Besmonte vs. NAPOLCOM-NCR

For a public officer's transgression to constitute Grave Misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of an established rule must be manifest; absent these elements, the use of excessive force during an arrest constitutes only Simple Misconduct.

Herminio A. Besmonte, a police officer, participated in a buy-bust operation against Evangeline Abenojar for alleged illegal drug sale. Following the operation, Abenojar filed an administrative complaint before the National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM), alleging that Besmonte and two other officers extorted money from her and physically assaulted her when she refused to pay, causing injuries. The NAPOLCOM initially found Besmonte liable for Grave Misconduct and imposed a one-rank demotion. On appeal, the Civil Service Commission (CSC) modified the penalty to dismissal from service. The Court of Appeals affirmed the CSC.

• Nature of the Case: This is an administrative case against police officer Herminio A. Besmonte for Grave Misconduct arising from a buy-bust operation.
• The Buy-Bust Operation: On April 11, 2003, Besmonte, along with PO2 Gil Anos and PO2 Junnifer Tuldanes, conducted a buy-bust operation against Evangeline Abenojar based on a tip about her alleged drug dealing. According to the officers, after the sale was consummated, Abenojar resisted arrest by shouting and kicking, necessitating the use of force to subdue her.
• Abenojar's Counter-Account: Abenojar alleged that the officers, who were in civilian clothes, attempted to extort PHP 700.00 from her. When she refused, Besmonte punched her left face and kicked her knee, causing physical injuries. She presented a Medical Certificate issued three days later confirming swelling and tenderness.
• NAPOLCOM Proceedings: The NAPOLCOM exonerated PO2 Anos and PO2 Tuldanes but found Besmonte liable for Grave Misconduct for using excessive force, noting three officers could have subdued one female suspect without such force. It imposed a one-rank demotion.
• CSC Proceedings: On appeal, the CSC affirmed the finding of Grave Misconduct but increased the penalty to dismissal, discrediting a Temporary Medical Certificate presented by Besmonte that noted no external injuries, as it was not formally offered as evidence.
• CA Proceedings: The Court of Appeals affirmed the CSC into, agreeing that Besmonte should have exercised more prudence given the suspect was a woman and he had backup.

• Insufficiency of Evidence: Petitioner argued that Abenojar failed to prove her claim by substantial evidence and that there was no corroborative evidence linking him to her injuries.
• Reasonable Force: Petitioner maintained that he merely employed reasonable and necessary force to neutralize Abenojar, who was vigorously resisting arrest by kicking the officers.
• Proportionality of Penalty: Petitioner contended that given his 17 years of unblemished service, the penalty of dismissal was unjust and excessive.

• Excessive Force: Respondent countered that the evidence, particularly Abenojar's testimony and the Medical Certificate, substantially proved Besmonte used unnecessary and excessive force.
• Elements of Grave Misconduct: Respondent argued that the use of such force, especially against a lone female suspect when outnumbered, demonstrated a clear intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of established rules on the use of force.
• Appropriate Penalty: Respondent maintained that dismissal was the proper penalty for Grave Misconduct, a grave offense under civil service rules.

• Classification of the Offense: Whether the petitioner's act of using excessive force during an arrest constitutes Grave Misconduct or merely Simple Misconduct.
• Appropriateness of Penalty: Whether the penalty of dismissal from service is appropriate given the nature of the proven offense.

• Classification of the Offense: The petitioner is guilty only of Simple Misconduct. While he used excessive force, the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of an established rule—essential for Grave Misconduct—were not established. The lower tribunals focused on his lapse in judgment but did not demonstrate how his actions were tainted with the specific elements required for the graver offense.
• Appropriateness of Penalty: The penalty of dismissal is modified to a six-month suspension. Since the offense is reclassified as Simple Mis misconduct, which is a less grave offense for a first-time violation, the corresponding penalty under the rules is suspension, not dismissal.

• Grave vs. Simple Misconduct — Misconduct is the intentional wrongdoing or deliberate violation of a rule of law. For it to be classified as grave, the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of an established rule must be manifest. Without these elements, the transgression is merely simple misconduct. The Court applied this distinction to reclassify the police officer's use of excessive force as Simple Misconduct, as the evidence did not prove the requisite corrupt motive or flagrant defiance.

• "Without any of these elements [corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of an established rule], the transgression of an established rule is properly characterized as simple misconduct only." — This passage succinctly states the controlling legal distinction applied by the Court to reduce the charge.

• Imperial, Jr. v. Government Service Insurance System, 674 Phil. 286 (2011) — Cited to illustrate the concept of "flagrant disregard of rules" as a component of Grave Misconduct, providing examples of conduct that meets this standard.
• Valderas v. Sulse, G.R. No. 205659, March 9, 2022 — Cited to underscore the principle that public office is a public trust, and public officers must act with utmost diligence, prudence, and care.

• Section 2, Rule 113, Rules of Court — Provides that no violence or unnecessary force shall be used in making an arrest and that the person arrested shall not be subject to greater restraint than necessary. The CA and the Court referenced this rule in assessing the reasonableness of the force employed.
• Revised Philippine National Police Operation Procedures (2021), Rule 2.8 — Governs the application of necessary and reasonable force. It mandates that the necessity and reasonableness of force depend on factors like the number of aggressors, weapon used, and physical condition of the suspect. The Court cited this to show the standard Besmonte failed to properly consider.

• Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa (Chairperson)
• Justice Jhosep Y. Inting
• Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh
• Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Gaerlan (Ponente)