G.R. No. 159588; September 15, 2010
P/CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT ROBERTO L. CALINISAN and P/CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT REYNALDO M. ACOP, Petitioners, vs. SPO2 REYNALDO ROAQUIN y LADERAS, Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent SPO2 Reynaldo Roaquin, a member of the Philippine National Police (PNP), was charged with murder before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Olongapo City in 1991. While under detention and without any prior administrative charge, the PNP issued Special Order 74 discharging him from the service based on AFP Circular 17. In 1998, the RTC acquitted Roaquin, finding he acted in complete self-defense. Subsequently, P/Chief Superintendent Roberto Calinisan reinstated Roaquin into the police service pursuant to Section 48 of Republic Act (R.A.) 6975.
However, in 2000, P/Chief Superintendent Reynaldo Acop directed the nullification of Roaquin’s reinstatement, arguing that Section 45 of R.A. 6975, as implemented by a National Police Commission circular, applied. Acop contended Roaquin lost his right to reinstatement for failing to file a motion for reconsideration of his discharge within ten days. Calinisan complied, issuing Special Orders 102 to nullify the reinstatement. Roaquin then filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus before the RTC, which ruled in his favor, ordering reinstatement.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether respondent Roaquin is entitled to reinstatement in the police service with back salaries, allowances, and other benefits following his judicial acquittal.

RULING

Yes, respondent Roaquin is entitled to reinstatement with back wages and benefits. The Supreme Court affirmed the RTC’s decision, holding that the PNP’s discharge of Roaquin was void for violating administrative due process. The legal logic centers on the inapplicability of Section 45 of R.A. 6975, which governs finality of disciplinary actions. For Section 45 to apply, a valid administrative proceeding must have been conducted. The record is devoid of any evidence that an administrative charge was ever filed against Roaquin in connection with the murder case. The PNP failed to notify him of any charge, provide him an opportunity to answer, or conduct any investigation or summary proceeding.
Conversely, Section 48 of R.A. 6975 expressly entitles a PNP member who was suspended or separated from office to reinstatement and payment of withheld benefits upon acquittal of the charges. Roaquin’s separation, effected solely due to his criminal indictment without an administrative case, falls squarely under this provision. His acquittal on the merits thus restored his right to his position. The PNP’s belated attempt to justify the discharge under Section 45 fails, as no administrative process preceded the termination. Therefore, his reinstatement by Calinisan was legally correct, and its subsequent nullification was invalid.