Republic of the Philippines

NATIONAL POLICE COMMISSION

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE, POLICE REGIONAL OFFICE 3
PAMPANGA POLICE PROVINCIAL OFFICE
Sto. Niño, City of San Fernando, Pampanga

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE, ADMIN CASE No.:

PRO3-RHQ-RHSG-2020-060 A to C
For: Conduct Unbecoming
of a Police Officer

-versus-

PSSg Maylene Valencia Garcia

Pat Sherwin Montero
Pat Cindy Vicente
x------------------------------------------------------------x

RESPONDENT’S POSITION PAPER

Respondent, unto this Honourable Office most respectfully submit this Answer
and in support thereof avers the following:

I.
BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. I am named as one of the respondents in this instant case for

Conduct Unbecoming of a Police Officer (Section 1), para (5), Rule 21 of
NAPOLCOM Memorandum Circular No. 2016-002) filed by the herein
private complainant against herein respondent;

2. Based on the records of the case, the private complainant, Mrs

Deborah Zaguirre Manglo, personally appeared before the Regional
Investigation and Detective Management Division (RIDMD), Police
Regional Office 3 against PSSg Maylene Valencia Garcia, presently
assigned at Plaridel MPS, Bulacan PPO, Pat Sherwin Montero presently
assigned at Gapan CPS, Nueva Ecija PPO and the undersigned Pat Cindy
Vicente presently assigned at Balagtas MPS, Bulacan PPO for alleged
spreading of erroneous information;

3. That based on the allegation of the private complainant, she

alleged that the undersigned respondent is spreading erroneous
information allegedly about her husband, PLTCOL ANDREI ANTHONY I
MANGLO having a relationship against one PSSg Maylene V Garcia. That
according to the private complainant, said alleged spreading of false
information affected the relationship between her and her husband. Aside
from such allegation, no other statement or even evidence was presented
that would specifically point the alleged act of spreading an alleged

Page 1 of 11
erroneous information. In support of the said allegation, attached in said
complaint is the alleged printed conversation via private message between
me and the private complainant which is purely personal in nature;

II.
ISSUE

4. The issues to be resolved in the instant administrative case are:

a. Whether or not the undersigned respondent committed the

alleged act of spreading of erroneous information; and
b. Whether or not such act constitute Conduct Unbecoming of a
Police Officer.

III.
ARGUMENTS AND DISCUSSIONS

5. Considering that both issues are intertwined, tit is best to jointly

discuss both of them;

6. Herein respondent specifically and categorically denies the

allegations as contained in the Judicial Affidavit of the complaint, the truth
of the matter being that the undersigned was not spreading erroneous
information about the herein complainant’s husband;

7. Based on the affidavit of the complainant, on October 2019, she

received a message for the third time from the undersigned respondent
stating to her an upsetting information about PSSg Maylene V Garcia and
her husband PLTCOL ANDREI ANTHONY I MANGLO. However,
complainant failed to state in her affidavit of complaint about what was the
said upsetting information;

“Page 3 Paragraph 2 as stated:”

“HANGGANG SA SUMAPIT ANG TAONG OCT 2019, SA

IKATLONG PAGKAKATAON MAY NAGMESSAGE SA AKIN
NAGNGANGALANG PO1 CINDY VICENTE, KUNG SAANG
NAGSABI SYA NG MGA MAS NAKAKABAHALANG BAGAY
TUNGKOL KAY PSSG MAYLENE GARCIA AT AKING ASAWA PLT
COL ANDREI MANGLO.”

8. Based on the affidavit, there is no specific and categorical

information that would state neither any false information nor even any
upsetting information. Such serious allegation must be stated in the Sworn
Affidavit of the Complainant what is the crime committed by the
undersigned respondent, otherwise, such allegation, under existing rules
cannot and should not be taken into any consideration;

Page 2 of 11
9. Jurisprudence would dictate that allegation of an offense should
be clearly laid and particularly stated before the same should be
considered. As held by the Supreme Court in the case of Caete vs.
Genuino Ice Company, Inc., G.R. No. 154080 Jan 22, 2008 where the
Court ruled that, “The basic rules of proper pleading and procedure
require that every pleading shall contain in a methodical and logical
form, a plain, concise and direct statement of the ultimate facts on
which the party pleading relies for his claim or defense, as the case
may be, omitting the statement of mere evidentiary facts. And in all
averments of fraud or mistake, the circumstances constituting fraud
or mistake must be stated with particularity.”

