Republic of the Philippines

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE

INTERNAL AFFAIRS SERVICE
REGIONAL INTERNAL AFFAIRS SERVICE – NCR
SOURTHERN POLICE DISTRICT
INTERNAL AFFAIRS SERVICE
Lawton Avenue, Fort Andres Bonifacio, Taguig City

IN RE: ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS ADMIN CASE NO.

AGAINST RIASNCR-MP12-2022-236

PMSg Alfred Cezar E Esposo FOR: Grave Misconduct

x---------------------------------------x

Republic of the Philippines )

Done in Taguig City )S.s.
x-------------------------------------------x

ANSWER
I, PMSg Alfred Cezar E Esposo, of legal age, police officer by
profession, and currently assigned at PNP Presidential Security
Force Unit, NCRPO, Malacanan Palace, Manila , after having been
sworn on oath in accordance with law do hereby depose and say
that:

1. That in addition to the Counter Affidavit which I have

submitted before this honorable forum last September 26, 2022, there
are new development that has risen which was not made part of it
and if duly considered in the proceedings, would be substantially
matter in disposing this instant administrative case against me;

2. That aside from the allegations he countered, he would now

answer the allegations in the Formal Charge executed by PCPT
MARY ANNE B BAYAN, being the nominal complainant in this case.
In her complaint, she alleged the following:

“On September 19, 2022 at about 10:10PM at

Kalayaan Avenue, corner N Garcia, Bel-Air, Makati
City, PMSg Alfred Cezar Espinosa Esposo shot and
wounded Jeric Cani, to the damage and prejudice of
the PNP.” [Grave Miscondut-Section 2(C), paragraph
3® of Rule 21 NMC 2016-002] in relation to Art. 254
(Discharge of Firearm) of RPC.”

3. The Respondent was left on a quandary that instead of a

commendation and award to be given after he went beyond the call of
duty to save a female victim from possible death and robbery; why he
is facing this kind of prosecution from herein complainant when she
merely based her finding during the conduct of Pre-Charge
Investigation is a mere Spot Report of Makati City Police Station
dated September 20, 2022 (ANNEX “1”) without delving on the
details of such report despite the generality that it contain, in itself has
given the justifiable reason why he recourse to the use of reasonable
force, viz-a-viz, “…while traversing at the said place saw an
incident of alleged robber where the victim as Mary Rose Velia.
Immediately thereafter, PMSG ESPINOSA RESPONDED AND
INTRODUCED HIMSELF AS POLICE OFFICER BUT THE
SUSPECT (JERIC CANI) INSTEAD OF SURRENDERING DREW A
KNIFE AND TRIED TO STAB THE RESPONDING POLICE
OFFICER. INSTINCTIVELY, THE POLICE OFFICER WAS ABLE
TO DREW HIS SERVICE FIREARM SHOOT THE SUSPECT’S
RIGHT LEG. THUS, THE ARREST THEREAFTER, SAID POLICE
OFFICER IMMEDIATELY SEEK THE ASSISTANCE OF THE
NEARBY POLICE STATION AND REQUESTED FOR RESCUE TO
RUSH THE SUSPECT TO OSPITAL NG MAKATI FOR IMMEDIATE
MEDICAL ATTENTION.” (Emphasis supplied)

4. From the very report of the Makati City Police Station and
the Sinumpaang Salaysay of the female victim, Mary Rose P Velila
(ANNEX “2”), the Investigator-on-Case would have readily knew that
if not for the Respondent who went beyond the call of his duty as a
member of the PNP Presidential Security Force Unit attached to the
Presidential Security Group, the attempt to rob, molest, mugged, and
attempted to inflict bodily harm to her and to the respondent after
introducing himself as a police officer, would have succeeded in
accomplishing his criminal activity.

