Republic of the Philippines

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military
and Other Law Enforcement Offices(MOLEO)
Agham Road, Diliman, Quezon City 1101

TSG. ISMAEL E. CULANCULAN, JR., OMB-P-A-16-0293

Respondent, FOR: MISCONDUCT
ARTICLE 97 C.A 408
-Versus -

ANALYN LONGASA
Complainant,
x--------------------x

POSITION PAPER

Respondent TSG. Ismael Enjambre. Culanculan (TSG. Culanculan),

respectfully submits this Position Paper for the consideration and guidance of this
Honorable Office.

I
PARTIES

1.1 Respondent, TSG. ISMAEL ENJAMBRE CULANCULAN, JR.

778591 PN(M), assigned at the Philippine Navy “The Naval Special Service
Office,” stationed at Bonifacio Naval Station, Fort Bonifacio, Taguig City, of legal
age, married, Filipino and with residence and postal address at 815-B Road 5 EP
Village Camp General Emilio Aguinaldo, Quezon City.

1.2 Complainant, MRS. ANALYN LONGASA (Longasa), of legal age,

widow, residing at 821-A Road 5 EP Village Camp General Emilio Aguinaldo,
Quezon City where she may be served with processes, orders and resolutions of the
Honorable Office.

II.
STATEMENT OF PERTINENT FACTS

2.1 Respondent is an enlisted member of the Philippine Marines and

currently residing inside the premises of Camp Aguinaldo as a qualified
beneficiary-member of the Armed Forces of the Philippines.

2.2 Complainant is the widow of the late SSG. Ermil Longasa, Philippine
Air Force, residing as a neighbor just across the house of the Respondent.
Page 2

2.3 Respondent and Complainant were good neighbors and churchmates

in the Marriage Encounter Immaculate Conception Aguinaldo Prayer Community.

2.4 Respondent is a godparent to one of the Complainant’s children.

2.5 Being a good kumare’t-kumpare and a family friend at that, on many

occasions respondent and his wife accommodated Complainant’s children (even
Complainant’s mother) in the comfort of their home every time Complainant and
her late husband have domestic quarrel. Even on certain occasion that the
Complainant herself had to take refuge at Respondent’s home when the two
encountered serious domestic altercation. Proof to this are the Affidavits of Leah
C. Dallego and Mhinda E. Crausus, copy whereon is hereto attached and marked as
ANNEXES “A” and “B”, respectively.

2.6 Despite of all the foregoing, Respondent maintained his civility even
if the late husband of Complainant openly expressed aggressive remarks against
and invectives towards Respondent and his wife to the effect that the latter should
not have interfered in their family affairs. What respondent could only do was just
to advise Complainant and/or their children to go home peacefully and make peace
to their/her father/husband.

2.7 Notwithstanding such good relationship between Respondent and

Complainant, there were incidents that transpired that cause conflict between
Respondent’s wife and Complainant’s late husband that compelled Respondent’s
wife to institute a complaint before MOLEO against the former for petty offense.

2.8 The above incident Respondent considered unfortunate, it being came

out in the absence of his knowledge and, later against his opposition. But be that as
it may, the respondent, contrary to the allegations of the Complainant that the latter
instigated his wife to initiate that complaint, persuaded his wife to withdraw that
MOLEO case and even prevented his wife from further filing any charges in the
regular courts, for consideration of the late husband of the Complainant was a
brother-in-arms and for harmony in the community.

2.9 On May 26, 2016, to the extreme surprise of Respondent,

Complainant filed in the Office of the Ombudsman Military and Other Law
Enforcement Offices (MOLEO) a complaint-affidavit for perjury, oral defamation
(under OMB-P-C-16-0232) and misconduct (under OMB-P-A-16-0293) against
herein Respondent.

2.10 Respondent received the complaint-affidavit with no attachments

whatsoever and an Order dated October 7, 2016 from the Office of the
Ombudsman-MOLEO on November 11, 2016, requiring him to file a counter-
affidavit in answer to said charges within 10 days from that date of receipt.
Page 3

2.11 Respondent filed his counter-affidavit and was received by the

MOLEO section on November 21, 2016 with corresponding proof of service of the
same for the Complainant.

2.12 Respondent received another Order dated February 6, 2017 from the
Office of the Ombudsman-MOLEO on February 22, 2017, requiring him to file his
Position Paper for OMB-P-A-16-0293, the charge for misconduct within 10 days
from receipt, hence this case.

III.
ISSUE

WHETHER OR NOT A CAUSE OF ACTION EXISTS AGAINST

THE RESPONDENT FOR THE CHARGES ALLEGED
IN THE COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT.

IV.
ARGUMENTS

NO CAUSE OF ACTION IS PRESENT IN ALL THE CHARGES AGAINST

THE RESPONDENT AS THE COMPLAINT IS DEVOID OF ANY
EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH THE ALLEGATIONS SET FORTH
THEREIN, THUS WARRANTING ITS DISMISSAL.

4.1 A careful examination of the complaint-affidavit would readily show

that ultimate facts pertaining the allegations are lacking.On the issue of oral
defamation as punishable by Article 358, the case of ENRIQUE G. DE
LEONv. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND SPO3 PEDRITO L.
LEONARDO (G.R. No. 212623, January 11, 2016), citingVillanueva v.
People, [521 Phil. 191, 200 (2006)] provides:

“Oral Defamation or Slander is libel committed by oral (spoken)

means, instead of in writing. It is defined as "the speaking of base and
defamatory words which tend to prejudice another in his reputation,
office, trade, business or means of livelihood."For a charge of oral
defamation to prosper, the following elements must be proved:

(1) there must be an imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real

or imaginary, or any act, omission, status or circumstances;
(2) made orally;
(3) publicly;
(4) and maliciously;
(5) directed to a natural or juridical person, or one who is dead
Page 4

(6) which tends to cause dishonour, discredit or contempt of the

person defamed.”

