Republic of the Philippines

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

Office of the Deputy Ombudman for the Military
and Other Law Enforcement Offices
Agham Road, Diliman, Quezon City, 1101

EFREN V. PACHECO JR.,

Complainant,

OMB-P-C-19-0100
-versus- For: Unlawful Arrest;
Violation of Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act (RA9165)

OMB-P-A-19-0128
For: Grave Misconduct
Conduct Prejudicial to the Best
Interest of the Service

PMAJ JENNY P MAGAN

Provincial Police Office
Camp Winston Ebersole
5100 San Jose, Occidental Mindoro

PCPT RODOLFO CAMBA

PMSg Aristotel Conde
PSMS Sherwin Magsino
PMSg Redentor Pilon
PMSg Menard Punongbayan
PSSg Roman Tadeo
PSSg Envenzor Zapata
All of Sablayan Municipal
Police Station
5104 Sablayan, Occidental Mindoro

Respondents,
x----------------------------------------------------------x

MOTION FOR PARTIAL RECONSIDERATION

RESPONDENTS PMAJ JENY P MAGAN, PMSGT REDENTOR
PILON, AND PSSGT ROMAN BARRIL TADEO, hereby file this
Motion for Partial Reconsideration from the 06 November 2020
Joint Resolution of ROLANDO W. CERVANTES-Graft Investigation
and Prosecution Officer, Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the
Military and Other Law Enforcement Offices, a copy of which was
received on 18 June 2021 by herein respondent and respectfully
avers: THAT--

THE JOINT RESOLUTION SUBJECT OF RECONSIDERATION

The Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer ROLANDO W.

CERVANTES of the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the
Military and Other Law Enforcement Offices, the decretal portion of
which reads:

“WHEREFORE, Respondents PMAJ.

JENNY POPA MAGAN, PSSGT REDENTOR
OSORIO PILON and PSSGT ROMAN BARRIL
TADEO are found guilty of conduct
Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the
Service and the penalty of Suspension
from the service for a period of Six (6)
Months and One (1) Day shall be imposed
against them. If the penalty of suspension
can no longer be served by reason of their
separation from the service, the
alternative penalty of FINE equivalent to
their salary for Six (6) months shall be
imposed payable to the Office of the
Ombudsman, and may be deduced from
their retirement or separation benefits,
accrued leave credits or any receivable
from their Office.

SO ORDERED.
Quezon City, Philippines, 06 November
2020.

ROLANDO W.
CERVANTES

Graft Investigation and

Prosecution Officer
 THE ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS

I.
WITH DUE RESPECT, THE GRAFT INVESTIGATION AND
PROSECUTION OFFICER OF THE DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR
THE MILITARY AND OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICES
(MOLEO) WITH DUE RESPECT COMMITTED GRAVE ERROR OF
FACTS WHEN IT HELD HEREIN RESPONDENTS PMAJ JENY P
MAGAN, PMSGT REDENTOR PILON, AND PSSGT ROMAN
BARRIL TADEO ADMINISTRATIVELY LIABLE FOR CONDUCT
PREJUDICIAL TO BEST INTEREST OF THE SERVICE, WHEN
THEY FAILED TO GIVE A POLICE BLOTTER ENTRY NUMBER
99187 UPON ORAL REQUEST OF THE COMPLAINANT’S SISTER
WHO AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST WAS NOT EQUIPPED
WITH SPECIAL POWER OR ATTORNEY OR AUTHORIZATION
COMING FROM THE COMPLAINANT;

II.
THE GRAFT INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION OFFICER OF
DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN (MOLEO) WITH DUE RESPECT
COMMITED GRAVE ERROR OF FACTS WHEN IT HELD PMAJ
JENY P MAGAN, PMSGT REDENTOR PILON, AND PSSGT
ROMAN BARRIL TADEO LIABLE FOR CONDUCT PREJUDICIAL
TO THE BEST INTEREST OF SERVICE WHEN THEY REFUSE TO
GIVE THE CERTIFIED XEROX COPY OF THE BLOTTER
ENTRIES REQUESTED BY THE COMPLAINANT'S SISTER
WITHOUT SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY OR
AUTHORIZATION FROM THE COMPLAINANT.

