You are on page 1of 9

Page | 1

Republic of the Philippines


NATIONAL POLICE COMMISSION
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE
POLICE REGIONAL OFFICE 2
Camp Marcelo A. Adduru, Tuguegarao City

POLICE REGIONAL OFFICE 2,


Complainant,

Admin Case No._______


-versus- FOR: Grave Misconduct
Violation of RA 9262

PO2 JOSEPH GAUIRAN y EDA,


Respondent.
x-------------------------------------------------------x

POSITION PAPER

With all due respect to this Honorable Office.

Respondent by and through himself and to this


Honorable Office, respectfully submits his Position Paper, as
follows:

SHORT BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

The instant case arose from the following factual


antecedents:

In her letter-complaint dated May 27, 2014 filed before


the Directorate for Investigation and Detective Management
(DIDM) of the National Headquarters of the Philippine
National Police (PNP) in Camp Crame, private-complainant
charged respondent PO2 Joseph E. Gauiran for grave
misconduct (VAWC and Lack of Financial Support).

On June 11, 2014, the Chief of the DIDM issued a


Memorandum directing the Chief of the Regional

Position Paper of Joseph E. Gauiran


Page | 2

Investigation and Detective Management Division (RIDMD) of


the Police Regional Office 02 in Tuguegarao City to conduct
pre-charge evaluation against the named respondent.
Upon the accomplishment of the pre-charge evaluation
and filing of the appropriate case against herein respondent,
this Honorable Office directed the former through radio
communication to submit his answer within five (5) days
from July 21, 2014 when he received said order, thus, on July
24, 2014, respondent promptly submitted his counter-
affidavit via special courier-LBC.

On August 8, 2014, the Honorable Office sent again a


Notice by radio communication ordering respondent to
appear for a Pre-Hearing Conference of this present case on
August 14, 2014. Respondent faithfully attended said
hearing, but, his wife as the private-complainant failed to
appear thereto.

Meanwhile, due to the absence of private-complainant,


the Honorable Hearing Officer set another schedule for the
conduct preliminary hearing conference on August 20, 2014
wherein both parties are present. Afterwards, respondent
was directed by this Honorable Office to submit his position
paper.

Hence, this pleading.

ARGUMENT/DISCUSSION

Under the foregoing set of facts, the issue at bar is whether or


not the respondent is guilty of Grave Misconduct.

With all due respect, there is no basis for charging the


undersigned for Grave Misconduct due to alleged commission of a
crime punishable by Special Law particularly Republic Act 9262.

In charging the respondent for Grave Misconduct, this


Honorable Office solely relies on the uncorroborated allegations of
private-complainant Mary Claire Lazaro-Gauiran (wife of
respondent). Settled is the rule that in administrative proceedings,

Position Paper of Joseph E. Gauiran


Page | 3

the complainant has the burden of proving, by substantial


evidence, the allegations in his complaint. Substantial evidence,
which is more than a mere scintilla but is such relevant
evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
support a conclusion, would suffice to hold one
administratively liable. But this assurance of a desirable
flexibility in administrative procedure does not go so far
as to justify orders without a basis in evidence having
rational probative force. Mere uncorroborated hearsay or
rumor does not constitute substantial evidence. 1 (Emphasis
supplied)

In the present case, there is no substantial evidence to prove


that respondent physically abused and threatened private-
complainant sometime in 2009 and 2011 as these statements are
mere allegations not supported by any evidence. In fact this
allegations cannot stand not only because they are uncorroborated
but simply because they are sham, unfounded and baseless as
respondent never harm nor physically and verbally abuse her wife at
the time they were living together as husband and wife for thirteen
years and the years thereafter.

There is likewise no evidence to establish the alleged


womanizing of the respondent while he was stationed in Solano
Police Station-Solano, Nueva Vizcaya sometime in 2009, hence, the
same must fail as it was defeated by respondent when it presented
evidence that he was not stationed in Solano but was assigned at the
2nd Regional Mobile Group based in Camp Marcelo A. Adduru,
Tuguegarao City. As a matter of fact, private-complainant failed to
show any evidence, whether testimonial or documentary, proving that
respondent was a womanizer at any given time since their marriage,
as such, her bare allegation to such fact will not suffice.

