Position Paper Baman, Et Al

Republic of the Philippines
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military
And Other Law Enforcement Offices
Agham Road, Diliman, Quezon City, 1104
EDUARDO S. MAGTALAPA,
Complainant,
-versus- OMB-P-A-20-0057
P/CPL. JERRY BAMAN et. al.,

Respondents.
x-------------------------x
POSITION PAPER
Respondent PSSg. Jerry C. Baman; PCpl. Jomel C. Ellaso; PSSg. Marlon A.

Lazaga; P/Cpl. Raffy S. Galang; and PSSg. Percival M. Ladores, unto this
Honorable Office, in compliance with the Order dated February 21, 2021, most
respectfully allege, as follows:
Timeliness of Filing:
Respondents received their copies of the above-stated February 21, 2021

Order on March 3, 2021 giving them a period of ten (10) days or until March 13,
2021 within which to comply therewith. Hence, this Position Paper is seasonably
filed.
The Complainant and his

Baseless Complaint:
The complainant in this case- a certain Eduardo S. Magtalapa was a drug

suspect who, along with two others, namely: Gerardo Diño and Judy Calusa were
arrested in a buy-bust operation conducted by a team of Gapan City police
officers led by respondent Jerry Baman who was then Chief of the station’s Drug
Enforcement Unit. The police operation was conducted against Magtalapa and his
cohorts in the evening of October 11, 2018 along the Gapan City-stretch of the
Maharlika Highway.
Prior to the arrest of Magtalapa and his cohorts, respondents knew nothing
about him. In his complaint, he paints a picture of him as a moneyed rice trader
and intimates that his being rich made him a robbery victim perpetrated by
respondent. This is too far from the truth. The truth is nothing more than his
1
being a drug suspect who was arrested in a legitimate buy-bust operation
conducted by the respondents in the regular performance of their official duties.
The circumstances surrounding the arrest of Magtalapa and his companions

are narrated in the Pinagsamang Sinumpaang Salaysay ng Pag-Aresto at
Paghahabla dated October 12, 2018 (Salaysay). The same was executed by
respondents Ladores and Lazaga who were main players in the entrapment of the
drug suspects.
Respondents maintain the truth of the allegations in the afore-stated

Salaysay. The arrest of Magtalapa and his companions Diño and Calusa was a
result of a legitimate police operation conducted in the manner narrated therein.
For this reason, respondents strongly and vehemently DENY complainant
Magtalapa’s version of his arrest. There is absolutely no truth to his story which
attempts to portray the respondents as criminals without any shred of evidence
but merely on the basis of Magtalapa’s own self-serving version of the incident.
To say the least, his story is a figment of his fertile imagination, a concocted and
fabricated story aimed at discrediting respondents for simply doing our sworn
duties.
To say it simply, Magtalapa’s complaints are baseless. The allegations

therein are nothing but blatant lies. They do not deserve any consideration by this
Honorable Office.
The Decision in Criminal Cases

Nos. 22480-18 and 2241-18:
Magtalapa also anchors his complaint against the respondents on the

Decision dated May 29, 2019 rendered in Criminal Cases Nos. 22480-18 and
22481-18 for illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs, respectively, by the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 36 of Gapan City, Nueva Ecija, the dispositive portion
thereof states:
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, accused Gerardo Diño y

Asonza, Eduardo Magtalapa y Somera and July Calusa y Blanco are
hereby ACQUITTED of the crimes of illegal sale and possession of
dangerous drugs, defined and penalized under Section 5 and 11,
respectively, Article II of Republic Act Mo. 9165, otherwise known as
the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. Cost de officio.
SO ORDERED.”
Magtalapa erroneously construes his acquittal in the aforesaid cases as a

license to get back at the respondents. He equates his acquittal to a judicial
2
declaration of a wrongful arrest and that he was a victim of police abuse. This, of
course, is a false reading of the court decision.
Lost on Magtalapa is the conclusion of the Honorable Court as follows:
“The prosecution failed to discharge its burden of establishing

