This petition is thus filed within the extended period.
ANTECEDENT FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
The present case stemmed from an armed encounter
between respondents and suspected carnappers. The facts,
culled from the incident reports4 as well as from the NAPOLCOM
Resolution dated February 23, 2009, show that on February 17,
2009, around 7:00 o’clock in the evening, elements of the
National Capital Region (NCR)-Highway Patrol Group (HPG) led

3
A copy is hereto attached as Annex “F.”
4
Memorandum dated February 19, 2009 for the C, PNP from the Director, HPG Re: 1 st Progress Report
and Memorandum dated February 23, 2009 Subject: After Operation Report; Copies are hereto attached
as Annexes “G” and “H”.
G.R. No. __________________
/---------------------------------------------/
by Police Chief Inspector Henry Cerdon and Police Chief
Inspector Allan Rubi Macapagal were conducting anti-
carnapping patrol operation in Mandaluyong City when they
spotted a blue Honda Civic bearing plate number AED-115 with
four (4) unidentified passengers on board. The police operatives
verified the status of the said motor vehicle from their mobile
laptop VIMS data and they discovered that the plate number was
that of a carnapped vehicle earlier reported by its owner, a
certain Albert Rombawa.
At that instance, the said police operatives, using their
mobile public address system, ordered the driver to pull over.
However, instead of heeding the warnings of the policemen, the
vehicle sped off towards Quezon City.
A car chase ensued. The Highway Patrol Group (HPG)
operatives immediately alerted the Anti-Carnapping Unit
(ANCAR) of the Quezon City Police District (QCPD) prompting the
Chief, ANCAR, P/Insp. Angelo Nicolas and his men to conduct
roadblocks. The District Tactical Operation Center (DTOC),

G.R. No. __________________
/---------------------------------------------/
QCPD, which was also alerted of the incident, called on all
stations and operating units to conduct dragnet operations.
The ANCAR operatives sighted the suspects at EDSA corner
New York Avenue. The said PNP unit tried to intercept the
suspects’ vehicle but instead of pulling over, the suspects sped
off while firing shots at the ANCAR team. Upon reaching the
corner of NIA Road and EDSA, the Honda Civic made a complete
stop. There and then, the driver of the Honda Civic hastily
alighted from the vehicle, fired shots at the lawmen and boarded
a blue Toyota Revo (with unreadable plate number). The
suspect’s back up vehicle drove off heading northward.
Meanwhile, when the QCPD-ANCAR and HPG teams were
able to surround the Honda Civic vehicle, a shoot-out ensued
between the police operatives and the remaining suspects while
the latter were still inside the vehicle.
The suspects were eventually subdued. During the
“clearing operations”, two (2) of the suspects were found dead on
the spot while one (1) had a “sign of life.” The ANCAR operatives
G.R. No. __________________
/---------------------------------------------/
pulled the suspect out of the vehicle and rushed him to the East
Avenue Medical Center for medical assistance. However, the
suspect soon succumbed to the multiple gunshot wounds he
sustained and died at 9:30 p.m. that same evening. The
suspects were later identified as Romeo De Guzman, Alfredo
Pimentel and Ronald Batapa.
Apparently, the exchange of gunfire between the police
officers and the suspected carnappers at the NIA Road were
filmed by the ABS-CBN crew who was then at the scene of the
encounter.
On February 20, 2009, Rogelyn Pabanil (Romeo De
Guzman’s common-law spouse), Nina Batapa (sister of Roland
Batapa) and Ma. Theresa Cartalla (Alfredo Pimentel, Jr.’s spouse)
filed before the Investigation Division, IMIS-NAPOLCOM their
verified complaint-affidavits (“Sinumpaang Salaysay”)5 seeking
justice for the death of their relatives.
Based on the said complaints and the video coverage taken
by the ABS-CBN team, on February 23, 2009, the Inspection,

5
Copies are hereto attached as Annexes “I”, “J” and “K”.
G.R. No. __________________
/---------------------------------------------/
Monitoring and Investigation (IMIS)-NAPOLCOM issued a Pre-
Charge Evaluation6 in the administrative case docketed as SD
Case No. 2009-1621, entitled “Nina E. Batapa, Theresa U.
Cartalla and Rogelyn Pabanil vs. P/Insp. Angelo Nicolas, et.
al.”, finding probable cause to indict therein respondents for
grave misconduct. Thereupon, IMIS-NAPOLCOM issued an
undated 1st Indorsement7 forwarding the case to the NAPOLCOM
En Banc for summary dismissal proceedings.
On the same date, private complainants executed an
Urgent Motion for Preventive Suspension8 praying that
respondents be preventively suspended on the following grounds:
1. the charge is serious/grave and the

evidence of guilt is strong;
2. there is evidence to show that the

respondents are exerting efforts to
harass, intimidate, coerce or unduly
influence the complainants or their
witnesses into withdrawing or
retracting their statements against
respondents.
6
A copy is hereto attached as Annex “L”.
7
A copy is hereto attached as Annex “M”.
8
A copy is hereto attached as Annex “N”.
G.R. No. __________________
/---------------------------------------------/
Acting on the aforesaid motion, petitioner NAPOLCOM En
Banc, issued a Resolution dated February 23, 2009 placing the
following personnel under preventive suspension:
(1) P/Insp. Angelo Nicolas (Team

Leader, ANCAR Unit, QCPD);
(2) SPO1 Frederick Torres;
(3) PO3 Honey Besas;
(4) PO3 Glicerio Manacpo;
(5) PO2 Eugene Martines;
(6) PO2 Randy Barrameda;
(7) PO1 Ranmond Escober; and
(8) PO1 Freddy Suliva
On February 25, 2009, the summary hearing officer issued
summonses9 requiring respondents to answer within five (5) days
from receipt thereof, the charge filed against them.
The following day, February 26, 2009, NAPOLCOM Special
Orders No. 55110 was issued placing the above-enumerated

