Republic of the Philippines

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military
and Other Law Enforcement Offices
Agham Road, Diliman, Quezon City, 1104

NOEL A. MANAYOS,
Complainant,

-versus- OMB-P-A-14-0823
For: Misconduct; Conduct
Prejudicial to the Best
Interest of the Service

PO2 MICHAEL LAGUNILLA

and PCI GEORGE CABLARDA,
Respondents.
X------------------------------------x

POSITION PAPER
(For the Respondents)

Respondents, through the undersigned counsel unto this

Honorable Office, most respectfully submit this Position Paper
and aver:

FACTUAL ANTECEDENTS

1. PCI GEORGE P. CABLARDA, (Cablarda for short)

was the Station Commander of Station 1, Santiago City Police
Office while PO2 MICHAEL U. LAGUNILLA, (Lagunilla or
short) was a member of the intel operatives of the same police
station in the month of September, 2014;

2. The Santiago City Police Office Station 1 area of

responsibility includes among others Barangay Mabini,
Santiago City;

3. As a part of their duty, they were tasked to monitor,

conduct surveillance and arrest persons who are involved in
criminal activities within their area of responsibility;

4. In the evening of 8 September 2014, respondents

together with SPO1 Emilson B. Dayag and PO3 Sixto G.
Mamauag went to Robinsons Mall, Barangay Mabini, Santiago
City, for the purpose of monitoring (surveillance operation)

1
illegal drugs trade evidenced by their Police Blotter [1] to show
their “Jump-Off” from their police station;

5. When the respondents together with SPO1 Emilson

B. Dayag and PO3 Sixto G. Mamauag reached the Robinsons
Mall, the four (4) of them stayed for a while at the North Side
of the Robinsons Mall and thereafter the respondents
proceeded to the South Side of the same mall while SPO1
Emilson B. Dayag and PO3 Sixto G. Mamauag stayed put at
the North Side of the Mall. Respondents did this because the
two of them were in civilian clothing while their two
companions were in police uniform and they did not want
their surveillance to be burned out;

6. In front of the Robinsons Mall, are Videoke Bars

and respondents were observing the activities of the people
who were there while they were at the South Side of the Mall
when suddenly they heard several shouts of women coming
from the Justine’s Place Videoke Bar;

7. Cablarda ordered Lagunilla to see what was

happening at the Justine’s Place Videoke Bar which is located
just across the National Highway from the Robinsons Mall;

8. Lagunilla obeyed the order of Cablarda and

proceeded immediately to the Justine’s Place Videoke Bar were
several shouts of women came from. When Lagunilla reached
the said Videoke Bar, he noticed that Cablarda was following
him. Lagunilla entered the Videoke Bar and he saw a big able
bodied male person standing and shouting at a woman so he
approached the said male person and told him the following:
“BOSS ANO BANG PROBLEMA, BAKIT KA NAGWAWALA?”
Immediately after uttering these words, Lagunilla was shocked
because the said male person gave him a fist blow to his face
and for this reason, he was outbalanced and fell to the floor.
He tried with difficulty to stand up again and when he was
able to do so, he informed the male person who gave him a fist
blow that he is a policeman and the same male person gave
another fist blow to him that he was able to parry and it was
at that point in time that Cablarda pacified the same male
person but he used his elbow (siniko) in hitting the stomach of
Cablarda and uttered the words “WALA AKONG PAKIALAM
KUNG PULIS KAYO MGA GAGO!”;

9. Since Lagunilla was assaulted Cablarda was forced

to defend himself by pushing the complainant that is why he
fell down and his face hit the table near him. The complainant
1
See: Annex “1” of the Joint Counter-Affidavit of the respondents.

2
stood up and assaulted Cablarda again for the third time so
they grappled until such time that Cablarda was able to
subdue him;

10. The complainant was reeking with liquor at that

time and resondents’ two (2) other companions namely: SPO1
Emilson B. Dayag and PO3 Sixto G. Mamauag arrived and
respondents requested their two (2) policemen companions to
bring the complainant to the nearest hospital which they did.
These facts are corroborated by the Sinumpaang Salaysay of
SPO1 EMILSON B. DAYAG[2] and the Sinumpaang Salaysay of
PO3 SIXTO G. MAMAUAG[3];