5. These facts were duly corroborated with the Barangay Bel-

Air Tanod Report dated September 27, 2022 as duly recorded in their
Barangay Blotter Book dated September 19, 2022 (ANNEX “3”) that
unequivocally stated that “…while the victim Ms. Velila was
shouting for help. Fortunately, a Police Officer, who was
identified as PMSgt Alfred Cezar E Esposo (First Respondent),
presently assigned at PNP Presidential Security Force Unit
Malacanang Park Manila, who riding on a Motorycycle and
travelling along Kalayaan Avenue NOTICED THE ROBBERY
HOLD-UP INCIDENT, STOPPED BEFORE THEM AND DECLARED
“PULIS TO”. THE SUSPECT WHO WAS CAUGT OFF FUARD…
UNEXPECTEDLY, THE suspect throw the black bag of Ms. Velila,
Mr. Cani REPEATEDLY ATTACK PMSGT ESPOSO WITH A
BLADED WEAPON BUT PMSGT ESPOSO WAS EAGER TO
CATCH HIM AND HE SHOOT HIM ON HIS RIGHT KNEE THAT
MAKE HIM TO STUMBLE DOWN THE ROAD.”

6. Upon my return to the PPSFU Headquarters, I immediately

drafted an Incident Report (ANNEX “4”), detailing the circumstances
that prompted him to use his issued firearms, a copy of which is
herein attached which was submitted to the Chief, PPFSU, NCRPO.
In the said Incident Report, I detailed the circumstances that
prompted me to use reasonable force against the aggressive and
violent attacking hold-up robbery suspect to ensure the safety of life
and the other police officer that also responded in the area. It stated
that:

“1. References: PNP Standard Operating

Procedures series of 2021

2. Above references pertains to the armed

confrontation that transpired this date on or about
10:10PM along Kalayaan Avenue near corner N Garcia
St., Brgy. Bel-Air, Makati City while the undersigned was
on his way home and traversing Kalayaan Avenue. when
he spotted a seeming commotion between a male
person holding a bladed weapon at the neck of a woman
which was later identified as a certain Mary Rose Vella y
Paray, of legal age, and resident of Room 1724 Tower D
SM Jazz Mall, Barangay Bel-Air, Makati City.

3. Please be informed that after he spotted a seeming

commotion between a male person holding a bladed
weapon at the neck of a woman which was later
identified as a certain Mary Rose Vella y Paray, of legal
age, and resident of Room 1724 Tower D SM Jazz Mall,
Barangay Bel-Air, Makati City, he immediately conducted
a police intervention and introduced himself as a police
officer. However, after the malefactor and his victim saw
that the undersigned, he immediately released the
female victim and threw the bag at his direction and tried
to stab herein police officer which caused imminent
danger to his life and to the female victim.

4. Left with no recourse, despite repeated warning in

order for the malefactor to surrender, but to his surprise,
suspect was indeed determined to take the life of herein
police officer and that of his victim. Fearing for the safety
of the victim and other passersby in the area, the
undersigned police officer prompted to retaliate in order
to neutralize the stabbing suspect and avoid further
danger to him and female victim. Suspect was hit on his
right knee thereby immobilizing him. When officials from
Barangay Bel-Air came, the injured malefactor was
brought to the hospital for treatment who was later
identified as JERIC CANI y ESTOPEN, MALE, 28
YEARS OLD, PEDICAB DRIVER, AND RESIDEN TOFF
6131 E. RAMOS ST., PIO DEL PILAR, MAKATI CITY.
 5. Police Officers from Makati City Police came as first
responders and conducted investigation from herein
police officer and the female victim. Cases of Violation
of Art. 293 of the RPC (Robbery Hold-Up) and Direct
Assault are now being prepared against the perpetrator.

7. Resisting arrest and violence is not novel from the accused

Mr. Cani as he was identified as a notorious criminal in Makati City.
In fact, in the Resolution (ANNEX “5”) issued by HON. LINCOLN R
ASENCION dated September 27, 2022 that prompted him to file
criminal cases in court for Robbery under Art 293 and penalized
under Art 294, paragraph 5 and Art. 148, all under the Revised Penal
Code, he stated that “In this case, since the evidence on record also
shows that while PMSg was acting in his capacity as police officer
when he witnessed the robbery, and despite introducing himself as
such to Cani in his attempt to arrest him, Cani STILL ATTACHED
PMSG ESPOSO AND EVEN TRIED TO STAB HIM SEVERAL
TIMES WITH A BLADED WEAPON.”;

