POSITION PAPER

Republic of the Philippines

National Police Commission
NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS, PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE
POLICE SECURITY AND PROTECTION GROUP
Camp Crame, Quezon City

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE

Complainant, Administrative Case No.
NHQ-AC-484-081514
(DIDM-ADM-14-69 to 71)

-versus- For: Grave Misconduct

(Violation of Art 334 of the
Revised Penal Code [RPC] –
Concubinage) pursuant to Section
2 (C) (3) (r), Rule 21 of the
NAPOLCOM MC No. 2007-001

For: Dishonesty
Pursuant to Section 2 (C) (7), Rule
21 of the NAPOLCOM MC No.
2007-001

For: Grave Misconduct

(Violation of Sec 5 (9) of RA 9262
pursuant to Section 2 (C) (3) (r),
Rule 21 of the NAPOLCOM MC
No. 2007-001

PO2 ______________
HSS
PO1 ______________
SPD, NCRPO
Respondents,
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

COMPLAINANT’S POSITION PAPER

The nominal complainant (PNP), through the undersigned and to the

Honorable Hearing Officer, most respectfully submits this Position Paper,

which states:
 STATEMENT OF THE CASE

These are consolidated administrative cases of Grave Misconduct

(Violation of Art 334 [Concubinage] of the Revised Penal Code) and

Dishonesty filed by the PNP against PO2 ______________, assigned with

the Headquarters Support Service (HSS) and PO1 _____________,

assigned with Southern Police District, National Capital Region Police

Office (SPD, NCRPO) and another Grave Misconduct (Violation of RA

9262) filed against PO2 __________.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

The facts as culled from the complaint-affidavit and pieces of

evidence presented by the private complainant, Mrs. ___________revealed

that she is legally married to PO2 ____________and they are blessed with

two (2) children, namely: __________, six (6) years old and __________,

three (3) years old. Mrs. __________ averred that sometime in 2008, she

caught her husband, PO2 __________ having an illicit affair with PO1

______________. She also learned that her husband has a child with PO1

__________, named __________.

_________ further alleged that her husband and PO1 _______sent

lascivious text messages to her like how they performed their sexual acts

and then called her asking if she felt envious. Her husband and PO1
__________ also insulted her thru text messages and phone calls by telling

her that her husband does not love her anymore because she is ugly, poor

and uneducated. Those conversations were witnessed by their children.

Her husband also slapped her when she confronted him about his illicit

relationship with PO1 _________.

Mrs. ___________ added that her husband and PO1

__________falsified a public document when they stated in the birth

certificate of _____________ that the occupation of PO2 __________ is an

OFW but in truth and in fact, he is already a police officer. Mrs.

________further claimed that she suffered miscarriage on the third month

of her pregnancy due to the aforesaid acts of her husband and PO1

______. Mrs. _______ tried also to save their relationship with her

husband but the latter continuously insulted her.

ISSUE/s

1) Whether PO2 ___________ and PO1 __________ be held

administratively liable for Grave Misconduct (Concubinage) and for

Dishonesty; and

2) Whether PO2 __________ be held administratively liable for

Grave Misconduct (violation of RA 9262, The Anti-Violence Against Women

and their Children).

 DISCUSSIONS/ARGUMENTS

As to the first issue, this Office humbly submits that both respondents

should be held administratively liable for Grave Misconduct (Concubinage)

and for Dishonesty.

Both respondents argued that their sexual acts do not fall under

scandalous circumstances. Hence, they cannot be held liable for

concubinage. This argument of both respondents is correct if the basis of

finding their guilt is proof beyond reasonable doubt which is the quantum of

proof required in criminal cases. However, it must be noted that this is an

administrative proceeding where the quantum of proof required for finding

their guilt is only substantial evidence.

It is elementary that in an administrative proceedings, the quantum of

proof required for a finding of guilt is only substantial evidence, that amount

of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to

justify a conclusion (Avancena v. Liwanag, A.M. No. MTJ-01-1383, July 17,

2003, 406 SCRA 300).

The records show that PO2 ___________ is legally married to Mrs.

____________ when he engaged in sexual intercourse with PO1

____________, who is not his legal spouse. The admission of both

respondents that they engaged in sexual intercourse and the fact that PO2
_______ sired a child with PO1 _____________ are enough proof to show

that they are guilty of the administrative charge of concubinage.

It is worth to mention that the marriage of Mr. and Mrs. __________

was destroyed due to the illicit affair of both respondents, thus making the

institution of marriage into mockery. The Constitution regards marriage as

an inviolable social institution and is the foundation of the family (Section 2,

Article XV of the 1987 Philippine Constitution). The immoral conduct of

both respondents runs afoul of the Constitution and the laws which they, as

police officers, have sworn to uphold.

As regards the complaint of dishonesty, both respondents argued that

that the untruthful statement written on the birth certificate of their child,

____________ is neither relevant nor connected to their function. The

argument of both respondents will not help in their case to absolve them

from administrative liability of dishonesty.

Both respondents want us to believe in their argument by citing the

latest case of MICHAELINA RAMOS BALASBAS vs. PATRICIA B.

MONAYAO, G.R. No. 190524, February 17, 2014, which stated that

dishonesty is the concealment or distortion of truth in the matter of fact

relevant to one’s office or connected with the performance of duty.

