1 of 3

Answer PCpl ALBAYDA and Pat BUSA

Republic of the Philippines

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE
National Capital Region Police Office
Headquarters, Southern Police District
LAS PIÑAS CITY POLICE STATION
Police Community Precinct No. 2
Zapote Viaduct, Quirino Ave., Zapote Las Pinas City

In Re: Administrative Proceedings against Docket No. ______________________

PCpl HOMER M ALBAYDA For : IRREGULARITIES IN THE
Pat JERMAINE C BUSA PERFORMANCE OF DUTY
Respondents
x------------------------------------------------------x

JOINT ANSWER

COMES NOW, respondents PCpl HOMER M ALBAYDA and Pat JERMAINE C

BUSA, by themselves, unto this Honorable Office, respectfully avers:

1. That, respondents ADMITS personality in the complaint only insofar as to

their personal circumstances are concerned;

2. That, respondents DENIES all the negative averment in the Memoranda

being that the allegations are vague and contained general allegations;

3. That, respondents are not guilty of the offense as charged, having

manifested the undeniable facts to be presented, the complaint will clearly shows that it
is based only in conjectures, wherein it is crystal clear that respondents acted in Good
faith, obedience and in accordance with their duties and functions, thus the
administrative charge against the same is clearly without merit, nor hold any water upon
its failure to show the acts claimed to be committed amounted in violation of the existing
rules and regulations governing the PNP;

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Pursuant to the procedures stated in Section 5, Rule 17, NAPOLCOM

Memorandum Circular No. 2007-001(Uniform Rules of Procedure Before the
Administrative Disciplinary Authorities and the Internal Affairs Service of the Philippine
National Police), respondents was further allowed to submit their ANSWER up until
January 03, 2010.

The salient facts bearing on this ANSWER are as follow.

That, WE are the same PCpl HOMER M ALBAYDA and Pat JERMAINE C
BUSA referred in this administrative complaint arising from the dismissal of a filed
case/complaint entitled PP vs. Ronald Diaz y Torres, CC#’s R-MKT-16-3013 and 16-
3014 for Violation of RA 9165, wherein the undersigned stand as prosecution witness in
their capacity as the backup operative and poseur buyer respectively;

As a backgrounder, a complaint/case were filed against suspect/accused Ronald

Diaz y Torres after his arrest on November 25, 2016 via legitimate anti-illegal drugs
operation relative flagrant violation of RA 9165, wherein, then PO1 Homer M Albayda
was designated as one of the back-up operatives, and on the other hand, Pat Jermaine
C Busa acted as poseur buyer, and in behalf of the state; said criminal complaint was
presented by SPO2 RAMON ESPERANZATE in his capacity as Investigator on Case,
 2 of 3
Answer PCpl ALBAYDA and Pat BUSA

That, despite our effort to prosecute this case, the Honorable Court acquitted
respondents on the following grounds;

1. The prosecution failed to present a complete picture of the buy bust

operation;

2. Failure of the Investigator on Case being the repository/custodian of the Buy

bust money to present the same which will supply vital details of the criminal
complaint, thus not all elements of the crime concerning the sale of illegal
drug sale was established since no buy bust money was presented during the
trial;

3. and, the alleged Failure of the prosecution to observe the proper procedure
and guidelines which negated the operation of the presumptions of regularity

hence this administrative complaint.

That, to set records straight, respondents are in the belief has nothing to do as to
the cause of the dismissal of the criminal complaint based on the following;

1. With the arrest, named suspect along with the pieces of evidence
were formally turned over to SPO2 RAMON ESPERANZATE in his capacity
as Investigator on Case as a matter of operational procedure subject to
proper disposition and formal investigation of the case, within which the same
Investigator on Case took custody of all pieces of evidence and other
documents relative this complaint;

2. That, prior filling of appropriate charges against arrested suspects,

respondents were instructed by Investigator SPO2 RAMON ESPERANZATE
to prepare and execute our affidavit stating therein our individual participation
in the said buy bust operation (anent is a photocopy of the Joint Affidavit of
Arrest dated November 26, 2016 as “Annex-1” with sub annexes);

3. That, respondents candidly presented and dispensed their

testimony in open court in corroboration with other material witnesses as well
as to the identification of other documents relative this case except for the
identification of the “marked money”;

4. That, the testimonies of respondents at that very time pertaining the

existence of the marked money needs to be further qualified in a full blown
trial to fully establish guilt of the accused, which regretfully for some
reason was not presented by the case investigator (anent are
photocopies of Certificate of Appearance and Minutes of Trial as “Annex-2”
with sub annexes),

5. Arguably, the undersigned is in the belief that the discrepancy cited

as lapses in the testimony as indicated in the order of the Honorable Court
refers to only a minor details, not to the central fact of the crime which do not
affect the veracity or detract from the essential credibility of the undersigned
witness declaration, for as long as these are coherent and intrinsically
believable on the whole. For a discrepancy or inconsistency in the testimony
of a witness to serve as a basis for acquittal, it must establish beyond doubt
the innocence of the respondents for the crime they are being charged. It
cannot be overemphasized that the credibility of the witness is not diminished,
let alone impaired, by minor inconsistency in his testimony.

