Republic of the Philippines

National Police Commission

POLICE REGIONAL OFFICE MIMAROPA
Camp Efigenio C. Navarro, Calapan City, Oriental Mindoro

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE,

Complainant,

SD Case No. ______________________

-versus- For: Serious Neglect of Duty
(AWOL) pursuant to Rule 21,
Sec. 2 (C), para 1 (j) of
NAPOLCOM Memorandum
Circular No. 2007-001

PO1 Mary Grace Datiles Valentin,

Respondent,
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -x

RESOLUTION

I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT:
1. This instant administrative case was filed before the Summary Hearing Officer by
the PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE, represented by PSINSP WINNERIO DUATIN PAGUIA
JR, Chief of Police of Sablayan Municipal Police Station, Sablayan, Occidental Mindoro, against
PO1 Mary Grace Datiles Valentin, a PNP member, presently assigned at Sablayan Municipal
Police Station, Sablayan, Occidental Mindoro. Subject PNCO was Marked AWOL by the Admin
Section of Sablayan Municipal Police Station, for her failure to report for duty on the following
dates, to wit:
FIRST OFFENSE: From August 25 to 29, 2015 (5 days), reported for duty on August 29,
2015 at 1:00 o’clock in the afternoon;

SECOND OFFENSE: From September 8 to 10, 2015 (3 days), reported for duty on
September 11, 2015 (Not September 8 to 12, 2015, according to the Affidavits of SPO3 Alex Lacasca
Acaylar and PO3 Jennifer De Jesus Alegre);

THIRD OFFENSE: From September 15 to 26, 2015 (12 days).

2. After Pre-Charge Evaluation, the Provincial Investigation and Detective

Management Branch (PIDMB) of OCC MDO PPO finds existence of probable cause that an
administrative offense for violation of Rule 21,
Sec. 2 (C), Para 1 (j) of NAPOLCOM Memorandum Circular No. 2007-001 had been
committed. Forwarded their findings before the Office of the Regional Director, PRO
MIMAROPA, recommending subject PNCO to be subjected for Summary Hearing Proceeding in
order for him to adduce evidence in her behalf and articulate her defense in an open proceedings
pursuant to NAPOLCOM Memorandum Circular No. 2007-001. In consonance thereof, the
Office of the OIC, RIDMD - PRO MIMAROPA, has concurred with the above recommendation
thru their Memorandum dated December 2, 2014, (Subject: Pre-Charge Evaluation Report against
PO1 Mary Grace Datiles Valentin for alleged Serious Neglect of Duty (AWOL). The same was
transmitted before the Admin Branch of OCC MDO PPO for the proper conduct of Summary
Hearing Proceedings.

The following SUMMONS and NOTICES were served to the respondent at Mamburao
Municipal Police Station, Mamburao, Occidental Mindoro, to wit:
1. SUMMONS dated January 22, 2015, personally received by the respondent on
January 25, 2015 at 1:29 PM;
2. NOTICE for PRE-HEARING CONFERENCE dated February 3, 2015,
personally received by the respondent on February 7, 2015 at 1:50 PM. This hearing was RESET
on February 16, 2015 at 10:00 AM, as the Summary Hearing Officer was directed to attend the
Drug Enforcement Seminar/Workshop held at Occidental Mindoro PPO, Camp Winston Sibley
Ebersole, San Jose, Occidental Mindoro on February 10 to 11, 2015; and
3. NOTICE for PRE-HEARING CONFERENCE dated February 12, 2015,
personally received by the respondent on February 15, 2015 at 2:15 PM.

During the proceedings, the following documents were utilized:

1. Memorandum from Officer-In-Charge, Occidental Mindoro PPO, dated
January 19, 2015 (TAB “A”);
2. SPECIAL ORDER No. 010, OMPPOHRDD, dated January 19, 2015,
designating PINSP RODRIGO BEUP BORLADO JR as Summary Hearing Officer (TAB “A”);
3. SUMMONS for the respondent dated dated January 22, 2015 and Certificate
of Service (TAB “F”);
4. NOTICES for the respondent and Complaining Witnesses and Certificate of
Service (TAB “G”);
5. Agreement to Dispense Summary Hearing Proceedings (TAB “G”);
6. Minutes of the proceedings; (TAB “G”);
7. Attendance during the proceedings (TAB “G”); and
8. Photographs taken during Pre-Hearing Conference (TAB “G”);

II. STATEMENT OF THE CASE:

3. For the Complainant Version:
Pursuant to Section I, Article XI, 1987 Philippine Constitution which expressly
provides that “ Public Office is a public trust and public officers and employees must be
accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency,
act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives”. Along this line, the PNP High Ranking
Officials under the leadership of the then Chief, PNP , have initiated steps aimed to cleanse the
ranks and weed out erring personnel and misfits, as warranted under PNP existing laws, rules and
regulations (IMPLAN TO LOI PATNUBAY III).