10. Based on the allegation of the complainant that the undersigned

respondent gave the information about PSSg Maylene V Garcia and her
husband PLTCOL ANDREI ANTHONY I MANGLO. However, based on
the documentary evidence submitted by the complainant, she was the one
who gave the information about the relationship of her husband PLTCOL
ANDREI ANTHONY I MANGLO and PSSg Maylene Garcia. Likewise,
based on the messages she has a personal knowledge about their
relationship;

11. The documentary evidence submitted shows that the conversation

between the undersigned respondent and complainant have a friendly
conversation, it does not contain any erroneous information. The
messages of the complainant corroborate to the information of PO1
Sherwin Montero and his wife Mrs Cindy Montero. Likewise, it was
confirmed by one of the wife from PCR Personnel. Worse, it was admitted
by PSSg Maylene Valencia Garcia;

12. Based on the allegation of the complainant, PSSg Maylene

Valencia Garcia was continuously giving information and admitting about
she has a relationship with her husband PLTCOL ANDREI ANTHONY I
MANGLO;

13. Based on the pieces of documentary evidence submitted by the

complainant, it reveals that she appeared before the Office of the Women
and Children Protection Desk at Bulacan PPO, to file administrative case
against PSSg Maylene Garcia, however, she did not continue the filing of
administrative complaint against her because she has the knowledge that
her husband is also liable for Criminal and Administrative Cases;

14. Clearly, the prosecution has miserably fail to establish the allged
offense that is being levelled against the undersigned respondent. Nothing
in the private complainant’s statement or even in the alleged pieces of
evidence presented would even establish an act that would constitute the
act of spreading erroneous information. As a matter of fact, the private
complainant herself has categorically stated that the conversation was
between her and the undersigned respondent only and that there was
even no erroneous information was given by the undersigned respondent

Page 3 of 11
to the private complainant. It was actually the private complainant herself
who even stated personal information about the alleged affairs of her
husband and not the undersigned respondent. As such, it can be gleaned
that the information the private complainant herself is spreading is not
even erroneous as she himself was confirming it and that the same was
even admitted by PSSg Garcia herself. Thus, anybody need not be an
educated person to understand this fact and doing otherwise is
undoubtedly illogical;

15. The conversation between the undersigned respondent and the

complainant, is in private message (PM), it clearly shows that the
information does not spread to other person. It clearly manifest that the
undersigned respondent did not spread erroneous information;

16. To make matters worse for the prosecution, the documentary

evidence submitted to the Honorable office was edited there are
messages that were deleted, it is clear that the complainant is hiding
information that may lead about the real and true story;

17. This is precisely the instance what the Law on Data Privacy is
being prevented. Obviously, the pieces of evidence submitted by the
complainant is inadmissible in any proceeding like the instant case as
provided by Republic Act 10173 – Data Privacy Act of 2012, which the
undersigned respondent will again reiterate as follows:

“Personal information refers to any information whether

recorded in a material form or not, from which the identity of an
individual is apparent or can be reasonably and directly
ascertained by the entity holding the information, or when put
together with other information would directly and certainly
identify an individual.

SEC. 8. Confidentiality. – The Commission shall ensure at all

times the confidentiality of any personal information that comes
to its knowledge and possession.

CHAPTER III
PROCESSING OF PERSONAL INFORMATION
SEC. 11. General Data Privacy Principles. – The processing of
personal information shall be allowed, subject to compliance
with the requirements of this Act and other laws allowing
disclosure of information to the public and adherence to the
principles of transparency, legitimate purpose and
proportionality.

Personal information must, be:

(a) Collected for specified and legitimate purposes determined
and declared before, or as soon as reasonably practicable after

Page 4 of 11
collection, and later processed in a way compatible with such
declared, specified and legitimate purposes only;
(b) Processed fairly and lawfully;
(c) Accurate, relevant and, where necessary for purposes for
which it is to be used the processing of personal information,
kept up to date; inaccurate or incomplete data must be rectified,
supplemented, destroyed or their further processing restricted;
(d) Adequate and not excessive in relation to the purposes for
which they are collected and processed;
(e) Retained only for as long as necessary for the fulfillment of
the purposes for which the data was obtained or for the
establishment, exercise or defense of legal claims, or for
legitimate business purposes, or as provided by law; and
(f) Kept in a form which permits identification of data subjects
for no longer than is necessary for the purposes for which the
data were collected and processed: Provided, that personal
information collected for other purposes may lie processed for
historical, statistical or scientific purposes, and in cases laid
down in law may be stored for longer periods: Provided, further,
that adequate safeguards are guaranteed by said laws
authorizing their processing.
The personal information controller must ensure
implementation of personal information processing principles
set out herein.

