Position Paper

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR THE MILITARY

AND OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES
3RD FLOOR, OMBUDSMAN BUILDING, AGHAM ROAD, DILIMAN, QUEZON CITY
HONORABLE DIRECTOR DENNIS L. GARCIA
ANGELITO T. SANCHEZ (Inmate),

Complainant,
OMB-P-C-13-0733
For: Violation of RA 3019
-versus-
OMB-P-A-13-0887
For: Violation of R.A. No. 6713
Grave Misconduct
Gross Neglect of Duty and
Conduct Prejudicial to the Best
Interest of the Service
J/Chief Inspector Gonzales B. Oggang

J/ Inspector Hector A. Elizares
Jail Officer 2 Lorenzo Torres
SJO1 Kent B. Gamboa
JO1 Arlene M. Dallig
JO1 Merly W.Coop
JO1 Remy P. Catolico
JO1 Daryl C. Gacayon and
JO1 Luis B. Calatan
Respondents.
x======================x
VERIFIED POSITION PAPER

FOR THE COMPLAINANT
COMPLAINANT, through the undersigned attorney, respectfully

submits this Verified Position Paper in faithful compliance with the
Order dated March 19, 2014 of this Honorable Office of the Deputy
Ombudsman for Military and other Law Enforcement Agencies, most
reverentially alleges that:
PRELIMINARY STATEMENTS
1
““Public Office is a public trust. Public officers
and employees must at all times be accountable to
the people, serve them with utmost responsibility,
integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, act with patriotism
and justice, and lead modest lives.”1
“Every person must, in the exercise of his rights

and in the performance of his duties, act with
justice, give everyone his due, and observe
honesty and good faith.”2
“Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus (False in one,

False in everything)”
“Evidence to be believed, must only proceeds

from the mouth of a credible witness, but it must
be credible in itself- such as the common
experience and observation of mankind can
approve as probable under the circumstances. We
have no test of the truth of human testimony,
except its conformity to our knowledge,
observation, and experience. Whatever is
repugnant to these belongs to the miraculous and
is outside of judicial cognizance.”3
THE PARTIES
Complainant ANGELITO T. SANCHEZ is one of the inmates

of Bureau of Jail Management and Penology (BJMP for brevity)
in Metro Manila District Jail-Main, Camp Bagong Diwa, Bicutan,
Taguig City. However, he can be served with, summons,
notices, and orders of this Honorable Office through the office
of the undersigned attorney.
RESPONDENTS are all officers of BJMP with office address

at BJMP Security and Custodial Unit, Metro Manila District Jail,
Camp Bagong Diwa, Bicutan, Taguig City, where they can be
served with summons, notices, and orders of this Honorable
Court.
1
Section 1, Article XI of the 1987 Philippine Constitution
2
Article 19 of the Civil Code of the Philippines
3
People v. Hernani, G.R. No. 122113, 27 November 2000, 346 SCRA 73, 84
2
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
AND OF THE CASE
On September 27, 2013 (Friday) at around 10:00 in the

morning, a group of BJMP Personnel stationed in MMDJ, Camp
Bagong Diwa, Bicutan, Taguig City headed by Respondents
Deputy Warden Chief Inspector Gonzales Oggang (Oggang for
brevity), the Officer-In-Charge of that particular day as the
District Warden was officially on leave, together with
respondent Inspector Hector A. Elizares (Elizares for brevity),
the Officer of the Day and respondents’ JO1 Dallig, JO1 Coop,
JO1 Catolico, JO1 Gacayon and JO1 Calatan without valid and
legal cause, surreptitiously searched complainant’s sleeping
counter located at Detention No. 4 of the above mentioned
district jail. A copy of the Spot Report dated September 27,
2013 of respondent Oggang was previously attached to our
Complaint dated November 08, 2013 and marked as Annex “A.
After twenty (20) minutes illegal search, respondents left

complainant’s cell and found nothing and thereafter, the same
BJMP personnel went back and surprisingly, instructed
complainant to bring out everything inside his room. When all
the complainant things were brought out from his cell, the
above mentioned respondents again illegally started to enter
his detention cell and promptly made a search while
respondent Torres and other BJMP personnel were outside of
his room and without due regard continuously searching
complainant’s personal belongings.
3
Consequently, as the said personnel inside complainant’s
room starting to remove the double wall (it is a plywood wall
constructed and intended to cover complainant’s cell from
another detention cell attached to steel grills and the adjacent
cell had also a double wall in placed which created an space
from complainant’s double wall to another wall because of the
steel grills) which separated his room to the other detention
cell occupied by a Chinese National, Xiong Biao Chen.
When they removed complainant double wall plywood,

they instantaneously saw a small pouch bag in pastel color.
When they about to pick it up, they clearly and directly saw a
hole intentionally embedded or rooted in the other double wall
plywood of the Chinese National, Xiong Biao Chen.
Respondents immediately rushed to the detention room of the
Chinese National and conducted a search for fifteen (15)
minutes and as they emerged from the said adjacent room,
respondent Elizares was carrying plastic sachet and took some
of complainant’s personal belongings like cellular phone, flash
drive and many others which unfortunately up to now, were
never returned.
Respondent Oggang placed the said pouch bag atop of a

table along the hallway of Detention 4 and immediately raised
two (2) sachet of suspected illegal drugs “shabu” from his
fingertips to show everyone what they illegally accomplished.
Subsequently, respondents who searched complainant’s
sleeping counter left the detention cell at around 12:00
noontime of that fateful day.
Shockingly, few minutes later after they left complainant’s

detention cell, respondents instructed somebody to tell the
Chinese National, Xiong Biao Chen to go to office immediately
and was accompanied by his fellow Chinese friends, Cai Hong
and Jun. Before 1:00 in the afternoon on the same day,
complainant illicitly summoned by the respondents that
4
informed him that will be transferred to MMDJ-SICA building
without valid and legal cause and in a blatant violation of the
commitment order of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City
issued in another case ordering them only to commit/detain
complainant to MMDJ-Main and NOT MMDJ-SICA.
Three (3) days after or on September 30, 2013 at around