The records reveal that respondent PNCO was Marked AWOL by the Admin Section of
Sablayan Municipal Police Station, as she incurred absences without application for leave on the
following dates:
August 25 to 29, 2015;
September 8 to 10, 2015 (Not September 8 to 12, 2015, according to the Affidavits of SPO3 Alex
Lacasca Acaylar and PO3 Jennifer De Jesus Alegre); and

September 15 to 26, 2015.

Subject PNCO has personally received three (3) NOTICES – Return to Work Order dated
September 16, 2014; September 18, 2014; and September 22, 2014. Likewise, subject respondent
has personally received three (3) MEMORANDA – directing her to explain on the above periods of
absences, dated August 29, 2014; September 30, 2014; and another September 30, 2014. In her
explanations, subject respondent reasoned out that her incurred absences from August 25 to 29,
2015, was due to personal problem and to settle important matter; from September 8 to 10,
2015, she has to settle important matters; and from September 15 to 26, 2015, she incurred
absences due to her illness.

A Pre-Charge Evaluation was conducted by the Provincial Investigation and Detective

Management Branch (PIDMB) of OCC MDO PPO relative to the administrative case of Serious
Neglect of Duty (AWOL) against PO1 Mary Grace Datiles Valentin wherein subject respondent
was recommended to be subjected for Summary Hearing Proceedings for violation of Rule 21,
Sec. 2 (C), Para 1 (j) of NAPOLCOM Memorandum Circular No. 2007-001.

Relatively, the Office of the OIC, RIDMD - PRO MIMAROPA, has concurred and
recommended that the above entitled case be elevated for Summary Dismissal Proceedings to
properly determine the extent of the respondent’s administrative liability, if there is any, and for her
to have full opportunity to offer controverting evidence in her behalf. Hence, this Summary Hearing
Proceedings.

4. For the Respondent Version:

One (1) SUMMONS dated January 22, 2015, personally received by the
respondent on January 25, 2015 at 1:29 PM; and Two (2) NOTICES for PRE-HEARING
CONFERENCE were served and personally received by the respondent.
The first NOTICE for PRE-HEARING CONFERENCE was RESET on February 16, 2015 at 10:00
AM, as the Summary Hearing Officer was directed to attend the Drug Enforcement
Seminar/Workshop held at Occidental Mindoro PPO, Camp Winston Sibley Ebersole, San Jose,
Occidental Mindoro on February 10 to 11, 2015.

On January 30, 2015, respondent filed before the Summary Hearing Officer a
MOTION for extension of time to submit Counter-Affidavit/Answer wherein on February 2, 2015,
she submitted her ANSWER. In her answer dated February 2, 2015, respondent PO1 Mary Grace
Datiles Valentin admitted having incurred absences. She explained that she was suffering from
illness.

On the Pre-Hearing Conference, PO1 Mary Grace Datiles Valentin appeared before
the Summary Dismissal Proceedings. She admitted having incurred absences but insisted that she
was suffering from illness thus she failed to report for duty.