9
A copy is hereto attached as Annex “O”.
10
A copy is hereto attached as Annex “P”.
G.R. No. __________________
/---------------------------------------------/
members of the ANCAR Unit under preventive suspension for a
period of ninety (90) days effective February 26, 2009 until May
26, 2009.
On March 4, 2009, respondents filed their Joint Motion for
Extension of Time to File Answer.11
Thereafter, or on March 10, 2009, respondents filed their
Joint Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration with Urgent Motion to
Immediately Lift the Preventive Suspension/Dismiss the Case. 12
Respondents claimed that:
1. The police operatives did not commit

any violation of Rule 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
and 9 of the PNP Operational
Procedures considering that the
respondent members of the
coordinating units of the PNP faithfully
complied with the PNP General
Procedures during spot hot pursuit and
dragnet operation covering the subject
encounter.
11
A copy is hereto attached as Annex “Q”.
12
A copy is hereto attached as Annex “R”.
G.R. No. __________________
/---------------------------------------------/
2. The facts surrounding the spot hot

pursuit operation from Mandaluyong
City up to EDSA – NIA Road, Quezon
City, demonstrated a “legitimate police
operation” and/or shootout and not a
“rub-out.”
3. The excessive use of force was clearly

avoided as evidenced by the medico-
legal report by the PNP Crime
Laboratory led by Dr. Filemon
Porciuncula that Rolando Batapa did
not suffer any head injury. The use of
firearm by the respondent police
operatives was justifiable by virtue of
People vs. De Lima Doctrine [1922], the
doctrine of self-defense and defense of
stranger, as they had probable cause to
believe that the suspects were all armed
and firing at them, thereby posing
imminent danger to the lives and limbs
of the arresting police officers and
civilians along EDSA (Rule 6, PNP
Operational Procedures).
4. The respondent members of the PNP

coordinating units evacuated the
wounded suspected carnapper, Rolando
Batapa, to East Avenue Medical Center
(EAMC), the nearest hospital. Batapa
died at 9:30 p.m. of February 17, 2009
or more than two (2) hours after the
encounter.
5. The affidavits of the alleged

complainants attached to the summons
received by the respondent police
officers do not state any material facts
G.R. No. __________________
/---------------------------------------------/
establishing any culpability of the

respondents.
6. The partial video coverage showing only

a posterior view cannot be the basis of
depriving the respondent police officers
of their liberty and property without due
process of law on the ground that police
officers have also human rights and
other rights under the 1987
Constitution.
7. Based on the facts relied upon in the

Resolution dated February 23, 2009,
the respondent police operatives did not
commit any act constituting grave
offense; hence, the preventive
suspension is improper.
8. The preventive suspension was not

validly issued against respondents
considering that there was no formal
charge or charge sheet made prior to
the issuance of the preventive
suspension, and that the requirements
of its issuance under Rule 16,
NAPOLCOM Memorandum Circular No.
2007-001 (March 6, 2007) were not
complied with.13
On March 13, 2009, respondents filed an Urgent Motion for
Voluntary Inhibition14 praying that Vice-Chairman Eduardo
Escueta voluntarily inhibit himself from participating in the
proceedings. Respondents maintained that Vice-Chairman

13
Ibid., at pages 8-10
14
A copy is hereto attached as Annex “S”.
G.R. No. __________________
/---------------------------------------------/
Escueta was biased and partial against them considering his
premature announcements to the media when he was shown a
copy of the controversial video footage taken by the ABS-CBN
news crew of the EDSA-NIA Road encounter.
On even date, respondents filed their Manifestation
Adopting Submitted Affidavits of Respondents as Part of their
Answer.15
On March 17, 2009, Summary Hearing Officer Atty.
Expedito Allado, Jr. issued a Notice of Pre-Hearing Conference 16
setting the said proceeding on March 24, 2009.
On the same date, petitioner, through the IMIS, filed an
Opposition to the Respondents’ Joint Omnibus Motion for
Reconsideration with Urgent Motion to Immediately Lift
Preventive Suspension/Dismiss Case.17
On March 19, 2009, petitioner, through the IMIS, filed a
Supplemental Pre-Charge Evaluation Report 18 recommending
15
A copy is hereto attached as Annex “T”.
16
A copy is hereto attached as Annex “U”.
17
A copy is hereto attached as Annex “V”.
18
A copy is hereto attached as Annex “W”.
G.R. No. __________________
/---------------------------------------------/
that the following police officers be included as respondents in
the administrative case, to wit:
(1) PO3 Marius Santos
(2) SPO4 Leonardo Tecson
(3) PO3 Eduardo Joy Guadamor
(4) PO3 Hernando Humilde
The prosecution further prayed that the aforesaid PNP
personnel be preventively suspended also.
On the basis of the aforementioned Supplemental Pre-
Charge Evaluation Report, the prosecution filed on March 20,
2009 an Urgent Omnibus Motion for Inclusion of Additional
Respondents and for Preventive Suspension.19
On March 24, 2009, respondents filed their Joint Reply to
Prosecution’s Opposition to Lift Preventive Suspension/Dismiss
Case.20 Respondents likewise filed, on the same day, their
Manifestation to Set the Case for Hearing 21 as well as a