8. The criminal cases of accused Cani are now pending before

Branch 56 of the Makati Regional Trial Court and docketed under
CRIM CASE NO. R-MKT-22-03215-CR and presided by HON.
VLADIMIR B BUMATAY who issued a Commitment Order pursuant
to Sec. 5(a), Rule 112 of the Rules of Court (ANNEX “6”) while his
arraignment, pre-trial, and Initial Trial was scheduled on October 5,
202 at 8:30AM. Attached to form as an integral part of this Answer
are the Final Investigation Report issued by the Makati City Police
Station dated September 21, 2022 (ANNEX “7”), Identification Card
of Victim Mary Rose Velila (ANNEX “8”), Photograph of the Bladed
Weapon used by Accused Cani (ANNEX “9”), Recovered stolen
properties of Victim Velila (ANNEX “10”), Photograph of Accused
Cani (ANNEX “11”);

11. In line with the motu-propio investigation now being

conducted by the Honorable Service in determining whether the
provision of Rule 8.4 of the Revised PNP Police Operational
Procedure has been complied as far as the August 10, 2016 armed
encounter with PO1 Levi De Vera is concerned. It could be
considered that DSOU personnel has conducted its operations and
service of Warrant of Arrest issued by a competent court are within
the prescribed procedures are done “BY THE BOOK”;

12. RULE 8 of the Revised PNP Operational Procedure as

provided under PNPM-DO-D-0-2-13-21 allows “USE OF FIREARM
DURING POLICE OPERATIONS” when circumstances dictates. It
stated that “The use of firearm is justified if the offender poses
imminent danger of causing death or injury to the police officer
or other persons. The use of firearm is also justified under the
doctrines of self-defense, defense of a relative, and defense of a
stranger. However, one who resorts to self-defense must face a
real threat on his life, and the peril sought to be avoided must be
actual, imminent and real. Unlawful aggression should be present
for self-defense to be considered as a justifying circumstance.
Section 2-4 of the same rules provides that “In the lawful
performance of duty, a police officer shall use necessary and
reasonable force to accomplish his/her mandated task of
enforcing the law and maintaining peace and order. A police
officer, however, is not required TO AFFORD THE OFFENDER/S
ATTACKING HIM/HER THE OPPORTUNITY FOR A FAIR OR
EQUAL STRUGGLE. THE NECESSITY OF AGGRESSORS,
NATURE, AND CHARACTERISTIC OF THE WEAPON USED,
PHYSICAL CONDITION, SIZE AND OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES TO
INCLUDE THE PLACE AND OCCASION OF THE ASSAULT. THE
POLICE OFFICER IS GIVEN THE SOUND DISCRETION TO
CONSIDER THESE FACTS IN EMPLOYING REASONABLE
FORCE.”

13. From the above provisions of the POP, it specifically

provides for the justification of the police officers to resort to self
defense when they are confronted with real threat to their lives and
that the situation they have faces are real, actual and eminent that
their safety and the lives of other persons are at stake through the
attempt to take the life of herein respondent. The allegations of the
responding police officers as to what really transpired, i.e. the suspect
was bearing deadly weapon is brazen with definiteness to use
unlawful force and that he is willing to use it and kill just to get even
on the responding police officer;

14. Further, by submitting INCIDENT REPORT and securing

the safety not only of the victim Velila but also the treatment of
Accused Cani, herein personnel has complied with the requisites of
RULE 8.4 concerning the “Filing of an Incident Report After the
Use of Firearm” immediately after the incident as shown in the
preceding paragraphs. The contents of these and other documents
cited above has completely narrated all the circumstances that led to
the death of the suspected illegal personalities;

15. Rule 8.4 of the PNP Operational Procedure provides for

the mandatory filing of an Incident Report After the Use of Firearm.
In the said provision it states that:

“A police officer who fires his service firearm or weapon

during a confrontation with an offender or offenders must
submit an incident report outlining the circumstances
necessitating the use of his firearm.” 1

1
Rule 8.4, Ibid.
 16. That I am executing this Affidavit to attest the veracity of
the foregoing facts.

IN TRUTH WHEREOF, I am now affixing my signature this ___

of October 2022 herein Taguig City, Philippines.

PMSG ALFRED CEZAR ESPOSO

Subscribed and sworn to before me this ___ of October 2022

herein Taguig City, Philippines.
 Republic of the Philippines
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE
INTERNAL AFFAIRS SERVICE
REGIONAL INTERNAL AFFAIRS SERVICE – NCR
SOURTHERN POLICE DISTRICT
INTERNAL AFFAIRS SERVICE
Lawton Avenue, Fort Andres Bonifacio, Taguig City

IN RE: ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS ADMIN CASE NO.