SEC. 13. Sensitive Personal Information and Privileged

Information. – The processing of sensitive personal information
and privileged information shall be prohibited, except in the
following cases:
(a) The data subject has given his or her consent, specific to the
purpose prior to the processing, or in the case of privileged
information, all parties to the exchange have given their
consent prior to processing;
(b) The processing of the same is provided for by existing laws
and regulations: Provided, that such regulatory enactments
guarantee the protection of the sensitive personal information
and the privileged information: Provided, further, That the
consent of the data subjects are not required by law or
regulation permitting the processing of the sensitive personal
information or the privileged information;
(c) The processing is necessary to protect the life and health of
the data subject or another person, and the data subject is not
legally or physically able to express his or her consent prior to
the processing;
(f) The processing concerns such personal information as is
necessary for the protection of lawful rights and interests of
natural or legal persons in court proceedings, or the
establishment, exercise or defense of legal claims, or when
provided to government or public authority.

Page 5 of 11
 SEC. 15. Extension of Privileged Communication. – Personal
information controllers may invoke the principle of privileged
communication over privileged information that they lawfully
control or process. Subject to existing laws and regulations,
any evidence gathered on privileged information is
inadmissible.

SEC. 16. Rights of the Data Subject. – The data subject is

entitled to:

(f) Be indemnified for any damages sustained due to such

inaccurate, incomplete, outdated, false, unlawfully obtained or
unauthorized use of personal information.

SEC. 31. Malicious Disclosure. – Any personal information

controller or personal information processor or any of its
officials, employees or agents, who, with malice or in bad faith,
discloses unwarranted or false information relative to any
personal information or personal sensitive information obtained
by him or her, shall be subject to imprisonment ranging from
one (1) year and six (6) months to five (5) years and a fine of not
less than Five hundred thousand pesos (Php500,000.00) but not
more than One million pesos (Php1,000,000.00).

SEC. 32. Unauthorized Disclosure. – (a) Any personal

information controller or personal information processor or any
of its officials, employees or agents, who discloses to a third
party personal information not covered by the immediately
preceding section without the consent of the data subject, shall
he subject to imprisonment ranging from one (1) year to three
(3) years and a fine of not less than Five hundred thousand
pesos (Php500,000.00) but not more than One million pesos
(Php1,000,000.00).”

18. All other data be collected or seized or disclosed will require a

court warrant, service providers are required to cooperate and assist law
enforcement authorities in the collection or recording of the above-stated
information;

19. A cursory reading of the aforementioned law, it may seemed that if

there is a person that may be held guilty for a violation of law is that it is
not the undersigned respondent. For the undersigned respondent can be
shown to have been the victim of in applying the provision of the
aforementioned law and that the person that should have been criminally
charged should have been the private complainant herself. Thus, taking
into account of the facts of the case, the honourable Summary Hearing
Officer is now duty bound to act on the present information and to endorse
the same to appropriate PNP unit for the conduct of investigation for
commission of a crime;

Page 6 of 11
20. Also, based on the aforementioned provision of the law, before a
particular information can be presented as evidence, a warrant issued by a
competent court is required and shall only be Issued or granted upon
written application and the examination under oath or affirmation of the
applicant and the witnesses he or she may produce and the showing:

1. That there are reasonable grounds to believe that any of the crimes
enumerated hereinabove has been committed, or is being committed,
or is about to be committed:

2. That there are reasonable grounds to believe that the evidence that
will be obtained is essential to the conviction of any person for, or to
the solution of, or to the prevention of, any such crime; and

3. That there are no other means readily available for obtaining such
evidence.

21. Thus, if the aforementioned requirement for the presentation of

such information, such evidence, no matter how convincing it is, cannot be
used or even considered in a particular proceedings. This is pursuant to
Section 18 of the said law to wit, “Exclusionary Rule – Any evidence
procured without a valid warrant or beyond the authority of the same
shall be inadmissible for any proceeding before any court or
tribunal.” (Emphasis Supplied)