III.
WITH DUE RESPECT, THE GRAFT INVESTIGATION AND
PROSECUTION OFFICER OF THE DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR
THE MILITARY AND OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICES
(MOLEO) COMMITTED GRAVE ERROR OF FACTS OR LAW
WHEN IT HELD HEREIN RESPONDENTS PMSGT REDENTOR
PILON, AND PSSGT ROMAN BARRIL TADEO, LIABLE
ADMINISTRATIVELY FOR CONDUCT PREJUDICIAL TO BEST
INTEREST OF THE SERVICE, WHEN THEY FAILED TO GIVE A
POLICE BLOTTER ENTRY NUMBER 99187 UPON REQUEST
COMPLAINANT’S SISTER WHEN THEY ARE NOT THE FOI
OFFICER RECEIVING OFFICER NOR FOI DECISION MAKING
OFFICER (FDM) WHO SHOULD ENTERTAIN OR DECIDE UPON
THE ORAL REUEST OF THE COMPLAINANT'S SISTER;
 IV.
THE GRAFT INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION OFFICER
COMMITTED MISAPPRECIATION OF FACTS WHEN IT HELD
THE RESPONDENTS PMAJ JENY P MAGAN, PMSGT REDENTOR
PILON, AND PSSGT ROMAN BARRIL TADEO LIABLE FOR
CONDUCT PREJUDICIAL TO BEST INTEREST OF THE SERVICE
BECAUSE OF THE UNREASONABLE DELAY IN THE
SUBMISSION OF BLOTTER NO. 99187 IN COURT, WHEN IN
FACT THE RESPONDENTS HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY
SUBPOENA FROM THE COURT;

The said resolution was received by the undersigned

respondents on June 18, 2021. Hence, the filing of this motion
for partial reconsideration is within the ten (10) days
reglementary period pursuant to Section 8 of the Ombudsman
Rules of Procedure (Administrative Order No. 7 as amended) .

ARGUMENTS/ DISCUSSIONS

I. The Graft Investigation Officer and Prosecution Officer

of the Deputy of Ombudsman for the Military and other
Law Enforcement Offices (MOLEO) committed Grave
Error of Facts of Laws when it held the herein
Respondents PMSGT REDENTOR PILON, AND PSSGT
ROMAN BARRIL TADEO, administratively liable for
Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service
when they failed to give a Police Blotter Entry Number
99187 upon oral request of the Complainant's sister,
who at the time of the request was not equipped with
Special Power of Attorney or Authorization coming
from the Complainant

Paragraph 24 of the Sinumpaang Salaysay of Efren

Pacheco states: "Na nagpunta ang aking kapâtid na si
Yolanda Villaflores sa himpilan ng Sablayan ay nakaharap
sina PO2 Tadeo at SPO1 Pilon at patuloy ang pagtanggi nila
na magbigay ng certified Xerox Copy ng blotter dahil iyon
daw ay confidential at utos ng kanilang hepe na si PCINSP
Magan na huwag magbigay"

Clearly it was not the Complainant who asked for the

copy of the blotter but his sister, who is not a party to the
case hence, without the Special Power of Attorney or
 Authorization should not have an access to the Blotter of
the Case.

Further, Paragraph 28 of the Sinumpaang Salaysay of

the Complainant reads: " Na para makahingi ng
dokumentong kailangan ko sa pagdipensa ng aking kaso ay
sumulat ang ate ko na si Yolanda Villaflores na naka
address kay PCINSP Magan na may petsang ika-18 ng
Disyembre 2018 at ito ay natanggap ni PO3 Punong Bayan
pero hanggang ngayon ay hindi rin nila inaksyunan ang

nasaboing liham

This bolsters the fact that when the initial requests

were made, it was done orally by the sister of the
Complainant. Also noteworthy was the accusation of the
Complainant in his Sinumpaang Salaysay that the letter
request of her sister dated December 18, 2018 for the copy
of the blotter was not acted upon by PCINSP Magan. This
was an utter lie because on the same day PCINSP Magan
caused the preparation and issuance of the EXCERPT
FROM THE OFFICIAL POLICE BLOTTER which was also
received by the Complainant's sister attached as ANNEX 12
in the Answer of PCINSP Magan.