2:00 in the afternoon, respondent SJO1 Kent Gamboa
(Gamboa for brevity), Head of the Investigation of BJMP Camp
Bagong Diwa and the assigned investigator of the said drug
incident, went to SICA building and instructed complainant to
dress up for the scheduled inquest proceeding for alleged
violation of Republic Act No. 9165 happened last September
27, 2013. A copy of the Memorandum dated September 30,
2013 was previously attached to the Complaint dated
November 08, 2013 and marked as Annex “B”.
Complainant was completely shocked and unconsciously

believes what he heard and there was neither fact-finding nor
preliminary investigation conducted by respondent Gamboa
which in truth nor in fact, the real culprit is the Chinese guy
whom they summoned after the illegal search on September
27, 2013 and practically exonerated without any formal
investigation conducted. During the inquest proceedings,
complainant challenged them to undergo drug testing but for
unknown reasons, they refused. Afterwards, the three (3) Jail
Officers 1 namely, JO1 Eric Eday, JO1 Joey Palinos and JO1
Benigno Domogdog executed a Pinagsamang Sinumpaang
Salaysay dated October 18, 2013 specifically last sentence of
paragraph 4 that the pouch containing the illegal drugs was
found in front of the hole imbedded in the adjacent cell. A
copy of the said Pinagsamang Sinumpaang Salaysay was
previously attached to the Complaint dated November 08,
2013 is hereto attached and marked as Annex “C”.
5
On October 29, 2013, complainant received a copy of the
Resolution dated October 25, 2013 of the Office of the City
Prosecutor of Taguig dismissing the aforementioned case in
view of the Pinagsamang Sinumpaang Salaysay of the
complainants in the illegal drug case. A copy of the said
Resolution was previously attached to our Complaint dated
November 08, 2013 and marked as Annex “D”.
ISSUES
From the foregoing factual antecedent, the issues to be resolved

in this particular case are:
WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENTS

ARE GUILTY FOR VIOLATION OF
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6713;
WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENTS ARE

GUILTY OF GRAVE MISCONDUCT;
WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENTS ARE

GUILTY OF GROSS NEGLECT OF DUTY;
AND
WHETHER OR NOT THERE RESPONDENTS

ARE GUILTY OF CONDUCT PREJUDICIAL
TO THE BEST INTEREST OF THE SERVICE.
ARGUMENTS
Since the four (4) issues are intertwined, we decided to discuss

and converse our arguments jointly.
We respectfully adopt our arguments, affidavit of witness, and

other evidence attached to our Complaint dated November 08, 2013
and Reply dated February 23, 2014 and we respectfully argue that
respondents are guilty of the foregoing offenses as the Counter-
6
Affidavit of the herein respondents can be suitably described as pure
lies, incredible, absolutely self-serving and contrary to their respective
oath of office as public servants.
Respondent Gamboa is guilty

of violation of Republic Act No. 6713,
Grave Misconduct, Gross Neglect
of Duty and Conduct Prejudicial
to the Best Interest of the Service
x======================x
From the very start, herein respondent Gamboa is guilty of the

foregoing offenses. For instance, paragraph 1 of his Counter-Affidavit
is a classic example on what type of personality the respondent has by
making perjurious assertion and definitely runs counter to the basic
tenet of Section 1, Article XI of the 1987 Philippine Constitution and
Article 19 of the Civil Code of the Philippines which states that:
“Public Office is a public trust. Public officers and

employees must at all times be accountable to the
people, serve them with utmost responsibility,
integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, act with patriotism
and justice, and lead modest lives.”4
“Every person must, in the exercise of his rights

and in the performance of his duties, act with
justice, give everyone his due, and observe
honesty and good faith.”5
(underlining ours)
Respondent Gamboa expressly stated in Paragraph 1 of his

Counter-Affidavit the following:
“Respondent KENT BANDIALAN GAMBOA is a

Senior Jail Officer 1 (SJO1) with Salary Grade 17
(SG-17) xxx”
Upon research and cursory reading of Section 12 of Republic

