Republic of the Philippines

Department of Environment and Natural Resources

OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Regional Office No. 8, Tacloban City

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT
AND NATURAL RESOURCES and
PONCIANO N. DEMALASI
Complainant,

- versus - Administrative Case No. 2022-8

For: SERIOUS DISHONESTY, GRAVE

MISCONDUCT AND CONDUCT
PREJUDICIAL TO THE BEST
INTEREST OF THE SERVICE, WITH
PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION, in
violation of the 2017 Rules on
Administrative Cases in the Civil Service

CLAUDIO D. MAKUNTENTO, JR.,

Respondent.
x-----------------------------------------------x

RESPONDENT’S POSITION PAPER

COMES NOW, herein respondent, unto this Honorable Office,

most respectfully submits this Position Paper to disprove the
allegations of administrative liability for serious dishonesty,
misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service
with preventive suspension filed by the petitioner, in compliance with
the Order of this Honorable Court and does hereby aver that:

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The case is filed on _______ by the petitioner before the

Regional Executive Director of the DENR-8.

The Complainant alleged the following:

1. That on February 25, 2022, CSC Regional Office issued a

Spot Verification Report against herein respondent and
discovered through records that respondent’s name was not
included in the list of Civil Service Eligibility passers;
2. That on May 23, 2022, complainant received a phone call
from one who identified himself as a member of the
AMANDIWING COMMAND and demanded Twenty
Thousand Pesos (Php 20, 000.00) as revolutionary tax in
exchange for his safety and security. But that complainant
replied that he does not have money and the cellular phone
call was cut.

3. That subsequently on May 26, 2022, complainant received a

cellular phone call from the same number asking for the
money he was demanding. That complainant bargained that
he needed more time and the cellular phone call was cut.
That thereafter, complainant received a text message from
the same cellular phone number informing him that he has
until the following day, May 27, 2022 to pay or else he will kill
him and his family.

4. That on May 27, 2022 complainant received another cellular

phone call from the same caller persistently demanding the
payment of the amount. And that out of fear complainant
assured that he will withdraw the amount at Landbank Real.
And that instead of complying with the demand of the caller,
complainant asked help from his friend who is a soldier and
that an entrapment operation was planned.

5. That during the entrapment operation, complainant and

some Police Officers went to Landbank Real and positioned
themselves. That while complainant was at the ATM of
Landbank Real, he received a cellular phone call from the
same caller informing him that he was already at the parking
lot of Landbank Real. That complainant immediately
proceeded to the parking lot of Landbank Real with his
cellular phone call still turned on.

6. That while at the parking lot, complainant approached the

man on his motorcycle and handed him the white envelope
containing a One thousand Peso bill with SN DZ180018 and
Nineteen (19) pieces of One Thousand Peso bill bogus
money.

7. That two (2) police officers who were positioned nearby

approached the man and arrested him. After bodily,
searched, the man was brought to the Police Station-1 San
Jose, Tacloban City for documentation and filing of charges
against him. It was in the police station that complainant
came to know the identity of the arrested suspect as the
herein respondent.
 The Complainant asserts that respondent is administratively
liable for Serious Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct and Conduct
Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service in violation of the 2017
Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service for allegedly
submitting a fake Civil Service Examination result, for tarnishing the
image and integrity of his office by extorting money from Ponciano
Demalasi, and by making false entries in public documents and by
threatening or extorting complainants.

The Respondent firmly denies such allegations and that the

denial of the claim is based on legal and valid grounds.

Hence, this position paper.

ISSUES

Whether or not the Regional Executive Director of the DENR-8 has

jurisdiction over the present case.

Whether or not the respondent violated the 2017 Rules on

Administrative Cases in the Civil Service for serious dishonesty,
grave misconduct and conduct to prejudicial to the interest of the
service, with preventive suspension.

