ILOILO – The Police Regional Office 6’s (PRO-6) multi-awarded police officer sacked from the service by the Office of the Ombudsman in 2017 for alleged grave misconduct has been reinstated.
“God is good,” declared former Ajuy, Iloilo police chief Charlie Sustento who questioned in the Court of Appeals his dismissal.
While the appellate court upheld the Ombudsman’s decision finding him guilty of grave misconduct, conduct unbecoming of a police officer, gross incompetence, abuse of authority, and violation of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, it modified his penalty from dismissal to just a demotion in rank – from Police Major to Police Captain.
The demotion didn’t dampen Sustento’s joy.
“The reinstatement is a good Christmas gift for me,” he told Panay News.
Sustento’s dismissal announced last Aug. 25, 2017 sent shockwaves to the PRO-6. Just 11 days before that, on Aug. 14, 2017, no less than then Philippine National Police (PNP) director General Ronald Dela Rosa (now a senator) feted Sustento as “Best Junior Police Commission Officer for Operations.” The awarding was in line with the 116th Police Service Anniversary.
Under Sustento, the Ajuy police station topped the 2017 first quarter performance evaluation of the Iloilo Police Provincial Office (IPPO). The Ajuy police station was hailed as “best in law enforcement operation” against loose firearms from January to March of 2017.
The administrative complaint against Sustento, however, was filed back in 2014 when he was the chief of police of Dumangas, Iloilo.
Sustento denied the charges and blasted the penalty of dismissal as “too harsh”. He took his case to the Court of Appeals.
After four years of waiting, good news came. Sustento yesterday received Special Order No. 699 from Camp Crame – the national headquarters of the PNP – reinstating him. It was dated Dec. 6, 2021.
He learned that the Court of Appeals actually decided on his case on Oct. 4, 2021 yet.
Sustento’s new assignment will be at the PRO-6 headquarters.
Three other police officers in his case that the Ombudsman also dismissed were reinstated, too – Police Officer 3 Ramon Baylon Jr., Police Officer 2 Joebert Detorio and Police Officer 1 John Domzon.
“Wala gid ako ginpabayaan ni Lord…Nagapangibabaw gid man ang maayo sa malain,” said Sustento.
“Sa mga pareho ko nga pulis, don’t afraid nga magbato basta sa insakto ka lang. Kita nga pulis prone kita sa harassment pero don’t lose hope,” he added.
THE CASE
The complainants were Richard Samontosa and Janice Braga of Dumangas.
Samontosa alleged that on Nov. 24, 2014 around 8 p.m., Dumangas policemen Baylon, Detorio and Domzon invited him to the municipal police station in connection with an alleged motorcycle theft.
Because he refused, claimed Samontosa, Sustento came over and shouted at him, grabbed his shirt and pulled him from the outside of his house’s locked gate.
Samontosa added that Detorio and a civilian hit his head repeatedly while Sustento took Detorio’s gun, cocked and pointed it to his head.
Braga corroborated Samontosa’s allegations, adding that Sustento even squeezed the trigger of the firearm pointed at her several times but fortunately the gun did not discharge.
In their joint counter-affidavits, the four policemen denied threatening, harassing or hurting Samontosa and Braga.
The police officers also claimed the charges against them were filed so that the complainants could have leverage over them. The Dumangas police filed a robbery case against Samontosa.
But according to the Ombudsman, the issue was whether there was substantial evidence to hold the policemen administratively liable for the alleged offenses. It gave credence to the statements and evidences the complainants presented and dismissed the police officers’ defense of denial.
“Denial is an intrinsically weak defense which must be buttressed with strong evidence of non-culpability to merit credibility,” according to the Ombudsman.
Respondents, however, failed to do this, it stressed.
In an eight-page decision signed by Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer II Emmanuel Ringpis Jr. dated June 28, 2017, the Ombudsman found Sustento and his three officers guilty and meted them the penalty of dismissal from service, plus accessory penalties of cancellation of civil service eligibility and forfeiture of retirement benefits.
Sustento expressed disappointed at the Ombudsman decision which he described as “really biased and too harsh.”
The police officer insisted that he and his men were merely responding to a call for assistance from residents.
“Fabricated testimonies” cost them their jobs, said Sustento. “We’re doing our jobs well but what good is it to be dedicated in our work if this is what we get for stepping on the toes of the influential.”
Sustento wondered at the speed of their case’s resolution and suspected something fishy.
“Ang iban nga cases 10 years before ma-decide-dan. Ang amon ‘ya less than two years na-decide-dan dayun. We firmly believe there is an unseen hand sa amon nga kaso,” he said./PN