Act No. 9263 otherwise known as “ An Act Providing For the
Professionalization of the Bureau of Fire Protection (BFP) and the
Bureau of Jail Management and Penology (BJMP), Amending Certain,
Provisions of Republic Act No. 6975, Providing Funds Thereof and For
4
Section 1, Article XI of the 1987 Philippine Constitution
5
Article 19 of the Civil Code of the Philippines
7
other Purposes” provides that the position of Senior Jail Officer 1
carries only salary grade 16 and NOT 17 as respondent Gamboa trying
to state or project and to misled this Honourable Office that his
position carries a salary grade 1.
The truthful declaration of salary grade in the counter affidavit is

very much vital and material to this Honorable Office as it would
determine the proper courts/venues the case to be filed in the event of
determination of probable cause in criminal cases.Thus, the non-
truthful declaration of respondent Gamboa of his salary grade is a
perjuroius act that exposes him to the criminal offense of Perjury and
administrative charge of Dishonesty. “Falsus in uno, Falsus in
Omnibus6”.
Respondent Gamboa is clearly liable for violation of Paragraph C

of R.A. No, 6713 when he miserably failed to follow that particular
tenet which provides in part that “Public officials and employees shall
remain true to the people at all times. They must act with justness
and sincerity and shall not discriminate against anyone, especially the
poor and the underprivileged. They shall at all times respect the rights
of others, and shall refrain from doing acts contrary to law, good
morals, good customs, public policy, public order, public safety and
public interest.xxx”
Respondent Gamboa actuation of not observing and respecting

complainant’s right to be presumed innocent in not conducting
preliminary investigation and collating vital pieces of information and
evidence to support the criminal case to be filed PRIOR the case was
indorsed to the City Prosecutor’s Office is an obvious case of
discrimination and an act contrary to law and public policy thus, it
clearly violates the above mentioned law.
Furthermore, from the records of the case, it was very much

obvious that the disposition, use and possession of the seized illegal
drugs belongs to the inmate (Chinese National) of the adjacent cell
who has the control and access of the hole imbedded in his double wall
plywood and yet, they indorsed the said case for inquest is a case falls
6
People vs. Felipe Mirandilla, Jr. G.R. No. 186417, July 27, 2011
8
squarely to the definition of administrative offenses of Grave
Misconduct, Gross Neglect of Duty and Conduct Prejudicial to
the Best Interest of the Service;
In Arcenio vs. Pagorogon7,and long line of cases the Supreme

Court held that “Misconduct is a transgression of some established and
definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross
negligence by a public officer.”As pointed out by Complainant on the
above portion and enunciated by the High Court in the case of Amosco
vs. Magro8, it was settled that “Misconduct in Office has a definite and
well-understood legal meaning. By uniform legal definition it must
affect the performance of his duties as an officer and not such only as
affects his character as a private individual. In such cases, it has been
said at all times, it is necessary to separate the character of the man
from the character of the officer. It is settled that misconduct,
misfeasance, or malfeasance warranting removal from office of an
officer must have direct relation to and be connected with the
performance of official duties amounting either to maladministration or
willful, intentional neglect and failure to discharge the duties of the
office.
Settled in our jurisdiction that misconduct occurs when an

employee evinces willful or wanton disregard of employer’s interest, as
in deliberate violations, or disregard of standards of behavior which
employer has a right to expect of his employees, or in carelessness or
negligence of such degree or recurrence as to manifest wrongful intent
or evil design;
Applying the foregoing definitions in the case at bar, we can

safely conclude that the above definition finds application in this
instant case. Respondent Gamboa actuations of not conducting fact-
finding/preliminary investigation against the real culprit and
subsequently, exonerating him and the act of filing a defective and
7
224 SCRA 246
8
73 SCRA 107
9
impertinent inquest complaint against the herein complainant are
definitely a transgression of some established and definite rule of
action, more particularly, unlawful behavior and a commission of a
criminal act. Also, respondent Gamboa action in transferring the
complainant to another detention facility in direct violation of the
commitment order of the Court of Justice and without being accorded
due process of law are definitely falls within the definition of Grave
Misconduct.
Gross negligence or gross neglect of duty refers to negligence

characterized by the want of even slight case, acting or omitting to act
in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but
willfully and intentionally, with a conscious indifference to
consequences in so far as other persons may be affected. It is the
omission of that case which even inattentive and thoughtless men
never fail to take on their own property.9
There is “gross negligence” when a breach of duty is flagrant and

palpable. Gross negligence is the pursuit of a course of conduct that
would naturally and reasonable result in injury. It is an utter disregard
of or conscious indifference to consequence. 10 Respondent Gamboa
actuation in filing a case against the complainant without concrete
evidence to support his culpability is a clear case of gross negligence.
Respondent Gamboa knew from the very start that they have no case
and evidence to indict the complainant for illegal drug case but for
unknown reasons and reasons only known to them and the Chinese
National, indorsed the case for inquest is an apparent case of flagrant
breach of duty that qualify them for gross negligence.
Such unwarranted act of the respondent Gamboa resulted to an

undue prejudice to the best interest of the service. It is blatant
disregard of the rule that every public servant must serve his office
with the highest degree of responsibility, integrity, honesty, loyalty
and efficiency.
9
Fonacier v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 50691, December 05, 1994
10
Quibal v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 109991, May 22, 1995
10
In Francia, Jr., Sevillano C., CSC Resolution No. 00-1372, June
9, 2000 citing item No. 1 of CSC MC No. 8, S. 1990 provides that “
Any act which includes the fraudulent and/or use of fake/spurious
civil service eligibility, the giving of assistance to ensure the
commission or procurement of the same, or any other act which
amounts to violation of the integrity of the Civil Service
examinations, possession of fake Civil Service eligibility and other
similar acts shall be categorized as a grave offense of Dishonesty,
Grave Misconduct or Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the
service, as the case maybe, and shall be penalized in accordance
with approved schedule of penalties.”
In the latest case of Largo v. Court of Appeals11 which was used