22. Unfortunately again on the part of the prosecution, on December

20, 2019, the undersigned respondent and PSSg Maylene V Garcia,
reported at the Office of the Regional Investigation and Detective
Management Division, PRO 3, for clarificatory matter regarding the above-
mentioned complaint of Mrs Deborah Z. Manglo. On the said date, during
the interview between us, I personally heard in a crystal clear, in front of
the Investigator-on-Case PSMS Flordeliza Fernandez, PCI PNCO, that
PSSg Maylene V Garcia, admitted that she has a relationship with
PLTCOL ANDREI ANTHONY I MANGLO, which corroborate to the
information;

23. This fact was again admitted, on record, by PSSg Maylene V

Garcia during the conduct of pre-hearing conference in the presence of
the Honorable Summary Hearing Officer. This again would prove the point
that even assuming that there are indeed people who are spreading the
relationship between PLTCOL MANGLO and PSSg Maylene V Garcia,
such information cannot in any manner be considered as erroneous. As a
matter of fact such relationship should have also be investigated for it
amounts to violation of PNP code of conduct in relation to NAPOLCOM
MC No. 2016-002;

24. As a matter of fact and based on the facts and circumstances

established in the herein administrative case, it is actually PLTCOL
ANDREI ANTHONY I MANGLO shows to be the one liable for
administrative case for “Grave Misconduct”, NAPOLCOM MEMORANDUM
Page 7 of 11
CIRCULAR NO. 2016-002, Section 1, para (3) (h) “Publicly consort with
women of ill repute and/or scandalously cohabit with or maintain a wife
other than his legitimate spouse”;

25. Also, the established facts also proves that PLTCOL ANDREI
ANTHONY I MANGLO, committed a Crime of Violation of Article 334 of
the Revised Penal Code Book 2, “Concubinage” as stated:

“How committed/Concept: The crime committed by a

married man who:

Shall have sexual intercourse with her under

scandalous circumstances:

a). Proof of sex is not necessary but may be inferred

b). There be a public or open flaunting of the illicit
relationship so that the public is scandalized, shocked, or
the conduct give rise to general protest, or that the
relationship sets a bad example.

“Any husband who shall keep a mistress in the

conjugal dwelling, or, shall have sexual intercourse, under
scandalous circumstances, with a woman who is not his
wife, or shall cohabit with her in any other place, shall be
punished by prison correctional in its minimum and
medium periods. The concubinage shall suffer the penalty
of destierro.”

“It is only when the mistress is kept elsewhere

(outside of the conjugal dwelling) that “scandalous
circumstances” become an element of the crime. (U.S. v.
Macabagbag, et al., 31 Phil.257”

“Scandal consist in any reprehensible word or deed

that offends public conscience, rebounds to the detriment
of the feelings of honest persons, and gives occasion to
the neighbors’ spiritual damage or ruin.”

“The scandal produced by the concubinage of a

married man occurs not only when (1) he and his mistress
live in the same room of a house, but also when (2) they
appear together in public, and (3) performs acts in sight of
the community which give rise to criticism and general
protest among the neighbors.”

26. In this case, the complaint failed to submit even and iota of
evidence to prove that she suffered from physical, emotional and
psychological abuse. Worse, complainant showed that there were no
signs and symptoms of physical, emotional and psychological effect. Such
allegations, under the rules cannot be just alleged but must be proven b

Page 8 of 11
competent evidence. In the instant case, no such piece of evidence was
ever presented;

27. Again, to reiterate, the first duty of the Summary Hearing Officer is
not to prove the crime but to prove the identity of the criminals, for, even if
the commission of the crime can be established, there can be no
conviction without proof of the identity of the criminal beyond reasonable
doubt. (People v. Pineda, G.R. Nos. 102981-82, April 21, 1995, 243 SCRA
578). A summary Hearing Officer must be an agent of truth and justice,
unbias and objective always applying the law in every stage of the
proceedings;

28. In every prosecution, the identity of the offender, like the crime
itself, must be established by proof beyond reasonable doubt. Indeed, the
first duty of the investigator is not to prove the crime but to prove the
identity of the criminal, for even if the commission of the crime can be
established, there can be no conviction without proof of identity of the
criminal beyond reasonable doubt;

29. As previously stated, denial in general as a defense may be

considered as weak and is looked upon with disfavor. Weakness of the
defense, however, cannot be the basis for conviction. The primary burden
still lies with the prosecution whose evidence must stand or fall on its own
weight and who must establish by proof beyond reasonable doubt the guilt
of the accused before there can be conviction. Under this rule, the defense
of denial finds its special place and assumes primacy when the case for
the prosecution doubt; a validly established denial then becomes sufficient
to defeat the prosecution’s case and tilt the outcome in favor of the
defense;