II. The Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer of the

Deputy Ombudsman (MOLEO) with due respect
committed grave error of facts when it held PMAJ JENY
P MAGAN, PMSGT REDENTOR PILON, AND PSSGT
ROMAN BARRIL TADEO liable for Conduct Prejudicial to
the Best Interest of Service when they refuse to give
the certified xerox copy of the blotter entries requested
by the Complainant's sister without Special Power of
Attorney or Authorization from the Complainant.

On July 23, 2016 Executive No. 2 series 2016 of the

Office of the President Rodrigo Roa Duterte, Section 8 entitled
People’s Freedom to Information (FOI) Manual directed every
government office to prepare its own People’s FOI Manual
which shall include (c) the procedure for the filing and
processing of the request.

In line with Executive Order No. 2 series of 2016 the PNP

adopted the PNP Manual on People’s Freedom of Information
Chapter 2 which states that (2.1) (e) if the requesting
person is asking for public information on behalf of
someone else, he/she must submit an authorization letter
or Special Power of Attorney.
 Consequently, PCINSP Magan could not have caused the
photocopying of the blotter book and certifying the same
without violating the mandate of the abovementioned PNP
Manual. Nevertheless to help alleviate the agony and so as not
to prejudice the right of the Complainant and out of
compassion for the sister of Complainant who untiringly trying
to get the copy of the blotter, PCINSP Magan caused the
preparation and issuance of the EXCERPT FROM THE
OFFICIAL POLICE BLOTTER. Therefore, it cannot be said that
PCINSP Magan unlawfully and willfully withheld from the
Complainant the contents of the blotter book. If such was the
intent of PCINSP Magan, without the Special Power of Attorney
or authorization letter, he could have entirely denied the
request of the Complainant's sister.

III. With due respect, the Graft Investigation and

Prosecution Officer of the Deputy Ombudsman(MOLEO)
committed grave error of facts when it held
respondents PMSGT REDENTOR PILON, AND PSSGT
ROMAN BARRIL TADEO, administratively liable for
conduct prejudicial to the best interest of service when
they failed to give a police blotter entry number 99187
upon the requests of the Complainant's when they are
not the FOI Receiving Officer nor FOI Decision Making
Officer who should entertain or decide upon the oral
request of the Complainant's sister.

As per FOI Manual Chapter 1 (1.5) the PNP FOI Receiving

Officer shall be a Police Non-Commissioned Officer (PNCO)
while (1.6) the FOI Decision Maker (FDM) the designated
Officer-in-Charge shall automatically assume the duties
and responsibilities.

Further, (2.4) (a) of the PNP Manual on People’s Freedom of

Information states that: "the FOI Decision Maker shall be
responsible for granting the request for access information."

It can be inferred from the manual herein above mentioned,

that for purposes of requesting information coming from the
Philippine National Police there is a particular person who should
received the request and there is also a particular person who
should grant or deny the request. It is also evident that
Respondents PMSGT REDENTOR PILON, AND PSSGT ROMAN
BARRIL TADEO cannot be an FOI Decision Making Officer not
being the Officer-in-Charge of Sablayan Municipal Police Station.
The question that remains therefore is whether or not PMSGT
 REDENTOR PILON, AND PSSGT ROMAN BARRIL TADEO are
the designated FOI Receiving Officer.

In thid regard, ANNEX B of paragraph 28 of the Sinumpaang

Salaysay of the Complainant or the letter request of the
Complainant's sister revealed that it was neither Respondent
PMSGT REDENTOR PILON nor PSSGT ROMAN BARRIL
TADEO who received such request hence they could not have
acted upon the request. Additionally even if it was one of the
Respondents PMSGT REDENTOR PILON or PSSGT ROMAN
BARRIL TADEO who received the letter request, they can neither
approve nor deny such request not being the FOI Decision
Maker. With respect to the oral request made by the
Complainant's sister under paragraph 24 of the Complainant's
Sinumpaang Salaysay, the FOI PNP Manual is very telling that
Respindent's could and should not act on such oral request.