19
A copy is hereto attached as Annex “X”.
20
A copy is hereto attached as Annex “Y”.
21
A copy is hereto attached as Annex “Z”.
G.R. No. __________________
/---------------------------------------------/
Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration (of NAPOLCOM En
Banc Resolution dated February 23, 2009).22
On March 27, 2009, respondents filed a Supplemental
Motion to Declare the Resolution dated February 23, 2009 Null
and Void.23
On March 30, 2009, private complainants Ma. Theresa
Cartalla and Nina Batapa executed and filed their Karagdagang
Sinumpaang Salaysay24 informing the NAPOLCOM of the other
police officers who were not included as party respondents but
who were responsible for shooting their husband and brother,
respectively.
On even date, petitioner issued a Resolution25 denying
respondents’ Joint Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration with
Urgent Motion to Lift Preventive Suspension/Dismiss Case, for
lack of merit.
22
A copy is hereto attached as Annex “AA”.
23
A copy is hereto attached as Annex “BB”.
24
Copies are hereto attached as Annexes “CC” and “DD”.
25
A copy is hereto attached as Annex “D”.
G.R. No. __________________
/---------------------------------------------/
On April 13, 2009, petitioner NAPOLCOM issued an Order 26
re-scheduling the pre-hearing conference to April 27, 2009. On
the same date, private complainants filed their Reply to
Respondents’ Supplemental Motion to Declare the Resolution
dated February 23, 2009 Null and Void.27
Aggrieved by the NAPOLCOM Resolution dated March 30,
2009, respondents filed with the Court of Appeals on April 24,
2009 a Petition for Urgent Prohibition with Application for
Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary
Injunction28 anchored on the following grounds:
(1) Petitioner NAPOLCOM committed

grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or in excess of jurisdiction in
ordering the preventive suspension
of the petitioners without factual and
legal basis, there being NO FORMAL
CHARGE existing at the time of the
issuance of the preventive
suspension;
(2) While the decisions of the

NAPOLCOM with respect to the
validity of preventive suspension,
which presuppose that there was an
existing formal charge sheet, are
26
A copy is hereto attached as Annex “EE”.
27
A copy is hereto attached as Annex “FF”.
28
A copy is hereto attached as Annex “GG”.
G.R. No. __________________
/---------------------------------------------/
generally appealable to the Civil

Service Commission (CSC), the said
general rule is not applicable in this
case in view of the fact that there is
actually NO FORMAL CHARGE sheet
existing. Hence, there is, in actuality,
no existing administrative case to
legally speak of from which a
preventive suspension against the
herein petitioners may be used as a
basis for its legality. The NAPOLCOM
proceedings, therefore, are NULL
AND VOID.
(3) Considering that Hon. Ronaldo V.

Puno, Secretary of Interior and Local
Government (DILG) and concurrent
Chairman of the NAPOLCOM En
Banc was a signatory to the assailed
Orders, there is no more point in
further elevating the questioned
NAPOLCOM Orders for further
review of the DILG Secretary, or to
the Office of the President.
(4) There is, therefore, no appeal or any

other plain, speedy and adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law
except the instant petition.29
The aforesaid petition was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No.
108431.
On May 6, 2009, petitioner National Police Commission
issued a Resolution30 denying respondents’ (1) Supplemental

29
Pages 16-17, CA Petition
30
A copy is hereto attached as Annex “HH”.
G.R. No. __________________
/---------------------------------------------/
Motion to Declare the Resolution dated February 23, 2009 Null
and Void; and (2) Urgent Motion for Voluntary Inhibition dated
March 12, 2009, for lack of merit.
On May 18, 2009, the Court of Appeals issued a
Resolution31 directing petitioner and the private complainants to
file their comment on the petition within ten (10) days from
receipt thereof.
On August 13, 2009, or within the extended period
requested by petitioner, the latter filed its Comment 32 (on the
Petitioner for Urgent Prohibition with Application for Issuance of
a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction).
On August 25, 2009, the Court of Appeals issued a
Resolution33 which deemed as submitted respondents’ prayer for
issuance of a temporary restraining order/preliminary
injunction.
31
A copy is hereto attached as Annex “II”.
32
A copy is hereto attached as Annex “JJ”.
33
A copy is hereto attached as Annex “KK”.
G.R. No. __________________
/---------------------------------------------/
On September 4, 2009, petitioner received a copy of
respondents’ Reply34 to the Comment of Respondent NAPOLCOM
(on the Petition for Urgent Prohibition, etc.).
On May 24, 2010, petitioner received a copy of the Court of
Appeals Decision35 promulgated on May 18, 2010 granting
respondents’ petition and nullifying NAPOLCOM’s assailed
resolutions. The dispositive portion of the said decision reads:
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the

instant petition is hereby GRANTED and
the assailed Resolutions are hereby
NULLIFIED. The NAPOLCOM is likewise
hereby ENJOINED from hearing the case
until a proper formal charge is filed
against Petitioners.
SO ORDERED.36
On June 8, 2010, petitioner moved for a reconsideration 37
of the aforesaid decision.
34
A copy is hereto attached as Annex “LL”.
35
A copy is hereto attached as Annex “A”.
36
Ibid. at pages 19-20
37
A copy is hereto attached as Annex “MM”.
G.R. No. __________________
/---------------------------------------------/
On July 9, 2010, petitioner received a copy of respondents’
Comment on Public Respondent NAPOLCOM’s Motion for
Reconsideration.38
On August 26, 2010, petitioner received a copy of the Court
of Appeals’ Resolution39 dated August 23, 2010 denying
petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
Hence, this petition for review on certiorari.
GROUNDS IN SUPPORT OF THE PETITION
The Court of Appeals erred in ruling that

petitioner NAPOLCOM gravely abused its
discretion in issuing the assailed orders
placing respondents under preventive
suspension considering that petitioner
NAPOLCOM essentially adhered to the
requirements of the NAPOLCOM
Memorandum Circular No. 2007-001 when
it issued the assailed preventive
suspension order; hence, respondents’
right to due process was observed and duly
respected;
38
A copy is hereto attached as Annex “NN”.
39
A copy is hereto attached as Annex “B”.
G.R. No. __________________
/---------------------------------------------/
II
There is basis to place respondents under

