Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Position Paper PMaj Dela Cruz Final
Position Paper PMaj Dela Cruz Final
I.
BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS
3. During the conduct of the pre-hearing conference on June 19, 2020, the
prosecution stressed that I already have knowledge of the declaration of Full
Alert status as I acknowledged the message sent on our viber group. As such,
said viber message was presented as evidence by the prosecution. Aside from
the said evidence, no other such evidence was presented by the prosecution to
support their case;
II.
ISSUE/S
1
4. The issues to be resolve in the instant case are:
III.
ARGUMENTS AND DISCUSSIONS
2
from March 16 to April 17, 2020, excluding Saturdays, Sundays and
Holidays, is hereby approved”;
10. That based on the foregoing, the National Police Commission, who has
authority over the PNP has expressly approved not only the aforementioned
leave, but also granted me the authority to travel abroad. Hence, the
aforementioned allegation of absence without securing the approval of my
superior officer for a period of more than three (3) days and allegedly taking a
trip abroad on March 15, 2020 without approval of the authorities concerned
has no basis in fact;
11. Moreover, considering that my application for leave was filed as early as
January 3, 2020, even assuming that said application is not yet acted upon, the
same is deemed considered as approved pursuant to Sec. 29 of the Omnibus
Rules on Leave as provided for under Resolution No. 983142 of the Civil
Service Commission which states that, “Whenever an application for leave
of absence, including terminal leave, is not acted upon by the head of
agency or his duly authorized representative within five (5) working days
after receipt thereof, the application for leave of absence shall be deemed
approved”.
12. Thus, despite the allegation of the prosecution in the instant case that
my leave was put on hold by DPRM, such act, with all due respect, could be an
unlawful encroachment against the supervisory powers of the NAPLOCOM
over the PNP and thus may amount to grave abuse of authority. This find basis
on the legally accepted principle that “Water cannot rise above its source”
The PNP cannot hold or undo the act of a higher office such as the
NAPOLCOM.
13. Hence, based on the aforementioned, it is crystal clear that I have a duly
approved leave for said absence and no less that the NAPOLCOM has granted
the same. Furthermore, the prosecution has failed to provide evidence that
could contradict or disprove such approved application for leave for the simple
reason that such leave was duly approved. Also, if indeed that such leave was
put on hold, it is only the NAPOLCOM that could put on hold said leave since it
was that Office that duly approved said leave.
14. That even assuming that the PNP is authorize to hold the NAPOLCOM
approved leave, then the NAPOLCOM, should have issued a memorandum
putting said leave on hold. Not only that, said memorandum should have been
3
given and received by any concerned PNP officer, just like me, so that I could
have been duly notified of such holding of the approved leave. The prosecution
in the instant case has clearly failed to present such evidence that I have been
duly notified that my approved leave is put on hold. Hence, the provision of to
Sec. 29 of the Omnibus Rules on Leave as provided for under Resolution No.
983142 of the Civil Service Commission shall be considered as in effect;
16. Nothing in the PNP rules which state that a declaration of full alert status
means that there is an automatic cancellation of leave. As a matter of fact, the
subsequent memorandum issued by the DPRM cancelling all leaves on March
17, 2020 days after the declaration of full alert status precisely confirm this fact.
This is because if the declaration of full alert status automatically cancel all
approved leave, a memorandum effectively cancelling all leaves will not be any
more necessary. And clearly, the DPRM Memorandum canceling all approved
leave is issued after I left the Philippines and thus, it will be impossible for me
to know about it before it was issued. Thus, holding me accountable for
something which I do not have prior knowledge would tantamount to violation
of due process. This is a clear transgression not only of my procedural right,
but also my substantive right which is protected and enshrined in our
constitution and the laws.
4
attached a copy of my ticket and itinerary which is attached herein as Annex
“2” in my submitted answer which shows that I even took a ticket with has
many connecting flight just to return to the Philippines at the earliest possible
time.
18. Also established was the fact that I was able to arrive in the Philippines
on March 29, 2020 since the itinerary of the ticket that I secured covers two
stop overs in Los Angeles and Tokyo, Japan which has a more than three (3)
and sixteen (16) hours layover respectively. Clearly, this shows my compliance
to the memorandum of cancelation of leave as soon as I came to know of such
memorandum; I have to cut my leave fifteen (15) days in advance which is
supposed to end on April 17, 2020.
19. That I was not able to return to the Philippines immediately upon
knowledge of the cancellation of leave for the simple reason that I cannot just
do that considering that I am already abroad and has to re-book my flight
schedule which is not that easy. It is not as easy as if I am in the country since
I can just drive back home and report. Even in the Philippines securing a flight
to and from Manila is not just as easy, what more if a person is abroad just like
in the instant case. Moreover, since the Covid 19 are already slowly becoming
a pandemic at that time, traveling from one country to another has become
much difficult that caused the delay of my flight back to the Philippines.
21. Thus, considering the aforementioned and based on the records of the
case, I cannot be considered to have committed the offense of allegedly being
absent without securing the approval of my superior officer for a period of more
than three (3) days and taking a trip abroad on March 15, 2020 without
approval of the authorities concerned as the records would reveal that I have
an approved leave and an approved authority to travel abroad which was not
canceled of put on hold by the approving authority. And that even assuming
that it was cancelled, I was only informed of such cancellation after I have left
5
the country and has immediately returned as soon as I possibly can
considering the circumstances.
22. The prosecutor in the instant case has miserably failed in proving the
allegations against me and worst has clearly failed to contradict my defense.
This is anchored on the Supreme Court decisions in the following cases to wit,
“it is not the duty of a respondent to prove” (Artuz vs. CA, 365 SCRA 269).
Meaning, “the complainant bears the onus of establishing or proving the
averments in his complaint by substantial evidence” (Eboro vs.
Camposanto 425 SCRA 420). And in cases of Grave Offenses, “the evidence
must be competent and derived from direct knowledge” (Office of the
Court Administrator vs. Canete 429 SCRA 230).
23. Sadly, as per records of the HS itself, I am not the only one who have
travelled abroad during the said period but records also reveal that some were
not being held to answer for their failure to return to the Philippines
immediately. I just hope that I am not the only one being singled out of an act
which does not even constitute an offense as records would reveal that I have
not committed any administrative infringement.
24. Moreover, to reiterate, have not yet been previously penalized for any
administrative or criminal case that shows our integrity and faithfulness to my
work. Also a recipient of various awards and commendations in the more than
sixteen (16) years of faithful service to the organization. Thus, I will not
intentionally do anything that would tarnish and diminish my service reputation.
Also, considering that I have left the Philippines for my leave with prior
approval thereof, it is considered justified and therefore also considered as
good faith.
IV.
PRAYER
The respondent further prays for such other reliefs just and equitable under the
premises.
6
Done this 6th day of July 2020 at the City of Malolos, Bulacan.
JURAT
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 6 th day of July 2020 at the City
of Malolos, Bulacan. Above named respondent exhibited to his PNP ID bearing the
number 19F070588 issued on June 7, 2019 at Camp Crame, Quezon City