AGAINST RIASNCR-MP12-2022-236

PMSg Alfred Cezar E Esposo FOR: Grave Misconduct

x---------------------------------------x

POSITION PAPER
COMES NOW the Respondent in his own behalf and unto this
Honorable Office most respectfully submit his position for the
dismissal of the above captioned administrative case and his
exoneration based on the following averments:

PREFATORY STATEMENT
Suit predicated on inferences and deductions without any
pieces of evidence to support it is like a crumpled paper that hits the
face of an innocent bystander. While it may not do severe harm, the
ghost of mental anguish and wounded feelings arises and the
enthusiasm to work diminishes. Victim of this suit must be accorded
protection not only to improve his morale but also to shield his family
from the resulting public ridicule and humiliation.

In providing protection to victim of sham suit, the Honorable

Forum should consider the fact that accusation is not synonymous
with guilt. There must always be sufficient evidence to support the
charge. This brings us to the fore the application of the age-old but
familiar rule that he who alleges must prove his allegations. 2 In
administrative proceedings, the complainant bears the burden of
proving, by substantial evidence, the allegations in the complaint.

2
Prieto v. Atty. Corpuz, et al. A.C. No. 6517, 2006 Dec 6
Substantial evidence means such relevant evidence as a reasonable
mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. 3

It is in this light that herein respondents earnestly asks the

needed protection not only because the charge against them is based
on motu propio investigation despite the fact that herein respondent
went beyond to the call of his duty in protecting the highest official of
the land but also the people after personally witnessing a criminal
activity and was subjected to life threatening situation that led to the
successful apprehension of Robbery Hold-Up suspect in compliance
with the call of the Chief, PNP and RD, NCRPO to be visually present
in the community while protecting them.

THE PARTIES
Complainant is the Philippine National Police, a government
agency created by law and with postal address at RIAS-NCR, Camp
Bagong Diwa, Bicutan, Taguig City, where it can be served with
summons and other processes of the Honorable SHO.

-and-

Respondent is of legal age, Filipino, police officers, currently

assigned at PNP Presidential Security Force Unit, Malacanang,
Manila where he may be served with summons and other processes
of the Honorable SHO.

STATEMENT OF FACTS
On or about 10:10PM of September 19, 2022 while victim Mary
Rose Velila y Parayno was walking along Kalayaan Avenue near corner N.
Garcia St., Brgy. Bel-Air, accused JERIC CANI y ESTOPEN, suddenly
appeared from behind and put his arm around victim VELILA’s shoulder
then declared the heist (Hold-Up). Immediately, a commotion occurred
after victim tried to struggle for the possession of her bag. At that instance,
Respondent who was onboard a motorcycle and traversing Kalayaan
Avenue saw the incident wherein a malefactor was armed with a knife
pointed at the neck of victim. He responded to the call for help of the
victim and introduced himself as a police officer to the suspect and ordered
him to put his knife down. But instead of heeding his orders, suspect threw
the bag at his direction and tried to stab him several times but missed

3
Hofer v. Tan, A.M. No P-05-1990, 2007 Jul 26
through his counteractions. Left with no recourse and knowing the danger
he was facing, the respondent drew his service firearm and hit the
suspect’s leg to immobilize him. Recovered from the possession of the
suspect was one (1) Eight-Inch Tactical Knife with ACE markings, One (1)
Black Channel Shoulder Bag containing personal belongings of victim
VELILA and Php10,000.00 cash.

After ascertaining that there is no longer threat to his life and to the
victim, he immediately apprehended Suspect CANI and sought assistance
to a nearby police station. He also requested from the responding
barangay officials for an ambulance to rush the injured suspect to the
hospital in Makati City for treatment and was discharged at about 8:44PM
of September 20, 2022. Suspect was turned over to the Station
Investigation and Detection Management Branch (SIDMB) of Makati City
Police Station for investigation and for the filing of criminal complaint
before the Office of the Makati City Prosecutor. During the Inquest
Proceedings, a Resolution was issued and found probable cause to file
criminal cases of Robbery and Direct Assault before the Regional Trial
Court of Makati City which was docketed under CRIM CASE No. R-MKT-
22-03215-CR. On September 28, 2022, HON. Vladimir B Bumatay,
Presiding Judge, Branch 56 of Makati City RTC issued a Commitment
Order and directed the Jail Warden of Makati City Jail to keep accused
CANI under custody.