preventive suspension.
DISCUSSION
I. The Court of Appeals

erred in ruling that
petitioner NAPOLCOM
gravely abused its discretion
in issuing the assailed orders
placing respondents under
preventive suspension
considering that petitioner
NAPOLCOM essentially
adhered to the requirements
of the NAPOLCOM
Memorandum Circular No.
2007-001 when it issued the
assailed preventive
suspension order; hence,
respondents’ right to due
process was observed and
duly respected.
----------------------------------------------
In granting the petition for prohibition/certiorari, the Court
of Appeals ratiocinated that petitioner NAPOLCOM failed to
adhere to the guidelines as provided under NAPOLCOM
Memorandum Circular No. 2007-00140, that is, on the filing of
40
Otherwise known as the Uniform Rules of Procedure Before the Administrative Disciplinary
Authorities and the Internal Affairs Service of the Philippine National Police.
G.R. No. __________________
/---------------------------------------------/
charges leading to the issuance of a preventive suspension order.
The Court of Appeals pointed out the following lapses
purportedly committed by petitioner, viz.:
(a) The documentary evidence presented

by the respondents41 did not show that
there was such a pre-charge
evaluation report;
(b) In the absence of any showing that the

pre-charge evaluation report was
received and entered in the official
docket of NAPOLCOM, the complaint
filed by herein private complainants
against respondents are not yet
deemed filed. Consequently, there is
no basis for the issuance of the
assailed preventive suspension orders;
(c) Neither did petitioner submit a duly
docketed pre-charge evaluation report;
(d) The photocopied document submitted

by petitioner entitled “Pre-Charge
Evaluation” does not show when it was
received; neither was a case number
assigned to it. Even the affidavits
executed by the private complainants
do not bear the time when it was filed;
(e) The undated 1st Indorsement from the

Acting Assistant Service Chief of the
Inspection, Monitoring and
Investigation Service (IMIS) of the
NAPOLCOM stating that they found
probable cause to indict respondents
is a mere scrap of paper;
41
Referred to as “accused” in the Decision dated May 18, 2010, page 13 thereof.
G.R. No. __________________
/---------------------------------------------/
(f) No pre-charge evaluation report was

attached to the summons. Only
affidavits executed by herein private
complainants were furnished the
petitioners.
Thus, the perceived lapses purportedly committed by
petitioner in issuing the assailed preventive suspension order
can be summed up to lack of a valid pre-charge evaluation report
duly received and entered in the official docket of the disciplinary
authority, or in this case, the NAPOLCOM.42 On the basis
thereof, the Court of Appeals concluded that no valid preventive
suspension order can be issued thereon.
It is respectfully submitted that the above ruling is not
correct.
1. On the purported lack of

Pre-Charge Evaluation
Report and the failure to
indicate the time and date
the same was received.
At the outset, it bears stressing that petitioner duly issued
a Pre-Evaluation Report. This is an undisputed fact. The said
Pre-Charge Evaluation43 was issued on February 23, 2009 by

42
Page 13, CA Decision dated May 18, 2010
43
A copy is hereto attached as Annex “L”.
G.R. No. __________________
/---------------------------------------------/
petitioner, the same date that the questioned preventive
suspension order was issued.
The Court of Appeals, however, invalidated the proceedings
before the NAPOLCOM holding that the lack of or failure of
petitioner to stamp thereon the date and time of its receipt by the
office tasked by the disciplining authority to maintain the
records of administrative cases, and the assignment of docket
number rendered the proceedings procedurally infirm.
The Court of Appeals further declared that there are two (2)
different complaints referred to under Rules 13 to 15 of
NAPOLCOM MC No. 2007-01: the first is the complaint filed by
witnesses or private complainants which initiates the
administrative case; and the second is the formal charge or the
administrative complaint or administrative case proper.44 It is
the second complaint which, according to the Court of Appeals,
must be stamped received before preventive suspension may be
validly imposed.
44
CA Resolution dated August 23, 2010, page 5
G.R. No. __________________
/---------------------------------------------/
Apparently, the first complaint mentioned above is that
referred to in Section 2, Rule 14 of the NAPOLCOM MC No.
2007-01 which provides:
Section 2. Action on the Complaint. –

All complaints for pre-evaluation shall be
stamped on its face with the date and time
of its receipt and an assigned reference
number, and shall be recorded in a docket
book exclusively maintained for that
purpose.
xxx xxx xxx
On the other hand, the second complaint seemingly
pertains to a complaint mentioned in Rule 15 of the same
NAPOLCOM rules which is deemed formally filed.
Section 1, Rule 15 of the NAPOLCOM MC No. 2007-01
reads:
Section 1. When Deemed Filed. –

Upon perusal of the approved pre-charge
evaluation report that the respondent
should be administratively charged
together with the complete records of the
complaint, the office tasked by the
disciplinary authority to maintain the
records of administrative cases, shall enter
the case into its official docket by stamping
G.R. No. __________________
/---------------------------------------------/
on the face of the report or complaint the

time and date of receipt and assign a case
number to it.
A docket book shall be maintained by

the said office and shall contain, among
others, the following data of the case: the
name of the parties, the offense charged,
the hearing officer to whom the case was
assigned; the date decision was rendered;
the implementing orders; proof of service of
decision; date appeal was filed; date the
decision became final and certificate of
finality was issued; and other relevant and
material data.
The case shall be deemed formally

and pending upon receipt and entry of the
same in the official docket of the
disciplinary authority or IAS. The office
tasked to maintain the docket of
administrative cases shall inform the PNP
Directorate for Investigation and Detective
Management (DIDM) of the pending cases,
as well as the PNP unit where the
respondent is assigned.
An examination of the afore-cited provisions clearly show
that the complaints mentioned therein refer to one complaint
only, that is, the one filed by the private complainants. The
“second” complaint as adverted to in Rule 15 is the same
complaint but that which has gone through evaluation by a
designated officer for the purpose of determining the existence of