The Respondent has not made any oral imputation of a crime, vice, or
defect, real or imaginary or any act, omission, status or circumstance alleged to be
determined whether the same be defamingor malicious and the Complainant
presents no testimony of witnesses presented that would establish the same to have
been made publicly.

4.2 On the charge of perjury, the High Court has ruled in the case of
UNION BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES and DESI TOMAS v. PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, (G.R. No. 192565, February 28, 2012) citing Monfort III
v. Salvatierra, (G.R. No. 168301, March 5, 2007, 517 SCRA 447, 461) that:

“In this case, Tomas is charged with the crime of perjury under
Article 183 of the RPC for making a false Certificate against Forum
Shopping. The elements of perjury under Article 183 are:
 
(a)            That the accused made a statement under oath or executed
an affidavit upon a material matter. 
(b)            That the statement or affidavit was made before a
competent officer, authorized to receive and administer oath. 
(c)             That in the statement or affidavit, the accused made
a willful and deliberate assertion of a falsehood. 
(d)            That the sworn statement or affidavit containing the falsity
is required by law or made for a legal purpose.”

Referring to the present case, nothing in the complaint-affidavit would

show the presence of any sworn statement or affidavit made by the Respondent,
thereby negating the next element of presence before an officer authorized to
administer oaths, nor the issue of willful and deliberate assertion of falsehood and
the utilization of the same for a legal purpose can ever be established.

4.3 Based on these discussions, it can be taken that the Complainant based
these charges on pure surmises, conjectures, all pointing out to self-serving
allegations of which no proof or even a mere attempt to prove was made or be
considered for this proceeding.

4.4 On the administrative charge for misconduct under Article 97 of

Commonwealth Act 408, Complainant barely alleges in her Complaint-Affidavit
that Respondent instigatedor coached his wife to file the April 8, 2015 Complaint-
Affidavit against the Complainant’s late husband before this Honorable Office.
The Respondent in keeping with the spirit of camaraderie, community, and peace
of mind pertinent to personal marital issues, abhorred the filing of such complaint,
the same being a voluntary and personal act of his wife, was done without his
personal knowledge.
Page 5

4.5 If, indeed, it was true that the Respondent did instigate the filing of
the April 8, 2015 Complaint, no shred of evidence was presented other than the
mere perception, nay, paranoia of the Complainant; no witness, documents, or even
records to this effect are appended to the present Complaint-Affidavit against the
Respondent

4.6 The administrative charge for misconduct necessarily fails for lacking
any probable bases hinged upon the charges of oral defamation and perjury as
discussed earlier in conjunction with the frail and unsubstantiated allegation that
the Respondent prompted his wife to file the April 8, 2015 Complaint-Affidavit
against Complainant’s late husband.

4.7 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
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. This principle
has been resonated by no lesser than the Supreme Court in the case of DR.
CASTOR C. DE JESUS v. RAFAEL D. GUERRERO III, CESARIO R.
PAGDILAO, AND FORTUNATA B. AQUINO,G.R. No. 171491, September
4, 2009citing the case of Manalabe v. Cabie, A.M. No. P-05-1984, July 6, 2007,
526 SCRA 582.

4.8 Forming the front of the Respondent’s defense is the conclusion that
the charges set forth in the Complaint-Affidavit do not pertain or even identify any
act or omission distinguishable as a criminal or administrative offense. The
institution of this case rings loudly of bad faith and malice, no more than a
triggered reaction brought about by a vendetta for the filing of the April 8, 2015
Complaint-Affidavit against Complainant’s late husband by the wife of the
Respondent on her own volition and without any input or influence coming from
the Respondent himself.

4.9 Rather than serve the purpose of correcting the wrongs in society, a
practice like this would be nothing short of malicious prosecution, penalized under
Section 35 of Republic Act 6770, as amended, to wit:

Section 35. Malicious Prosecution. — Any person who, actuated by

malice or gross bad faith, files a completely unwarranted or false
complaint against any government official or employee shall be
subject to a penalty of one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6)
months imprisonment and a fine not exceeding Five thousand pesos
(P5,000.00).
Page 6

4.10 There being no crime imputed or chargeable against the Respondent,

the latter has suffered besmirched reputation as his Ombudsman clearance was
tainted by this frivolous complaint and has become common knowledge among his
peers, further bogging him with unnecessary feelings of social humiliation and
serious anxiety being subject under the stricture of the current proceedings.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed from

this Honorable Office that judgment be rendered for the DISMISSAL of all the
current charges under OMB-P-A-16-0293andOMB-P-C-16-0232.

Other reliefs, just and equitable, are likewise prayed for.

Quezon City, 3 March 2017.

____________________________
TSG ISMAEL ENJAMBRE CULANCULAN
(Affiant)

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 3rd day of March 2017 at

Quezon City, Metro Manila, affiant exhibiting to me
his____________________________, issued in _______________on
_______________.

Doc. No. _____ ;

Page No. _____ ;
Book No. _____ ;
Series of 2017.