During the Pre-Hearing Conference, both parties signed an Agreement to dispense

Summary Hearing Proceedings. Again, the herein respondent admitted having incurred absences
but manifested that she was suffering from illness thus she committed unauthorized absences.
Hence, she prayed that she be exonerated for the administrative offense committed and seeking to
be given chance to prove that she is worth to become a member of the PNP.
III. EVIDENCE:
During the course of Summary Hearing Proceedings, the following pieces of evidences
were introduced and admitted for evaluation:
5. For the complainant:
a. CHARGE SHEET duly signed by PSSUPT ROMIE ABELLERA ESTEPA dated January
5, 2015, attached RIDMD ROUTING SLIP, marked as EXHIBIT “A” and “A-1” (TAB “H”);
b. PRE-CHARGE EVALUATION REPORT against the respondent dated December 2,
2014 from OIC, RIDMD, PRO4B, dated December 2, 2014, marked as EXHIBIT “B” (TAB “L”);
c. PRE-CHARGE EVALUATION REPORT against the respondent from C, PIDMB, OCC
MDO PPO, dated October 24, 2014; marked as EXHIBIT “C” and “C-1 to C-5 ” (TAB “L”);
d. INVESTIGATION REPORT from OIC, Sablayan MPS, dated October 1, 2015, marked
as EXHIBIT “D” and “D-1” to D-2” (TAB “I”);
e. COPIES OF DAILY ATTENDANCE OF PNP PERSONNEL, marked as EXHIBIT “E”
and “E-1 to E-30” (TAB “C”);
f. RADIO MESSAGES OF RETURN TO WORK ORDER, marked as EXHIBIT “F” and
“F-1 to F-2” (TAB “C”);
g. NOTICES TO EXPLAIN, marked as EXHIBIT “G” and “G-1 to G-2” (TAB “C”);
h. WRITTEN EXPLANATIONS OF THE RESPONDENT, marked as EXHIBIT “H” and
“H-1 to H-2” (TAB “C”);
 i. COMPLAINT SHEET FORM subscribed dated October 9, 2014, marked as EXHIBIT “I”
and “I-1” (TAB “K”);
j. CERTIFICATE OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING subscribed dated October 9, 2014,
marked as EXHIBIT “J” (TAB “J”);
k. VERIFICATION and CERTIFICATION subscribed dated October 9, 2014, marked as
EXHIBIT “K” (TAB “C”);
l. AFFIDAVIT SPO3 Alex Lacasca Acaylar dated October 5, 2014, marked as EXHIBIT
“L” and “L-1 (TAB “C”);
m. AFFIDAVIT PO3 Jennifer De Jesus Alegre dated October 5, 2014, marked as EXHIBIT
“M” and “M-1” (TAB “C”);
n. MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO SUBMIT POSITION PAPER of PSINSP
WINNERIO DUATIN PAGUIA JR dated February 27, 2015, marked as EXHIBIT “N” (TAB
“C”); and
o. POSITION PAPER of PSINSP WINNERIO DUATIN PAGUIA JR dated February 28,
2015, marked as EXHIBIT “O” (TAB “C”).
6. For the Respondent:
1. ANSWER, marked as EXHIBIT “1” and 1-A to 1-C” (TAB “D”);

2. Medical Documents, marked as EXHIBIT “2” and 2-A to 2-C (TAB “E”);

3. Medical Certificate dated September 5, 2014, marked as EXHIBIT “3” (TAB “E”);

4. CT-SCAN Result dated August 6, 2014, marked as EXHIBIT “4” (TAB “E”);

5. Copy of my Commendation, marked as EXHIBIT “5” (TAB “E”);

6. Copy of my Awards, marked as EXHIBIT “6” and 6-A to 6-C” (TAB “E”);

7. Copy of MOTION for extension of time to submit Counter-Affidavit, marked as

EXHIBIT “7” and 7-A” (TAB “E”);

8. POSITION PAPER, marked as EXHIBIT “8” and 8-A to 8-G” (TAB “D”);

IV. EVALUATION OF THE CASE:

7. Neglect of Duty or Nonfeasance is the omission or refusal, without sufficient excuse,
to perform an act or duty, which it was peace officer’s legal obligation to perform; implies a duty as
well as its breach and the fact that can never be found in the absence of duty (NAPOLCOM
MEMO CIR NO. 2007- 001, Rule 21, Section 1, para 1).

8. Absent oneself from office without having filed the necessary application for leave
or secured approval of the authorized official for a period of more than fifteen (15) days prior to the
enjoyment of the leave is categorized under Serious Neglect of Duty (NAPOLCOM MEMO CIR
NO. 2007- 001, Rule 21, Section 2, para 1, sub para j).
 9. In the case at bar, throughout the entire process of Summary Dismissal Proceedings,
the admission of the respondent to the offense charged is a lucid opening salvo that respondent
should suffer the penalties appropriate to her offense committed. The apprehensive only is “what
imposable penalties appropriate to the respondent considering the admission of facts to the offense
as charged and her situation as a human being, when she got sick and was under medical treatment”.
All available efforts of the herein Summary Hearing Officer, purposely to give the respondent every
opportunity to present any incontrovertible evidences in her favor have been made. The herein
Hearing Officer, will anchor its evaluation and finding based solely on the pieces of evidence
presented/submitted by the nominal complainant, Counter-Affidavit, Affidavit of witness and
Medical Certificate of the respondent, and their respective POSITION PAPER which they
submitted before the Summary Hearing Officer.

