You are on page 1of 5

Republic of the Philippines


Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon
3rd Floor, Ombdusman Bldg.
Agham Road, Diliman, Quezon City
Phone: 479 7300 loc 330 and 333 / 9268794

OMB Case No. ______________
For: Dereliction of Duty,
Oppression, Grave Misconduct
- versus



I, WILLIAM M. ESTEBAN, of legal age,married and

residing at Purok Paraiso, Batal, Santiago City after having
duly sworn to in accordance with law do hereby deposes and
states :

1. That I am formally charging administratively the

respondent LEOFIN S. PASCUAL, of legal age, Filipino,
married and Punong Barangay of Barangay Buenavista
Santiago City for Dereliction of Duty, Opression, Obstruction
of Justice under PD 1829 and Grave misconduct committed as
follows, to wit:

1.1 Sometime on 4 April 2017, a certain

individual named Mr.Ronald Pablo( Mr.Pablo for
brevity), a resident of Barangay Buenavista,
assaulted me in front of the Santiago City National
High School located at Barangay Calaocan,Santiago
City. Due to the unlawful act committed by
Mr.Pablo against me, I sustained abrasion on left
shoulder,contusion on left forehead as attested by
Dr. Noreen Angelica S. Ipac,M.D., the attending
physician at Southern Isabela General Hospital.
Copy of Medical Certificate[1] is hereto attached
and made integral part hereof;

Annex A hereof.
1.2 With the injuries inflicted by Mr.Pablo
upon me, I wasted no time and went to Santiago
City Police Office to ask for legal assistance so that
a criminal action may be instituted against

1.3 On 7 April 2017, the police officer wrote a

letter[2] addressed to the respondent referring to his
office my complaint in order to conduct a
conciliation-mediation proceedings as mandated by
Katarungang Pambarangay Law under the Local
Government Code;

1.4 On 19 April 2017, I personally appeared

before the office of the respondent to institute a
complaint for physical injuries against Mr.Pablo and
the respondent scheduled the confrontation
between me and Mr.Pablo on 21 April 2017 at 10:00
oclock in the morning;

1.5 In compliance to respondents letter, I

went to his office on the said schedule but to no
avail because Mr.Pablo did not appear. Instead, the
niece of Mr.Pablo informed us both(referring to me
and the respondent) that Mr.Pablo went to Quirino
province. As a consequence, the confrontation was
cancelled that day and was reset to 24 April 2017 at
10:00 oclock in the morning;

1.6 But on the said schedule for second

confrontation with Mr.Pablo, I got the chance to talk
with the respondent, but the respondent informed
me that he was able to talk with Mr.Pablo and he
learned that a case against me was already filed by
Mr.Pablo in court and because of this, the
respondent informed me that the respondent would
no longer issue a Certification to File Action because
the Punong Barangay of Barangay Batal, Santiago
City, where I currently reside already issued a
Certification to File Action in favor of Mr.Pablo
before said Barangay arising on the same incident;

1.7 I reasoned out and insisted that the

respondent must also give a Certification to File
Action relative to the physical assault that

Annex B hereof.
happened because I could not file a criminal action
against the wrongdoings of Mr.Pablo if it will not
first pass conciliation proceedings in the Barangay
and because of my insistence, another confrontation
hearing was scheduled on 26 April 2017 at 10:00
oclock in the morning;

1.8 On the said schedule of hearing, I again

went into respondents office at the Barangay Hall
for another possible confrontation with Mr. Pablo
but the respondent informed me that the
respondent would fetch Mr.Pablo in their house so
he could attend the confrontation but I waited in
vain in the respondents office because the
respondent never returned;

1.9 On 28 April 2017, I again visited the

respondent in his office and he informed me that he
could not give a certification to file action because of
the reason he stated before. The respondent further
told me that he would ask the opinion of the DILG;

2. But unfortunately, the respondent failed to act with

my request that constraint me to hire the services of legal
counsel. A letter request[2] was prepared by my counsel
addressed to the respondent dated 3 May 2017 and was
received by Eldan Ducsa, the barangay secretary at Barangay
Buenavista, Santiago City on 4 May 2017;

3. Based from the sequence of events that happened

from the first day of scheduled confrontation set by the
respondent herein and then followed by three(3) unsuccessful
meetings between me and Mr.Pablo, the refusal of the
respondent to act on my complaint constitute nonfeasance
and tantamount to dereliction of duty pursuant to Section 408
and Section 409(b) of Republic Act No.7160;

4. The deliberate act of the respondent to decline my

request for the Issuance of Certification to File Action on the
pretext that Mr.Pablo already filed a case against me with the
Office of the City Prosecutor of Santiago City is unjust and
without legal ground pursuant to Section 408 and Section
409(b) of Republic Act No.7160;

5. Section 408 and Section 409(b) of Republic Act No.

7160 provides:
Sec. 408. Subject Matter for
Amicable Settlement; Exception
Thereto The lupon of each barangay
shall have authority to bring together the
parties actually residing in the same city
or municipality for amicable settlement of
all disputes except; while

Sec. 409. Venue.- (b) Those

involving actual residents of different
barangays within the same city or
municipality shall be brought in the
barangay where the respondent or any of
the respondents actually resides, at the
election of the complainant.

6. In addition, Section 410(b) of Republic Act 7610

mandates the proper procedure for amicable settlement
provided as follows:

Sec. 410. Procedure for Amicable

Settlement (b) Mediation by lupon
chairman- Upon receipt of the complaint,
the lupon chairman shall, within the next
working day , summon the respondent(s),
with notice to the complainant for them
and their witnesses to appear before him
for a mediation of their interests. If he
fails in his mediation effort within fifteen
days from the first meeting of the parties
before him, he shall forthwith set a date
for the constitution of the pangkat in
accordance with the provisions of this

7. The case of Alinsugay v Cagampang,Jr.,[3] is

enlightening .This is a case wherein only one party appears
before the Lupong Barangay and the other party fails to do so
despite due notice or summons. What should the Punong
Barangay do in such a case? The Supreme Court held that:

It is settled that the willful

refusal or failure to appear on the part
of the respondent is sufficient basis for
the complainant present to be given a
certification to file action.

143 SCRA 146, July 28, 1986.
The issuance of a certification to
file action means that the complainant
may already bring his case to the court
for adjudication.

In instances where one party fails

to appear for no justifiable reason,
convening the Pangkat as a necessary
second step will serve no useful
purpose.In that case,the only feasible
alternative for the Lupon is to issue
the certification allowing complainant
to bring the controversy to court.

8. The scenario in the case cited above could very well

be related to the complainants situation for the refusal of the
respondent herein to issue certification to file action. Nowhere
in the Republic Act 7610 that empowers the respondent to
withhold or deny the issuance of certification to file action in
my favor on the pretext that a case was filed against me before
the Office of the City Prosecutor;

9. The unlawful act of the respondent who knowingly

or willfully obstructs, impedes, frustrates or delays the
investigation and prosecution of criminal cases for the non
issuance of Certification to File Action would constitute an
Obstruction of Justice under Presidential Decree No. 1829;

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my

signature this 18th day of May 2017, in the City of Santiago.

ID No. B06-09-024382

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN before me this 18th day of

May, 2017, at Santiago City, Philippines; Affiant exhibited to
me his identifying evidence as required by the Rules; who
signed the said instrument in my presence. I further certify
that I have personally examined the affiant and I am
convinced that the same is his own free and voluntarily act
and deed.

Doc. No.______
Page No.______
Book No._____
Series of 2017