SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 244557. June 10, 2019.]
RANDY E. ROTIA, petitioner, vs.THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION (CSC) AND RITCHEL OANDASAN, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated10 June 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 244557 — RANDY E. ROTIA, petitioner, versus THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION (CSC) and RITCHEL OANDASAN, respondents.
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the petition 1 and AFFIRM the Decision 2 dated August 31, 2018 and Resolution 3 dated January 17, 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 147658. Randy E. Rotia (Rotia) failed to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in affirming the Decision 4 and Resolution 5 of the Civil Service Commission (CSC), which had in turn, affirmed the Decision 6 and Resolution 7 of the National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM) dismissing Rotia from the police service.
Findings of fact of administrative agencies and quasi-judicial bodies, which have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters, are generally accorded not only great respect but even finality, 8 especially when they are affirmed by the CA, as in this case. HTcADC
In the instant case, the NAPOLCOM, CSC, and the CA were consistent in holding that Rotia had committed Grave Misconduct in arresting complainant Ritchel B. Oandasan (Ritchel) without a valid warrant of arrest and without any of the exceptional circumstances allowed under Section 5, Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. 9 Rotia entered the residence of Ritchel without consent. He used excessive and unnecessary force and intentionally inflicted physical injuries on Ritchel in the course of her unlawful arrest. Furthermore, the unlawful arrest led to Ritchel's detention in the police station for four (4) days without any legal grounds.
Undoubtedly, all the above acts constitute Grave Misconduct as provided for under Section (C) (3), Rule 21 of the NAPOLCOM Memorandum Circular No. 2016-002 10 or the Revised Rules of Procedure Before the Administrative Disciplinary Authorities and the Internal Affairs Service of the Philippine National Police.
The common findings of the administrative agencies and the CA, are binding upon this Court, unless there is a showing of grave abuse of discretion or where it is clearly shown that they were arrived at arbitrarily or in utter disregard of the evidence on record. 11 CAIHTE
SO ORDERED. (J. REYES, JR., J., on leave)"
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-26.
2.Id. at 27-39. Penned by Associate Justice Geraldine C. Fiel-Macaraig with Associate Justices Ramon R. Garcia and Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr., concurring.
3.Id. at 40-41.
4.Id. at 90-99.
5.Id. at 106-112.
6. See Decision dated March 19, 2012 in SD Case No. 2011-020 (NCR), id. at 78-86.
7. See Resolution dated October 2, 2014, id. at 87-89.
8.Gatus v. Social Security System, 655 Phil. 550, 562 (2011).
9.SEC. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. — A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;
(b) When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it; and
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.
In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) above, the person arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or jail and shall be proceeded against in accordance with section 7 of Rule 112. (5a)
10.Rollo, pp. 42-77.
11.Samahan mg mga Manggagawa sa Hyatt-Nuwhrain-APL v. Voluntary Arbitrator Bacungan, 601 Phil. 365, 372 (2009).