Republic of the Philippines

NATIONAL POLICE COMMISSION

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE
COMMUNICATIONS AND ELECTRONICS SERVICE
Camp BGen Rafael T. Crame, Quezon City

PHILLIPPINE NATIONAL Administrative Case No.

POLICE, ______________
Complainant,

- versus - For: Less Grave Neglect of

Duty
___________________ Rule 21, Sec. 1 Para B, sub para
1 (k) of NAPOLCOM MC 2016-
R 002
espondent.
x----------------------------------x

ANSWER
Re: FORMAL CHARGE (Administrative Complaint)

Respondent, _____________ (hereinafter referred to as

“Respondent Torres”) most respectfully states that:

1. On 09 May 2021, Respondent Torres received a copy of this

Office’s Summons/Order to File Answer dated 06 May 2021.
Respondent immediately requested for a copy of the
Complaint/Affidavit, directing him to file his Answer within seven
(7) days from receipt thereof, or until 16 May 2021. Considering
that the last day to file the Answer falls on a Sunday, the last day
to file the Answer is on 17 May 2021.

ADMISSIONS
AND SPECIFIC DENIALS

2. Respondent Torres interpose the following admissions and

specific denials on each of the allegation of the complaint, to wit:

a. Specifically DENY the allegations in paragraphs 1, and 2, of

the Formal Charge insofar as it alleged the accusation which

1
 is baseless, for lack of knowledge sufficient to form a belief
as to the truth or falsity thereof;

b. Specifically DENY the allegation in paragraph1 of the

Affidavit of Complainant insofar as it alleged the personal
circumstances of the Complainant for lack of knowledge
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity thereof;

c. Partially ADMIT paragraph 2 of the Affidavit in so far as the

return of the issued pistol Colt caliber 45 with serial number
451180 to CES Supply Office on 17 September 2020 but the
reason for the return was due to his request for replacement
of firearm;

d. ADMIT paragraph 3 of the Affidavit in so far as the issuance

of the subject firearm to Respondent Torres on 21
September 2011.

e. Specifically DENY the allegations in paragraphs 4, 5, 6, and

7 for lack of knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth or falsity thereof;

AFFIRMATIVE ALLEGATIONS

3. Respondent Torres repleads and reiterate, by way of reference,

all the foregoing declarations, and aver the following affirmative
allegations.

4. Respondent Torres requested for a re-assignment in the

National Capital Region from his previous assignment in Region 2
in order to better take care of his ailing and old father. Said
request was granted, hence, his assignment in the NCR.

5. Upon his transfer, he requested for the replacement of his

pistol Colt 45 caliber as the same had gone defective since its
issuance in 2011.

6. As such, a replacement firearm was issued to him upon turning

over of the subject firearm to PNP CES Supply on 17 September
2020, in good faith.

2
7. On 17 November 2020, the subject firearm (pistol Colt 45
caliber) had undergone Macro-etching examination. However,
upon release of the result of the Macro-etching examination on 19
November 2020, the result stated that the subject firearm’s serial
number was tampered.

8. Respondent Torres was notified about this and this was the first
time that Respondent Torres learned that the subject firearm was
tampered.

9. Respondent Torres was directed to submit an Affidavit of

Explanation to which he immediately complied. In his Affidavit of
Explanation, Respondent Torres mentioned that he had no
knowledge that the firearm issued to him was tampered and such
fact was only made known to him upon him being notified of the
result of the Macro-etching examination.

10. Thereafter, Respondent Torres received a copy of an Order

dated 19 March 2021, directing him to submit a Counter-Affidavit.
However, the Order did not contain a copy of the complaint and
its supporting documents for him to properly prepare a Counter-
Affidavit. Respondent Torres still filed a Counter-Affidavit as
directed, albeit, lacking in some contents due to the absence of
the copy of the complaint and its supporting documents.

11. To his surprise, on 09 May 2021, Respondent Torres received

a copy of another Summons/Order to File Answer dated 06 May
2021 even without receiving any copy of the resolution of what
happened in the pre-charge investigation.