However, instead of receiving a Letter of Commendation for the

successful apprehension of accused CANI and saving the life of victim
VALELI, the Respondent received a Notice of Complaint and directed him
to appear in their conduct of Pre-Charge Investigation in a motu propio
investigation being conducted by the Honorable SPD-IAS and to submit his
Affidavit concerning the alleged Discharge of Firearm that resulted to
Physical Injury. For which he complied detailing the facts priorly stated.

However, despite the voluminous evidence submitted by the

respondent and the glaring reports by the Makati City Police Station, he
was still charged with administrative case for alleged grave misconduct
allegedly for violation of Art. 254 of the Revised Penal Code (Discharge of
Firearm). Thus, this administrative case.

ISSUES
WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENT IS LIABLE FOR
GRAVE MISCONDUCT ARISING FROM ALLEGED VIOLATION OF
ART. 254, RPC OR DISCHARGE OF FIREARM.
 DISCUSSIONS/ARGUMENTS
This instant administrative case must be out rightly dismissed
for being baseless, unfounded, lacks merit and probable cause.

While a motu propio investigation gives right to the Internal

Affairs Prosecution Service to conduct and initiate administrative
cases against PNP Uniformed Personnel who performed its mandate
and functions of enforcing the law and in such process, unfortunately,
was forced to use his issued firearm for his defense and defense of
strangers after an initial deadly aggression was made by the
suspect/accused, this motu propio proceedings, however and in the
absence of any evidence, merely concentrates on the fact findings of
regularity of performance of their duties such that each provision of
the Police Operation Procedures should have been followed. Hence,
the issue that should have been investigated is whether or not Rule
8.4 of the POP has been violated. If in the negative, the case must
be summarily dismissed.

In addition, there was no formal complaint initiated by any

person who has the direct personal knowledge of an incident which
could testify that a crime or an offense has been committed. Under
the definition of a COMPLAINT in NAPOLCOM Memorandum
Circular No. 2016-002, it provides that a “Complaint is a written
sworn statement regarding a wrong, grievance or injury
sustained by a person.” In fact, administrative cases should always
be commenced by a formal complaint as observed by the Pre-Charge
Investigation either through Breach of Internal Discipline which is
“any offense committed by a member of the PNP involving minor
offense affecting the order and discipline within the police
organization” or by a Citizen’s Complaint which is “a formal
charge initiated by a natural or juridical person or his/its duly
authorized representative or guardian on account of an injury,
damage or disturbance sustained as a result of an irregular or
illegal act or omission of a PNP member”;

While the Internal Affairs Service is mandated to conduct a

motu propio investigation pertaining to incidents of discharge of
firearm by any police officer, the exercise of which should not be a
blanket authority to close its eyes on the facts and circumstances
surrounding the incident specially when the lives and safety of the
police officer who acted beyond the call of his duty and the victim that
was put in the line of danger due to the criminal activities of the
accused.
 While police officers is mandated to implement the laws, they
abhor violent confrontations in their duties but they cannot avoid
skirmishes with lawless elements who sometime resorts to violence
and use of deadly weapon. Thus, in this cases, they have to stand
grand and be ready to defend themselves while enforcing the laws.

Art. 254 of the Revised Penal Code penalizes the discharge of

firearm when “Any person who shall shoot at another with any
firearm shall suffer the penalty of prision correccional in its minimum
and medium periods, unless the facts of the case are such that the
act can be held to constitute frustrated or attempted parricide,
murder, homicide or any other crime for which a higher penalty is
prescribed by any of the articles of this Code.”

While indeed, the respondent was placed on an armed

confrontation when trying to apprehend accused CANI and was
inflicted with gunshot wounds resulting in Physical Injury, the Revised
Penal Code presents certain justifications so as not to make the
police officers criminally liable.

Art. 11. Justifying circumstances. — The following

do not incur any criminal liability:

1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or

rights, provided that the following circumstances
concur;

First. Unlawful aggression.

Second. Reasonable necessity of the

means employed to prevent or repel it.

Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on

the part of the person defending himself.