10. Further, be it noted that due process, as a constitutional precept does not always and
in all situations, requires trial-type proceedings. The essence of due process is to be found in the
reasonable opportunity to be heard and to submit any evidence one may have in support of one's
defense. "To be heard" does not only mean verbal arguments in court. One may be heard also
through pleadings. Where opportunity to be heard, either through ORAL ARGUMENTS or
pleadings, is accorded, there is NO denial of procedural due process. (Stronghold Ins. Co. vs.
Court of Appeals, 205 SCRA 605).

V- FINDINGS/CONCLUSION:
11. Respondent have been accorded administrative due process to refute the contention
label against her person by the complainant- PSINSP WINNERIO DUATIN PAGUIA JR during
the entire process of Summary Hearing, wherein she submitted incontrovertible pieces of evidence
in her behalf for her administrative offense (AWOL) committed.

12. It can be concluded that respondent Unauthorized Absences without having filed the
appropriate application for leave is a clear manifestation of negligence on her part which is a lucid
violation of NAPOLCOM MEMO CIR NO. 2007- 001, Rule 21, Section 2, para 1, sub para j, for
SERIOUS NEGLECT OF DUTY. Although, in her explanation dated August 29, 2014, her reason
for her first offense was contradicting. She reasoned out that it was due to her personal problem and
not to her illness. However, it should be taken into account that respondent committed Unauthorized
Absences due to an illness, suffered several setbacks and reverses in her life which she acquired
during and while performing of her official duties. This is supported by her Medical Certificate
dated September 5, 2014. Further, her illness is known to her office but she was not advised by her
immediate superior officer to file sick leave upon her return. (See attached Medical Certificate
dated September 5, 2014, marked as Annex “3”)

13. In the light of foregoing facts and circumstances, it is undisputed that PO1 Valentin’s
office is cognizant of her illness. Furthermore, there is no showing that PO1 Valentin simulated her
illness. Thus, PO1 Valentin cannot be indicted of having been absent without an approved sick
leave from August 25 to 29, 2015, for how can PO1 Valentin be expected to report to work and
perform her regular duties and functions if her illness prevented her to do so. In the case of
Carolina D. Muyco, CSC Resolution No. 96-4175 dated July 09, 1996, the Commission similarly
ruled, as follows:
"Such being the case, Muyco cannot thus be faulted for having been absent despite the disapproval
of her application for sick leave. For how could she be expected to report for work and perform her regular
duties and other assigned tasks if she is indeed sick and physically incapable of doing the same. x x x .”

14. Lastly, since PO1 Valentin’s illness prevented her from filing her application for sick
leave of absence, she should be allowed to file the same upon her return to office. This finds support
in Section 53, Rule XVI of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No.
292, which reads, as follows:
"Sec. 53. Application for sick leave. – All application for sick leave of absence for one full day or
more shall be made on the prescribed form and shall be filed immediately upon employee’s return from
such leave. Notice of absence, however, should be sent to the immediate supervisor and/or to the agency
head. Application for sick leave in excess of five (5) successive days shall be accompanied by a proper
medical certificate." (Underscoring supplied)

15. Corollary thereto is the ruling of the Commission in the case of Genevieve C.
Taeza, CSC Resolution No. 98-1289 dated May 27, 1998, the material portion of which reads, as
follows:
"In view of the foregoing, the Commission finds that notwithstanding appellant’s failure to file sick
leave application covering the period of 8 October 1997 until 13 November 1997, she could not be
considered AWOL. During that period, she was physically incapacitated to file the same due to her illness.
In a number of occasions, the Commission has ruled that when the illness of an employee renders him
physically incapacitated, he may file the sick leave application upon his return." (Underscoring supplied)

16. On the other hand, by her unauthorized absences without application for leave and
her reasons that she could not report for work on September 8 to 10, 2015 and September 15 to
26, 2015, as she was suffering from illness, without proper medical certificate to prove the same
PO1 Valentin incurred unauthorized absences of 15 days thereby she has caused inefficiency in the
public service. Although we understand her plight, it does not excuse her total disregard of her
official duties. Time and again, the Regional Director, PRO MIMAROPA, has pronounced that any
act which falls short of the exacting standards for public office, especially on the part of those
expected to preserve the image of the police service shall not be countenanced. “Public office is a
public trust. Public officers must at all time be accountable to the people, serve them with
utmost degree of responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency. (Rangel-Roque vs. Rivota,
302 SCRA 502, 520-521 (1999), quoting Gano vs. Leonen, 232 SCRA 98, 101-102 (1994)).

