Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
SUPREME COURT
MANILA
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. __________________
/---------------------------------------------/
respectively.
THE PARTIES
the assailed Resolutions dated February 23, 2009 and March 30,
1
Copies of the aforesaid resolutions are hereto attached as Annexes “C” and “D.”
2
A copy is hereto attached as Annex “E.”
Petition for Review on Certiorari 4
NAPOLCOM vs. Nicolas et al.
G.R. No. __________________
/---------------------------------------------/
thirty (30) days from September 10, 2010, or until October 10,
verified the status of the said motor vehicle from their mobile
laptop VIMS data and they discovered that the plate number was
New York Avenue. The said PNP unit tried to intercept the
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
the spot while one (1) had a “sign of life.” The ANCAR operatives
Petition for Review on Certiorari 7
NAPOLCOM vs. Nicolas et al.
G.R. No. __________________
/---------------------------------------------/
pulled the suspect out of the vehicle and rushed him to the East
filmed by the ABS-CBN crew who was then at the scene of the
encounter.
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”.
Petition for Review on Certiorari 9
NAPOLCOM vs. Nicolas et al.
G.R. No. __________________
/---------------------------------------------/
period of ninety (90) days effective February 26, 2009 until May
26, 2009.
11
A copy is hereto attached as Annex “Q”.
12
A copy is hereto attached as Annex “R”.
Petition for Review on Certiorari 11
NAPOLCOM vs. Nicolas et al.
G.R. No. __________________
/---------------------------------------------/
Answer.15
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”.
Petition for Review on Certiorari 14
NAPOLCOM vs. Nicolas et al.
G.R. No. __________________
/---------------------------------------------/
and Void.23
respectively.
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”.
Petition for Review on Certiorari 16
NAPOLCOM vs. Nicolas et al.
G.R. No. __________________
/---------------------------------------------/
108431.
and Void; and (2) Urgent Motion for Voluntary Inhibition dated
file their comment on the petition within ten (10) days from
receipt thereof.
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”.
Petition for Review on Certiorari 19
NAPOLCOM vs. Nicolas et al.
G.R. No. __________________
/---------------------------------------------/
SO ORDERED.36
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”.
Petition for Review on Certiorari 20
NAPOLCOM vs. Nicolas et al.
G.R. No. __________________
/---------------------------------------------/
Reconsideration.38
38
A copy is hereto attached as Annex “NN”.
39
A copy is hereto attached as Annex “B”.
Petition for Review on Certiorari 21
NAPOLCOM vs. Nicolas et al.
G.R. No. __________________
/---------------------------------------------/
II
DISCUSSION
40
Otherwise known as the Uniform Rules of Procedure Before the Administrative Disciplinary
Authorities and the Internal Affairs Service of the Philippine National Police.
Petition for Review on Certiorari 22
NAPOLCOM vs. Nicolas et al.
G.R. No. __________________
/---------------------------------------------/
41
Referred to as “accused” in the Decision dated May 18, 2010, page 13 thereof.
Petition for Review on Certiorari 23
NAPOLCOM vs. Nicolas et al.
G.R. No. __________________
/---------------------------------------------/
correct.
petitioner to stamp thereon the date and time of its receipt by the
The Court of Appeals further declared that there are two (2)
validly imposed.
44
CA Resolution dated August 23, 2010, page 5
Petition for Review on Certiorari 25
NAPOLCOM vs. Nicolas et al.
G.R. No. __________________
/---------------------------------------------/
reads:
only, that is, the one filed by the private complainants. The
NAPOLCOM.
that the stamping of the date and time the complaint was
filed with the said agency. The afore-quoted provision does not
vest any new right to the respondents such that failure to comply
due process.
stamp on the face of the Pre-Evaluation Report the time and date
Petition for Review on Certiorari 28
NAPOLCOM vs. Nicolas et al.
G.R. No. __________________
/---------------------------------------------/
against respondents.
2009.45
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”.
Petition for Review on Certiorari 29
NAPOLCOM vs. Nicolas et al.
G.R. No. __________________
/---------------------------------------------/
NAPOLCOM.
48
A copy is hereto attached as Annex “M”.
49
Section 1, Rule 6, Revised Rules of Court.
Petition for Review on Certiorari 30
NAPOLCOM vs. Nicolas et al.
G.R. No. __________________
/---------------------------------------------/
the failure to indicate thereon the date when the records were
formally filed; and (b) that the complainant file a motion to place
23, 2009 was approved and issued by the Acting Service Chief of
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]
Petition for Review on Certiorari 34
NAPOLCOM vs. Nicolas et al.
G.R. No. __________________
/---------------------------------------------/
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]
Petition for Review on Certiorari 37
NAPOLCOM vs. Nicolas et al.
G.R. No. __________________
/---------------------------------------------/
complained of.58
which were all duly acted upon by petitioner, albeit not in their
must concur: (a) the charge is serious and grave; and (b) the
present case.
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;
Petition for Review on Certiorari 42
NAPOLCOM vs. Nicolas et al.
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. 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.
61
Annex “C” hereof at pages 4-5
Petition for Review on Certiorari 44
NAPOLCOM vs. Nicolas et al.
G.R. No. __________________
/---------------------------------------------/
issuances.
63
Ombudsman vs. Pelino, 552 SCRA 203 [2008]
Petition for Review on Certiorari 46
NAPOLCOM vs. Nicolas et al.
G.R. No. __________________
/---------------------------------------------/
PRAYER
2010 be REVERSED and SET ASIDE and, the petition before the