However, we are not persuaded by this argument, since the respondents

failed to appreciate the true ruling in the afore-cited case wherein the

Supreme Court said that:

 “Xxx. If it is true that respondent caused the execution of a forged or falsified
deed of sale in 1992 in order to transfer the disputed portion of the property to her
children, then she committed a dishonest act even as she is enjoined to adhere at all
times to law, morality, and decency in her private and professional life. "[D]ishonesty, in
order to warrant dismissal, need not be committed in the course of the performance of
duty" by the public officer, for it "inevitably reflects on the fitness of the officer or
employee to continue in office and the discipline and morale of the service.” [Citing
Remolona v. Civil Service Commission, 414 Phil. 590, 600 (2001)]

Simply stated, it need not be necessary that the act of dishonesty

must be relevant to one’s office in order to warrant dismissal since the

Government cannot tolerate in its service a dishonest official. The private

life of a government employee cannot be segregated from his public life .

Besides, the reason why the petition in the case of MICHAELINA

RAMOS BALASBAS vs. PATRICIA B. MONAYAO was denied by the

Supreme Court is not the fact that the dishonest act of the respondent was

not relevant nor connected to the performance of his duty but because of

the fact that the petitioner did not present any evidence to prove her claims.

This is clear when the Supreme Court said that:

“However, petitioner’s accusations do not appear to hold water.

From an examination of all her letters, pleadings, and other submissions –
from her letter-complaint with the DSWD, to her sworn letter-complaint
with the office of the Alfonso Lista Mayor, to her appeal letter to the CSC,
to her letter-Motion for Reconsideration with the CSC, and finally her CA
Petition for Review – it is evident that she offered nothing more than bare
imputations against the respondent. Though she claims that respondent
falsified a 1992 deed of sale whereby the disputed portion was transferred
to her children, the deed of sale was never shown; a copy thereof was
never attached to petitioner’s complaints and other papers or pleadings.
And if it is true that respondent’s children were able to secure title to the
disputed portion in their name through such falsified deed of sale, then
petitioner could have simply attached a copy of the new title issued in their
name. But she did not.

Petitioner is a lawyer; she should know that as the complainant in

the administrative case, upon her lies the burden of proof to establish her
cause of action against the respondent. All that is required is substantial
evidence, yet she could produce none; the allegations in her complaint
are not duly supported by necessary documents that would demonstrate
the justness of her claims. Xxx.”
 Thus, the administrative case of respondents, PO2 __________ and

PO1 _________ is different from the afore-cited case as the private

complainant in this instant case presented substantial evidence to prove

the charge of dishonesty. The private complainant presented the

Certificate of Live Birth of the respondents’ child containing untruthful

statement and the Affidavit of Acknowledgment/Admission of Paternity,

which states that:

“We/I _____ and ______ parents/parent of the child mentioned in

this Certificate of Live Birth, do hereby solemnly swear that the
information contained herein are true and correct to the best of our/my
knowledge and belief.”

The above statement is sufficient enough to prove the dishonest act

of both respondents since they know for a fact that the Certificate of Live

Birth of their child contains false information contrary to what they have

stated in their Affidavit of Acknowledgment/Admission of Paternity.

The defense of good faith or lack of malice interposed by both

respondents is not also tenable since this is only appreciated to mitigate

their penalty but not to absolve them from their administrative liability.

With regard to the second issue of violation of RA 9262, respondent

PO2 _______ interposes general denial when he asserted that the

allegation of marital violence was a mere product of an overactive

imagination of his wife and claimed that he is the real victim of marital

violence as his wife is more violent than him.

 We are not swayed by this kind of argument of PO2 ______ as the

Supreme Court held in a long line of cases that a general denial could not

prevail over the positive testimony of the complainant. There was no

showing that Mrs. _______ was actuated by ill motives to testify against her

husband. In the absence of any evidence showing a reason or motive for a

witness to perjure, the logical conclusion is that no such improper motive

exists, and her testimony is thus worthy of full faith and credit.

PO2 ______ acts of abandoning his family to cohabit with another

woman, slapping and insulting his wife by telling her that he does not love

her anymore because she is ugly, poor and uneducated as well as

narrating his sexual acts with his concubine caused mental or emotional

anguish on the part of his wife, which are clear violations of RA 9262

particularly Section 5 (9) which states that:

“Causing mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule or humiliation

to the woman or her child, including, but not limited to, repeated verbal
and emotional abuse, and denial of financial support or custody of minor
children of access to the woman’s child/children.”

It must also be remembered that Mrs. ______ suffered miscarriage

on the third month of her pregnancy due to the illicit acts of her husband

and their frequent quarrels. This was proven by the medical records of

Mrs. __________, which are enough proof to substantiate the charge of

violation of RA 9262.

Based on the above discussions, it is evidently apparent that both

respondents should be held administratively liable for Grave Misconduct

(Concubinage) and Dishonesty. In addition, PO2 ___________ should

also be held administratively liable for another Grave Misconduct (Violation

of RA 9262).

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, the PNP represented by the undersigned as the

nominal complainant most respectfully prays unto the Honorable Summary

Hearing Officer that both respondents should be held administratively liable

for the abovementioned offenses and should be meted the penalty of

dismissal from the service.

Other reliefs which are deemed just and equitable under the premises

are likewise being prayed for.

December 15, 2014. Camp Crame, Quezon City, Philippines.

_______________________
Rank/Name/
Designation

Copy furnished:

PO2 __________________
Headquarters Support Service
Respondent

PO1 ___________________
Southern Police District, NCRPO
Respondent
Republic of the Philippines)
Quezon City ) S.S.

VERIFICATION

I, ____________, Rank/Name, Designation, under oath, do hereby

depose and say that:

I am the representative of the PNP as nominal complainant in the

above-entitled administrative case;

I have caused the preparation and the filing of the foregoing verified
position paper before the Honorable Hearing Officer; and

I have read and understand all the allegations contained therein and
attest that the same are true and correct of my own knowledge and based
on authentic records.

_____________________________
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ___ day of December

2014 at NHQ, Camp Crame, Quezon City, Philippines.

____________________________
Rank/Name/
Designation