CA reverses Duterte dismissal of PNP general

MANILA, Philippines — The Court of Appeals (CA) has reversed the decision of former president Rodrigo Duterte to dismiss from service former National Capital Region Police Office (NCRPO) chief Maj. Gen. Joel Pagdilao over the general’s supposed failure to curb the proliferation of illegal drugs.

Duterte had accused Pagdilao and other Philippine National Police (PNP) officials of protecting drug traffickers.

In dismissing Pagdilao, Malacañang said he was administratively liable for serious neglect of duty and serious irregularity in the performance of duty.

However, the CA’s Eighth Division modified the Office of the President (OP)’s October 2017 decision and found Pagdilao liable only for simple neglect of duty, penalizing him with a reprimand.

The CA’s Dec. 20, 2023 decision was penned by Associate Justice Jaime Fortunato Caringal. Concurring were Associate Justices Ramon Cruz and Louis Acosta.

The OP had upheld the recommendation of the National Police Commission to dismiss Pagdilao for ignoring a letter from then Quezon City Vice Mayor Joy Belmonte containing comments from residents that were critical of the Stations Anti-Illegal Drugs-Special Operations Task Group and for assigning officers with no training and with derogatory records to the task group.

Pagdilao, as then NCRPO chief, also allegedly failed to sanction police officers who contributed to the large number of acquittals in drug cases before the prosecutors and courts, caused by illegal arrests, unlawful searches, planting of evidence, bungling of drug cases and repeated failure of police officers to appear as prosecution witnesses, among others.

In favoring Pagdilao, the CA said the general was only liable for simple neglect of duty when he failed to reply to the letter from Belmonte, saying this did not fall under offenses classified as “grave,” under a Napolcom memorandum circular.

Careless or  indifferent?

Instead, the CA said Pagdilao’s action was an example of a failure to “coordinate or cooperate with other law enforcement agencies and their personnel,” which signifies “a disregard of duty resulting from carelessness or indifference, but not a flagrant and culpable refusal or unwillingness of a person to perform a duty, so as to amount to serious neglect of duty.”

The CA also noted that Belmonte’s letter was endorsed by Pagdilao’s subordinate to the concerned police units.

Additionally, the CA said the former NCRPO chief is not liable under the doctrine of command responsibility for the bungled drug cases because it was not proven that he had knowledge of these irregularities.

The CA also cleared Pagdilao of serious irregularity in the performance of duty, saying police personnel who had derogatory records had served their administrative sanctions and were on active duty. Tsherefore they could be assigned as he saw fit.

The CA disagreed with the Office of the Solicitor General’s position that police personnel with derogatory records should not be involved in anti-illegal drug operations, saying that having a derogatory record does not automatically mean a police officer no longer has trustworthiness, integrity, responsibility and expertise.