G.R. No. __________________
/---------------------------------------------/
probable cause. Differently stated, the conclusions arrived at by
the evaluator as embodied in the pre-charge evaluation report is
still based on the same accusations alleged by the private
complainants in their complaints filed and received by petitioner
NAPOLCOM.
Under the foregoing circumstances, there is a formal charge
upon which a preventive suspension can be imposed.
Besides, further examination of the subsequent paragraphs
of Section 1, Rule 15 of the NAPOLCOM MC No. 2007-01 reveals
that the stamping of the date and time the complaint was
received is merely a guideline instructing the NAPOLCOM
personnel on the proper manner of docketing the complaints
filed with the said agency. The afore-quoted provision does not
vest any new right to the respondents such that failure to comply
therewith would amount to a denial of their procedural right to
due process.
At any rate, it is respectfully submitted that the failure to
stamp on the face of the Pre-Evaluation Report the time and date
G.R. No. __________________
/---------------------------------------------/
of its receipt and the docketing thereof are trivial to invalidate
the preventive suspension order issued by petitioner NAPOLCOM
against respondents.
It bears stressing that the complaints filed against
respondents bear the stamp indicating that these were received
and duly recorded by the IMIS of NAPOLCOM on February 20,
2009.45
Also, the summonses served upon respondents bear the
docket number, NAPOLCOM SD CASE NO. 2009-1621, 46 which
means that the complaints filed by private complainants against
respondents have been entered, as it was actually entered into
the record books of and duly docketed by respondent
NAPOLCOM, as certified47 by Atty. Arnold Q. Miña, Division
Chief, Case Management Division, Legal Affairs Service,
NAPOLCOM.
45
A copy is hereto attached as Annex “I”.
46
A copy is hereto attached as Annex “O”.
47
A copy is hereto attached as Annex “OO”.
G.R. No. __________________
/---------------------------------------------/
There is, therefore, substantial compliance with the
requirement of receipt and docketing of complaints filed with the
NAPOLCOM.
2. The 1st Indorsement is not

a pleading within the
contemplation of the law.
Petitioner likewise respectfully disagrees with the
conclusion of the Court of Appeals that the undated 1 st
Indorsement48 of the Acting Assistant Service Chief of the
Inspection, Monitoring and Investigation Service of the
NAPOLCOM, is considered a mere scrap of paper; hence, no
preventive suspension can be legally issued based thereon.
Pleadings are defined as “written statements of the
respective claims and defenses of the parties submitted to the
court for appropriate judgment.”49
As can be gleaned from the contents of the subject
Indorsement, it is merely a letter addressed and transmitting to
48
A copy is hereto attached as Annex “M”.
49
Section 1, Rule 6, Revised Rules of Court.
G.R. No. __________________
/---------------------------------------------/
the Commission En Banc, through Legal Affairs Service, all the
documents pertaining to the administrative case filed against
respondents. Surely, respondents’ rights were not prejudiced by
the failure to indicate thereon the date when the records were
transmitted to the Commission En Banc the record of the case
for appropriate action.
3. On the alleged failure to

serve respondents
summonses
Anent the findings of the Court of Appeals that respondents
were not served summonses, again, it is respectfully submitted
that this conclusion is not correct. No less than the respondents
admitted in their Joint Motion for Extension of Time to File
Answer50 that they received on February 27, 2009 summonses
dated February 25, 2009 directing them to submit their
respective answers to the complaints filed against them by
herein private respondents. Thus:
1. On February 27, 2009, respondents

received a copy of the Summons issued by
this Honorable Commission directing them
50
A copy is hereto attached as Annex “Q”.
G.R. No. __________________
/---------------------------------------------/
to file their Answer within five (5) days from

receipt thereof;
Pursuant thereto, respondents filed on March 13, 2009 a
Manifestation Adopting Submitted Affidavits of Respondents as
Part of Their Answer51 praying that respondents’ affidavits be
made an integral part of their Joint Omnibus Motion for
Reconsideration with Urgent Motion to Immediately Lift
Preventive Suspension/Dismiss Case and Answer.
4. On the failure to furnish

respondents copies of the
pre-charge evaluation
report
There is nothing under the NAPOLCOM rules which require
respondents to be furnished a copy of the complaint or formal
charge before they could be placed under preventive suspension.
Thus, Section 1, Rule 16 of the NAPOLCOM Memorandum
Circular No. 2007-001 reads:
Section 1. Preventive Suspension of the

Respondent by the Disciplinary Authority
and IAS. – The concerned disciplinary
authority of IAS, upon motion of the
complainant may, at any time, after a case
is formally filed but before the presentation
51
A copy is hereto attached as Annex “T”.
G.R. No. __________________
/---------------------------------------------/
of complainant’s evidence is terminated,

place the respondent/s on preventive
suspension for a period not exceeding
ninety (90) days under any of the following
circumstances:
a) that the charge is serious

and grave and the evidence
of guilt is strong; or
b) there is evidence to show

that the respondent is
exerting efforts to harass,
intimidated, coerce or
unduly influence the
complainant or his/her
witnesses into withdrawing
his complaint or retracting
his sworn statement or that
his witnesses against the
respondent or to tamper with
the evidence.
The afore-quoted provision only requires that (a) a case be
formally filed; and (b) that the complainant file a motion to place
respondents under preventive suspension. All the conditions
have been met in the present case.
Prior to the issuance of the assailed preventive suspension
order, or on February 20, 2009, complaint-affidavits were filed
accusing respondents of acts constitutive of Grave Misconduct.
On the basis thereof, a Pre-Charge Evaluation dated February

