Criminal cases are separate from administrative action

Criminal cases are separate from administrative action "I filed a criminal action for robbery against a police officer and the same is still pending before the court. I also initiated an administrative case for grave misconduct against him before the Philippine National Police (PNP). In one of the hearings of the administrative case, the respondent bragged that the administrative case would be dismissed for lack of evidence and that it would also weaken the criminal case. Suppose the administrative case will be dismissed, will it affect the criminal case? DerickDear Derick, You initiated two cases against your opponent. First is misconduct or malfeasance, which has been defined under Section 1(3), Rule 21 of the National Police Commission Memorandum Circular 2016-002 as “any wrongful, improper or unlawful conduct motivated by premeditated, obstinate or intentional purpose. It usually refers to transgression of some established and definite rule of action, where no discretion is left except where necessity may demand it does not necessarily imply corruption or criminal intention.” The proof necessary for administrative case is substantial evidence or such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion (Section 1(cc), Rule 2, Id.).Second is robbery. Robbery is committed by any person who, with intent to gain, shall take any personal belonging of another by means of violence or intimidation (Article 293, Revised Penal Code of the Philippines). The two cases are independent from each other. In the case Flores vs People of the Philippines (GR 222861, April 23, 2018), the Supreme Court, through Associate Justice Alexander Gesmundo, stated that:“It is hornbook doctrine in administrative law that administrative cases are independent from criminal actions for the same acts or omissions. Thus, an absolution from a criminal charge is not a bar to an administrative prosecution, or vice versa. Given the differences in the quantum of evidence required, the procedures actually observed, the sanctions imposed, as well as the objective of the two proceedings, the findings and conclusions in one should not necessarily be binding on the other. Hence, the exoneration in the administrative case is not a bar to a criminal prosecution for the same or similar acts which were the subject of the administrative complaint or vice versa. “x x x.“In the case at bar, the administrative case for grave misconduct filed against petitioner and the present case for simple robbery are separate and distinct cases, and are independent from each other. The administrative and criminal proceedings may involve similar facts but each requires a different quantum of evidence. In addition, the administrative proceeding conducted was before the PNP Internal Affairs Service and was summary in nature. In contrast, in the instant criminal case, the Regional Trial Court conducted a full-blown trial and the prosecution was required to proffer proof beyond reasonable doubt to secure petitioner’s conviction. Furthermore, the proceedings included witnesses who were key figures in the events leading to petitioner’s arrest. Witnesses of both parties were cross examined by their respective counsels creating a clearer picture of what transpired, which allowed the trial judge to have a better appreciation of the attendant facts and determination of whether the prosecution proved the crime charged beyond reasonable doubt.”Applying the above-cited decision in your situation, the administrative case arising from the same act, which you filed against the respondent, is distinct from the criminal case. Thus, the dismissal of the administrative case does not affect the prosecution of the criminal case. The procedure in the administrative case is summary in nature and the quantum of proof required is substantial evidence, whereas, in the criminal case, proof beyond reasonable doubt is necessary.This opinion is solely based on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. The opinion may vary when the facts are changed or further elaborated. We hope that we were able to enlighten you on the matter. Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to " - https://www.affordablecebu.com/