Surely, there was an unlawful aggression on the part of the

accused as he resorted to violence in the robbery he committed
against the female victim and to repel the apprehending police officer.
The female victim VALELI is convinced that accused CANI resorted
to violence by trying to repeatedly stabbed the respondent and if not
through his skills in martial arts gained during training, he would have
been injured also or worse, may have died. In the mind of the
criminal, he believes that it is better to kill, be killed than be
apprehended. The aggression that was made by the accused was to
avoid apprehension by the respondent police officer who merely
intervened to protect and defend a female victim. Therefore, by
inflicting injury to mobilize his attacker, his use of reasonable force
through the use of his firearm is justified. Considering the details in
the documentary evidence submitted by the Makati City Police
Station and by the Respondent in his Counter Affidavit and Answer,
there can be no Grave Misconduct to speak of as to be liable under
Rule 21, Section 2C par 3 (r), one had to commit an act or omission
that constitute a crime punishable under the Revised Penal Code or
Special Laws.

In fact, even in the Declaration of State Policy found in Section

2 of RA10591 or the Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition
Regulation Act, it stated that “It is the policy of the state to
maintain peace and order and protect the people against
violence. The state also recognizes the right of ITS QUALIFIED
CITIZENS TO SELF-DEFENSE THROUGH, WHEN IT IS THE
REASONABLE MEANS TO REPEL THE UNLAWFUL
AGGRESSION UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE USE OF
FIREARMS.”

RULE 8 of the Revised PNP Operational Procedure as

provided under PNPM-DO-D-0-2-13-21 allows “USE OF FIREARM
DURING POLICE OPERATIONS” when circumstances dictates. It
stated that “The use of firearm is justified if the offender poses
imminent danger of causing death or injury to the police officer
or other persons. The use of firearm is also justified under the
doctrines of self-defense, defense of a relative, and defense of a
stranger. However, one who resorts to self-defense must face a
real threat on his life, and the peril sought to be avoided must be
actual, imminent and real. Unlawful aggression should be present
for self-defense to be considered as a justifying circumstance.
Section 2-4 of the same rules provides that “In the lawful
performance of duty, a police officer shall use necessary and
reasonable force to accomplish his/her mandated task of
enforcing the law and maintaining peace and order. A police
officer, however, is not required TO AFFORD THE OFFENDER/S
ATTACKING HIM/HER THE OPPORTUNITY FOR A FAIR OR
EQUAL STRUGGLE. THE NECESSITY OF AGGRESSORS,
NATURE, AND CHARACTERISTIC OF THE WEAPON USED,
PHYSICAL CONDITION, SIZE AND OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES TO
INCLUDE THE PLACE AND OCCASION OF THE ASSAULT. THE
POLICE OFFICER IS GIVEN THE SOUND DISCRETION TO
CONSIDER THESE FACTS IN EMPLOYING REASONABLE
FORCE.”
 While generally, it is true that non-filing of a criminal case does
not follow the dismissal of an administrative case. In finding the
respondent liable for grave misconduct, the Disciplinary Authority
must base his conclusions on substantial evidence which is such
relevant evidence as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to
support a conclusion. But the Court had stressed that “When
administrative or quasi-judicial bodies grossly misappreciate
evidence of such nature as to compel a contrary conclusion, the
Court will not hesitate to reverse its factual findings.” 4

The Pre-Charge Investigation Report merely deduced its

findings in on the fact that the respondent used his firearm and
discharge it for the purpose of repelling the deadly aggression
brought by the bladed weapon used by accused CANI but it failed to
resort or see the facts and circumstances surrounding the legality of
the discharge of firearm and the need to immobilize a criminal that
posed danger not only to himself, to the respondent, but also to the
female victim. The suspect gave the respondent justification to
immobilized him as he was not only a danger to him and the victim
while performing his duty as a police officer but also a danger to the
community. Nevertheless, in administrative proceedings, the burden
of proof that respondent committed the act complained of rests on
the complainant. The complainant must present sufficient evidence to
support such accusation5 which in this instant case, the complainant
has become the SPD Internal Affairs Service. Indeed, if a respondent
should be disciplined for a grave offense, the evidence against him
should be competent and derived from direct knowledge.
Charges based on mere suspicion and speculation cannot be
given credence. Hence, when the complainant relies on mere
conjectures and suppositions, and fails to substantiate his
claim, as in this case, the administrative complaint must be
dismissed for lack of merit6.

