Republic of the Philippines

National Police Commission

NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE
HEALTH SERVICE
Camp BGen Rafael Crame, Quazon City

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE

Complainant,
Administrative Case No.
3351-05252020
-versus-
For: Less Grave Neglect of Duty
Less Grave Misconduct
PMAJ PATRICK DELA DR CRUZ,
Respondents.
x---------------------------------------------------x

RESPONDENT’S POSITION PAPER

The UNDERSIGNED RESPONDENT AND UNTO the Honorable Summary
Hearing Officer, respectfully submits this Position Paper for consideration:

I.
BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. I am the Respondent in the instant administrative case for alleged Less

Grave Neglect of Duty and Less Grave Misconduct pursuant to NAPOLCOM
MC No. 2016-002;

2. That based on records, I am being charged for 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. That said actions are alleged to be tantamount to
“Less Grave Neglect of Duty” and “Less Grave Misconduct” respectively
pursuant to NAPOLCOM MC No. 2016-002;

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:

a. Whether or not the herein respondent committed the alleged

acts of being absent without securing the approval of my
superior officer for a period of more than three (3) days which
constitute Less Grave Neglect of Duty;
b. Whether or not the herein respondent took a trip abroad on
March 15, 2020 without approval of the authorities concerned
which constitutes Less Grave Misconduct. .

III.
ARGUMENTS AND DISCUSSIONS

5. I most respectfully categorically and vehemently deny all the allegation

that I committed the above-mentioned administrative offenses for reason that it
has no basis in fact and in law;

6. On the alleged 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, I
most respectfully deny committing the same as said absence was authorized
and the travel abroad is authorized. The same as with my submitted Answer
and considering that said alleged infractions involves the same facts, it is best
to tackle the same jointly;

7. As a matter of fact, I previously applied for leave covering the period of

March 15, 2020 to April 17, 2020 as early as January 3, 2020 considering that
said leave was going to be spend in the United Stated and it will need an
approval from the National Police Commission;

8. That on February 26, 2020, the National Police Commission issued a

Memorandum with a subject Authority to Travel Abroad expressly approving
my applied leave and granting me authority to travel abroad;

9. That said Authority to Travel Abroad expressly states, “xxx and as

favorably recommended by the Acting Chief of Directorial Staff, your
request for authority to spend five (5) days mandatory leave, three (3)
days special privilege leave and fifteen (15) days service leave or a total
of twenty-three (23) days leave abroad in the United States of America

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;

15. Furthermore, as stressed in my submitted answer, it can be gleaned and

undisputed on the records that I left the Philippines on March 16, 2020 as
evidenced by tickets and boarding pass which are hereto attached as Annex
“1”. The memorandum from the Health Service with the subject Cancellation of
Leaves was issued on March 17, 2020. Hence, I was already out of the country
when leaves have been declared cancelled. And I was only able to know said
cancellation when I was already in the United States and considering that my
travel has been previously booked, I cannot just immediately re-book the same
at my convenience.

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.

17. As a matter of fact, as a sign of good faith, soon as I become aware of

such cancellation of leave, I immediately arranged my return to the Philippines
in compliance to the said memorandum from the Health Service. As such, I
immediately decided to cut my leave which is intended to last up to April 17,
2020. Despite my earnest efforts, and considering the fact that the COVID 19
scare was already threatening the world which makes it difficult for me to find a
schedule to re-book my return trip to the Philippines, I managed to secure a
ticket for the March 27, 2020 return flight to the Philippines. I have already

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.

20. That again, if I only received the aforementioned memorandum prior to

my flight outside the country, I could have had immediately cancelled my flight
even though it cost so much and immediately report for duty even if the
purpose of my travel abroad was to accompany my uncle who has medical
problems and I am the only relative that has medical background that is
capable to accompany him back home.

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

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, it is most respectfully prayed for the

instant administrative case be DISMISSED due to insufficient evidence and lack of
legal and factual basis.

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.

PMAJ PATRICK DR DELA CRUZ

Affiant

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