17. In fetus, after a careful evaluation of the substantial pieces of evidence submitted by
the complainant and respondent, the herein Summary Hearing Officer concludes that there is
sufficient ground to indict PO1 Mary Grace Datiles Valentin PNP for LESS GRAVE NEGLECT
OF DUTY (AWOL) pursuant to Rule 21, Sec. 2 (B), Para 1 (m) of NAPOLCOM Memorandum
Circular No. 2007-001, instead of Serious Neglect of Duty.
VI. RECOMMENDATION:
18. WHEREFORE, premises considered, strongly recommend that PO1 Mary Grace
Datiles Valentin PNP be suspended from the police service for a period of thirty-one (31) days
(minimum period) and her pay and allowances for the same period likewise be forfeited in favor of
the government.

Mamburao, Occidental Mindoro, March 2, 2015.

RODRIGO BEUP BORLADO JR

Police Inspector
Designate, Summary Hearing Officer
 Undisputed

In the light of foregoing facts and circumstances, it is undisputed that

Argañosa’s office is cognizant of her illness. Furthermore, there is no showing that
Argañosa simulated her illness. Thus, Argañosa cannot be accused of having been
absent without an approved sick leave, for how can Argañosa be expected to report
to work and perform her regular duties and functions if her illness prevented her to
do so. In the case of Carolina D. Muyco, CSC Resolution No. 96-4175 dated July 09,
1996, the Commission similarly ruled, as follows:

"Such being the case, Muyco cannot thus be faulted for having been absent
despite the disapproval of her application for sick leave. For how could she be
expected to report for work and perform her regular duties and other assigned tasks
if she is indeed sick and physically incapable of doing the same. x x x .

The situation was aggravated when Muyco was dropped from the rolls which was
confirmed by CSRO No. XII on October 21, 1992."

Moreover, the CSC-NCR erred in applying the case of Cesar R. De la Cruz (CSC
Resolution No. 98-1489 dated June 16, 1998) to the case of Argañosa. It must be noted
that the former was dropped from the rolls due to the fact that he was not physically
incapacitated to file his leave of absence and the medical certificate submitted to support
his continuous absences without an approved leave was submitted only on April 26, 1996
after he was considered on AWOL by Mayor Malonzo on March 28, 1996. In the case of
Argañosa, she was physically incapacitated to file a sick leave application due to her
illness and was advised by her physician to have a complete bed rest. As for the
submission of medical certificate, the records show that such certificate was to the sick
leave application filed on her behalf by her husband sometime in November 1998.

The approval of an application for leave of absence due to illness is a

ministerial duty on the part of the head of office. The only exception would be if the
head of office entertains doubts on the employee's claim of illness. In such case,
the head of office should verify the veracity of the employee's claim. This has been
the ruling of the Commission in the case of Pedro H. Duran, CSC Resolution No. 99-
2363 dated October 14, 1999, pertinent portion of which reads, as follows:

"x x x when a sick leave of absence is filed by an employee, the head of

office does not have any other choice but to grant the same. In which case, it
becomes now a ministerial duty on the part of the agency to grant the application
for sick leave, the only exception, is when the head of agency entertains doubt on
the employee’s claim of ill health. In such case, it is incumbent upon the head of
agency to determine or verify the veracity of the employee’s claim of ill health. On
the other hand, leave of absence for any other reason than illness of an officer or
employee is discretionary on the part of the head of agency to approve the same."

Lastly, since Argañosa's illness prevented her from filing her application for
sick leave of absence, she should be allowed to file the same upon her return to
office.

This finds support in Section 53, Rule XVI of the Omnibus Rules Implementing
Book V of Executive Order No. 292, which reads, as follows:

"Sec. 53. Application for sick leave. – All application for sick leave of absence for
one full day or more shall be made on the prescribed form and shall be filed immediately
upon employee’s return from such leave. Notice of absence, however, should be sent to
the immediate supervisor and/or to the agency head. Application for sick leave in excess of
five (5) successive days shall be accompanied by a proper medical certificate."
(Underscoring supplied)

Corollary thereto is the ruling of the Commission in the case of Genevieve C.

Taeza, CSC Resolution No. 98-1289 dated May 27, 1998, the material portion of
which reads, as follows:

"In view of the foregoing, the Commission finds that notwithstanding appellant’s
failure to file sick leave application covering the period of 8 October 1997 until 13
November 1997, she could not be considered AWOL. During that period, she was
physically incapacitated to file the same due to her illness. In a number of occasions, the
Commission has ruled that when the illness of an employee renders him physically
incapacitated, he may file the sick leave application upon his return." (Underscoring
supplied)

In CSC Resolution No. 98-1924 dated July 17, 1998 (Montances, Delfin L) the CSC
ruled that:

‘xxx. It must be emphasized that the approval of an application for sick leave is
ministerial or mandatory on the part of the head of office for as long as said
application is duly supported by a medical certificate. However, the head of office
may disapprove said application when there is strong evidence that said medical
certificate is a fabrication and that the applicant for said leave of absence was not
actually sick.’