30. In our jurisdiction accusation is not synonymous with guilt. The

freedom of the accused is forfeit only if the requisite quantum of proof
necessary for conviction be in existence. This, of course, requires the
most careful scrutiny of the evidence for the State, both oral and
documentary, independent of whatever defense is offered by the accused.
Every circumstance favoring the accused’s innocence must be duly taken
into account. The proof against the accused must survive the test of
reason. Strongest suspicion must not be permitted to sway judgment. The
conscience must be satisfied that on the accused could be laid the burden,
then it is only the accused’s right to be freed; it is, even more, the court’s
constitutional duty to acquit him. (G.R. No. 130189, June 25, 1999, 309
SCRA 148, citing People v. Mejia, 275 SCRA 127 (1997).”

31. As held by the Supreme Court in the case of De Jesus vs.

Guerrero, G.R. No. 171491, September 4, 2009, it held that:

“In administrative proceedings, the quantum of

proof necessary for a finding of guilt is substantial
evidence, i.e., that amount of relevant evidence that a

Page 9 of 11
 reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion. Further, the complainant has the burden of
proving by substantial evidence the allegations in his
complaint. The basic rule is that mere allegation is not
evidence and is not equivalent to proof. Charges based on
mere suspicion and speculation likewise cannot be given
credence. Hence, when the complainant relies on mere
conjectures and suppositions, and fails to substantiate his
allegations, the administrative complaint must be
dismissed for lack of merit.” (emphasis supplied)

32. Moreover, it is also noteworthy to mention that during the pre-

hearing conference, the private complainant did not appear and has not
identified the affidavit complaint as well as the pieces of evidence attached
to it which is the sole basis of the instant case. Rule 17, Section 5 of the
NAPOLCOM MC No. 2016-002 states that, “Within fifteen (15) days
from receipt of the Answer, the PLEB or the Summary Hearing
Officer shall conduct the pre-hearing conference for the purpose of:
a) defining and simplifying the issues of the case; b) entering into
admissions and/or stipulations of facts, c) marking of exhibits after
proper identification by the parties/signatories; and d) threshing out
other matters relevant to the case. Xxx”

33. Hence, pursuant to the aforementioned provision of NAPOLCOM

MC 2016-002 and the Rules of Evidence, said affidavit complaint as well
as its attached annexes can never and should not be accepted as
evidence. As such, the instant case has no more leg to stand on and the
summary hearing officer as well as the Honorable Disciplining Authority
has no more recourse but to out rightly dismiss the instant case. This
provision under NAPOLCOM MC No. 2016-002 clearly shows that the
Rules of Evidence is not only suppletory but rather should be strictly
applied.

34. As such the herein prosecutor has miserably and undoubtedly

failed in establishing the allegation in the instant case and as such should
be out rightly dismissed. 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). Clearly, there is no direct and
competent evidence presented by the complainant or even here witnesses
that will prove the existence of any gave offense committed by herein
respondents;

35. As previously stated in my submitted Answer, the undersigned is

a law abiding citizen, has a good moral character obey legal orders of the
duly constituted authorities, in fact the undersigned is a recipient various

Page 10 of 11
 awards of five (5) Medalya ng Kagalingan, four (4) Medalya ng
Kasanayan, one (1) Medalya ng Paglilingkod Laban sa Kriminalidad, one
(1) Medalya ng Pagtulong sa Nasalanta, nine (9) Medalya ng Papuri, one
(1) Medalya ng Natatanging Yunit and three (3) Medalya ng Ugnayang
Pampulisya; (Previously attached annexes in the submitted Answer are
the Commendations and Awards of the undersigned respondent);

36. Moreover, since it is also already established that the

conversation being offered by the private complainant shows that the
undersigned respondent was merely agreeing to the statements of the
private respondent shows that the good faith was clearly present and also
can be taken into consideration.

IV.
PRAYER

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

instant administrative case be DISMISSED due to LACK OF SUBSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE and UTTER LACK OF MERIT.

The respondent also respectfully formally offers the aforementioned

submitted, identified and marked pieces of evidence to support the aforementioned
statements.

The respondent further prays for such other reliefs just and equitable under
the premises.

June ___, 2020, City of Malolos, Bulacan.

Pat Cindy O Vicente

Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ____ day of June, 2020, here
at City of Malolos, Bulacan.

________________________________
Administering Officer

Page 11 of 11