DISCUSSION

As to the first issue, it is submitted that the Regional Executive

Director of DENR-8 has no jurisdiction over the complaint for alleged
serious dishonesty which is based solely on the Spot Verification
Report issued by the CSC Regional Office-Tacloban City.

Section 8, Rule 2 of the 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases on

Civil Service provides:

“Section 8. Cases Cognizable by Regional Offices. –

Except as otherwise directed by the Commission, the CSC Regional
Offices shall take cognizance on cases:

A. Disciplinary

1. Cases initiated by, or brought before, the CSC Regional

Offices provided that the alleged acts or omissions were
committed within the jurisdiction of the CSC Regional
Offices, including fraudulent acquisition of civil service
eligibility (violation of Republic Act No. 9416) and its related
offenses.”
 Pursuant to Republic Act 9416, the Civil Service Commission
(CSC) as the central personnel agency of the government, shall
exercise exclusive jurisdiction to investigate and decide
administrative cases involving examination-related irregularities;

No less that the jurisprudential doctrine found in the case of

Pat-og Sr. vs Civil Service Commission provides that when the law
bestows upon a government body the jurisdiction to hear and decide
cases involving specific matters, it is to be presumed that such
jurisdiction is exclusive unless it be proved that another body is
likewise vested with the same jurisdiction. Since jurisdiction over the
charge involving examination-related issues is vested in the Civil
Service Commission, no other administrative agency may take
cognizance of the matter.

Basic as a hornbook principle is that Jurisdiction is Conferred

by Law. In the case of Fort Bonifacio Development Corporation v
Domingo, the Supreme Court held that “what determines the
jurisdiction of the court is the nature of the action pleaded as
appearing from the allegations in the complaint. The averments
therein and the character of the relief sought are the ones to be
consulted.” In the present case, the allegations in the complaint
exhibit a case cognizable by the Civil Service Commission and not by
the Department of Environment and Natural Resources.

As to the second issue, the respondent categorically,

vehemently and in all candor DENY all the material allegations in the
formal charge and the complaint that would constitute grave
misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

The fact that respondent is the holder of the CSC result is

sufficient evidence that he is the true and legal owner thereof and that
it is sufficient proof that respondent did not willfully intend to violate
the law. Further, this fact enjoins regularity and validity of the CSC
result unless the CSC Regional Office- Tacloban City can provide
substantial evidence to support the allegation that respondent
counterfeited such document.

The complainant merely relied on the Spot Verification Report

issued by the CSC which is not supported by substantial evidence
that respondent counterfeited such document. In the absence of
substantial evidence, the Spot Verification Report is devoid of
probative value.

The complainant’s reliance on the doctrine of negative pregnant

is groundless. The respondent’s statement that he did not willfully
intend to violate the law is merely a response to the complainant’s
accusations.
 The complainant’s argument that respondent’s failure to prove
that he took the Civil Service Examination and that he passed, and
that his name is included in the list of eligible is an implication that he
is affirming the allegation against him is once again devoid of value to
the case. It is a hornbook principle in remedial law that the
complainant has the burden to prove their allegations. In the absence
of the required proof, such arguments are spurious and
unsubstantiated.

It is worth reiterating that in the absence of substantial evidence

supporting the complainant’s allegations, respondent cannot be
charged to have willfully intended to violate the law.

Respondent also willfully denies the following:

a. That he extorted money from Ponciano Demalasi;

b. That he was the person who called Ponciano N. Demalasi
on that day and time using cellular phone number
09469612199;
c. That he is a member of AMANDIWING COMMAND,
allegedly a group of the New People’s Army.