"Although the sickness of Argañosa rendered her unable to file personally

her leave application, it does not exempt her from the requirements of the rule. In
other words, her application for leave may have been filed by persons other than
Argañosa in order that notice may have been served to her Office.

"It appears that Ms. Bantog has been repeatedly warned and required to explain regarding
her habitual unauthorized absences by her immediate superior Clerk of Court Atty. Peter
Paul Matabang. Ms. Bantog always reasoned out that she could not report for work regularly
as she was resolving the problems and needs of her family.

Despite the various reprimands, warnings, and memoranda issued to her, she persisted in
testing the patience of her superior, prompting the latter to write a disparaging evaluation of
her work ethic to the Court Administrator, to wit:
 "The undersigned's patience with Ms. Bantog has run out. She is deliberately making a
mockery of the undersigned's authority as her immediate administrative superior. Ms.
Bantog's propensity to deceive people around her, including her superiors, is incorrigible,
to say the least.”i[12]

Their conduct must at all times be characterized with propriety and decorum. As enshrined in
the Constitution, "[p]ublic 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 x x x."ii[16] [16] Section 1, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution.

i[12] Ibid.

ii[16] Section 1, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution.

 In line with the new strategic thrust on discipline, there is a need to raise the
current LOI 21/08 (PATNUBAY II) to a higher level of discipline, which shall not only focus
on cleansing the ranks of misfits but also on institutionalizing the commitment to duty
through the IPER system, the simplification of the disciplinary machinery to fast-track the
resolution of administrative cases; and to establish nationwide clearance system to
facilitate the processes regarding promotion, retirement, vacation and mandatory leaves,
and other procedures, which need disciplinary clearance.

This IMPLAN TO LOI PATNUBAY III shall amend the existing IMPLAN TO LOI
PATNUBAY II to include the new policies on discipline issued by the Civil Service
Commission (CSC), National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM) and Philippine National
Police (PNP).

NOTES!
IV. DISCUSSION AND FINDING:

10. This case is in cognizance with the Provincial Director’s constant effort to
implement the policy guidelines of RD, PRO MIMAROPA and the C, PNP’s campaign under LOI
PATNUBAY aimed to cleanse the ranks and weed out erring personnel and misfits, as warranted
under existing laws, rules and regulations governing the PNP. What to determine in this instant
case is whether PO1 Noel Mar Fernandez Santiago PNP has intentionally disregarded/violated the
Standing Rules and Regulations governing the PNP?

11. As a rule, officers and employees who were absent for at least thirty (30 days)
without approved leave are considered AWOL and shall be dropped from the service after due
notice (Sec 35, Rule XVI, Omnibus Civil Service Rules and Regulations. Implementing Book V
of Executive Order No. 292). In this instant case, administrative due process was instituted as the
subject PNCO was properly informed of the nature of administrative offense and likewise directed
him to submit counter-affidavit relative to his AWOL case in order to justify his absences, but
subject PNCO failed to do so, despite of memorandums transmitted to his known address.

12. Further, the PNP Rules and Regulations explicitly provides: That all notices
and summons to the respondent shall be personally delivered to him at his official station or
residence. If for any reason, the respondent cannot be located thereat, the notices and
summons shall be served at his known address as appearing in his personal file with the
Administrative Office. (Rule 18 of Memo Cir. No. 2007- 001)
 11. Officers and employees who were absent for at least thirty (30 days without
approved leave are considered AWOL and shall be dropped from the service after due notice
(Sec 35, Rule XVI, Omnibus Civil Service Rules and Regulations. Implementing Book V of
Executive Order No. 292). Administrative due process explicitly provides basic rights of notice and
hearing. Non- observance of these fundamental rights will invalidate the proceeding. Individuals are
entitled to be notified of any pending case, affecting their interest, and upon notice, they may claim
the right to appear therein and present their side and to refute the position of the opposing parties.
(Cruz, Phil, Administrative Law, 1996 ed, p69). In this instant case administrative due process
was instituted wherein subject PNCO
was properly informed of the nature of administrative offense and likewise informed him to appear
before this Office for conference in order to justify his absences, but subject PNCO failed to do so
as being confirmed by the ADMIN/HRDD PNCO of 408th PPMG.