G.R. No. __________________
/---------------------------------------------/
23, 2009 was approved and issued by the Acting Service Chief of
IMIS, Atty. Norma T. Pullen. On even date, private complainants
filed an Urgent Motion for Preventive Suspension52 praying that
respondents be placed under preventive suspension. Petitioner,
thus, sufficiently complied with the foregoing rule when it issued
the assailed preventive suspension order.
Preventive suspension is not a penalty but merely a
preliminary step in an administrative investigation. The power to
discipline and impose penalties, if granted, carries with it the
power to investigate administrative complaints and, during such
investigation, to preventively suspend the person subject of the
complaint.53 Not being in the nature of a penalty, prior notice
and hearing is not required in imposing preventive suspension. 54
The rationale of this rule was explained in Garcia vs. Pajaro,55
citing Hagad vs. Gozo-Dadole, where the Supreme Court said:
As a corollary, the power to discipline

evidently includes the power to investigate.
In Hagad vs. Gozo-Dadole, we explained
52
A copy is hereto attached as Annex “N”.
53
Soriano vs. Laguardia, 587 SCRA 79, 92 [2009]
54
Lastimosa vs. Vasquez, 243 SCRA 497, 507 [1995]
55
384 SCRA 122, 135-136 [2002]
G.R. No. __________________
/---------------------------------------------/
the rationale for preventive suspension as

follows:
". . . . Be that, as it may, we

have heretofore held that, not being
in the nature of a penalty, a
preventive suspension can be decreed
on an official under investigation after
charges are brought and even before
the charges are heard. Naturally,
such a preventive suspension would
occur prior to any finding of guilt or
innocence."
". . . . Suspension is a preliminary

step in an administrative
investigation. If after such
investigation, the charges are
established and the person
investigated is found guilty of acts
warranting his removal, then he is
removed or dismissed. This is the
penalty. There is, therefore, nothing
improper in suspending an officer
pending his investigation and before
the charges against him are heard
and be given opportunity to prove his
innocence."
In any case, it is petitioner’s respectful submission that it is
the service of complaints and summonses upon respondents that
substantially satisfies the requirement of due process.
Paragraphs (d) and (f), Section 1, Rule 2 of NAPOLCOM
Memorandum Circular No. 2007-001 define a citizen’s
complaint and complaint in this manner:

G.R. No. __________________
/---------------------------------------------/
Section 1. Definition of Terms. – As used in

these Rules, the following terms shall be
understood to mean as follows:
xxx xxx xxx
d) Citizen’s complaint – a formal

charge initiated by a natural or
juridical person or his/its duly
authorized representative or
guardian on account of an
injury, damage or disturbance
sustained as a result of an
irregular or illegal act or
omission of a PNP member;
xxx xxx xxx
f) Complaint – a written and sworn

statement regarding a wrong,
grievance or injury sustained by
a person;
Clearly, private complainants’ complaint-affidavits squarely
fall within the terms defined above. Private complainants’
grievances were reduced in writing which essentially state the
wrong or injury sustained by them allegedly committed by
members of the PNP. On the basis of the said complaints as well
as the video footage of the shootout, respondent NAPOLCOM
issued its order placing petitioners under preventive suspension.

G.R. No. __________________
/---------------------------------------------/
In administrative proceedings, procedural due process has
been recognized to include the following: (1) the right to actual or
constructive notice of the institution of proceedings which may
affect a respondent's legal rights; (2) a real opportunity to be
heard personally or with the assistance of counsel, to present
witnesses and evidence in one's favor, and to defend one's rights;
(3) a tribunal vested with competent jurisdiction and so
constituted as to afford a person charged administratively a
reasonable guarantee of honesty as well as impartiality; and (4) a
finding by said tribunal which is supported by substantial
evidence submitted for consideration during the hearing or
contained in the records or made known to the parties affected.56
In this case, respondents were amply and actually notified
of the institution of an administrative case against them with
their receipt of summonses and the attached complaint.
Assuming that there are procedural defects in the
docketing of the complaint filed before the respondent
NAPOLCOM, these were cured when petitioners sought
56
PEZA, et al. vs. Pearl City Manufacturing Corp., et al., 608 SCRA 280, 282 [2009], citing
Pagayanan R. Hadji-Sirad vs. Civil Service Commission, 597 SCRA 475, 477 [2009]
G.R. No. __________________
/---------------------------------------------/
reconsideration57 of the Resolution dated February 23, 2009
placing them under preventive suspension.
In administrative proceedings, filing of charges against the
person and giving reasonable opportunity to the person so
charged to answer the accusations against him constitute the
minimum requirements of due process. The essence of due
process is simply to be heard; or as applied to administrative
proceedings, an opportunity to explain one's side, or an
opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling
complained of.58
In Cesa vs. Ombudsman,59 the Supreme Court declared
that in administrative cases, the absence of notice is cured by
the aggrieved party’s participation in subsequent proceedings to
present evidence in his defense and submission of any pleading
to explain his side:
x x x. Even without notice, there is

no denial of procedural due process if
the parties were given the opportunity
to be heard. Due process in administrative
57
A copy is hereto attached as Annex “R”.
58
Orbase vs. Office of the Ombudsman, 609 SCRA 111, 113 [2009]
59
558 SCRA 357 [2008]
G.R. No. __________________
/---------------------------------------------/
proceedings simply means an opportunity

to seek a reconsideration of the order
complained of and it cannot be fully
equated with that in strict jurisprudential
sense. A respondent is not entitled to be
informed of the preliminary findings and
recommendations of the investigating
agency; he is entitled only to a fair
opportunity to be heard and to a
decision based on substantial evidence.
No more, no less. In fine, Cesa had no
right to be notified of the auditing team's
preliminary report while graft investigators
were reviewing it. His contention that he
was required to file a counter-affidavit
sans a formal charge against him belies
any claim of denial of due process.
The appellate court correctly ruled