6. Giving emphasis as to the grounds of the acquittal, again it is but

fair to state that the undersigned have no personality or authority to take
custody of the pieces of evidence, the law is explicit that (1) The
apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall,
immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and
photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from
 3 of 3
Answer PCpl ALBAYDA and Pat BUSA

whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or

counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice
(DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies
of the inventory and be given a copy thereof; (Emphasis supplied.), in this
case it was the undersigned having personal knowledge of the commission of
the crime who then took initial custody of the pieces of evidence,
conducted the inventory with the help of the Investigator SPO2 RAMON
ESPERANZATE who then in effect prepared all relevant pieces of evidence
and pertinent documents for the presentation of the complaint as stated in the
records of this case;.

7. Worthy to note is in the transcript of stenographic notes taken down

during trial of above entitled case on August 7, 2016 stating that there is
nothing on record that the poseur buyer was categorically declared in custody
of the buy bust money since they were then under the custody of the
investigator (anent are copies of transcript stenographic notes (portions)
entitled PP vs. Ronald Diaz y Torres, CC#’s R-MKT-16-3013 and 16-3014 for
Violation of RA 9165 as “Annex-3” with sub annexes giving emphasis to
“Annex 3-1 and “Annex 3-3 of the said notes).

That, there is no deliberate intent on the part of respondents to neglect their

paramount duty, as a general rule, ignorance or mistake as to particular facts, honest
and real, will exempt the doer from felonious responsibility. In the instant case, there is a
clear manifestation of lack of intent on the part of the undersigned;

The standard of substantial evidence required in administrative proceedings is

more than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to support a conclusion. While rules of evidence prevailing in
courts of law and equity shall not be controlling, the obvious purpose being to free
administrative boards from the compulsion of technical rules so that the mere admission
of matter which would be deemed incompetent in judicial proceedings would not
invalidate the administrative order, this assurance of a desirable flexibility in
administrative procedure does not go so far as to justify orders without basis in
evidence having rational probative force.

It is thus required that every circumstance favoring one’s innocence be duly

taken into account. Given these deviations respondent should not be faulted at all,
thus, should not be penalized due cited reasons, and thus it is perceptible that the
alleged administrative complaint could not be ascribed on him due simplistic invocation
on the presumption of good faith.

Respondents are not guilty of the offense as charged, and specifically denies all
negative allegation in the Admin Complaint, the facts presented by complainant clearly
shows that it is based only in conjectures, it is crystal clear that the complaint filed
against respondents are clearly without merit, nor hold any water upon its failure to
show the acts claimed to be committed is in violation of existing rules.

That, respondents does not, at the moment, don’t have all the records of this
complaint, so that he also does not have all the information’s sufficient to form a belief to
the truth of the allegations in this memorandum, therefore, DENY all the negative
allegations in its strongest mean.

It is at this point, the undersigned seek and hope on compassionate ground that
submitted JOINT ANSWER with attached supporting documents/annexes, further
adopts submitted “Explanation” on the early part of this admin complaint (“Annex-4 with
sub annexes) to form part of our defense and record of this complaint.
 4 of 3
Answer PCpl ALBAYDA and Pat BUSA

In closing, respondent humbly submit that some of our efforts in the police
service of more than five (5) years have been recognize as both to have humbly
received several commendations and award within which will be immediately presented
should the Summary Hearing Officer warrants the same.

WHEREFORE, Respondents prays should not be faulted at all and should

not be penalized in any form relative this matter, thus is perceptible that the
Administrative Complaint could not be ascribed on them and be DISMISSED
accordingly for lack of merit.

Other relief and remedies as may be deemed just and equitable under the
premises are likewise prayed for.

Makati City, January 3, 2020.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto affix my hand this _____ day of January

2020, here in Makati City.

PCpl HOMER M ALBAYDA

Affiant

Pat JERMAINE C BUSA

Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 03 day of January 2020 here at

Makati City, Metro-Manila, and I also HEREBY CERTIFY that I have personally
examined the affiants and their affidavit, and that I am satisfied and convinced that they
voluntary executed and understood the same.

____________________
Administering Officer