and cited by this Honorable Office in this questioned Decision, the
Honorable Supreme Court ruled that “Nevertheless, the
complained acts of petitioner constitute the administrative
offense of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the
service, which need not be related or connected to the public
officer’s official functions. As long as the questioned conduct
tarnished the image and integrity of his/her public office,
the corresponding penalty may be meted on the erring
public officer or employee. The Code of Conduct and Ethical
Standards for Public Officials and Employees (Republic Act
No. 6713) enunciates, inter alia, the State policy of
promoting a high standard of ethics and utmost
responsibility in the public service. Section 4 © of the Code
commands that “[p]public officials and employees shall at
all times respect the rights of others, and shall refrain from
doing acts contrary to law, good morals, good customs,
public policy, public order, public safety and public interest.”
Applying by analogy the above cited case in the case at bar, it is

crystal clear that the acts of the respondent Gamboa in covering
11
G.R. 177244, 20 November 2007
11
the wrong doings of a particular inmate and discriminating the
complainant are disgraceful and shameful act amounting to conduct
prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
His acts are not only highly reprehensible but it also do not speak
well of a government employee who is required at all times in all his
or her official communication or transactions to observe courtesy,
fairness and honesty.
As government officials, respondent Gamboa are expected to

strictly observe the provisions of Republic Act No. 6713, otherwise
known as the Code of Conduct and other Ethical Standards for
Public Officials and Employees. Section 4 (c) of R. A. 6713 which
requires all public officials and employees to remain true to the
people at all times. “They shall at all times respect the rights of
others, and shall refrain from doing acts contrary to law, good
morals, good customs, public policy, public order, public safety and
public interest”. Since the respondents deviated from this ethical
standard, they should suffer the consequence thereof;
His actuations run counter to the Constitutional provision that

“Public Office is a public trust. Public officers must at all times be
accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility,
integrity, loyalty and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and
lead a modest lives;12”
Thus, Article 19 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines

provides that “[e]very person must, in the exercise of his rights and
the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his
due and observe honesty and good faith.” Clearly, the aforestated
basic rule blatantly transgressed by the respondents without due
regards to the rights of other individuals;
12
Section 1, Article XII, 1987 Philippine Constitution
12
In administrative proceedings, the quantum of proof
necessary for a finding of guilt is substantial evidence i.e.
that amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind
might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.13
Respondent Elizares is guilty

x======================x
The act of the respondent Elizares in taken out the personal

belongings of the complainant from his cell and were never retuned
up to this very moment, the act of the respondents in transferring
the herein complainant into another detention facility without
investigation and written order, the act of respondents in not
investigating the real culprit or the owner of the two (2) sachet of
illegal drugs or shabu after the search or even after the dismissal
resolution of the investigating prosecutor, the act of the respondents
in talking to Chinese guy and thereafter, exonerates him and the
continuous harassment and oppression being made by the herein
respondents unto the complainant before, during and after the filing
of this instant case are patent case of violation of the rights and
privileges of inmates and constitutional and statutory rights of the
complainant.
Paragraph C of R.A. No, 6713 was violated by the respondent

Elizares when he miserably failed to follow that particular tenet
which provides in part that “Public officials and employees shall
remain true to the people at all times. They must act with justness
and sincerity and shall not discriminate against anyone, especially
the poor and the underprivileged. They shall at all times respect the
rights of others, and shall refrain from doing acts contrary to law,
13
Manalabe v. Cabie, A.M. No. P-05-1984, July 6, 2007, 526 SCRA 582
13
good morals, good customs, public policy, public order, public safety
and public interest.xxx”
Respondent Elizares actuation of not observing and respecting

complainant’s right to be presumed innocent in not conducting
preliminary investigation before the case was indorsed to the City
Prosecutor’s Office is an obvious case of discrimination and an act
contrary to law and public policy thus, it clearly violates the above
mentioned law.
Furthermore, from the records of the case, it was very much

obvious that the disposition, use and possession of the seized illegal
drugs belongs to the inmate (Chinese National) of the adjacent cell
who has the control and access of the hole imbedded in his double
wall plywood and yet, they indorsed the said case for inquest is a
case falls squarely to the definition of administrative offenses of
Grave Misconduct, Gross Neglect of Duty and Conduct Prejudicial to
the Best Interest of the Service.
In Arcenio vs. Pagorogon14,and long line of cases the Supreme

Court held that “Misconduct is a transgression of some established
and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or
gross negligence by a public officer.”As pointed out by Complainant
on the above portion and enunciated by the High Court in the case
of Amosco vs. Magro15, it was settled that “Misconduct in Office has
a definite and well-understood legal meaning. By uniform legal
definition it must affect the performance of his duties as an officer
and not such only as affects his character as a private individual. In
such cases, it has been said at all times, it is necessary to separate
the character of the man from the character of the officer. It is
settled that misconduct, misfeasance, or malfeasance warranting
removal from office of an officer must have direct relation to and be
connected with the performance of official duties amounting either
to maladministration or willful, intentional neglect and failure to
discharge the duties of the office.
14
224 SCRA 246
15
73 SCRA 107
14
1. Settled in our jurisdiction that misconduct occurs when an
employee evinces willful or wanton disregard of employer’s
interest, as in deliberate violations, or disregard of standards of
behavior which employer has a right to expect of his employees,
or in carelessness or negligence of such degree or recurrence as
to manifest wrongful intent or evil design.
Applying the foregoing definitions in the case at bar, we

