Republic of the Philippines

NATIONAL POLICE COMMISSION

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE
POLICE REGIONAL OFFICE 3
OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR
Camp Captain Julian Olivas, City of San Fernando, Pampanga

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE,

Complainant, Admin Case No.
PRO3-RHQ-RHSG-2017-0420
For: Grave Neglect of Duty (AWOL)
-versus-

PO1 Arnie O Dollosa,

Respondent.
x---------------------------------------------------x

RESOLUTION

This resolves the Motion for Reconsideration (MR) filed by PO1 Arnie O
Dollosa (Movant), assailing the Decision of the Regional Director, PRO 3 dated May
17, 2017, the dispositive portion of which states:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondent PO1 Arnie O

Dollosa is found GUILTY of the offense charged and hereby meted
with the penalty of DISMISSAL from the police service.”

Records show that movant while assigned with the Macabebe Municipal
Police Station, Pampanga Police Provincial Office, failed to report for duty from June
24, 2015 to July 24, 2015, or for a total period of Thirty One (31) days. He was
charged, found guilty and meted the penalty of Dismissal from the service. Hence,
this MR raising the following grounds:

“I. Movant should be considered on automatic leave of absence

II. There is denial of administrative due process of law
III. The instant motion is still obtaining as it was not barred by prescription
even if the same was already filed outside the reglamentary period as the decision
dismissing appellant from the service is not valid, thus is has not gained finality
IV. The decision imposing the maximum penalty of dismissal from the service
is excessive”

This Office finds that the MR is not meritorious. It does not raise valid ground
to warrant the reversal or modification of the Decision sought to be reconsidered.

Section 20, Rule 17 of NAPOLCOM Memorandum Circular No. 2016-002

provides that: “The party adversely affected by the decision may file a motion for
reconsideration with the Disciplinary Authority which rendered the same within ten
(10) days from receipt of a copy thereof based on any of the following grounds:

a) Newly discovered evidence which, if presented, would materially affect the

decision rendered; or
b) Errors of law or irregularities have been committed prejudicial to the
substantial rights and interest of the movant; or
c) The decision is not supported by the evidence on record.”

The grounds raised by the movant does not fall under any of the following
valid/legal grounds above-cited.

On the first ground, he argued that he failed to report for duty because he has
to provide the welfare of his mother who is suffering from sickness and hospitalized.
Thus, he should be considered on “automatic leave of absence” citing the case of
City Government of Makati vs. CSC, G.R No. 131392, wherein the Supreme Court
ruled that: “Leave of absence for any reason other than illness of an official or
employee or any member of his immediate family must be contingent upon the need
of the service. Hence, the grant of vacation leave shall be at the discretion of the
head of department/agency. xxx.”

The arguments is bereft of merit. Contrary to his claim the he took care of his
mother, his wife, Mrs. Catherine Dollosa y Dayrit, divulged to the personnel of
Mexico MPS who personally served the summons at his residence on March 31,
2017, that his husband (movant) is currently working abroad. Mrs. Dollosa even
refused to receive said summons. Even granting without admitting that he indeed
took care of his mother, such fact would not exculpate him of any administrative
liability. He had all the ample time to file an application for leave but failed to do so.

As to the second ground, his arguments that his right to due process was
denied is likewise misplaced. Records would bear that summonses were sent to his
known address thru registered mail aside from personal delivery as discussed above
but he failed to appear and defend himself. His late filing of this MR could not
disturbed the Decision rendered on the merit that has already attained finality.
Hence, his third argument is wanting on the ground that he was in fact afforded his
right to due process.

Further, his argument that the penalty imposed is too excessive is likewise
misplaced. The mitigating circumstances of length of service, awards and
commendations, etc., could not be applied in grave and intentional cases. Further,
such mitigating circumstances should have been invoked and prove during the
hearing but not during the filing of an MR or appeal.

Furthermore, his dismissal from the service is validly anchored on the last
paragraph of Section 42, RA 6975 as amended by Section 53, RA 8551, which
provides:

“Any member or officer of the PNP who shall go on absence

without official leave (AWOL) for a continuous period of thirty days
 or more shall be dismissed immediately from the service.
xxx.”(underscoring mine).

WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, the motion for reconsideration

filed by PO1 Arnie O Dollosa, is hereby DENIED FOR LACK OF MERIT.

SO RESOLVED.

Done this _____ day of ____________ at Camp Captain Julian Olivas, City of
San Fernando, Pampanga.

AMADOR V CORPUS
Police Chief Superintendent
Regional Director, PRO 3
 Republic of the Philippines
NATIONAL POLICE COMMISSION
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE
POLICE REGIONAL OFFICE 3
REGIONAL LEGAL OFFICE 3
Camp Captain Julian Olivas, City of San Fernando, Pampanga

MEMORANDUM

FOR : RD, PRO3

THRU : DRDA ____________

: RCDS ____________

: AC, RPHRDD _________

FROM : AC, RLO3

SUBJECT : Motion for Reconsideration of PO1 Arnie O Dollosa

DATE : May 15, 2018

1. Reference: AC, RPHRDD memorandum dated May 3, 2018 with attached

records of the case.

2. This pertains to the motion for reconsideration (MR) filed by PO1 Arnie O
Dollosa, assailing the Decision of the Regional Director, PRO 3 dated May 17, 2017,
the dispositive portion of which states:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondent PO1 Arnie O

Dollosa is found GUILTY of the offense charged and hereby meted
with the penalty of DISMISSAL from the police service.”

3. This Office finds that the MR is not meritorious. Hence, recommend denial.

4. Respectfully submitted for consideration and signature on the attached

draft Resolution.

ANSELMO E ANDAYAN
Police Superintendent