Respondent submits that:

a. He did not know of any Ponciano N. Demalasi in his entire

life so there could be no way that he would call him, much
less demand money or make grave threats against his life;
b. He was at Landbank Real on May 27, 2022 at around 1:30
PM to withdraw money as evidenced by a pass slip issued to
him by his supervisor allowing him to go out from his
stationed office. (A copy of the Affidavit is marked as Annex
1);
c. He proceeded to the parking lot and saw his college friend,
Arnulfo B. Cruz and waived at him;
d. That unexpectedly a man holding a cellphone to his ear and
an envelope walked towards him and handed the envelope
without saying anything. That the man did not even bother
ask or verify if respondent was the person whom he was
talking to over the phone;
e. That before respondent opens the envelope to check its
contents, two police officers quickly approached and
arrested him.

The copy of the CCTV Footage submitted to court as evidence

substantially proves that respondent is not the person referred to by
the complainant who demanded money from him through cellular
phone call. The appreciation of the Tacloban City Prosecutor on the
CCTV footage is hereby quoted as follows:
“…..It was depicted in the CCTV Footage that at about 1:30
PM, Mr. Makuntento was lining up at the ATM machine of
Landbank Real, Tacloban City to withdraw money. After
which, he proceeded to the parking lot where his motorcycle
was parked. It could be seen that while he was waving at a
guy who just came out of the Landbank office. The said guy
was identified by Mr. Makuntento as his college friend, Arnulfo
B. Cruz.
Mr. Demalasi who was at a similar direction as the said guy
walked towards Mr. Makuntento with a white envelope in his
left hand and a cellular phone held to his ear using his left
hand. When he approached Mr. Makuntento, he handed the
envelope to the latter. A few seconds later two police officers
quickly approached them and arrested Mr. Makuntento It
could also be observed based on the footage that Mr.
Makuntento never held his cellular phone from the time he
withdrew cash at the ATM machine until his arrest, so there is
no probable cause to establish that he was the same person
who called Mr. Demalasi that he was already at the parking
lot.”
Complainant argues that respondent’s denial is
unsubstantiated, as there is no need to know someone to call him or
her. Complainant also argues that the CCTV footage shows
respondent was wearing a smart watch and is using them at the
same time with the time stamp on the subject text messages and that
he touched his airpods for a couple of times while opening his mouth
in saying words indicating that he is trying to make a call.

Respondent submits that the allegations are devoid of any

substantial basis. One thing is clear amidst the sequence of events,
that complainant failed to verify the identity the alleged caller. As
clearly shown in the CCTV footage, complainant did not bother
verifying the identity of his alleged caller.

If it is true that respondent used his smart watch and airpods to

make the call, the complainants must have made a confirmation that
communications to Ponciano N. Demalasi were made using the same
pieces of device. If complainant is technologically knowledgeable
enough to have construed the allegations, he must have known that
smart watches keep a register of the calls made.

It is worth noting that complainant’s allegations are based on a

shallow foundation of unverified evidence, unnecessary implications,
and unsupported accusations that even the prosecution rendered the
entrapment operation irregular for failure to positively identify the
respondent and for lack of probable cause to prosecute the same.

Section 7 of the PNP Manual on Anti-Illegal Drugs

Operation and Investigation defines the necessary prerequisites to
a valid entrapment operation:

Case-build up – series of activities in anti-drug operation

such as but not limited to casing, validation, surveillance,
verification etc, up to the time of completion of necessary
information as basis for possible operation.

Surveillance – Discreet observation of places, persons

and vehicles for the purpose of obtaining information
concerning the identities or activities of the subjects.

Section 11 of the same manual provides that “As a general

rule, all operations must be preceded by adequate planning and
preparation to ensure the successful prosecution of cases,
observance of the human rights of suspects, safety of operating
elements and the security and integrity of seized items/ evidence.”

Stated in the facts of the complaint are as follows:

…Demalasi asked help from his friend, a soldier, who

fetched him and both went directly to the City Intelligence Unit
(CIU) of the Tacloban City Police Office (TCPO) to ask help.
Thereafter, an entrapment operation was planned and the
Police Officers handed Demalasi a white envelope containing a
One thousand Peso bill with SN DZ180018 and Nineteen (19)
pieces of One Thousand Peso bill bogus money.