that procedural lapses, if any, were
cured when Cesa participated in the
preliminary conference, submitted his
counter-affidavit and supplemental
counter-affidavit, actively participated
in the proceedings by cross-examining
witnesses, and filed a motion for
reconsideration before the Office of the
Ombudsman. Cesa was given every
opportunity to explain his side and to
present evidence in his defense during
the administrative investigation. True,
the case mutated when the graft
investigators discovered evidence against
and impleaded the city officials, but Cesa
filed a supplemental affidavit to controvert
the charges and later participated in the
hearings. In fact, he even filed a motion for
reconsideration of the Ombudsman's
decision.
G.R. No. __________________
/---------------------------------------------/
In this case, respondents actively participated in the
proceedings before petitioner NAPOLCOM. They submitted their
counter-affidavits and documentary evidence, motions for
extension to file answer and reconsideration/dismiss case, etc.
which were all duly acted upon by petitioner, albeit not in their
favor. In other words, due process was properly observed.
II. There is basis to place

respondents under
preventive suspension.
Section 1, Rule 16 of the NAPOLCOM Memorandum
Circular No. 2007-001 provides:
Section 1. Preventive Suspension of the

Respondent by the Disciplinary Authority
and IAS. – The concerned disciplinary
authority or IAS, upon motion of the
complainant may, at any time, after a case
is formally filed but before the presentation
of complainant’s evidence is terminated,
place the respondent/s on preventive
suspension for a period not exceeding
ninety (90) days under any of the following
circumstances:
a) that the charge is serious

and grave and the evidence
of guilt is strong; or
b) there is evidence to show

that the respondent is
G.R. No. __________________
/---------------------------------------------/
exerting efforts to harass,

intimidated, coerce or
unduly influence the
complainant or his/her
witnesses into withdrawing
his complaint or retracting
his sworn statement or that
his witnesses against the
respondent or to tamper with
the evidence.
Thus, under the first circumstance, the following conditions
must concur: (a) the charge is serious and grave; and (b) the
evidence of guilt is strong. These requisites are attendant in the
present case.
Respondents are being administratively charged with
alleged mishandling of their dragnet operation against suspected
carnappers last February 17, 2009. Considering that the said
encounter resulted in the death of the suspected carnappers,
there is no doubt that the charge imputed against them is
serious and grave.
It is a settled rule that the disciplining authority is given
the discretion to decide when the evidence of guilt is strong. 60 In
this case, petitioner, sitting en banc, placed respondents under

60
Buenaseda, et al. vs. Flavier, et al., 226 SCRA 645 [1993]
G.R. No. __________________
/---------------------------------------------/
preventive suspension after it weighed the evidence presented
consisting of the reports submitted by the Inspection, Monitoring
and Investigation Services (IMIS) as well as the ABS-CBN video
footage taken of the February 17, 2009 encounter. In arriving at
its conclusion, petitioner declared:
Based on the said ABS-CBN video

footage, and reports submitted to
NAPOLCOM by the Inspection, Monitoring
and Investigation Services (IMIS), the
Commission En Banc makes the following
observations/conclusions:
a. Some operatives
were not in proper police uniform
during the police intervention
operations in violation of Rule 3.c of
the POP;
b. There was no
showing that sufficient warnings
and efforts were exerted to persuade
the suspects to come out of the car
and surrender. Under Rule 4 of the
POP, the team leader shall use all
peaceful means, including the use of
a megaphone or any other similar
means, to influence/warn the
offenders/suspects to stop and/or
peacefully give up. Instead, at least
four (4) police operatives approached
the parked vehicle of the suspects,
thereby unnecessarily putting their
persons in harm’s way or exposing
themselves to possible attack from
the suspects;
G.R. No. __________________
/---------------------------------------------/
c. The police
operatives who approached the
vehicle were called upon under
Rules 6 and 7 of the POP to avoid
the use of excessive force. The act of
shooting the suspects inside the
vehicle and the suspect who was
pulled out from the vehicle are
violative of the Rule considering that
the suspects did not pose an
imminent danger or death or serious
physical injury to the police or other
persons;
d. The police
operatives did not observe the
requirements of Rule 9 of the POP in
that immediately after the vehicle
was stopped and the police
operatives have surrounded the
vehicle, the following should have
been performed:
1. Secure the site of confrontation;
2. Check whether the situation still

poses imminent danger;
3. Evacuate the wounded to the

nearest hospital;
4. Account for the killed, wounded,

and arrested persons for proper
disposition.
In this case, the police operatives did

not secure the site of confrontation and
instead approached the vehicle without
first ensuring that the situation no longer
posed imminent danger to them.
Moreover, instead of evacuating the
wounded to the nearest hospital, at least
G.R. No. __________________
/---------------------------------------------/
one (1) of the wounded suspects were (sic)

shot dead at point blank range,
WHEREFORE, considering that the

acts attributable to the police operatives
involved in the “Quezon City Shoot Out” on
17 February 2009 at EDSA corner NIA
Road constitute grave offenses, and the
evidence of their culpability is strong, the
Commission En Banc resolves as follows:
1. Place under
Preventive Suspension for a period
of ninety (90) days upon service of
a copy of this Resolution to their
respective units, the following
members of the Operating Teams,
namely:
a. P/INSP. ANGELO B.
NICOLAS (Team Leader, Anti-
Carnapping Unit, Quezon City
Police District), SPO1
FREDERICK TORRES, PO3
HONEY BESAS, PO3 GLICERIO
MANACPO, PO2 EUGENE
MARTINES, PO2 RANDY
BARRAMEDA, PO1 RANMOND
ESCOBER, PO1 FREDDY
61
SULIVA.
xxx xxx xxx
Plainly, no grave abuse of discretion can be reasonably
attributed to petitioner in issuing its order placing petitioners
61
Annex “C” hereof at pages 4-5
G.R. No. __________________
/---------------------------------------------/
under preventive suspension. The decision to suspend
petitioners was reached only after a proper evaluation of the
assertions of the complainants, the reports of the units where
respondents belong, not to mention the video footage of the news
crew depicting the incidents surrounding the armed encounter
between the respondents and the suspected carnappers.
Jurisprudence teaches that there may exist honest
differences of opinion with regard to the seriousness of the
charges or as to whether they warrant disciplinary action.
However, as a general rule, the office that is invested with the
power of removal or suspension should be the sole judge of the
necessity and sufficiency of the cause. So, unless a flagrant
abuse of exercise of that power is shown, public policy and a
becoming regard for the principle of separation of powers
demand that the action of said officer or body should be left
undisturbed.62 No flagrant abuse of exercise of power by
petitioner was established in the present case.
APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY

