Republic of the Philippines

NATIONAL POLICE COMMISSION

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE
POLICE REGIONAL OFFICE 11
Camp Quintin M Merecido, Buhangin, Davao City

Police Regional Office 11 Administrative Case

Complainant, , Compostela
Number:Valley
PRO 11 AC No. 45-061417

-versus-
NUP GIGI C GORRE FOR: Grave Misconduct (Sec. 4 of RA 10175-
Respondent, CYBERCRIME)
x--------------------------------------------x

REPORT OF INVESTIGATION

I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT:

This pertains to the Administrative Case filed against NUP GIGI C GORRE of the
Philippine National Police assigned at Regional at the Office of the Regional Personnel and
Human Resource Development Division, Police Regional Office 11. The conflict which was
elevated into a formal administrative charge was started in a Facebook comments.
Complainant Ms. Pamela Tina Huyatid confirmed that she is the person using the Facebook
name Pam Ela while respondent Gigi Gorre admitted during the hearing on July 31, 2017
that she uses the name Geigs Castillo on Facebook and thus admitted to have posted a
comment which in defense, denied that it was meant to anybody else.

In the charge sheet dated June 07, 2016, the Pre-Charge Investigation Division of
Regional Investigation and Detective Management Division (PCID-RIDMD) of the PNP
charged the respondent NUP Gorre to wit;

“That sometime in the morning of August 22, 2016 NUP Gigi Gorre, while
being member of the Philippine National Police as Non Uniformed Personnel
assigned at RPHRDD, Camp Quintin M Merecido, Buhangin Davao City and within
the jurisdiction of this disciplinary authority, did then and there committed Grave
Misconduct when she publicly and maliciously imputes Ms. Pamela Tina Y Huyatid
by posting on her Facebook account and Hahaha do you have any plan na
makisawsawsaw sa buhay ko that you started asking my real name? Have a
pleasure to dig further and enjoy yourself just make sure nakabaon ng maigi ang
baho mo at di sumisingaw!!! But sad to say I smell something fishy” followed by a
libelous comments of her facebook friends. That the said act cause dishonor,
discredit disgrace and humiliation to the complainant.”

II. FACTS OF THE CASE:

Version of the Complainant:

Complainant Ms. Huyatid averred in her sworn affidavit that on August 22, 2016, she
was shocked when she saw a public post on the Facebook wall using the alias of GIEGS
CASTILLO who posted a libelous remarks to quote

“Pagkapalingkera, pakialamera na lng gyud! Mind your own business

iha! Kong wala ka man lang tamang masabi then shut up, staple your watery
mouth! Unsa man jud problema nimo? Ngsugod na pod ka ug mama! Didto ka
sa bankerohan para mapuslan ng imo baba! Tanan na lang imo pakialaman!
Nagapanghagit jud k aba! Muna2 nako utong sa imo! Tama na, sobra na!! #it’s
my turn #patulan na kita”

But since the complainant had no idea as to the real identity of alias Giegs Castillo,
she asked some of her friends and eventually discovered that said person was actually NUP
Gorre, a Non Uniformed Personnel assigned at RPHRDD, Camp Quintin M Merecido,
Buhangin Davao City. On that same day, NUP Gorre made another Facebook post to qoute

“Hahaha do you have any plan na makisawsawsaw sa buhay ko that

you started asking my real name? Have a pleasure to dig further and enjoy
yourself just make sure nakabaon ng maigi ang baho mo at di sumisingaw!!!
But sad to say I smell something fishy”
 Meanwhile Ms. Hedda Riola revealed to Ms Huyatid that respondent admitted that
the post on the Facebook was referring to the Complainant as shown in the private
message between Hedda Riola and Gigi Gorre (Geigs Castillo). (See the position paper of
complainant as an integral part hereof)

Version of the Respondent:

Respondent NUP Gorre on the other hand vehemently denied all the allegations
imputed against her as same are self-serving and unsupported by convincing evidence,
although she acknowledged having posted the said utterances in her Facebook account on
August 22, 2016 as stated in her affidavit particularly in para 3 sub para (a). However she
argued that though a screenshot was attached together with the said post, it does not
necessarily mean that it was intended to anyone appearing in the said attachment. She
likewise contested that the Annex “E” as attached evidence in the affidavit-complaint is
inadmissible. (See attached Counter-Affidavit of respondent). Finally, in the position paper
of respondent granting without admitting that she be held guilty of this case, she invoked
mitigating circumstances of being a first time offender, recipient of several awards and
commendations length of service or more than 18 years. She further prays that she be
exonerated of this administrative case for lack of merit. (Refer to the position paper and
affidavit of respondent)

III. ISSUES

Whether or not respondent is guilty of Grave Misconduct for alleged Cyber Libel
under section 4 of R.A. No. 10175

III.DISCUSSION:
After careful scrutiny on the pieces of evidence presented by the parties, the
Summary Hearing Officer is morally convinced that the arguments of the prosecution fall
short to the merits of the arguments and controverting evidence of the respondent.