the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt in both cases. To
be frank, the court entertains very serious doubt on the credibility of
the buy-bust story narrated by the prosecution witnesses.”
(paragraph 4, page 5 of the Decision)
Also lost on the complainant is that fact that as above-stated, the defense
waived its right to present evidence and submitted the cases for decision on the
basis of the evidence presented by the prosecution. Hence, Magtalapa, Diño and
Calusa never told their story at the trial of Criminal Cases Nos. 22480 and 22481.
Further, even before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Gapan City, Magtalapa or
anyone of his cohorts said nothing about the alleged wrongdoings committed by
respondents against them in the course of their lawful arrest. The Honorable
Court acknowledged this fact. Magtalapa never assailed the legality of their
arrest. Never did he or his cohorts raise the issue of police abuse or the acts they
now charge the respondents with. These complaints, therefore, are nothing but
an afterthought. A ruse designed to get back at the respondents for putting an
end to his drug-dealing business.
Nothing in the May 29, 2019 Decision is it stated that the facts and
circumstances stated in the above-mentioned Salaysay were false. The Honorable
Court merely “entertained serious doubt on the credibility of the buy-bust story
narrated by the prosecution witnesses”. The witnesses referred to are
respondents Ladores and Lazaga. Respondents maintain their highest respect of
the Honorable Court. But it doesn’t mean that they agree with its decision.
Nonetheless, nothing in the Decision is it stated that the buy-bust operation

against Magtalapa and his co-accused Diño and Calusa never happened, or that
they never committed the crimes they were charged with. What the court simply
held was that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the Magtalapa, Diño and
Calusa beyond reasonable doubt due to the lapses in the witnesses’ narration of
the incident that led to the arrest of the accused, and their failure to establish the
chain of custody of the seized drugs required under RA No. 9165 and its
Implementing Rules and Regulations. The Honorable never held that Magtalapa’s
arrest was attended by irregularities or that the respondents committed criminal
offenses in the course thereof.
Without presenting their story before the trial court, Magtalapa now comes
before this Honorable Office offering an unbelievable version of the incident
obviously for the purpose of getting back at the respondents for simply doing our
3
job. Magtalapa conveniently forgets the fact that prior to the filing of the criminal
cases in court, inquest proceedings were conducted against them by the Office of
the City Prosecutor of Gapan City. The inquest prosecutor found probable cause
to indict them of the crimes of illegal sale and possession of the drugs seized from
them. This simply means that their defense was found unmeritorious by the
inquest prosecutor who likewise declared that the warrantless arrest of the
accused was lawful.
Verily, the filing of these complaints against the respondents before this
Honorable Office is nothing but a way of getting back at them who only
performed their job in connection with the government’s anti-illegal drug
campaign. The Honorable Court had unfortunately doubted the credibility of the
testimonies of respondents Ladores and Lazaga who might have testified in the
manner that did not inspire. But it does not mean that no buy-bust operation was
conducted and that Magtalapa, Diño and Calusa were not arrested in the manner
narrated in the above-stated Salaysay;
Complaints are bereft of

Evidentiary Support:
The present complaint is bereft of any evidence other than Magtalapa’s

version of their arrest. We may not dispute that he and his companions were rice
traders. But then again, it does not mean that rice traders, businessmen or
moneyed people cannot be drug pushers. Logically, drug pushers must be
moneyed. His story is totally uncorroborated by independent and credible
witnesses and object evidence. Assuming the truth of the alleged business
transaction they engaged in prior to their arrest in another place, the same is
totally immaterial to the fact that they were arrested in the very act of
committing criminal acts in Gapan City.
A careful scrutiny of the Complaint and its annexes reveals nothing that
supports the charges. Annexes “A” and “B” for instance are mere proofs that
Magtalapa was engaged in the business of rice trading. As earlier stated, we may
even admit such fact. But it does not support his charges against the respondents
in any logical manner. Magtalapa’s claim that he was robbed of the amounts of
money alleged in his Sinumpaang Salaysay ng Paghahabla is absolutely without
proof. It is totally a bare and self-serving allegation not anchored on any
evidentiary support. This is not to mention that never did he raise this complaint
during the inquest proceedings conducted by the Office of the Gapan City
Prosecutor or at the trial of his drug cases.
In short, Magtalapa relies solely on the Honorable Courts’ Decision in the

Criminal Cases Nos. 22480-18 and 22481-18 which never made mention of any of
the allegations now being hurled against the respondents in these complaints.
4
Clearly, Magtalapa’s complaints appear to have been filed with evident bad
faith. To charge the respondents of the crimes stated therein is a serious blow to
the government’s efforts to eradicate the drug menace in our society. It is all too
common for moneyed drug suspects to get back at police officers by giving a
larger, yet erroneous significance to the dismissal of their cases or their acquittal.
By doing so, Magtalapa and his cohorts most conveniently expand the simple
significance of the decision of the court and present another version of the
incident that was never raised before it.
The facts of Criminal Cases Nos. 22480-20 and 22481-20 are established.
The Honorable Court in its Decision never declared the arrest of Magtalapa and
his companions as false and untrue. It did not declare that he and his companions
were arrested in the manner different from what respondents have testified in
court. The court simply cast doubt on its credibility owing to the testimonies of
respondents Ladores and Lazaga that may have proved uninspiring and our failure
to preserve the integrity of the seized dangerous drugs in accordance to
established rules and jurisprudence. Never did the Honorable declare that
Magtalapa and his companions did not commit the crimes they were charged
with. Thus, Magtalapa cannot present a clearly baseless and self-serving account
of their arrest to convince this Honorable Office that respondents are guilty of
committing the incredible number of offenses he is charging them with.
Jurisprudence is clear. “Preliminary investigation is merely an inquisitorial