12. Due process is not violated where a person is not heard because he has chosen, for
whatever reason, not to be heard. If he opted to be silent where he has a right to speak, he cannot
later hear to complain that he was unduly silenced. (Stronghold Ins. Co. vs Court of Appeal, 205
SCRA 605)

During the scheduled preliminary conference, complainants were given three (3) days or
until November 25, 2002 to submit their reply to the counter-affidavit of the respondent if they
deemed it necessary. Respondent was, in turn, given three (3) days or until November 28, 2002 to
submit his rejoinder to the reply, if there is any. Thereafter, PAGC scheduled the continuation of the
preliminary conference on November 28, 2002 at 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon.

Complainants did not file any reply to respondent's counter-affidavit. Consequently, during the
continuation of the scheduled preliminary conference, the parties were directed by PAGC to submit
their respective position paper within five (5) days from November 29, 2002, or until December 4,
2002. PAGC informed the parties that on the basis of the records and the submitted position papers,
the case shall be deemed submitted for resolution.

Subsequently, respondent Executive Director Melendres filed with the PAGC a motion for formal
hearing and a motion for inhibition, both dated November 29, 2002. In response, PAGC issued an
order dated December 3, 2002, denying for lack of merit the said motions, thus:

"The respondent, in the above-entitled case has been afforded due process through an Order
requiring him to file his Counter-Affidavit/Answer to the Complaint and the opportunity to
be heard through an Order setting the case for a Preliminary Hearing.

Be it noted that due process, as a constitutional precept does not always and in all situations,
requires trial-type proceedings. The essence of due process is to be found in the reasonable
opportunity to be heard and to submit any evidence one may have in support of one's defense.
"To be heard" does not only mean verbal arguments in court. One may be heard also through
pleadings. Where opportunity to be heard, either through ORAL ARGUMENTS or
pleadings, is accorded, there is no denial of procedural due process. (Stronghold Ins. Co. vs.
Court of Appeals, 205 SCRA 605).

Whatever her reason might have been, the fact is that petitioner waived the right to be heard
in an investigation. Due process is not violated where a person is not heard because he has
chosen not to give his side of the case. If he chooses to be silent when he has a right to speak,
he cannot later be heard to complain that he was silenced. [5] Pepsi Cola Distributors of the
iii

Phils., Inc. v. NLRC, 247 SCRA 386 (1995). Accord, Stronghold Insurance Co., Inc. v. Court
of Appeals, 205 SCRA 605 (1992).
 Private respondent having chosen not to answer, she should not be allowed to turn the tables
on her employer and claim that she was denied due process. Indeed, the requirement of due
process is satisfied when a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain his side of the
controversy is afforded the party. A formal or trial-type hearing is not at all times and in all
circumstances essential, especially when the employee chooses not to speak. [6] Stayfast
iv

Philippines Corp. v. NLRC, 218 SCRA 596 (1993).

 Given this 24th day of April 2014 at Mamburao MPS, Mamburao, Occidental

Mindoro.

RODRIGO BEUP BORLADO JR

Police Inspector
Summary Hearing Officer

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the NOTICE OF FIRST HEARING in Summary

Dismissal Case No. PRO 4B AC-022-031714 entitled Less Grave Neglect of Duty (AWOL)
pursuant to Rule 21, Sec. 2 (B), para 1 (o) of NAPOLCOM Memorandum
Circular No. 2007-001 was served upon PO3 Leopoldo Baking Quilloy by:
_________ Personal service as evidenced by the signature of the respondent on the face of the
NOTICE;

_________ Tendering a copy after respondent refused to receive the NOTICE;

_________ Personal service at his last known address as appearing in his personal file with the
Administrative Office concerned; or

_________ Constructive service at the respondent’s official station effected by leaving a copy of
the NOTICE at 1st PLTN, OMPPSC, Mamburao, Occidental Mindoro.

Returned this ___th day of April 2014.

________________________________
(Process Server)

Republic of the Philippines

National Police Commission
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE
OCCIDENTAL MINDORO POLICE PROVINCIAL OFFICE
Camp Winston Sibley Ebersole, San Jose, Occidental Mindoro

PROVINCIAL DIRECTOR,
Complainant,

SD Case No. _________

-versus- For: Grave Misconduct
PO3 HECTOR LASCANO AGUILAR
PO2 ROMULO EVANGELISTA AQUINO,
Respondent,
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -x

NOTICE OF HEARING

To: PO3 HECTOR LASCANO AGUILAR

Magsaysay Municipal Police Station
Magsaysay, Occidental Mindoro

GREETINGS:

Be informed that the FIRST HEARING of the above-entitled case is set on the 28th
day of October 2008 at 2:00 o’clock in the afternoon at OCC MDO PPO, Camp Winston Sibley
Ebersole, San Jose, Occidental Mindoro.

