CIDG-7 operative fails bid to stop suspension

For failing to exhaust administrative remedies, a member of the Criminal Investigation and Detection Group-7 failed in his bid to stop the suspension slapped against him for allegedly stealing money that served as evidence.

Regional Trial Court Judge Ramon Codilla Jr. dismissed SPO1 Rodolfo Gabisay’s petition for a temporary restraining order and writ of preliminary injunction to stop CIDG officials from suspending him for 60 days.

CIDG-7 chief Sr. Supt. Jorge Corpus earlier approved the recommendation of CIDG-7 legal officer Enrique Lacerna for a 45-day suspension on Gabisay. However, CIDG director Edgardo Doromal upgraded the suspension to 60 days.

But Gabisay questioned the suspension order, which took effect on October 2, alleging that he was not afforded his constitutional rights to confront his accuser.

Gabisay was accused of stealing the P11,000 cash from the locker of PO2 Achilles Gimenez. The amount is kept as evidence in an extortion case.

The daughter of a cook allegedly saw Gabisay enter the room, where the locker was located, twice in the dawn of August 6, the day the money was found stolen.

Gabisay said he was not given a chance to confront the witness, which he said a violation of his constitutional rights.

He said he asked that all CIDG personnel be subjected to a lie detector test to find out who among them stole the money, but was denied.

Lacerna, who acted as hearing officer, believed that it was Gabisay who stole the money because of the testimony of the witness, and recommended for his suspension.

In an effort to avert the implementation of his suspension, Gabisay filed a certiorari and asked for the issuance of a TRO and a writ of preliminary injunction. However, the court ruled that Gabisay has still other administrative remedies available.

In a one-page order, Codilla said Gabisay has no reason yet to bring the matter to the court because he still has other administrative remedies.

“This present action by plaintiff against the defendants is unavailing simply because of the failure of the plaintiff to exhaust all administrative remedies,” the court said.   — Fred P. Languido/LPM