11. Respondents came to know the identity of the

complainant who assaulted them through their two (2)
companions, SPO1 Emilson B. Dayag YAG and PO3 Sixto G.
Mamauag and also from PO3 Melor B. Ordonia who conducted
an investigation of the case. They came to know that his name
is Noel A. Manayos;

12. After the complainant was brought to the hospital,

respondents returned to their Police Station and the incident
was recorded in their Police Blotter evidenced by a
Certification[4];

13. The following morning of 9 September 2014,

respondents decided to file an inquest case against the
complainant for Alarms and Scandal and Direct Assault before
the Office of the City Prosecutor of Santiago City. However,
since inquest requires the presence of the complainant,
Cablarda ordered SPO1 Renel P. Lungub, their PNCO Head
Investigator at that time to see the complainant at the hospital
for the purpose of determining his medical condition and if he
was fit to undergo inquest proceedings but respondents were
informed by SPO1 Renel P. Lungub that the complainant told
him the following: “HAYAAN MO NA SIR AT PAG AKO
GUMALING PUPUNTA AKO SA INYONG OPISINA AT
HIHINGI NG TAWAD SA MGA KASAMA MONG PULIS.” This
is corroborated by the Sinumpaang Salaysay of SPO1 RENEL
P. LUNGUB[5] and Sinumpaang Salaysay of PO3 MELOR
BALICOCO ORDONIA;[6]

14. Because of this development, respondents decided

not to proceed with the inquest proceedings. After more than
2
See: Annex “2” of the Joint Counter-Affidavit of the respondents.
3
See: Annex “3” of the Joint Counter-Affidavit of the respondents.
4
See: Annex “4” of the Joint Counter Affidavit of the respondents.
5
See: Annex “5” of the Joint Counter Affidavit of the respondents.
6
See: Annex “6” of the Joint Counter Affidavit of the respondents.

3
two (2) weeks, they learned that the complainant was filing a
case against them so they proceeded to file two (2) cases
against the complainant for Direct Assault and Alarms and
Scandal before of the Office of the City Prosecutor, Santiago
City, docketed as NPS Docket No. INV-NR-II-05-14II-00432 [7] and
NPS Docket No. INV-NR-II-05-14II-00420,[8] respectively;

THE CASE

This is an administrative complaint for Misconduct;

Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service
instituted by the complainant against herein respondents;

Respondents submitted their Joint Counter-Affidavit

dated 31 March 2015 together with the sworn statements of
their witnesses to this Honorable Office on 1 April 2015;

On 26 November 2015, this Honorable Office issued an

order requiring both parties to submit their respective Position
Papers which was received by the undersigned counsel on 4
January 2016. Hence, this Position Paper;

ARGUMENTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Respondents Cablarda and

Lagunilla are decorated
Police Officers and were never
administratively charged
before this Honorable Office
except for this one.

15. To begin with, allow us to give this Honorable Office

a brief profile of Cablarda and Lagunilla. Cablarda is a
graduate of the Philippine National Police Academy in 1998.
Lagunilla on the other hand became a non-commission police
officer in 2007. As fate would brought them, their years as
law enforcers gave them this altruistic feeling that made them
decide to stay as police officers who shall at all times serve
and protect the people;

15.1 PCI GEORGE CABLARDA received the

following awards, commendations and medals;[9]

7
Annex “1” hereof.
8
Annex “2” hereof.
9
PNP Personal Data Sheet of PCI George Cablarda hereto marked as Annex “3”.

4
 15.2 PO2 MICHAEL LAGUNILLA received
the following awards, commendations and medals;
[10]

10
PNP Personal Data Sheet of PO2 Michel Lagunilla hereto marked as Annex “4”.

5
 16. All their lives, they wanted to be law enforcers. It
was an endeavor ingrained in their hearts and in their minds
since they reached the age of reason. To reach their ultimate
goal, they finished their formal education despite the
unnerving challenges and after four (4) long arduous years of
study, they successfully finished their respective courses and