The Disciplinary Authority through the Internal Affairs Service

has in its full possession of the records and findings taken by the
SPD, the Prosecutor’s Office of Makati City, the Makati RTC and by
Crime Laboratory Office. In those documents it will show that the
respondent adopted, practiced, and implemented all regulations,
directives as provided under the Police Operating Procedures relative

4
Republic of the Philippines vs. Woodrow Canastillo, et.al., G.R. No. 172729, June 8,
2007
5
Ong v. Rosete, A.M. No. 04-1538, October 22, 2004, 441 SCRA 150.
6
Ever Emporium, Inc. v. Judge Maceda, A.M. Nos. RTJ-04-1881 and RTJ-04-1882,
October 14, 2004, 440 SCRA 298.
to the Rules of Engagement which in all aspects are legal and in its
colloquial term “BY THE BOOK”.

To prove such allegation, immediate documentations were

made and submitted to the Chief, PNP Presidential Security Force
Unit. After the incident, residents including barangay official felt the
changed in the peace and order in their community. Incidents of
robbery hold-ups and theft has significantly lowered after accused
CANI was apprehended.

In determining the facts in an administrative proceeding, only

substantial evidence is necessary, however, catenas of jurisprudence
laid out by the Supreme Court became the guiding principle in the
definition of substantial evidence. It means "more than a mere
scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to support a conclusion." 7 It is not synonymous
with 'any' evidence. To constitute sufficient substantiality to support
the verdict, the evidence must be 'reasonable in nature, credible, and
of solid value; it must actually be "substantial" proof of the essentials
which the law requires in a particular case.' 8 "While substantial
evidence may consist of inferences, such inferences must be 'a
product of logic and reason' and 'must rest on the evidence';
inferences that are the result of mere speculation or conjecture
cannot support a finding." 9 Bad faith is the ground for liability in
misconduct. Here, this ground is inapplicable, since there is no
showing of any wrongful, improper or unlawful conduct on
respondent’s part. Complainant failed to substantiate her allegations
with credible proof, for she only relied on presumptions as evidence
of bad faith.10

The basic rule that mere allegation is not evidence cannot be

disregarded11 and that he who alleges must always prove the fact
subject of the assertion. The burden of proof rests on the
complainant and the case against the respondent must be
established by clear, convincing and satisfactory proof. Thus, the
adage that “he who asserts, not he who denies, must prove. 12

7
Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971).
8
Estate of Teed (1952) 112 Cal.App.2d 638, 644; [citations].)" (Kruse v. Bank of
America (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 38, 51-52.
9
Kuhn v. Department of General Services (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1627, 1633.
10
(FELICIDAD B. DADIZON v. JUDGE ENRIQUE C. ASIS, A.M. No. RTJ-03-1760,
January 15, 2004)
11
GSIS vs CA, 296 SCRA 514, 531
12
ANGELES vs. FIGUEROA, A.C. No. 5050. September 20, 2005
 The Constitutional duty of any tribunal is not only to acquit the
innocent after trial but to insulate, from the start, the innocent
from unfounded charges. For it is aware of the strains of a criminal
or administrative accusation and the stresses of litigation which
should not be suffered by the clearly innocent. The filing of
unfounded criminal information in any tribunal exposes the innocent
to severe distress. Even an acquittal of the innocent will not fully
bleach the dark and deep stains left by a baseless accusation
for reputation once tarnished remains tarnished for a long
length of time. The expense to establish innocence may also be
prohibitive and can be more punishing especially to the poor and the
powerless. Innocence ought to be enough and the business of the
Court is to shield the innocent from senseless suits right from the
start.13

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, in the interest of justice, it is respectfully prayed
that the respondent be exonerated and that the Administrative Case
against him be dismissed for lack of merit as the complainant failed to
prove their case based on substantial evidence and lack of merit.

PMSG ALFRED CEZAR ESPOSO

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this October ___,

2022 herein Taguig City and I am convinced that the respondent has
read and understood his Position Paper.

13
Dissenting Opinion, Justice Renato Puno. Roberts, Jr. v. Court of
Appeals, 254 SCRA 307, March 5, 1996.