Private-complainants claim that respondent failed to give


financial support to their children is bereft of merit as respondent is
giving them monthly support in the amount of Four Thousand Pesos
(P 4,000.00) or Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000.00) every 15 th and 30th
of each month. These amounts were justified by copies of
respondents pay slips which were attached to respondents Counter-
Affidavit which was submitted to this Honorable Office.
1 Hon. Ombudsman Marcelo vs. Bungubung et al. G.R. No. 175201 dated April 23, 2008

Position Paper of Joseph E. Gauiran


Page | 4

Anent the text messages allegedly forwarded by respondent, the


same must not be given any credit as respondent never texted
insulting words and unsavory messages towards private-complainant.
Even assuming arguendo that respondent have forwarded said
messages, the same cannot be considered for they are self-serving and
does not show the real course of the conversion between the parties
involved. A close scrutiny of the alleged text messages would show
that it merely reflects the alleged text messages of respondent and
does not include the reply/answer of private-complainant. Hence,
considering that these text messages are evidently self-serving, the
same must not be accepted at face value when the entries therein are
uncorroborated by any other evidence.

Finally, there is no sufficient evidence to prove that respondent


repeatedly beat private complainant in the evening of February 21,
2012 and to reiterate, respondent never harm nor hit private-
complainant while they were living together as husband and wife and
the years thereafter. While it is true that respondent visited his wife
and children at their apartment in Banngot, Bambang sometime in
February 2012, respondent did not harm, hit or boxed private-
complainant and if truth be told, she was the one angrily shouting at
respondent at the top of her voice with offensive words and in fact she
was the one hitting respondent with her fists which respondent
ignored and just went inside the house.

As a matter of fact, private-complainant asserted in her sworn


complaint that and to quote, xxx lumala ang sagutan naming.
Nakkikinig lamang ang aming kasambahay at bunsong anak.
Xxxxxx. Umabot na sa punto na nagsisigawan na kami at
napatakbo palabas an gaming yaya. Xxx. The preceding statements
of private-complainant has been refuted by their kasambahay herseff
when she testified under oath during the preliminary conference on
August 20, 2014 attesting that on that particular day of February 21,
2012, she was not inside the apartment of private-complaint, as when
she was about to enter private-complainants apartment, she heard
from outside that respondent and private-complainant were
exchanging disagreeable conversations, hence, she did not enter the
apartment anymore.2

2 As evidence by Sworn Complaint of Mary Claire L. Gauiran filed with the NBI
dated February 12, 2013; Manifested in the Certification (Excerpt from the
Police Blotter) issued by the Bambang Police Station dated February 14,
2013; and par. 8 of the Affidavit executed by Mary Claire L. Gauiran dated
April 4, 2013.

Position Paper of Joseph E. Gauiran


Page | 5

That the alleged injuries sustained by private-complainant was


not due to the alleged beatings of respondent but due to the fact that
private-complainant fell on the floor when she fainted due to her
excessive and uncontrollable anger and even exhausting her energy
shouting and hitting respondent.

In order to support her allegation that respondent hit and


physically harm her, private-complainant presented a Medical
Certificate dated February 21, 2012 issued by the Nueva Vizcaya
Provincial Hospital. As alleged by private-complainant, she said that
respondent hit her so hard at her left forehead near her eyes, on her
left and right ears and likewise hit on her left cheek on the evening of
February 21, 2013. However, a judicious scrutiny of the Medical
Certificate does not show any injuries sustained by private
complainant on the areas allegedly boxed by respondent particularly
on the left forehead near the eyes and the left cheek. As such, the
Medical Certificate supports the claim of respondent that he did not
hit private-complainant because if it is really true that private-
complainant was successively boxed by respondent on her face
particularly on her left forehead near her eyes and left cheek, the
injuries sustained by her must have been logically apparent and
reflected in the medical certificate, however, no such injuries were
noted in said certificate.3

In the present case, respondent is being charged with the


administrative offense of Grave Misconduct, which has been
authoritatively defined in Amosco v. Judge Magro4 as:

Misconduct in office has a definite and well-understood legal


meaning. By uniform legal definition, it is a misconduct such
as affects his performance of his duties as an officer and not
such only as affects his character as a private individual. In
such cases, it has been said at all times, it is necessary to
separate the character of the man from the character of the
officer x x x. It is settled that misconduct, misfeasance, or
malfeasance warranting removal from office of an officer,
must have direct relation to and be connected with the
performance of official duties amounting either to
3 Id.

4 165 Phil. 110, 112 (1976); Manuel v. Judge Calimag, Jr., 367 Phil. 162, 166
(1999).

Position Paper of Joseph E. Gauiran


Page | 6

maladministration or willful, intentional neglect and failure to


discharge the duties of the office. x x x.