RESTRAINING ORDER AND/OR WRIT OF
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
62
Espiritu vs. Melgar, 206 SCRA 256 [1992]
G.R. No. __________________
/---------------------------------------------/
Petitioner respectfully repleads the aforesaid allegations in
support of its aforesaid application for a temporary restraining
order and/or writ of preliminary injunction.
Based on the above disquisition, it is respectfully submitted
that petitioner is entitled to the reliefs prayed for. Part of such
relief consists of enjoining the implementation of the assailed
issuances.
Unless so restrained, respondents would be allowed to
continue in office to the grave prejudice of an unhampered
continuation of the proceedings against said respondents.
It may not be amiss to point out that preventive suspension
is designed purposely to prevent the accused from using his
position and the powers and prerogatives of his office to
influence potential witnesses or tamper with records which may
be vital in the prosecution of the case against him. 63 The need to
place respondents under preventive suspension becomes more
63
Ombudsman vs. Pelino, 552 SCRA 203 [2008]
G.R. No. __________________
/---------------------------------------------/
obvious in this case considering that persons sought to be
preventively suspended are armed personnel of the Philippine
National Police capable of intimidating witnesses, as indeed
private complainants claim that they are being intimidated.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that:
(1) Upon the filing of this petition, a temporary restraining
order and/or writ of preliminary injunction order be issued
enjoining the implementation of the Decision dated May 18,
2010 and Resolution dated August 23, 2010;
(2) After due deliberations, the Court of Appeals’ Decision
promulgated on May 18, 2010 and Resolution dated August 23,
2010 be REVERSED and SET ASIDE and, the petition before the
Court of Appeals be DISMISSED.

G.R. No. __________________
/---------------------------------------------/
It is likewise prayed that petitioner be granted such other
reliefs as are just and equitable in the premises.
Makati City for the City of Manila, October 10, 2010.

SCpetition - Rule45 1 REV 1 OCT4

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

SCpetition - Rule45 1 REV 1 OCT4

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

NATIONAL POLICE COMMISSION

G.R. No. _____________

P/INSP. ANGELO B. NICOLAS,

PETITION FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI

PETITIONER, by counsel, respectfully states:

NATURE OF THE PETITION

This petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the

Appeals promulgated on May 18, 2010 which nullified

petitioner’s Resolutions dated February 23, 2009 and March 30,

2009 placing herein respondents under preventive suspension

and denied their motion for reconsideration, respectively; and

(b) the Resolution promulgated on August 23, 2010 which denied

petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.

Original duplicate copies of the aforesaid Decision and

Resolution are hereto attached as Annexes “A” and “B”,

1. Petitioner National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM) is

one of the respondents in CA-G.R. SP No. 108431 which issued

2009. Said resolutions placed respondents under preventive

suspension in the administrative case entitled “Ma. Theresa U.

Cartalla, et al. vs. P/Insp. Angelo B. Nicolas, et al.”

docketed as SD Case No. 2009-1621.

2. Respondents P/Insp. Angelo B. Nicolas, SPO1 Frederick

Torres, PO3 Honey Besas, PO3 Glicerio Manacpo, PO2 Eugene

Martinez, PO2 Randy Barrameda, PO1 Raymond Escober and

PO1 Fredie Suliva, are the petitioners in CA-G.R. SP No. 108431

in whose favor the assailed resolutions were rendered. They may

be served with pleadings and court processes through their

counsel, the Public Attorney’s Office at DOJ Agencies Building,

NIA Road corner East Avenue, Diliman, Quezon City.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL DATES AND

On May 24, 2010, petitioner received a copy of the Court of

Appeals’ Decision promulgated on May 18, 2010 which nullified

petitioner’s Resolutions dated February 23, 2009 and March 30,

2009 in NAPOLCOM SD Case No. 2009-1621.1

On June 8, 2010, petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals

a motion for reconsideration2 of the said decision.

On August 26, 2010, petitioner received the Court of

Appeals’ Resolution promulgated on August 23, 2010 which

denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.

On September 9, 2010, or within the reglementary period

within which to file a petition for review on certiorari, petitioner

filed a motion3 for extension praying for an additional period of

2010, within which to file Petition for Review on Certiorari.

This petition is thus filed within the extended period.

ANTECEDENT FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

The present case stemmed from an armed encounter

between respondents and suspected carnappers. The facts,

culled from the incident reports4 as well as from the NAPOLCOM

Resolution dated February 23, 2009, show that on February 17,

2009, around 7:00 o’clock in the evening, elements of the

National Capital Region (NCR)-Highway Patrol Group (HPG) led

by Police Chief Inspector Henry Cerdon and Police Chief

Inspector Allan Rubi Macapagal were conducting anti-

carnapping patrol operation in Mandaluyong City when they

spotted a blue Honda Civic bearing plate number AED-115 with

four (4) unidentified passengers on board. The police operatives

that of a carnapped vehicle earlier reported by its owner, a

certain Albert Rombawa.

At that instance, the said police operatives, using their

mobile public address system, ordered the driver to pull over.

However, instead of heeding the warnings of the policemen, the