A former police officer, who was previously demoted by the Ombudsman for assaulting and pointing a gun at two people, is now facing fresh allegations of kicking an employee.
CCTV footage circulating on Facebook shows resigned police captain Charlie Sustento kicking a driver inside the private offices of Radial Auto Care Center, which he owns and operates, on Iloilo Radial Road, Brgy. San Vicente, Leganes, Iloilo.
Other employees looked on as Sustento, dressed in a dark blue shirt and black pants, attacked the driver, who was wearing blue shorts and a brown shirt.
Initially, Sustento attempted to slap the driver but ended up kicking him.
Audio from the footage indicated that Sustento scolded and attacked the driver for being involved in a separate road accident.
Interestingly, Sustento shared the video on his Facebook page, claiming that he released it as a “bait.”
He also implied in his post that the person he kicked was a thief, and he blamed a certain “Dok” for allegedly trying to malign him.
WHO IS CHARLIE SUSTENTO?
In January 2015, Richard Samontosa, an employee of giant motorcycle dealership RUSI, and Janice D. Braga filed complaints against Sustento and three others with the Office of the Ombudsman.
The complaints included Grave Misconduct, Conduct Unbecoming a Law Enforcement Officer, Gross Incompetence, Violation of Republic Act No. 6713, and Abuse of Authority.
The incident occurred on November 24, 2014, in Dumangas, Iloilo, and the case was docketed as OMB-P-A-15-0110.
The charges stemmed from Samontosa’s repossession of a motorcycle purchased on installment by Ralph Jerry Madrideo, who had defaulted on payments.
Madrideo’s brother, Jerson, reported the motorcycle as stolen to the Dumangas police, then headed by Sustento.
That evening, a team from the Dumangas police station went to the RUSI office and instructed Samontosa to go to the station for an investigation into the alleged “motornapping.”
Following advice from RUSI’s legal department, Samontosa refused to go without an official document from the police.
The officers disagreed with Samontosa’s stance and informed him that they would have Sustento come to the RUSI compound.
They accused him of disrespect and demanded to know why he had not complied. Samontosa explained that the contract with Madrideo allowed the immediate repossession of the motorcycle in case of payment default without the need for formal notice.
CURSES, PUNCHES, AND GUN THREATS
Sustento later arrived at the RUSI office, shouting and cursing at Samontosa, calling him an idiot for showing disrespect.
Samontosa again requested a formal invitation, but Sustento, along with respondent police officer Joebert Detorio, approached the gate and tried to force entry.
They were warned that they could not enter without the owner’s permission and that there would be consequences.
Ignoring the warning, Sustento grabbed Samontosa by the shirt, dragging him through the bars of the gate, while Detorio and another civilian attempted to strike Samontosa on the head.
Sustento then took Detorio’s gun, cocked it, and pointed it at Samontosa’s head.
Samontosa protested, asserting that he was not a criminal and that such behavior was improper. However, Sustento continued to threaten him.
Samontosa called to his companions in nearby sleeping quarters to bring a camera and record the incident.
When they tried to take a picture, the respondent police officers threatened and cursed them, but they managed to capture one image.
The compound owner, Janice Braga, then came outside, shouting and slapping the respondents.
Unable to drag Samontosa out, Sustento climbed over the gate, entered the compound, and grabbed Samontosa by the neck. He tried to seize Samontosa’s cellphone as he attempted to call his manager.
Samontosa again told Sustento that his actions were improper and that they did not want a confrontation, but Sustento punched him in the face.
Samontosa tried to dodge the blow, but Sustento then attempted to kick him. Braga shouted at Sustento to stop, and he then attempted to handcuff Samontosa.
Samontosa was brought near Braga’s house, where Sustento, around 11 p.m., ordered his men to produce a copy of the “invitation.”
Moments later, Sustento demanded to know who had taken the picture, threatening to shoot their companions if the photographer was not identified.
After about an hour, a copy of the “invitation” was brought in. Samontosa, along with Janice and her companions, went to the police station.
Following the investigation, Samontosa asked Sustento to record the incident in the blotter, but Sustento threatened to charge him with carnapping and direct assault and detain him if he insisted on recording the incident.
Fearing the consequences, Samontosa did not pursue the blotter entry.
DURESS AND DISMISSAL
Before leaving police station, Sustento insisted that Samontosa sign an Affidavit of Non-Interest.
Samontosa initially refused, but Sustento threatened him with detention and the filing of charges.
Under duress, Samontosa signed the affidavit in the presence of other police officers at the station, fearing further harm.
When Samontosa requested a copy of the affidavit, Sustento refused, stating that it needed to be notarized.
Around 1 a.m. the following day (November 25, 2014), Samontosa and his companions were finally able to go home.
In their counter-affidavits, Sustento and his fellow respondents denied the charges against them.
The Ombudsman, however, described their denial as an “intrinsically weak defense” that needed to be supported by strong evidence of non-culpability to be credible.
Instead, the respondents made allegations and presented evidence that bolstered the complainants’ claims, according to the Ombudsman’s June 28, 2017 decision.
The Ombudsman found Sustento guilty of Grave Misconduct and Conduct Unbecoming a Police Officer, and he was dismissed from service.
The penalties included cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, perpetual disqualification from holding public office, and a ban on taking civil service exams.
REVIEW AND DEMOTION
Sustento appealed the Ombudsman’s decision to the Court of Appeals (CA), which upheld the anti-graft agency’s ruling, with modifications. The CA exonerated another police officer involved in the case.
The CA emphasized that the administrative offenses of grave misconduct and conduct unbecoming of a police officer are serious matters that reflect on a civil servant’s fitness to continue in office.
The purpose of disciplining an officer or employee is not to punish but to improve public service and preserve public confidence in the government, according to the CA’s June 17, 2020 decision on CA-G.R. SP No. 152327.
While Sustento argued that the penalty of dismissal was too harsh, the CA upheld its decision, finding him guilty of the charges but reducing the penalty to a one-rank demotion instead of dismissal.
REVERSAL AND RESIGNATION
The Ombudsman and the complainants’ lawyers appealed the CA’s decision, arguing that the Ombudsman’s original decision to dismiss Sustento from the Philippine National Police (PNP) was appropriate.
In a January 11, 2023 decision, the CA upheld the Ombudsman’s authority to impose the penalty of dismissal, in accordance with the 2011 Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RRACCS).
The CA reaffirmed that the Ombudsman’s power to impose penalties on erring public officers or employees is not merely recommendatory.
The CA also cited the laws governing the PNP, which mandate the penalty of immediate dismissal for conduct unbecoming a police officer.
The court pointed out that Sustento, along with PO2 Joebert E. Detorio and PO1 John P. Dimzon, was also found guilty of grave misconduct.
Sustento filed another motion for reconsideration with the appellate court, but it was dismissed in its August 3, 2023 decision.
Later that year, Sustento resigned from the PNP before the dismissal order could be imposed.
(Check CA-G.R. SP No. 152327 for the relevant decisions)