can safely conclude that the above definition finds application in
this instant case. Respondent Elizares actuations of not
conducting preliminary investigation against the real culprit and
subsequently, exonerating him and the act of filing a defective
and impertinent inquest complaint against the herein
complainant are definitely a transgression of some established
and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior
and a commission of a criminal act. Also, respondent Elizares
action in transferring the complainant to another detention
facility in direct violation of the commitment order of the Court
of Justice and without being accorded due process of law are
definitely falls within the definition of Grave Misconduct.
Gross negligence or gross neglect of duty refers to

negligence characterized by the want of even slight case, acting
or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not
inadvertently but willfully and intentionally, with a conscious
indifference to consequences in so far as other persons may be
affected. It is the omission of that case which even inattentive
and thoughtless men never fail to take on their own property. 16
There is “gross negligence” when a breach of duty is

flagrant and palpable. Gross negligence is the pursuit of a course
of conduct that would naturally and reasonable result in injury. It
is an utter disregard of or conscious indifference to
consequence.17 Respondent Elizares actuation in filing a case
16
17
15
against the complainant without concrete evidence to support his
culpability is a clear case of gross negligence. Respondent
Elizares knew from the very start that they have no evidence to
indict the complainant for illegal drug case but for unknown
reasons and reasons only known to them and the Chinese
National, indorsed the case for inquest is an apparent case of
flagrant breach of duty that qualify them for gross negligence.
Such unwarranted act of the respondent Elizares resulted

to an undue prejudice to the best interest of the service. It is
blatant disregard of the rule that every public servant must
serve his office with the highest degree of responsibility,
integrity, honesty, loyalty and efficiency.
In Francia, Jr., Sevillano C., CSC Resolution No. 00-1372,

June 9, 2000 citing item No. 1 of CSC MC No. 8, S. 1990
provides that “ Any act which includes the fraudulent and/or use
of fake/spurious civil service eligibility, the giving of assistance
to ensure the commission or procurement of the same, or any
other act which amounts to violation of the integrity of the Civil
Service examinations, possession of fake Civil Service eligibility
and other similar acts shall be categorized as a grave offense of
Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct or Conduct Prejudicial to the Best
Interest of the service, as the case maybe, and shall be
penalized in accordance with approved schedule of penalties.”
Applying by analogy the above cited case in the case at

bar, it is crystal clear that the acts of the respondent Elizares in
covering the wrong doings of a particular inmate and
discriminating the complainant are disgraceful and shameful act
amounting to conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the
service.His acts are not only highly reprehensible but it also do
not speak well of a government employee who is required at all
times in all his or her official communication or transactions to
observe courtesy, fairness and honest.
16
As government officials, respondent Elizares are expected
to strictly observe the provisions of Republic Act No. 6713,
otherwise known as the Code of Conduct and other Ethical
Standards for Public Officials and Employees. Section 4 (c) of R.
A. 6713 which requires all public officials and employees to
remain true to the people at all times. “They shall at all times
respect the rights of others, and shall refrain from doing acts
contrary to law, good morals, good customs, public policy, public
order, public safety and public interest”. Since the respondents
deviated from this ethical standard, they should suffer the
consequence thereof. His actuations run counter to the
Constitutional provision that “Public Office is a public trust.
Public officers must at all times be accountable to the people,
serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and
efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead a modest
lives.18”
Thus, Article 19 of the New Civil Code of the

Philippines provides that “[e]very person must, in the exercise
of his rights and the performance of his duties, act with justice,
give everyone his due and observe honesty and good faith.”
Clearly, the aforestated basic rule blatantly transgressed by the
respondents without due regards to the rights of other
individuals.

necessary for a finding of guilt is substantial evidence i.e. that
amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to support a conclusion.19
Respondent Torres is guilty

18
19
17
x======================x
The act of the respondents in taken out the personal

belongings of the complainant from his cell and were never
retuned up to this very moment, the act of the respondents in
transferring the herein complainant into another detention
facility without investigation and written order, the act of
respondents in not investigating the real culprit or the owner of
the two (2) sachet of illegal drugs or shabu after the search or
even after the dismissal resolution of the investigating
prosecutor, the act of the respondents in talking to Chinese guy
and thereafter, exonerates him and the continuous harassment
and oppression being made by the herein respondents unto the
complainant before, during and after the filing of this instant
case are patent case of violation of the rights and privileges of
inmates and constitutional and statutory rights of the
complainant.
Paragraph C of R.A. No, 6713 was also violated by the

respondent Torres when he miserably failed to follow that
particular tenet which provides in part that “Public officials and
employees shall remain true to the people at all times. They
must act with justness and sincerity and shall not discriminate
against anyone, especially the poor and the underprivileged.
They shall at all times respect the rights of others, and shall
refrain from doing acts contrary to law, good morals, good
customs, public policy, public order, public safety and public
interest.xxx” Respondent Torres actuation of not observing and
respecting complainant’s right to be presumed innocent in not
conducting preliminary investigation before the case was
discrimination and an act contrary to law and public policy thus,
it clearly violates the above mentioned law.
18
Furthermore, from the records of the case, it was very
much obvious that the disposition, use and possession of the
seized illegal drugs belongs to the inmate (Chinese National) of
the adjacent cell who has the control and access of the hole
imbedded in his double wall plywood and yet, they indorsed the
said case for inquest is a case falls squarely to the definition of
administrative offenses of Grave Misconduct, Gross Neglect of
Duty and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service.
In Arcenio vs. Pagorogon20,and long line of cases the

Supreme Court held that “Misconduct is a transgression of some
established and definite rule of action, more particularly,
unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer.”As
pointed out by Complainant on the above portion and enunciated
by the High Court in the case of Amosco vs. Magro21, it was
settled that “Misconduct in Office has a definite and well-
understood legal meaning. By uniform legal definition it must
affect the performance of his duties as an officer and not such
only as affects his character as a private individual. In such
cases, it has been said at all times, it is necessary to separate
removal from office of an officer must have direct relation to and
be connected with the performance of official duties amounting
either to maladministration or willful, intentional neglect and
failure to discharge the duties of the office.

