Admin - Position Paper - SIMAN2
Admin - Position Paper - SIMAN2
Admin - Position Paper - SIMAN2
Respondents,
x--------------------------------------------------------------x
POSITION PAPER
ANTECEDENTS
Page 1 of 19
respondents on 27 March 2019 for administrative offenses of Grave
Misconduct (Two (2) counts of Murder, under Art. 248 of RPC), Grave
Irregularity in the Performance of Duty, Grave Dishonesty and Conduct of
Unbecoming of a Police Officer allegedly committed as follows:
FORMAL CHARGE
Page 2 of 19
(20) days from said date, or until 11 July 2019, within which to file their
respective Position Papers.
THE PARTIES
Page 3 of 19
12. PAT ROLDAN CARREON PANGANIBAN (“PANGANIBAN”)
is of legal age, married, and with residence at Barangay Lita, Tayabas City,
Quezon.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
20. Valencia informed Siman that Laygo arrived at PCP, and that
Laygo ordered Siman to join an operation together with Malabaguio.
21. Siman stood up and went to Laygo, who was then outside their
out post.
Page 4 of 19
22. Valencia called Malabaguio, and when both Malabaguio and
Siman were already in front of Laygo, the latter asked “May trabaho tayo
ngayon ha, ano kaya nyo ba?”
23. Since Siman was not aware of the nature of the order, he did not
respond at first. He likewise had a suspicion as to a possible irregularity
involved in the order, thus, he eventually responded “Sir dapat tatlo kami at
ako na lamang ang driver.”
24. Then, Valencia called Ricamonte, who joined them. After which,
Laygo gave instructions on the operations: Ricamonte, Malabaguio and
Siman will make it appear that there was an armed encounter with the
persons involved; the parts where the mobile patrol was hit by gun bullets;
how to position the mobile patrol that they will drive.
25. Laygo also assigned them as the persons who will sign the
affidavit, saying “Kayo ang mag-aafidavit dito, iba ang tatrabaho, ano kaya
nyo ba.”
28. On March 14, 2019, at around 1:00 AM, Laygo left the PCP with
Legaspi and Sumalpong, riding an Innova.
31. Siman parked the mobile patrol he was driving on the left side of
the road towards the direction of Tayabas City, with its front facing the side
of the road.
Page 5 of 19
32. After they were already in position, Laygo talked to them and
gave them further instructions: “Ganito ang pwesto ninyo ha.”
33. While Siman was waiting in the mobile patrol car, Laygo gave
instructions to Legaspi, Sumalpong, Malabaguio and Ricamonte.
35. Then, Laygo ordered Ricamonte and Siman to leave the area
and position themselves somewhere not too far away – such that when they
are called to return, they will be able to immediately do so.
36. Following this order, Ricamonte and Siman went to the entrance
of Vista Verde Subdivision and waited.
37. At around 3:00 AM of the same day, Laygo called Siman and
said “Pumunta na kayo at malapit na kami doon sa area.” Siman and
Ricamonte returned to the area, and upon arrival, they positioned
themselves according to the earlier instructions of Laygo.
39. Siman noticed that the hands of the 2 persons were each behind
their backs at the time when Legaspi ordered them to alight the vehicle.
41. Siman had no choice but to return, for fear that he will be
removed from the service, and considering Laygo’s ascendancy over him.
Thus, he started to walk towards the area, when he heard gunshots coming
from the place where Laygo was situated.
Page 6 of 19
42. When he arrived in the place of the incident, he saw that one of
the persons apprehended was already sprawled on the ground. Then, he
saw that: Sumalpong grabbed the other person who was then still alive;
Sumalpong shot the person in front of his body; the person fell to the ground.
43. Out of fear, Siman again walked away from the area, towards the
front of South Gate Subdivision, and while he was walking, he continued to
hear gunshots from where Laygo and the group where situated.
ISSUES
I.
II.
III.
IV.
DISCUSSION
Page 7 of 19
I. With All Due Respect, Siman
Should Not Be Held Liable for Grave
Misconduct (Two (2) Counts Of
Murder, Under Art. 248 Of Rpc).
45. No. 3 of Section 2C, Rule 21, Part III of Memorandum Circular
No. 2016-002 (MC No. 2016-002) or the Revised Rules of Procedure Before
the Administrative Disciplinary Authorities and the Internal Affairs Service of
the Philippine National Police enumerates the instances constituting grave
misconduct as follows:
xxx
Page 8 of 19
g) own, control, manage or accept employment as officer,
employee, consultant, counsel, broker, agent, trustee,
nominee in any private enterprise regulated, supervised or
licensed by his office, unless expressly allowed by law;
h) publicly consort with women of ill repute and/or scandalously
cohabit with or maintain a wife other than his legitimate
spouse;
i) fail or refuse to surrender or deposit his service firearm, badge,
identification card and police vehicle, if any, to his superior
officer upon demand during the period of suspension;
j) willful failure to pay just debts or obligation due to the
government;
k) appropriate for his or allow another person the beneficial use
of any stolen property that is recovered, found or abandoned;
l) solicit money, valuable or favor for the amicable settlement of
cases under investigation;
m) engage directly or indirectly in partisan political activities or
take part in any election except to vote;
n) deliberately or through gross negligence, destroy, damage or
lose government property entrusted to him for official use;
o) mutilate, deface or destroy any driver’s license, traffic citation
ticket or temporary operator’s permit issued in lieu thereof;
p) inflict physical injuries upon a suspect to force the latter to give
a confession;
q) act as mediator or fixer for the return of any stolen vehicle or
property whether held for ransom or not;
r) commit any act or omission that constitutes a crime
punishable under the Revised Penal Code or special laws
where the duration of the imposable penalty is
imprisonment of not lower than six (6) months and one (1)
day.