6
considered it as their gateway to a professional career in the
police observing its philosophy of Service, Honor and Justice;
Respondents acted in the
performance of their duty as
police officers when they
arrested and subsequently
filed a criminal action against
the complainant.
17. Here, respondents are facing an administrative
charge of Grave Misconduct. Misconduct is defined as any
unlawful conduct on the part of a person concerned in the
administration of justice prejudicial to the rights of the parties
or to the right determination of the cause. It generally means
wrongful, improper or unlawful conduct motivated by a
premeditated, obstinate or intentional purpose;
18. It is basic that in administrative proceedings, the
burden of proving, by substantial evidence, the truthfulness of
the allegations on the complaint rests on the complainant.
Only substantial evidence, or that amount of relevant evidence
which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support
a conclusion, is required.[11]
19. Both of the respondents acted in the performance of
their duty as Police Officers, hence, they are not liable of any
misconduct. The requisites of fulfillment of duty are: (1) That
the accused acted in the performance of a duty or in the lawful
exercise of a right or office; and (2) The injury caused or the
offense committed be the necessary consequence of the due
performance of duty or the lawful exercise of such right or
office;[12]
20. As gainsaid, respondents as law enforcers went to
the Robinsons Mall in Mabini, Santiago City, within their area
of responsibility to conduct surveillance operation on illegal
drugs activities, the place being known to be a high value
target of possible illegal drugs transactions. While conducting
a surveillance, an untoward incident happened inside the
Justine’s Place Videoke Bar just across the Robinsons Mall
and they responded to the situation as policemen;
21. When they reached the said Videoke Bar, they saw
the complainant in this case Noel A. Manayos causing trouble
so they tried to stop him but he ignored the police and even
assaulted them that is why respondents had to use a

Aranda, Jr. v. Alvarez, A.M. No. P-04-1889, November 23, 2007, 538 SCRA 162.
11

12
People vs. Oanis, 74 Phil 257 1943). Cited in SPO2 Ruperto Cabanlig vs. Sandiganbayan, et al.,
G.R. No. 148431, 28 July 2005.

7
reasonable degree of force. In the case of People vs. Oanis,[13]
the Supreme Court held that:
“A policeman in the performance of
duty is justified in using such force as is
reasonably necessary to secure and detain
the offender, overcome his resistance,
prevent his escape, recapture him if he
escapes, and protect himself from bodily
harm.”
22. When Lagunilla confronted the complainant in this
case inside the Videoke Bar as he was then shouting at the top
of his voice, Lagunilla asked him “BOSS ANO BANG
PROBLEMA BAKIT KA NAGWAWALA?” Instead of answering
the respondent, complainant gave Lagunilla a fist blow to his
face so he fell down to the ground and when he stood up
Lagunilla informed him that he is a policeman and again
complainant ignored Lagunilla and gave him another fist blow.
Cablarda approached the complainant and tried to pacify him
also but he remained unruly and even used his elbow (siniko)
in hitting the stomach of Cablarda and uttered the words
“WALA AKONG PAKIALAM KUNG PULIS KAYO MGA
GAGO!”;
23. As a consequence Cablarda underwent surgical
operation of acute appendicitis after the incident subject of
this case happened as he felt excruciating pain when the
complainant used his elbow (siniko) in hitting Cablarda’s
stomach evidenced by a Medical Certificate[14];
24. What the respondents did was in the performance of
their duty as Police Officers. They only used force as is
reasonably necessary to the complainant in order to overcome
his resistance. In the case of United States vs. Mojica[15] the
Supreme Court held that:

“In case injury or death results from

the policeman's exercise of such force, the
policeman could be justified in inflicting
the injury or causing the death of the
offender if the policeman had used
necessary force. Since a policeman's duty
requires him to overcome the offender, the
force exerted by the policeman may
therefore differ from that which ordinarily
may be offered in self-defense.”

13
Id.
14
Annex “5” hereof.
15
42 Phil. 784 (1922).

8
 25. Likewise, respondents used reasonable force against
the complainant because he assaulted both them placing their
lives and limb in imminent danger. In the case of SPO2
Ruperto Cabanlig vs. Sandiganbayan, et al.,[16] the
Supreme Court held the following:
“While self-defense and performance
of duty are two distinct justifying
circumstances, self-defense or defense of a
stranger may still be relevant even if the
proper justifying circumstance in a given
case is fulfillment of duty. For example, a
policeman's use of what appears to be
excessive force could be justified if there
was imminent danger to the policeman's
life or to that of a stranger. If the
policeman used force to protect his life or
that of a stranger, then the defense of
fulfillment of duty would be complete, the
second requisite being present.” 

Respondents did their job as

law enforcers and in good
faith without any malice or
intent to violate any law.

