Himagan v. People
NEW DOCTRINEFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Ishmael Himagan, a policeman assigned with the medical company of the Philippine National Police Regional Headquarters at Camp Catitigan, Davao City, was implicated in the killing of Benjamin Machitar, Jr. and the attempted murder of Bernabe Machitar. Informations for murder and attempted murder were filed against him. Procedural History: On September 16, 1992, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 11, Davao City, issued an order suspending petitioner from office until the termination of the case, pursuant to Section 47 of R.A. 6975. Petitioner filed a motion to lift the suspension, arguing it should be limited to ninety (90) days based on Section 42 of P.D. 807 (Civil Service Decree) and citing jurisprudence. The respondent judge denied the motion, citing Section 47 of R.A. 6975 which mandates suspension until the case is terminated. A motion for reconsideration was also denied. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus to set aside the orders of the respondent judge and to command him to lift the preventive suspension.
Issue(s)
Whether the preventive suspension of a PNP member charged with grave felonies under Section 47 of R.A. 6975 is limited to ninety (90) days. Whether Section 42 of P.D. 807, limiting preventive suspension to ninety (90) days in administrative cases, applies to PNP members facing criminal charges. Whether the imposition of preventive suspension beyond ninety (90) days violates the constitutional right to equal protection of the laws.
Ruling
The petition is devoid of merit and is hereby DISMISSED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the duration of preventive suspension under Section 47 of R.A. 6975: The Court held that the language of Section 47 of R.A. 6975 is clear and unambiguous: the suspension of a PNP member charged with grave felonies where the penalty is six years and one day or more shall last "until the case is terminated." The second sentence of the same section, mandating continuous trial to be terminated within ninety (90) days from arraignment, does not qualify or limit the duration of the suspension. These two sentences address different aspects: the first concerns the period of suspension, and the second concerns the timeframe for trial completion. The failure to terminate the trial within ninety days does not automatically lift the suspension; instead, the judge may face administrative sanctions, and the accused may seek dismissal of the case on grounds of speedy trial violation. On the applicability of Section 42 of P.D. 807: The Court found that petitioner misapplied Section 42 of P.D. 807. This provision explicitly refers to the lifting of preventive suspension pending an administrative investigation, not a criminal case, as in the present situation. Furthermore, Section 42 limits the suspension period to ninety (90) days, which is inconsistent with Section 47 of R.A. 6975. Section 91 of R.A. 6975, stating that the Civil Service Law applies to PNP personnel, means it applies only insofar as it is not inconsistent with R.A. 6975. Therefore, the ninety-day limitation in Section 42 of P.D. 807 cannot apply to PNP members facing criminal charges under R.A. 6975. On the violation of the equal protection clause: The Court ruled that the distinction made by Section 47 of R.A. 6975 does not violate the equal protection clause. The clause requires that all persons be treated alike under like circumstances and conditions, but it does not forbid classifications based on real and substantial differences. The legislative intent behind Section 47 was to prevent policemen, who carry weapons and badges, from using their authority to harass or intimidate witnesses or victims while their criminal cases are pending. Reinstating a suspended policeman facing serious charges could expose victims and witnesses to constant threat, thus easily cowing them into silence. This classification is based on a real and reasonable consideration related to a proper legislative purpose, making it neither unreasonable, capricious, nor unfounded.
Main Doctrine
The preventive suspension of a member of the Philippine National Police (PNP) charged with grave felonies, where the penalty imposed by law is six (6) years and one (1) day or more, shall last until the termination of the case, as provided under Section 47 of R.A. 6975. This provision is specific to PNP members and supersedes general Civil Service rules on the duration of preventive suspension in administrative cases, as the legislative intent was to provide a stricter measure for law enforcement officers facing serious criminal charges to protect witnesses and the integrity of the proceedings.