It is clear based on the facts stated that the entrapment

operation was planned overnight without any case build-up and
careful surveillance.

The Resolution from the Tacloban City Prosecution Office

dated September 5, 2022, signed by Leopardo G. Gerona, Assistant
City Prosecutor dismissed the criminal case filed against respondent
by the herein complainant, Mr. Demalasi, for Simple Robbery
(extortion) as defined and penalized under Article 294 (5) of the
Revised Penal Code (RPC) involving the same facts and issues, the
dispositive portion which reads as follows:
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully
recommended that the complaint against herein
respondents be dismissed for lack of probable cause.”
 Although it is acknowledged that the dismissal of the criminal
case does not foreclose administrative action involving the same
facts, it is also respectfully submitted that it is incumbent upon the
complainants to prove that respondent is the person who attempted
to demand money from Mr. Demalasi;

Complainant Demalasi failed to establish the identity of the

caller since he only indicated in his complaint that he received a call
from a “male”. The disciplining authority also failed to present
competent evidence to establish that I was the person being referred
to as the caller and merely relied on Mr. Demalasi’s unsubstantiated
narrations.

In NBI vs. Najera, it was settled that while the rules of evidence
are not controlling in administrative bodies in the adjudication of
cases, the evidence presented before them must at least have a
modicum of admissibility for it to be given some probative value. In
this case the lone testimony of Mr. Demalasi is insufficient to sustain
the administrative charge.

The filing by complainant of the present case is a plain mistake

as he had obviously mistaken me for the person who demanded
money from him through text messages and cellular phone calls and
it is causing damage and prejudice to my employment in the agency.

With this inexcusable negligence of the herein complainants, I

am being made to answer of a formal charge that I never committed;

What the allegations in the complaint against me are done in

bad faith for being false, fabricated, and perjured solely to harass and
persecute me because I am applying for promotion in this agency;

That the complaint filed against me has caused me so much

stress, besmirched reputation, sleepless night, severe anxiety and for
fear of losing my job, hence, damages is appropriate and in accord
with law.

That out of this malicious complaint filed against me, It had

caused me incurred unnecessary expenses, particularly attorney’s
fees in the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (Php 50,000.00), plus the
expenses incurred in attending this case.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, I respectfully pray before

this Honorable Hearing Officer to DISMISS the complaint against me
for lack of merit and for lack of substantial evidence.
 All other reliefs and remedies consistent with justice and equity
are likewise prayed for.

Tacloban City, Philippines. September 27, 2022.

COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT:

Atty. Dave Paulo S. Batula

Roll of Atty’s No. 8522/ 05-19-22
IBP No. 212591/ 01-03-26; Leyte Chapter
PTR No. 0746318/ 01-8-26, Palo, Leyte
MCLE No. V-0007823/ 07-13-22

COPY FURNISHED:
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT
AND NATURAL RESOURCES and
PONCIANO N. DEMALASI
Complainant
Naval, Biliran, Philippines

Republic of the Philippines )

Province of Leyte ) SS
Tacloban City )

VERIFICATION

I, CLAUDIO D. MAKUNTENTO, after having been sworn to law,

under oath depose and state: THAT-

1. I am the respondent in the above-entitled case;

2. I have caused the preparation of the foregoing Position Paper; I

have read and understood the contents thereof and the same
are true based on my personal knowledge or authentic records.

3. I have not filed the Position Paper to harass nor cause

unnecessary delay;

4. The factual allegations in the Position Paper have evidentiary

support or, if specifically so identified will likewise have
evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity of discovery;
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 27th day
of September 2022 at Tacloban City Philippines.

CLAUDIO D. MAKUNTENTO
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me on this 10 th day of
September 2022, in the City of Tacloban.

Doc. No.: 18;

Page No.: 2;
Book No.: 1;
Series of 2022