Grave Misconduct is further elucidated in the case of


Office of the Ombudsman v. Miedes Sr. which states that
Grave Misconduct is considered as grave if it involves
additional elements such as corruption or willful
intent to violate the law or to disregard established
rules, which must be proven by substantial evidence;
otherwise, the misconduct is only simple. Corruption, as an
element of grave misconduct, consists in the act of an
official or fiduciary person who unlawfully and wrongfully
uses his station or character to procure some benefit for
himself or for another person, contrary to duty and the rights
of others.5 (emphasis supplied).

Additionally, in Grave misconduct, the elements of corruption,


clear intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of established rule
must be manifest. In the case at bar, complainant failed to advance
any iota of proof that respondents act was attended by corruption,
violation of the law and utter disregard of some established rules.

Even assuming arguendo that the evidence are


adequate to hold the respondents liable for Grave
Misconduct, the acts do not Commensurate to the
penalty of Dismissal where only mitigating and no
aggravating circumstances are present.

To repeat, respondent is being charged for Grave


Misconduct under Section 2 (par. C, 3 (r) of Memorandum
Circular No. 2007-001 of the National Police Commission.
Quoted from the charge sheet are the following:

xxx commit any act or omission that constitute a


crime punishable under the Revised Penal Code or
Special Laws specifically Republic Act 9262.

Section 2, Rule 21 of the NAPOLCOM Rules of


Procedure, it then states that, grave misconduct is classified
5 570 Phil. 464, 473 (2008).

Position Paper of Joseph E. Gauiran


Page | 7

as a grave offense and under Section 1 of Rule 22, the


penalty impossible ranges from sixty (60) days to six (6)
months suspension as minimum; one (1) rank demotion as
medium; and dismissal from the service as maximum.

As made known in the attached certificates of good


moral character6 and Certificates of commendations 7 and
medalya ng papuri awards, 8 the deficiencies in his moral
filament, make-believing that the charge against respondent
is true is personal in character and has nothing to do in the
performance of his official duties. These commendations and
accomplishments are demonstrative of his devotion of his
avowed duties as Police Officer. Apart from this present case,
respondent has never been charged of any felony penalized
under the Revised Penal Code or other statutory, offense nor
civil or administrative charges in the past.

The foregoing are clearly mitigating circumstances attendant


to the alleged commission of the offense without any
aggravating circumstances as shown in the records pursuant
to Section 4 of Rule 22 and under Section 5, where only
mitigating and no aggravating circumstances are present,
the minimum period of the penalty shall be imposed which is
sixty (60) days to six (6) months suspension under Section 1
of Rule 22.

To reiterate, no substantial evidence exists to show that


respondent is administratively culpable. A thorough reading
of the records of the case and upon consideration of the
respondents supporting documents submitted would
definitely prove the unsubstantiated and bare allegations of
private-complainant.

6 Hereto attached and marked as Annex 1 with submarking and made


integral part hereof.

7 Hereto attached and marked as Annex 2 with submarkings and made


integral part hereof.

8 Hereto attached and marked as Annex 3 with submarkings and made


integral part hereof.

Position Paper of Joseph E. Gauiran


Page | 8

Being guided accordingly by the aforementioned evidentiary


rules and jurisprudence, it is the humble contention of the
respondent that the evidence on record in the present case does not
constitute substantial evidence of respondents administrative
culpability for grave misconduct.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed


of this Honorable Office that the instant case be DISMISSED for
utter lack of merit.

Other reliefs just and equitable under the foregoing


circumstances are likewise prayed for.

RESPECTFULLY submitted. Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya for


Tuguegarao City, Cagayan. September 1, 2014.

JOSEPH GAUIRAN y EDA


Respondent

VERIFICATION AND OATH

I, JOSEPH EDA GAUIRAN, of legal age, married,


Filipino citizen with residence and postal address at District 4,
Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya, after having been duly sworn to in
accordance with law hereby depose and state that:

I am the respondent in the above-styled complaint;

I have caused the preparation of this position paper;

All its contents are true and correct based on my own personal
knowledge and authentic documents; and

I attest to the veracity of the foregoing statements.

Position Paper of Joseph E. Gauiran


Page | 9

WITNESS MY HAND, this 1st day of September 2014 at


Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya.

JOSEPH GAUIRAN y EDA


Respondent

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this 1st day of


August 2014 at Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya. Affiant having exhibited
to me his Professional Drivers License No.B01-05-001196, bearing
his name and signature.

Copy furnished:

Mary Claire Lazaro-Gauiran


Brgy. Banggot, Bambang, Nueva Vizcaya

Position Paper of Joseph E. Gauiran