As stated in the Charge Sheet and in the Pre-charge investigation report, respondent
NUP Gorre was charged with Grave Misconduct for the alleged cyber libel.

The case of libel in Art 353 of the Revised Penal Code and its relative Special Law
under section 4(c)(4) of RA 10175 embraces requisite elements to make an imputation
libelous, it means that in the absence of one element, libel could not prosper. The issue
that the libel case filed before the City Prosecutor’s Office was dismissed for lack of
probable cause has nothing to do with the findings and eventual decision of the
administrative case, noteworthy to mention that admin case only requires substantial
evidence and not proof beyond reasonable doubt. However the fact that the criminal case
was dismissed would normally affects the findings of the administrative case, here in this
case, the criminal prosecution dismissed the case for lack of probable cause simply implies
that the requisite elements of libel was not meet to warrant the filing of case in court.

Perusal on the evidence at hand, such as in the Annex “E” as supporting documents
of the affidavit complaint executed by Ms. Huyatid alleging that NUP Gorre admitted to Ms.
Hedda Riola during their private text conversation that the post was referring to Ms. Huyatid.
Hence it is apparent that the admission of respondent of having posted defamatory remarks
on Facebook was actually intended to Ms Huyatid and thus a conflict between them arises.
The said comment was however refuted by the respondent as such post was not meant or
intended to anyone particularly the complainant herself. The term “post” in this case for the
sake of discussion was so general that it is quite unclear whether which post did the
respondent would mean, it was not being materially emphasized as there were several post
or comments shown in the thread or conversation, hence the claim of complainant that the
post was intended to her could not be established.

Respondent never denied that she and Ms Riola had a private conversation, she only
contested that it was a private conversation and that it should not have been used as
evidence without the consent or permission owning the Facebook. Respondent has
reasonable basis when she refuted that it does not necessarily mean that the post was
intended to someone since she did not even mention names in her comment in the first
place. Since the burden of proof lies on the hand of the prosecution, the evidence which
was supposed to be vital in this case, should have been accompanied by corroborative
evidence such as testimonies of other witness to prove that such private conversation is
factual to define integrity of the evidence.

The denials of respondent bear merits and should be given more credence. It has to
be noted that respondent did not directly mention a name of a person. it was only the
complainant who presumed that she was the person being assaulted and that she was
humiliated in the public. At the least, It is not reasonable to show deep concern over the
said libelous post when it was uncertain who was being targeted or assaulted for. At the
wider point of view, complainant self interpretation on the post was a mere flight of her
imagination and deemed baseless to hold the respondent liable for the charge.

It is perceived that in all legal proceedings, prosecution/aggrieved party is ordinarily

the one who receives the most injuries but ironically also has to bear the burden of proof. In
this case, complainant failed to convince this jurisdiction that the offense has been
committed. For this, it would simply mean that the prosecution’s presentation of evidence is
insufficient to hold the respondent guilty of grave misconduct. Although, the prosecution
has alleged aggravating circumstances, such as the offense was committed during office
hours, respondent is a public officer and respondent violated the basic rights of others. It will
not anymore count to this proceeding since the evidence itself is not substantial to warrant a
decision favorable to the complainant.

On the contrary however, respondent invoke attendant mitigating circumstances

such as first offense, length of service, being recipient of several awards and
commendation. The undersigned also believed that the mitigating circumstances herein
invoked shall be appreciated in favor of the respondent.

IV. RECOMMENDATION:

WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, the undersigned Summary Hearing

Officers recommends that respondent NUP GIGI GORRE be Exonerated for lack of
substantial evidence.

SO RECOMMENDED.

Done this ____ day of _____2017, Davao City, Philippines.

VENUS B ORTUYO
Police Superintendent
Summary Hearing Officer