20
224 SCRA 246
21
73 SCRA 107
19
this instant case. Respondent Torres actuations of not
and a commission of a criminal act. Also, respondent Torres


consequence.23 Respondent Torres actuation in filing a case
culpability is a clear case of gross negligence. Respondent Torres
knew from the very start that they have no evidence to indict
the complainant for illegal drug case but for unknown reasons
and reasons only known to them and the Chinese National,
indorsed the case for inquest is an apparent case of flagrant
breach of duty that qualify them for gross negligence.
22
23
20
Such unwarranted act of the respondent Torres resulted to
an undue prejudice to the best interest of the service. It is
integrity, honesty, loyalty and efficiency.
In Francia, Jr., Sevillano C., CSC Resolution No. 00-1372,

June 9, 2000 citing item No. 1 of CSC MC No. 8, S. 1990
provides that “ Any act which includes the fraudulent and/or use
of fake/spurious civil service eligibility, the giving of assistance
to ensure the commission or procurement of the same, or any
other act which amounts to violation of the integrity of the Civil
Service examinations, possession of fake Civil Service eligibility
and other similar acts shall be categorized as a grave offense of

bar, it is crystal clear that the acts of the respondent Torres in
observe courtesy, fairness and honesty.
As government officials, respondent Torres are expected to

strictly observe the provisions of Republic Act No. 6713,
21
consequence thereof;
His actuations run counter to the Constitutional provision

that “Public Office is a public trust. Public officers must at all
times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost
responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency, act with
patriotism and justice, and lead a modest lives;24”

individuals.

Respondent Calatan is guilty

x======================x
24
25
22
The act of the respondent Calatan in taken out the
personal belongings of the complainant from his cell and were
never retuned up to this very moment, the act of the
respondents in transferring the herein complainant into another
detention facility without investigation and written order, the act
of respondents in not investigating the real culprit or the owner
of the two (2) sachet of illegal drugs or shabu after the search or
complainant.

respondent Calatan when he miserably failed to follow that
interest.xxx” Respondent Calatan actuation of not observing and

23

failure to discharge the duties of the office;


this instant case. Respondent Calatan actuations of not
26
224 SCRA 246
27
73 SCRA 107
24
and a commission of a criminal act. Also, respondent Calatan


consequence.29 Respondent Calatan actuation in filing a case
culpability is a clear case of gross negligence. Respondent
Calatan knew from the very start that they have no evidence to
indict the complainant for illegal drug case but for unknown
reasons and reasons only known to them and the Chinese
National, indorsed the case for inquest is an apparent case of
flagrant breach of duty that qualify them for gross negligence.
Such unwarranted act of the respondent Calatan resulted

28
29
25
integrity, honesty, loyalty and efficiency. In Francia, Jr.,
Sevillano C., CSC Resolution No. 00-1372, June 9, 2000 citing
item No. 1 of CSC MC No. 8, S. 1990 provides that “ Any act
which includes the fraudulent and/or use of fake/spurious civil
service eligibility, the giving of assistance to ensure the
examinations, possession of fake Civil Service eligibility and
other similar acts shall be categorized as a grave offense of

bar, it is crystal clear that the acts of the respondent Calatan in
service. His acts are not only highly reprehensible but it also do
observe courtesy, fairness and honest.
As government officials, respondent Calatan are expected

26
lives.30”

individuals.

accept as adequate to support a conclusion. 31 Thus, from the
abovementioned factual and legal milieu, the quantum of proof
requires in administrative case is definitely present if not
overwhelming;
Respondent Catolico is guilty

x======================x
The act of the respondent Catolico in taken out the personal

30
31
27
complainant.

respondent Catolico when he miserably failed to follow that
interest.xxx”
Respondent Catolico actuation of not observing and

it clearly violates the above mentioned law;

Duty and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service;
28


this instant case. Respondent Catolico actuations of not
and a commission of a criminal act. Also, respondent Catolico
32
224 SCRA 246
33
73 SCRA 107
29


consequence.35
Respondent Catolico actuation in filing a case against the

complainant without concrete evidence to support his culpability
is a clear case of gross negligence. Respondent Gamboa knew
from the very start that they have no evidence to indict the
complainant for illegal drug case but for unknown reasons and
reasons only known to them and the Chinese National, indorsed
the case for inquest is an apparent case of flagrant breach of
duty that qualify them for gross negligence.
Such unwarranted act of the respondent Catolico resulted

34
35
30

bar, it is crystal clear that the acts of the respondent Catolico in
As government officials, respondent Catolico are expected

31
lives36”

individuals.