xxx
47. On March 29, 2019 two separate Informations for murder was
filed against Respondents Laygo, Sumalpong, and Legaspi. Criminal Case
No. 2019-560 states as follows:
Page 9 of 19
CHARGE of CITY POLICE STATION of said city, and PO2
LONALD G. SUMALPONG and PO1 ROBERT B. LEGASPI
being then assigned at same police station, and being all
members of the PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE, armed with a
firearm, conspiring and confederating together and mutually
helping one another other, with intent to kill, with treachery,
evident premeditation and employing means to weaken the
defense of CHRISTIAN TRONILLA GAYETA, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and use
personal violence upon said CHRISTIAN TRONILLA GAYETA,
who was then handcuffed and blindfolded, by then and there
mauling him and shooting him with said firearm, thereby inflicting
upon him serious and mortal wounds which cause his immediate
death.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Page 10 of 19
48. Said cases are now pending at Regional Trial Court Branch 53
and are currently at the pre-trial stage;
.
49. Worthy it is to note that herein respondent Cabriga is not included
in the filing of the above information in relation to the events that transpired
on 14 March 2019.
51. This shows that both the Office of the City Prosecutor of Tayabas
City and the NBI did not find any cause to charge herein respondent of the
crime of murder, which supposedly is the basis for the present charge for
grave misconduct.
53. Noteworthy is the fact that PO2 Abordo is one of the witnesses
in the said cases. Therefore, his brave and courageous act of standing up
for the truth and justice despite fear for his life and that of his family should
be rewarded instead of being persecuted.
54. In addition, herein respondent did not commit any act constituting
grave misconduct under MC No. 2016-002.
61. The present case should therefore not be any different – clearly
Laygo is responsible for directing, controlling and coordinating the operations
on 14 March 2019 – and herein respondent had no choice but to follow his
orders due to the position that Laygo is holding.
1
Directorate for Human and Resource Doctrine and Development, National Headquarters, Philippine National
Police Camp Crame. Chiefs of Police Manual, December 2001 (1st Edition), Quezon City.
Page 12 of 19
62. Misconduct has been exhaustively explained by the Supreme
Court in the case of The Office of the Ombudsman vs. P/Supt. Brillantes,
PO3 Pablico and PO1 Fabia (September 28, 2016, G.R. No. 213699):
63. In the present case, Siman did not commit any intentional
wrongdoing or deliberate violation of a law or standard of behavior. There
was no clear intent to violate the law or rules – as it was proven that any act
which he may have done on the date of the incident was due to Laygo’s
ascendancy over Siman.
Page 13 of 19
II. With All Due Respect, Respondent
Siman Should Not Be Held Liable for
Grave Irregularity in the Performance
of Duty.
Page 14 of 19
operation and that there was a shoot-out between the respondents and
alleged suspects where in fact there was none.”
69. Perusal of the records will show that herein respondent did not
fabricate any fact, event or circumstance or cooperate in the fabrication of
any fact, event or circumstance in the said shoot out.
72. Further, respondent did not do any act as would constitute grave
irregularity in the performance of duty under MC No. 2016-002.
73. On this basis, Rojas should therefore not be held liable on this
ground.
75. In the formal charge, Siman was sought to be held liable for
grave dishonesty, due to his alleged fabrication of facts, event and
circumstances, and with his alleged setting up of “a scenario that there was
a valid police checkpoint operation and that there was a shot-out between
the respondents and alleged suspects where in fact there was none.”
77. Perusal of the records will show that herein respondent did not
fabricate any fact, event or circumstance or cooperate in the fabrication of
any fact, event or circumstance in the said shoot out.
Page 16 of 19
81. Futhermore, any delay on the part of Siman in reporting the
incident was merely for his fear of Laygo, the latter exercising disciplinary
control over him. He feared that he would lose his job, and all that he has
worked hard for, at the expense of his family and dependents who are all
relying on him.
83. On this basis, Siman should therefore not be held liable for grave
dishonesty.
86. On the date of the incident, Siman merely drove the mobile patrol
to the operations, acting upon the stern orders of Laygo.
Page 17 of 19
87. He did not do any act to assist Laygo in the commission of
murder – and any act that he did which may have aided in the commission
of the crime was merely due to Laygo’s ascendancy over him.
88. In fact, it was apparent that at that time, Siman already had
doubts on the legitimacy of the operations, and he acted upon it by refusing
to fully obey the orders of Laygo.
90. Considering these, Siman should therefore not be held liable for
conduct unbecoming of a police officer.
PRAYER
Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are similarly prayed
for.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
PUBLIC ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
LUCENA DISTRICT OFFICE
3rd Floor, Midtown Pavilion Building
Quezon Avenue, Lucena City
Page 18 of 19
CARMI D. MAGSINO-ARAZA
DPA / Public Attorney III
Roll No. 55414
EXPLANATION OF SERVICE
Copy of this pleading was served to the other parties and filed with this
Honorable Office by registered mail due to time constraint and the lack of
available staff who can serve the same in person.
Page 19 of 19