Bonofe v. Zurbano
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner, a policeman, was suspended by the respondent Mayor due to four criminal cases filed against him: assault upon an agent of a person in authority with homicide; less serious physical injuries thru reckless imprudence; illegal possession of firearm; and alarm and scandal. Procedural History: The prosecution moved for the provisional dismissal of these cases due to the desistance of the offended parties, who had been paid by the petitioner. The Municipal Court granted this motion. Subsequently, the petitioner sought and was granted an absolute dismissal of the cases. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition with the Civil Service Commission for reinstatement and payment of salaries during his suspension, invoking Section 16 of the Police Act of 1966. The Commission referred the matter to the Mayor, who refused reinstatement, stating there was no acquittal. Petitioner then filed an action for mandamus in the Court of First Instance (CFI) to compel reinstatement and back salaries, which the CFI dismissed. This petition seeks the reversal of the CFI's decision.
Issue(s)
Whether the provisional or absolute dismissal of the criminal cases filed against the petitioner, after payment to the offended parties and without trial on the merits, constitutes an "acquittal" as contemplated by Section 16 of the Police Act of 1966, entitling him to reinstatement and back salaries. Whether the petitioner exhausted administrative remedies before filing the action for mandamus.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The Court of First Instance did not err in dismissing the action for mandamus.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of acquittal for reinstatement and back salaries: The Court held that the law predicates reinstatement with entitlement to back salaries on "acquittal." The dismissal of the criminal cases against the petitioner, which occurred after he had paid the offended parties and without a trial on the merits, was not an acquittal. The Court clarified that "acquittal" means that after due hearing and consideration of the evidence, the court finds the accused's guilt not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. A dismissal, on the other hand, does not decide the case on the merits; it merely terminates the proceeding for various reasons, such as lack of jurisdiction or insufficiency of the complaint. The Court cited People vs. Salico to distinguish between dismissal and acquittal, emphasizing that a dismissal is not an acquittal unless it is based on the merits after the prosecution has presented its evidence and failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Furthermore, the Court noted that one of the charges, assault upon an agent of a person in authority with homicide, was before the municipal court only for preliminary investigation, a stage where acquittal is not possible. On the issue of exhaustion of administrative remedies: The Court found that the petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies. His petition for reinstatement was pending before the Civil Service Commission when he filed the action for mandamus in the Court of First Instance, and it remained pending before the Commission.
Main Doctrine
A provisional or absolute dismissal of criminal cases, particularly when based on the desistance of offended parties who have been paid, does not constitute an acquittal for the purpose of entitlement to reinstatement and back salaries under the Police Act of 1966. Acquittal requires a judgment on the merits, finding the accused not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.