ABELARDO SUBIDO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SERVICE, PETITIONER, VS. ANTONIO J. VILLEGAS, IN HIS CAPACITY AS MAYOR OF MANILA, RESPONDENT.

This is an original action for mandamus to compel the City
Mayor of Manila to file administrative charges with the Municipal Board against
certain members of the Manila Police Department in accordance with Section 1 of
Republic Act No. 557.^[1]

The facts are not
disputed.  On April 7, 1959 the Court of
First Instance of Manila (then presided by Hon. Carmelino Alvendia) rendered its
decision in the case of People of the Philippines v. Timoteo
Cruz, alias Captain Tommy, et al. (Criminal Case No. 32916), finding the
accused guilty of murder for the fatal shoot­ing of one Manuel Valencia.  In said decision the trial court made the
observation that Captain Jose Rarang and then Lt.
Gerardo Tamayo, both of the Manila Police Depart­ment,
had exerted pressure, “from persuasion to downright intimidation,” on
Sgt. Guillermo Abad, a prosecution wit­ness, to make
him reform his statement in order to create a doubt as to the identity of
the accused Captain Tommy.  The court
also observed that Det. Lt. Jesus Buenaventura,
another member of the Manila
Police Department, did not hesitate to perjure his testimony for the purpose of
discrediting prosecution witness Eliseo Cruz in an
effort to clear Captain Tommy.  The
foregoing observations were confirmed by this Court in the decision^[2] affirming that of
the trial court.  Thus:

“There is ample evidence in the record of persistent attempts
– by officers of the police department of Manila, acting on behalf or for the
benefit of appellant Timoteo Cruz – to suppress, or
tamper with, important evidence for the prosecution, or to influence – even to
intimidate – some of its main witnesses. 
Needless to say, these attempts, condemnable as they are, in general,
become more reprehensible coming as they did from members of the very agency
charged special­ly with the duty to maintain peace and order and to assist in the administration of justice.  Even if made in the earnest belief that said
defendant is innocent of the crime charged, they tend to impair the faith of
the people in the law enforcing organs of the
government.”

On July 30, 1965 the petitioner wrote a letter to the respondent calling the latter’s
attention to the conduct of Capt. Rarang and Lts. Tamayo and Buenaventura, as described in the aforesaid decision, and
requesting him to take appropriate administrative action against the police
officers involved, in accordance with the provisions of Republic Act No. 557.  In
refusing to comply with the request, the respondent informed the petitioner
that in
accordance with the
recommendation of his Legal Assistant, who had conducted a fact-finding
inquiry, his Office had absolved said police officers of any administrative
responsibility, so the matter should be considered closed.  Thereupon the petitioner instituted the
instant action.

After this case was
submitted for decision the President of the Philippines signed into law
Republic Act No. 4864, otherwise known as the “Police Act of 1966,”
providing for a new procedure in the matter of preferring and investigation of
charges against police officers. 
Sections 14 and 15 of said law read:

“SEC. 14.  Removal and Suspension of Members of the Police Force or Agency.? Members of the local police
agency shall not be suspended or removed except upon written complaint filed
under oath with the Board of Investigators herein provided for misconduct or incompetency, dishonesty, disloyalty to the Government,
serious irregularities in the performance of their duties, and violation of
law.

“SEC. 15.  Board of Investigators.  –
In every local police agency there shall be a Board of Investigators.  Charges against
any member of the city and/or municipal police agency shall be investi­gated
by a Board of Investigators of three members, composed of the city or municipal
treasurer as chairman, a representative of the Provincial Commander, and a councilor,
elected by a majority of the city or muni­cipal council concerned, as members.

Copy of the charges shall be furnished the respondent by the
Chairman of the Board of Investigators within five days from the date of filing of said charges and the res­pondent
shall answer within five days from receipt thereof.  The Board of Investigators shall conduct its
investigation in public within five days from receipt of respon­dent’s answer to the charges or from the
expiration of respondent’s period to answer, whichever is earlier and unless
for good cause shown the
investigation shall be finished within thirty days thereafter and the Board
shall submit the records of the investigation, its findings and recommendations
to the Police Commission within thirty days after the termination of the
investiga­tion.  The decision of the
Police Com­mission shall be final and must be rendered within seventy-five days from the time of receipt of the findings
of the Board.  Disciplinary jurisdiction
of offenses involving suspension of not more than ten days or forfeiture of not
more than fifteen days’ pay is vested in the chief of the police agency
concerned whose decision shall be final.

The Board of Investigators shall also conduct investigations and
decide claims relative to benefits as provided under this Act, subject to
appeal to the Police Commission whose decision shall be final.”

In the Police Manual embodied in Executive Order No. 113, issued
on December 30, 1967 to
implement Republic Act No. 4864, the following appears:

“Section
7.  Rules of Procedure.  – The following rules of procedure shall be
adopted by the Board of Investigators in
the administration of all administrative cases brought before it:

“(a)  How commenced.  – All proceeding must be commenced by a complaint
in writing and under oath in the name of the aggrieved party or his duly
authorized representative or guardian against any member of a city or municipal
police agency who appears to be responsible therefor.”

It may be noted that the provision of Section 1 of Republic Act
No. 557, to the effect that charges in cases against a member of the city
police shall be preferred by the city
mayor, has been eliminated in Republic Act No. 4864.  Under this new law it would seem that any
interested party may file the complaint, although the Police Manual requires
that the same be done in the name of the aggrieved party or his duly authorized
representative or guardian.  In view of
this charge, it is clear that the question of whether or not the respondent, as
City Mayor, may be com­pelled by mandamus to prefer the charges, as a duty speci­fically
enjoined upon him by Republic Act No. 557, has be­come moot and academic.

Wherefore, the petition is dismissed, without costs.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Zaldivar, Castro,
Fernando, Teehankee, Barredo,
and Villamor, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Section 1. 
Members of the provincial guards, city police and municipal police shall
not be removed and, except in cases of resignation, shall not be discharged,
except for misconduct or incompetence, dishonesty, disloyalty to the Philippine
government, serious irregularities in the performance of their duties, and
violation of law or duty, and in such cases charges shall be preferred
by the provincial governor in matters against any member of the provincial
guards, the city mayor in
cases against a member of the city police, and the municipal mayor in cases involving a member of the
municipal police, and investigated by the provincial
board, the city or municipal council, as the case may be, in public hearing, and the accused shall be given opportunity
to make their defense.  (Underscoring
supplied.)

^[2]
People vs. Timoteo Cruz, alias
Capt. Tommy, et al., G.R. No. L-15369, April 26, 1962.