Republic of the Philippines
Judicial Region X
Metropolitan Trial Court in Cities
Cagayan de Oro City
BRANCH 1
People of the Philippines, Criminal Case No.
Plaintiff, 2020-1213
versus
For: Violation of BP 22
AAA,
Accused.
MEMORANDUM
(For the Complainants)
Plaintiff, by counsel, unto this Honorable Court, Respectfully states:
Preliminary Statement
This is a case of blatant abuse of authority in the hands of police officers
against a public-school teacher and her partner. Here, the Respondent Police
Officers conducted an illegal search and hot pursuit. They likewise lied under
oath and deceived a Judge in order to procure a search warrant. Such search
warrant was ultimately declared void by a higher court and likewise
expressed in the same decision the possible criminal liability of Respondents
for perjury.
PARTIES
1. Complainant JUAN LUNA (JUAN), are of legal age, and maybe
served with notices and other legal processes at _________ – Gomez Sts,
Cagayan de Oro City.
2. Respondent JOSE RIZAL (JOSE), of legal age, and resident at
________________.
FACTS
3. On 26 March 2012, around 1:00 pm, Complainant was doing
minor repair and painting job at the Agoho Elementary School covered
courts. Suddenly, Respondents mentioned above arrived at the area in
civilian clothes.
4. Without a Warrant of Arrest, SPO2 German ordered Complainant
Francis to take off his clothes and made an intrusive search in his pants in
front of many pupils and parents. Respondents accused him of possessing
illegal drugs. None were found during that search.
5. At the same time, Respondents proceeded inside the classroom of
Complainant. Respondent SPO2 then ordered Complainant Maureen to
open her wallet and bag as they were looking for so-called “marked
money.” Shocked, Complainant Maureen insisted that she does not
understand what a “marked money” is. Respondent PO2 also forced her to
open the messages in her cellphone. Respondent PO2 likewise proceeded
to the classroom where she opened Complainant Maureen’s table and
classroom cabinet.
ISSUE
I.
Are Respondents Guilty Misconduct, Abuse of Authority, and Conduct
unbecoming a Police Officer?
II.
Are Respondents Guilty of Arbitrary Detention, Violation of Domicile
Malicious Mischief and Unjust Vexation (Arts. 124, 128, 327 AND 287 (2) RPC)
DISCUSSION
6. The 2007 PNP Disciplinary Rules of Procedure, Rule 21, Section 1,
item 3 provides the definition of Misconduct of Malfeasance, viz:
Misconduct of Malfeasance – is any wrongful, improper or
unlawful conduct motivated by pre-meditated, obstinate or
intentional purpose. It usually refers to transgression of some
established usually refers to transgression of some established
and definite rule of action, where no discretion is left except
where necessity may demand; it does not necessarily imply
corruption or criminal intention;
7. Furthermore, the same Rules defines Conduct unbecoming of a
police officer Rule 2, Section 1, item h, viz:
Conduct Unbecoming of a Police Officer – an act or
behavior of a police officer, irrespective of rank, done in his
official or private capacity which, in dishonoring or
disgracing himself as a police officer, seriously compromises his
character and standing in the PNP in such a manner as to indicate
vitiated or corrupt state of moral character which shows his
unworthiness to remain in the police service;
8. Oppression is also known as grave abuse of authority, which is a
misdemeanor committed by a public officer, who under color of his office,
wrongfully inflict upon any person any bodily harm, imprisonment or
other injury. It is an act of cruelty, severity, or excessive use of authority. 1
9. Likewise, Rule 21, Section 1, item 5 of the same Rules define
oppression or Abuse of authority as follows, viz:
Oppression – imports an act of cruelty, severity, unlawful
exaction, domination, or excessive use of authority. The exercise
of unlawful powers or other means, in depriving an individual of
1
Romero v. Villarosa, Jr., A.M. No. P-11-2913, April 12, 2011, 648 SCRA 32, 41-42; Spouses Stilgrove v. Sabas, 538 Phil. 232, 244
(2006).
his property or liberty against his will, is generally an act of
oppression.
10. As the totality of the grossly irregular actions of Respondents fall
as elements of the above-mentioned violations, it is best to elaborate them
individually as follows:
I.
Respondent Jose Rizal deliberately lied under
oath to mislead the Judge in order to secure a
Search Warrant.
11. To contextualize, they arrested a certain John on 26 March 2012
at 12:00 noon.2 While under arrest, Mr. O accused Complainants of being
the source of Marijuana dealings in the area. Acting on such accusation,
Respondents SPO2 German, SPO3 Proceso and SPO1 Roy C. procured the
search warrant3 presenting merely their personal belief based on the
accusation of Mr. Oclarit. 4 hours and thirty minutes later, the search and
seizure (which is irregular itself) was conducted. 4
12. Confirming its congenital defect, Branch 28 of the Regional Trial
Court declared Search Warrant No. 01-2012 as Null and Void in a
Resolution dated 12 December 2017 penned by Honorable Judge Nannette
Michote E. Lao attached in this Position Paper as Annex “A”. In effect,
having no leg to stand on, Criminal Case No 2015-2223 was dismissed.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that
judgment be rendered declaring Respondents guilty for violation of BP 22.
OTHER RELIEFS as may be deemed just and equitable under the
premises are likewise prayed for.
2
Please see Paragraph 2 of the Counter Affidavit of Respondents dated 10 May 2016
3
Please see Exhibit D of the Counter Affidavit of Respondents dated 10 May 2016
4
Please see Exhibit I, Investigation Data Form of the Counter Affidavit of Respondents dated 10 May 2016
Cagayan de Oro City, 9 April 2020.
By:
RICARDO DALISAY
Counsel for the Complainants
(Address) Cagayan de Oro City
PTR 43434343 2-27-17 CDO
IBP MIS. OR. 3434343434 12-21-17 CDO
ROLL NO. 34343434 05-23-17;
TIN 3434-343-343-000