mode of discovering whether or not there is reasonable basis to believe that a
crime has been committed and that the person charged should be held
responsible for it.” Being merely based on opinion and belief, "a finding of
probable cause does not require an inquiry as to whether there is sufficient
evidence to secure a conviction." In Fenequito v. Vergara, Jr., "[p]robable cause,
for the purpose of filing a criminal information, has been defined as such facts as
are sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been
committed and that respondent is probably guilty thereof. The term does not
mean 'actual or positive cause nor does it import absolute certainty. It is merely
based on opinion and reasonable belief. Probable cause does riot require an
inquiry x x x whether there is sufficient evidence to procure a conviction. It is
enough that it is believed that the act or omission complained of constitutes the
offense charged." (Reyes vs. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 213163-78 and other cases,
March 15, 2016)
In the present complaint against the respondents, a finding of probable

cause against them has no leg to stand on. Probable cause should not rest on
mere inferences. There is absolute necessity for the complainant to at least
present evidence that respondents have committed the offenses they are charged
with. For instance, robbery cannot be inferred from Magatalapa’s bare claim that
he had money in his possession at the time he was arrested in the act of selling
drugs. Having no such evidence that robbery was in fact committed, respondents
5
cannot be held liable for grave abuse of authority, grave misconduct and
dishonesty.
Conclusion:
All the foregoing facts and circumstances all warrant the dismissal of
Magtalapa’s complaints against the respondents. Having absolutely no leg to
stand on, the bare and self-serving allegations therein do not support a finding of
probable cause against them. The complaints fail to establish sufficient evidence
to deny all of us the application of the well-entrenched presumption of regularity
in the performance of our official duties.
Prayer:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondents most respectfully pray of

this Honorable Office to DISMISS the complaints against them for lack of probable
cause and lack of merit.
Respondents further pray for other reliefs consistent with justice and
equity.
Gapan City, Nueva Ecija for Quezon City; March 10, 2021.
PSSg. JERRY BAMAN y Cagurin P/CPL. JOMEL ELLASO y Cabago

Respondent Respondent
PSSg. MARLON LAZAGA y Ancheta P/CPL. RAFFY GALANG y Santiago

Respondent Respondent
PSSg. PERCIVAL LADORES y Mendoza

Respondent
SUBSCRIBED and SWORN TO before me this 11th day of March, 2021 after
affiants exhibited to me their respective identification cards issued by the
Philippine national Police as proofs of their identities.
6
Doc. No. ____
Page No. ____
Book No. ____
Series of 2021
Copy Furnished:
Mr. Eduardo Magtalapa

Complainant
Andal Aliño, Talavera
Nueva Ecija

Position Paper Baman, Et Al

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Position Paper Baman, Et Al

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Position Paper Baman, Et Al

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic of the Philippines

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

P/CPL. JERRY BAMAN et. al.,

Respondent PSSg. Jerry C. Baman; PCpl. Jomel C. Ellaso; PSSg. Marlon A.

Respondents received their copies of the above-stated February 21, 2021

The Complainant and his

The complainant in this case- a certain Eduardo S. Magtalapa was a drug

The circumstances surrounding the arrest of Magtalapa and his companions

Respondents maintain the truth of the allegations in the afore-stated

To say it simply, Magtalapa’s complaints are baseless. The allegations

The Decision in Criminal Cases

Magtalapa also anchors his complaint against the respondents on the

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, accused Gerardo Diño y

Magtalapa erroneously construes his acquittal in the aforesaid cases as a

Lost on Magtalapa is the conclusion of the Honorable Court as follows:

“The prosecution failed to discharge its burden of establishing

Nonetheless, nothing in the Decision is it stated that the buy-bust operation

Complaints are bereft of

The present complaint is bereft of any evidence other than Magtalapa’s

In short, Magtalapa relies solely on the Honorable Courts’ Decision in the

Jurisprudence is clear. “Preliminary investigation is merely an inquisitorial

In the present complaint against the respondents, a finding of probable

WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondents most respectfully pray of

PSSg. JERRY BAMAN y Cagurin P/CPL. JOMEL ELLASO y Cabago

PSSg. MARLON LAZAGA y Ancheta P/CPL. RAFFY GALANG y Santiago

PSSg. PERCIVAL LADORES y Mendoza

Mr. Eduardo Magtalapa

You might also like