Thus, from the abovementioned factual and legal milieu,

the quantum of proof requires in administrative case is definitely
present if not overwhelming;
Respondent Dalig is guilty
x======================x
The act of the respondent Dallig in taken out the

36
37
32
complainant.

respondent Dallig when she miserably failed to follow that
interest.xxx”
Respondent Dallig actuation of not observing and



38
224 SCRA 246
33


this instant case. Respondent Dallig actuations of not conducting
preliminary investigation against the real culprit and
and a commission of a criminal act. Also, respondent Catolico
39
73 SCRA 107
34


consequence.41
Respondent Dallig actuation in filing a case against the

is a clear case of gross negligence. Respondent Dallig knew from
the very start that they have no evidence to indict the
Such unwarranted act of the respondent Dallig resulted to

40
41
35

bar, it is crystal clear that the acts of the respondent Dallig in
observe courtesy, fairness and honesty. As government officials,
respondent Dallig are expected to strictly observe the provisions
of Republic Act No. 6713, otherwise known as the Code of
Conduct and other Ethical Standards for Public Officials and
Employees. Section 4 (c) of R. A. 6713 which requires all public
officials and employees to remain true to the people at all times.
“They shall at all times respect the rights of others, and shall
interest”. Since the respondents deviated from this ethical
standard, they should suffer the consequence thereof.
Her actuations run counter to the Constitutional provision

patriotism and justice, and lead a modest lives.42” Thus, Article
42
36
19 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines provides that
“[e]very person must, in the exercise of his rights and the
performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his
due and observe honesty and good faith.” Clearly, the
aforestated basic rule blatantly transgressed by the respondent
without due regards to the rights of other individuals.


present if not overwhelming.
Respondent Gacayon is guilty

x======================x
The act of the respondent Gacayon in taken out the

43
37
complainant.

respondent Gacayon when she miserably failed to follow that
interest.xxx”
Respondent Gacayon actuation of not observing and



44
224 SCRA 246
45
73 SCRA 107
38


this instant case. Respondent Gacayon actuations of not
and a commission of a criminal act. Also, respondent Gacayon

39

consequence.47
Respondent Gacayon actuation in filing a case against the

is a clear case of gross negligence. Respondent Gacayon knew
Such unwarranted act of the respondent Gacayon resulted

46
47
40

bar, it is crystal clear that the acts of the respondent Gacayon in
service. Her acts are not only highly reprehensible but it also do
observe courtesy, fairness and honesty;
As government officials, respondent Gacayon are expected

consequence thereof. Her actuations run counter to the
lives.48”

48
41
individuals.


present if not overwhelming;
Respondent Coop is guilty

x======================x
The act of the respondent Coop in taken out the personal

49
42
complainant.

respondent Coop when he miserably failed to follow that
interest.xxx”
Respondent Coop actuation of not observing and



50
224 SCRA 246
51
73 SCRA 107
43


this instant case. Respondent Coop actuations of not conducting
preliminary investigation against the real culprit and
and a commission of a criminal act. Also, respondent Coop action
in transferring the complainant to another detention facility in
direct violation of the commitment order of the Court of Justice
and without being accorded due process of law are definitely falls
within the definition of Grave Misconduct.

44

consequence.53
Respondent Coop actuation in filing a case against the

is a clear case of gross negligence. Respondent Gacayon knew
Such unwarranted act of the respondent Coop resulted to

52
53
45

bar, it is crystal clear that the acts of the respondent Coop in
As government officials, respondent Coop are expected to

strictly observe the provisions of Republic Act No. 6713,
consequence thereof.
Their actuations run counter to the Constitutional provision

patriotism and justice, and lead a modest lives.54” Thus, Article
19 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines provides that
“[e]very person must, in the exercise of his rights and the
performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his
54
46
due and observe honesty and good faith.” Clearly, the
aforestated basic rule blatantly transgressed by the respondents
without due regards to the rights of other individuals.


present if not overwhelming.
For the information of this Honorable Office, the herein

complainant is being continually harassed and oppressed by the
respondents. For instance, on December 10, 2013 at around
11:30 in the morning, respondent Gamboa instructed JO1 Eday
to bring/transfer the complainant to another detention cell
without investigation and written order but the said instruction
was overruled by the Chief Warden for being baseless and
unlawful.
Again, on February 15, 2014 at around 10:00 in the

morning while respondent Gamboa together with respondent
Elizares and certain SJO1 Teves and an inmate Jaylord in the
detention cell of the complainant, respondent Gamboa saw the
complainant and instantaneously uttered the following
statement “Idemanda mo ng illegal search” referring to
this instant case and repeated the defaming statement three
(3) times.
Recently, on February 21, 2014 at around 1:00 in the

afternoon, respondent Gamboa banged the door of the
detention cell of the complainant and made a search and with
55
47
loud voice uttered the following discourteous and ill-mannered
statement “ SIGE HALUGHUGIN MO AT HUWAG KA
MATAKOT MAY PAMBAYAD AKO NG ABOGADO.” The
herein complainant wrote a Letter dated February 13, 2014
requesting that the herein respondents be TRANSFERRED OR
RE-ASSIGNED to another BJMP Station for incessant
harassment and oppression being continually made upon the
person of the complainant.
From the foregoing continuous harassment and

oppression upon the poor person of the complainant, it
is very much imperative if not mandatory for this
Honorable Office to place all the respondents under
preventive suspension pursuant to Section 24 of The
Ombudsman Act of 1989 and Section 9 of the
Administrative Order No. 7, as amended or Rules of
Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman:
“Preventive Suspension. — The

