This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2008-07-28 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| In Employees Compensation Commission v. Court of Appeals,[20] a police officer who was a member of the Mandaluyong Police Station and assigned to the Pasig Provincial Jail brought his son to the Mandaluyong Police Station for interview, because the latter was involved in a stabbing incident. While in front of the said station, the policeman was approached by another policeman and shot him to death. The claim for death compensation benefits by the widow of the slain police officer was denied by the GSIS and the ECC on the ground, among others, that he was plainly acting as a father to his son. However, the CA reversed the denial. In sustaining the CA reversal, this Court declared that in bringing his son to the police station for questioning to shed light on a stabbing incident, he was not merely acting as a father but as a peace officer. In the present case, evidence shows that, at the time that SPO1 Rodrin was gunned down, he was performing his duty as a police officer. The Investigation Report of the Biñan PNP as well as the Kusang Loob na Salaysay of both the brothers-in-law of SPO1 Rodrin show that when the latter was shot to death he was in the course of inquiring why the security guards of the subdivision they were passing through were aiming their guns at them. At that point, it cannot be denied that he was caught in a situation where he could not avoid exercising his authority and duty as policeman to maintain peace and security of the community. While his main mission was to apprehend certain criminal elements named in the subject Letter-Orders, he was not excused from performing his basic function as a peace officer. His act of trying to find out the reason why the security guards were acting hostile cannot be said to be foreign and unrelated to his job as a member of the police force. | |||||