12. It was then that Respondent Torres learned that he was being
charged with the alleged violation of Rule 21, Sec. 1 Para B, sub
para 1 (k) of NAPOLCOM MC 2016-002, which states that:

“Rule 21 – Offenses

Section 1. Neglect of Duty or Nonfeasance – is the

omission or refusal, without sufficient excuse, to
perform an act or duty, which it was the peace
officer’s legal obligation to perform; xxxx

Section 2

3
 (k) failure to submit written report to his superior
officer immediately or within a reasonable time after
accidental firing of his firearm, when time and
circumstance would permit;”

13. The Affidavit executed by Police Major _____________., is

baseless, unfounded and without legal basis. It merely stated that
there was tampering on the subject firearm which was tantamount
to loss of property on the part of the government but the facts
mentioned in his Affidavit failed to sufficiently establish the
connection of the alleged violation and the facts surrounding the
case.

14. It best to specify at this instance that Paragraph k of Rule 21 is

found in Section 2 and not Section 1 of the said Rule, as stated in
the Formal Charge. The neglect of duty mentioned in Section 2
paragraph (k) pertains to the failure to submit written report to his
superior officer immediately or within a reasonable time after
accidental firing of his firearm. Nowhere in the said section
mentioned that tampering of firearms amounts to neglect of duty.
This only supports the fact that the affidavit and the charged
against Respondent Torres is baseless and unfounded.

15. In the Affidavit, there was no allegation that Respondent

Torres accidentally fired his firearm which warrants him to comply
with his duty, that is, to report the same to his superior officer as
stated under paragraph k of Section 2 Rule 21. Likewise, no
allegation was made stating that it was Respondent Torres who
caused the tampering of the serial number of the said firearm.
Hence, there is no clear connection of what was actually violated
by Respondent Torres in this case.

16. Supposing without admitting that the tampering was the fact
that needs to be reported, it was impossible for Respondent
Torres to report the same given the circumstances that
Respondent Torres could not have known that the subject firearm
was tampered.

17. If indeed there was a duty on the part of Respondent to report

the matter of tampering to his superior, the same ceased to exist
when he voluntarily and in good faith, returned the subject firearm
to CES Supply Office on 21 September 2020.

18. It was only, after he turned over the subject firearm to CES
Supply Office and after it had undergone macro-etching

4
 examination, when he learned that the subject firearm was
tampered.

19. Moreover, the same undergone macro-etching examination two

(2) months after Respondent Torres turned over the same to CES
Supply Office which means that the custody and duty over the
subject firearm was no longer upon Respondent Torres and that
anything can happen during the period from the moment
Respondent Torres turned-over the subject firearm until the
macro-etching examination.

20. Further, the allegation in the affidavit stated that the issue was
the subject firearm was tampered when subjected to macro-
etching examination. However, the charged was Less Grave
Neglect of Duty under Rule 21 Sec.1 para B, sub para 1 (k) of
NAPOLCOM MC 2016-002, which shows no connection between
tampering of firearm and accidental firing of firearm. Nowhere in
the mentioned section concludes that tampering of firearm and
accidental firing are one and the same omission which requires
reporting to a superior officer, except for the latter.

21. Clearly, the actions made by Respondent Torres, if any, is not

considered willful or unlawful and are not tantamount to any
violation, much less of the charges against him. In fact, there was
no showing that there was intention on his part to cause damage
or loss of government property. In fact, he even voluntarily and in
good faith, turned over the subject firearm to CES Supply Office.

22. All told, the charge/s and affidavit of complaint against

Respondent Torres are not supported by any clear and convincing
evidence, as well as any factual and legal basis, sufficient to prove
that Respondent Torres willfully and unlawfully committed all the
acts mentioned therein and that he is guilty of violating any
provisions of NAPOLCOM MC 2016-002.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, Respondent Torres, respectfully prays that a

decision be rendered DISMISSING the complaint/charge against him
for utter lack of merit.

Respectfully submitted.

5
Quezon City, Philippines, 14 May 2021.

PSSG __________________
PNPCES Barracks Camp Crame,
Quezon City

Copy Furnished:

_______________________
Communications and Electronics Service
Logistics Section

EXPLANATION AS TO SERVICE AND FILING

Greetings:

In accordance with Section 1, Rule 19 of the NAPOLCOM MC

2016-002, a copy of this pleading was served upon the foregoing and
filed with this Office and to the other parties by presenting the
original copies thereof.

PSSG _______________