Ombudsman or his Deputy may
preventively suspend any officer or
employee under his authority pending an
investigation, if in his judgment the
evidence of guilt is strong, and (a) the
charge against such officer or employee
involves dishonesty, oppression or grave
misconduct or neglect in the
performance of duty; (b) the charges
would warrant removal from the service;
or (c) the respondent's continued stay in
office may prejudice the case filed
against him. “(underlining ours)
Finally, we have clearly and eloquently

presented through above discussions that the herein
respondents evidence of guilt is strong, that charge
against involves grave misconduct, that the penalty for
violation of the same is removal from the office and the
continued stay in office of the above mentioned
respondents would definitely prejudice the case filed
48
against them as they in control of the records and
continuous harassment and oppression being experienced
right now by the complainant since the start of the filing
of this instant case.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, Complainant

most respectfully prays:
1. That an Order be issued by this Honorable Office immediately

placing under preventive suspension the above mentioned
respondents in accordance with the above cited law;
2. Afterwards, a Decision be issued finding the herein

respondents liable for the offenses charged with a penalty of
dismissal from the service with accessory penalties of
perpetual disqualification to hold any government position
and forfeiture of benefits and other privileges;
3. Other equitable and fair reliefs are likewise prayed for.
Marikina City for Quezon City, April 14, 2014.
ATTY. VICTOR M. MANLAPAZ

Counsel for Complainant
47 Rancho Avenue, Rancho Estate 1, Marikina City 1811
PTR#7273995-01/09/14- Marikina City
IBP#963700-02/14/14 Pasig City
Roll No. 50441
MCLE Compliance No. IV-005635;04/12/13
EXPLANATION
On account of distance and time constraints, rendering personal

service impracticable, the foregoing Position Paper was served to the
Respondents and counsel by registered mail.
VICTOR M. MANLAPAZ
49
Copy Furnished:
Atty. Edgardo S. Layno

Counsel for the Respondent
4th Floor, Pacific Star Low Rise Bldg.
Makati Avenue corner Sen. Gil Puyat Avenue.,
Makati City, Metro Manila
J/Chief Inspector Gonzales B. Oggang et al.

c/o BJMP Security and Custodial Unit,
Metro Manila District Jail, Camp Bagong Diwa, Bicutan, Taguig City
50

Position Paper

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Position Paper

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR THE MILITARY

HONORABLE DIRECTOR DENNIS L. GARCIA

ANGELITO T. SANCHEZ (Inmate),

J/Chief Inspector Gonzales B. Oggang

VERIFIED POSITION PAPER

COMPLAINANT, through the undersigned attorney, respectfully

“Every person must, in the exercise of his rights

“Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus (False in one,

“Evidence to be believed, must only proceeds

Complainant ANGELITO T. SANCHEZ is one of the inmates

RESPONDENTS are all officers of BJMP with office address

On September 27, 2013 (Friday) at around 10:00 in the

After twenty (20) minutes illegal search, respondents left

When they removed complainant double wall plywood,

Respondent Oggang placed the said pouch bag atop of a

Shockingly, few minutes later after they left complainant’s

Three (3) days after or on September 30, 2013 at around

Complainant was completely shocked and unconsciously

From the foregoing factual antecedent, the issues to be resolved

WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENTS

WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENTS ARE

WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENTS ARE

WHETHER OR NOT THERE RESPONDENTS

Since the four (4) issues are intertwined, we decided to discuss

We respectfully adopt our arguments, affidavit of witness, and

Respondent Gamboa is guilty

From the very start, herein respondent Gamboa is guilty of the

“Public Office is a public trust. Public officers and

“Every person must, in the exercise of his rights

Respondent Gamboa expressly stated in Paragraph 1 of his

“Respondent KENT BANDIALAN GAMBOA is a

Upon research and cursory reading of Section 12 of Republic

The truthful declaration of salary grade in the counter affidavit is

Respondent Gamboa is clearly liable for violation of Paragraph C

Respondent Gamboa actuation of not observing and respecting

Furthermore, from the records of the case, it was very much

In Arcenio vs. Pagorogon7,and long line of cases the Supreme

Settled in our jurisdiction that misconduct occurs when an

Applying the foregoing definitions in the case at bar, we can

Gross negligence or gross neglect of duty refers to negligence

There is “gross negligence” when a breach of duty is flagrant and

Such unwarranted act of the respondent Gamboa resulted to an

In the latest case of Largo v. Court of Appeals11 which was used

Applying by analogy the above cited case in the case at bar, it is

As government officials, respondent Gamboa are expected to

His actuations run counter to the Constitutional provision that

Thus, Article 19 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines

Respondent Elizares is guilty

The act of the respondent Elizares in taken out the personal

Paragraph C of R.A. No, 6713 was violated by the respondent

Respondent Elizares actuation of not observing and respecting

Furthermore, from the records of the case, it was very much

In Arcenio vs. Pagorogon14,and long line of cases the Supreme

Applying the foregoing definitions in the case at bar, we

Gross negligence or gross neglect of duty refers to

There is “gross negligence” when a breach of duty is

Such unwarranted act of the respondent Elizares resulted

In Francia, Jr., Sevillano C., CSC Resolution No. 00-1372,

Applying by analogy the above cited case in the case at

Thus, Article 19 of the New Civil Code of the

In administrative proceedings, the quantum of proof