G.R. No. 107845 April 18, 1997
PAT. EDGAR M. GO, INP., petitioner, vs. NATIONAL POLICE COMMISSION, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Edgar M. Go, a member of the Olongapo City Police Department, was dismissed by Summary Dismissal Board No. 2 in 1983 for alleged involvement in illegal gambling, specifically the operation of jai-alai bookies from his residence. The Board’s decision cited two police raids on his house, the confiscation of gambling paraphernalia, and witness statements implicating him. The Board noted petitioner’s repeated failure to appear at hearings despite notices, treating his absence as a waiver of his right to present evidence.
Petitioner appealed, claiming a denial of due process. He asserted he was never formally served a copy of the complaint with supporting affidavits as required. He claimed he attended scheduled hearings where either the complainant, the witnesses, or the Board members themselves were absent, and that he was not notified of the final hearing. He also presented affidavits of retraction from two key witnesses. His appeals to the PC/INP Director General and subsequently to the National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM) were both dismissed for lack of merit.

ISSUE

Whether petitioner was denied due process in the administrative proceedings that led to his dismissal.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court annulled the NAPOLCOM decision and ordered petitioner’s reinstatement. The Court found a clear denial of procedural due process. The fundamental requirements of due process in administrative proceedings, as established in Ang Tibay v. CIR, include the right to a hearing, which encompasses the opportunity to present one’s case, submit evidence, and know the evidence against them. The record failed to show that petitioner was ever formally furnished copies of the charges and the supporting affidavits of witnesses against him. This deprived him of a meaningful opportunity to confront and cross-examine his accusers and to prepare an intelligent defense.
The Court rejected the argument that petitioner waived his right by non-appearance, noting his specific claims of attending hearings that did not proceed were not squarely refuted. The subsequent availability of an appeal did not cure the defect because the core evidence—the witness statements—was never properly served or made part of a complete record accessible to him from the outset. The seriousness of the charge does not justify a procedural shortcut. The failure to observe these basic guarantees rendered the proceedings void.