IV. The Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer

committed Grave Error if Facts when it held the
Respondents PMAJ JENY P MAGAN, PMSGT REDENTOR
PILON, AND PSSGT ROMAN BARRIL TADEO,
administratively liable for Conduct Prejudicial to the
Best Interest of the Service because of the
unreasonable delay in the submission of Blotter 99187
in court, when in fact the Respondents have not
received subpoena from the court

With all due respect to the Graft Investigation Prosecutor, it

can be inferred from the records of the case that none of the
Respondents PMAJ JENY P MAGAN, PMSGT REDENTOR
PILON, AND PSSGT ROMAN BARRIL TADEO was not
furnished by any communication coming from the court
relevant to the case Criminal Case No. R-9827 filed against
the Complainant. Even the copy of the Decision where the
delay in the submission of the blotter was mentioned will
reveal that the Respondents was not copy furnished of the
same.

In G.R. No. 171722 Remedios Pascual vs Benito Burgos et

al states that Grave abuse of discretion refers not merely to
palpable errors of jurisdiction; or to violations of the Constitution,
the law and jurisprudence. It refers also to cases in which, for
various reasons, there has been a gross misapprehension of facts.
 All said, this is the legal, moral and factual surrounding the
case whereby this MOTION FOR PARTIAL RECONSIDERATION to
the Joint Resolution of the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the
Military and Other Law Enforcement Offices, dated 06 November
2020.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully

prayed that the Joint Resolution dated November 6, 2020 of the
Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer ROLANDO W.
CERVANTES of the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the
Military and Other Law Enforcement Offices be reconsidered and
set aside and a new one entered in favor of appellants.

Other reliefs and remedies which may be deemed just and

equitable under the premises are likewise prayed for.

Sablayan, Occidental Mindoro, June 18, 2020.

PMAJ JENY P MAGAN PMSGT REDENTOR PILON

Affiant Affiant

PSSGT ROMAN BARRIL TADEO

Affiant

Respondents for and on their own behalf

Brgy. Buenavista, Sablayan, Occidental Mindoro

Copy Furnished:

MR. EFREN V. PACHECO

Barangay Ibud, Sablayan,
Occidental Mindoro
 EXPLANATION
(Pursuant to Sec. 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure)

Copy of the foregoing Motion for Partial Reconsideration was served

on the other party by registered mail with return card due to lack of
available messengerial personnel to effect personal service or
delivery.

PMAJ JENY P MAGAN PMSGT REDENTOR PILON

Affiant Affiant

PSSGT ROMAN BARRIL TADEO

Affiant
 VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION

We, PMAJ JENY P MAGAN, PMSGT REDENTOR PILON and

PSSGT ROMAN BARRIL TADEO, Filipino, all of legal age, 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

Motion for Reconsideration, and I have read the contents thereof
and affirm that the same are true and correct based on my own
personal knowledge and authentic documents;

3. That We have not commenced any other action or

proceeding involving the same issues as in the instant complaint in
the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or any other tribunal or
agency. To the best of my knowledge, no such action or proceeding
is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or the
different divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency. If I
should learn that a similar action or proceeding has been filed or is
pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or the
different divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency, I
undertake to inform this Honorable Office of such fact within five (5)
days from notice thereof.

Done this 21st day of June 2021, at Sablayan, Occidental

Mindoro.

PMAJ JENY P MAGAN PMSGT REDENTOR PILON

Affiant Affiant

PSSGT ROMAN BARRIL TADEO

Affiant
 SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 23rd day of April
2012, in Pasig City, Philippines. Affiant appears in person and
presents his Driver License No. _________________, identifying
himself through a competent evidence of identifying and signing
this document in my presence and affirming under oath the
truthfulness of this document.

NOTARY PUBLIC

Doc. No.________;
Page No.________;
Book No.________;
Series of 2021.