GR 130442; (April, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 130442 ; April 6, 2000
THE SUMMARY DISMISSAL BOARD AND THE REGIONAL APPELLATE BOARD, PNP, REGION VI, ILOILO CITY, petitioners, vs. C/INSP. LAZARO TORCITA, respondent.
FACTS
Respondent C/Insp. Lazaro Torcita faced twelve consolidated administrative complaints stemming from an incident on April 26, 1994. The complainants, Manuel Puey, Jesus Puey, and Alex Edwin del Rosario, alleged that after a social event, Torcita, while allegedly intoxicated, pursued their vehicle with a backup patrol car, entered a private compound, and confronted them in a loud and aggressive manner. The charges included Conduct Unbecoming of a Police Officer, Grave Threats, Illegal Search, Abuse of Authority, Violation of Domicile, and Violation of the COMELEC Gun Ban.
During pre-trial, the parties agreed to consolidate the twelve cases into one major complaint for “Conduct Unbecoming of a Police Officer.” The Summary Dismissal Board (SDB), however, rendered a decision finding Torcita guilty of a different offense: “Simple Irregularity in the Performance of Duty” under Section 41 of R.A. 6975, and imposed a twenty-day suspension. The Regional Appellate Board affirmed this decision. Torcita elevated the case to the Court of Appeals.
ISSUE
Whether the Summary Dismissal Board acted without or in excess of jurisdiction by finding respondent Torcita guilty of an offense for which he was not formally charged, thereby violating his right to due process.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision setting aside the SDB’s ruling. The legal logic is anchored on the fundamental right to due process. The SDB convicted Torcita of “Simple Irregularity in the Performance of Duty,” an offense distinct from the consolidated charge of “Conduct Unbecoming of a Police Officer” for which he was tried. Due process requires that a person be informed of the charges against them and be given an opportunity to present a defense specific to those charges. Convicting an individual of an offense not alleged in the formal charge or necessarily included therein deprives them of this opportunity and renders the judgment void.
The Court emphasized that a void judgment never attains finality. The SDB’s finding was based on its conclusion that Torcita, while off-duty and on his way home, pursued a vehicle for a traffic violation. Even assuming this constituted an irregularity, he could not be validly penalized for it since it was not the offense for which he was arraigned and given a chance to defend himself. The change in designation from “Conduct Unbecoming” to “Simple Irregularity” was not a mere variance but a substantive alteration that breached procedural fairness. Consequently, the SDB’s decision was rendered without jurisdiction.