26. Well entrenched in jurisprudence is the time

honored principle that the law bestows upon a public official
the presumption of regularity in the discharge of one’s official
duties and functions. In the case of Fernando v. Sto. Tomas,
[17]
the Supreme Court categorically held that:
“xxx public respondents have in
their favor the presumption of regularity
in the performance of official duties
which petitioners failed to rebut when
they did not present evidence to prove
partiality, malice and bad faith. Bad faith
can never be presumed; it must be proved
by clear and convincing evidence. No
such evidence exists in the case at bar.”

27. The presumption of regularity is a legal principle

regarding the actions taken by a government.  What the
principle holds is that any action that the government takes is
presumed to be legal.  If a person believes that some action of
the government or of a government official is illegal, that
person must show that the presumption of legality is
incorrect.  That is, the person must show that the government
16
Ibid.
17
G.R. No. 112309, July 28, 1994. 234 SCRA 546.

9
has acted illegally. The presumption of regularity holds that
any action taken by the government is legal until evidence is
provided that shows that it is not legal;

28. The presumption of regularity of official acts may be

rebutted by affirmative evidence of irregularity or failure to
perform a duty. The presumption, however, prevails until it is
overcome by no less than clear and convincing evidence to the
contrary. Thus, unless the presumption in rebutted, it becomes
conclusive. Every reasonable intendment will be made in support
of the presumption and in case of doubt as to an officers act being
lawful or unlawful, construction should be in favor of its
lawfulness;[18]

CONCLUSION

The administrative charged of Misconduct and Conduct

Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service against
respondents cannot stand on legal ground because of want of
substantial evidence to sustain it. Misconduct means
wrongful, improper or unlawful conduct motivated by a
premeditated, obstinate or intentional purpose. On the other
hand, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service
refers to acts or omissions that violate the norm of public
accountability and diminish or tend to diminish the people’s
faith. Respondents acted in the performance of their duty as
police officers and enjoy the presumption that they performed
their duties in good faith without any malice or intent to
violate any law.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

Santiago City for Quezon City, 5 January 2016.

ATTY. LUCKY M. DAMASEN

Counsel for Respondents
Rm.215, 2 Flr, Heritage Bldg, Malvar, Santiago City
nd

e-mail add: lmdlawoffice@gmail.com

mobile no.: 09178730405
telephone no.: (078) 305-2392
MCLE Compliance No. V-0008089/06-04-2015
IBP No. 962922/01-04-16/Ilagan,Isa.
PTR No. 1674409/01-04-16/Stgo.City
Roll No.37959/05-05-92

18
People v. De Guzman, G.R. No. 106025, February 9, 1994, 299 SCRA 795, 799.

10
 VERIFICATION
WE, PCI GEORGE P. CABLARDA, of legal age, married,
Filipino and the incumbent Chief of Police of Alicia, and PO2
MICHAEL U. LAGUNILLA, of legal age, married, Filipino and a
resident of Barangay Marabulig 1, Cauayan City, Isabela after
having been duly sworn to in accordance with law, do hereby
depose and state:

1. That we are the respondents in the above-entitled case;

2. That we have caused the preparation of the foregoing

Position Paper;

3. That we have read and understood all the allegations

contained herein which are true and correct of our own
personal knowledge;

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set my hand this

6 day of January 2016, at Santiago City.
th

PCI GEORGE P. CABLARDA

Affiant
P.N.P. I.D. No. 13I060002

PO2 MICHAEL U. LAGUNILLA

Affiant
P.N.P. I.D. No. 183113

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN before me this 6th day of January

2016, at Santiago City, Philippines; Affiants exhibited to me their
identifying evidence as required by the Rules; who signed the said
instrument in my presence. I further certify that I have personally
examined the affiants and I am convinced that the same is their
own free and voluntarily act and deed.

Doc. No. _______;

Page No. _______;
Book No. _______;
Series of 2016
Copy furnished:

NOEL A. MANAYOS
Mabini Street, Dubinan East
Santiago City
/by reg. mail. w/ return card

Explanation pursuant to Section 11, Rule 13 of the

1997 Rules of Civil Procedure

Copy of this Motion for Reconsideration was duly served to NOEL A. MANAYOS via registered mail
with return card instead of personal service due to time constraints and lack of personnel to effect personal
service.

11
ERWIN P. RAMOS

12