SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 257157. November 22, 2021.]
NORBERTO P. GICOLE, petitioner, vs.POLICE OFFICER 2 RENY D. ESPINA,1POLICE OFFICER 2 ISAAC KIRT Q. SIPIN,2POLICE OFFICER 2 JUNIE LEE BESAS,3AND THE HONORABLE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN FOR MILITARY AND OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICES, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated22 November 2021which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 257157 (Norberto P. Gicole v. Police Officer 2 Reny D. Espina, Police Officer 2 Isaac Kirt Q. Sipin, Police Officer 2 Junie Lee Besas, and the Honorable Office of the Ombudsman for Military and other Law Enforcement Offices). — The Court resolves to: (1) GRANT the motion 4 of petitioner Norberto P. Gicole (petitioner) for extension of thirty (30) days from the expiration of the reglementary period within which to file a petition for review on certiorari; and (2) INFORM petitioner that he or his authorized representative may personally claim from the Cash Disbursement and Collection Division of this Court the excess payment of the prescribed legal fees in the amount of P1,070.00 under Official Receipt No. 0294799 dated August 3, 2021.
After a judicious study of the case, the Court further resolves to DENY the present petition 5 and AFFIRM the Decision 6 dated October 23, 2020 and the Resolution 7 dated May 6, 2021 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 08899-MIN for failure of petitioner to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in affirming the dismissal of the administrative charges against Police Officer 2 Isaac Kirt Q. Sipin (PO2 Sipin) and Police Officer 2 Junie Lee Besas (PO2 Besas; collectively, respondents).
As correctly ruled by the CA, there is no substantial evidence to support the finding of administrative liability against respondents, especially considering the absence of showing that they were involved, directly or indirectly, in the acts committed by Police Officer 2 Reny Espina constituting Grave Misconduct and Conduct Unbecoming of a Police Officer. 8 It is settled that absent any of the exceptions recognized by case law, findings of fact of the Office of the Ombudsman, when affirmed by the CA, are conclusive and binding upon the Court, 9 as in this case.
SO ORDERED. (Hernando, J., on Official Leave)."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Also referred to as PO2 Reny D. Espiña in some parts of the rollo.
2. Also referred to as PO1 Isaac Kirt Q. Sipin in some parts of the rollo.
3. Also referred to as PO3 Junie Besas in some parts of the rollo.
4. Dated June 7, 2021; rollo, pp. 3-5.
5. See Verified Petition for Review on Certiorari dated June 21, 2021; id. at 12-21.
6.Id. at 27-46. Penned by Associate Justice Richard D. Mordeno with Associate Justices Edgardo T. Lloren and Loida S. Posadas-Kahulugan, concurring.
7.Id. at 48-51.
8.Id. at 43.
9. See Fajardo v. Office of the Ombudsman, 693 Phil. 269, 281 (2012), citing Tolentino v. Loyola, 670 Phil. 50, 64 (2011).