This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2012-04-25 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| The authority of punong barangays to possess the necessary firearm within their territorial jurisdiction is necessary to enforce their duty to maintain peace and order within the barangays. Owing to the similar functions, that is, to keep peace and order, this Court deems that, like police officers, punong barangays have a duty as a peace officer that must be discharged 24 hours a day. As a peace officer, a barangay captain may be called by his constituents, at any time, to assist in maintaining the peace and security of his barangay.[50] As long as Aguillon is within his barangay, he cannot be separated from his duty as a punong barangay to maintain peace and order. | |||||
|
2008-07-28 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| The first condition has been met by petitioner. The GSIS and the ECC as well as the CA accepted the claim that SPO1 Rodrin may have been in the line of duty or on a surveillance mission at the time and place of his shooting.[8] The ECC conceded that there was no question that SPO1 Rodrin was a member of the PNP at the time of his death; and that being so, he was considered to be at his place of work regardless of whether or not he was "on or off-duty."[9] Both assertions are correctly based on this Court's ruling in Government Service Insurance System v. Court of Appeals[10] that members of the national police, unless they are on official leave, are, by the nature of their functions, technically on duty 24 hours a day, because policemen are subject to call at any time and may be asked by their superiors or by any distressed citizen to assist in maintaining the peace and security of the community. | |||||
|
2008-07-28 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Respondents cite Government Service Insurance System v. Court of Appeals,[19] in arguing that SPO1 Rodrin's death is not compensable. However, the factual circumstances of the said case are not the same as the present one before the Court. In GSIS, the police officer was shot to death while he was driving his tricycle and ferrying passengers for a fee. The Court, in denying the grant of death compensation benefits to the widow of the slain policeman, ruled that the latter did not meet the requirements set forth in the ECC guidelines, as it was obvious that the matter he was attending to when he was killed, that of ferrying passengers for a fee, was intrinsically private and unofficial in nature. In other words, in said case, evidence clearly shows that at the time of his death the police officer was performing acts which could not in any way be considered as police service in character. The same may not be said in the present case. There is no evidence to prove the claims of respondents that the matter SPO1 Rodrin was attending to when he was shot to death was intrinsically private and unofficial in nature. The fact remains that he died at a place and within the time specified in his Letter-Orders. Thus, in the absence of contrary evidence, PO1 Rodrin is presumed to be in the performance of his official duties at the time of his death. | |||||