Given this 24th day of October 2008 at OCC MDO PPO, San Jose, Occidental
Mindoro.

EDWIN FIEL GUTANG

Police Senior Inspector
Summary Hearing Officer

Republic of the Philippines

National Police Commission
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE
MAMBURAO MUNICIPAL POLICE STATION
Mamburao, Occidental Mindoro
E-mail Add: Mamburaomps_11@yahoo.com
Station Hotline: 09391460626

PSUPT EDGAR BALADIANG ROQUERO,

Complainant,
 SD Case No. PRO 4B AC-022-031714
-versus- For: Less Grave Neglect of Duty
(AWOL) pursuant to Rule 21,
Sec. 2 (B), para 1 (o) of
NAPOLCOM Memorandum
Circular No. 2007-001

PO3 Leopoldo Baking Quilloy,

Respondent,
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -x

NOTICE OF PRE-HEARING CONFERENCE

To: PSI GERALD F BENDILLO

1st PLTN, OMPPSC,
Mamburao, Occidental Mindoro.

GREETINGS:

Sir! You are hereby requested to appear and testify/shed light in the case at the PRE-

HEARING CONFERENCE of the above-entitled case before this Office on the 24th day of April

2014 (Thursday) at 10:00 o’clock in the morning.

Given this 12th day of April 2014 at Mamburao MPS, Mamburao, Occidental

Mindoro.

PINSP RODRIGO BEUP BORLADO JR

Summary Hearing Officer
________________________________________________________________________________
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing NOTICE was personally served upon
PSI GERALD F BENDILLO on ____________________, 2014.

________________________________
Process Server
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the NOTICE OF PRE-HEARING CONFERENCE

in Summary Dismissal Case No. PRO 4B AC-022-031714 entitled Less Grave Neglect of Duty
(AWOL) pursuant to Rule 21, Sec. 2 (B), para 1 (o) of NAPOLCOM Memorandum
Circular No. 2007-001 was served upon PO3 Leopoldo Baking Quilloy by:

_________ Personal service as evidenced by the signature of the respondent on the face of the
NOTICE;
_________ Tendering a copy after respondent refused to receive the NOTICE;

_________ Personal service at his last known address as appearing in his personal file with the
Administrative Office concerned; or

_________ Constructive service at the respondent’s official station effected by leaving a copy of
the NOTICE at 1st PLTN, OMPPSC, Mamburao, Occidental Mindoro.

Returned this ___th day of April 2014.

________________________________
(Process Server)
PSI GERALD F BENDILLO
 Republic of the Philippines
National Police Commission
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE
OCCIDENTAL MINDORO POLICE PROVINCIAL OFFICE
Camp Winston Sibley Ebersole, San Jose, Occidental Mindoro

SHO
In
Summary Dismissal Proceedings
2nd Formal Hearing

PNCO- - - (Upon entering of the SHO)

Let us all rise! Giving respect to the SHO
Tumayo po ang lahat bilang pagbibigay galang sa ating Kagalang- galang na
Hukom!

SHO (While standing), everybody take sit.

PNCO- - - Everybody is enjoined to remain silent!

SHO Tap the gavel twice! While inside of this SALA, Everybody should
observe proper DE CORUM!

SHO Please read the ORDER OF HEARING for today!

PNCO- - - Reading of the minutes of First Hearing Conference.

SHO Appearances!

SPO1 TIVS For the Complainant, your Honor!

Others:

PO1 Baliguat For the respondent, your Honor!

SHO In-charge, Take Note for the Appearances!

SHO Any Appearances! For the counsel?

SHO Mr. Respondent, do you have another incontrovertible evidence to be

submitted to this hearing?
SHO (If there is a Resolution/evidence/Affidavit), Mr. Respondent read your
Resolution/evidence/Affidavit to affirm your signature!

SHO (After reading) Now! What is the pleasure of the

Prosecutor?

PROSECUTOR- - Comment!

SHO OK! Noted!

SHO How about the Complainant what can you say? Do you have a comment?

SHO OK! Noted!

SHO Let us mark the evidence presented!

For the respondent?

SHO (If there is a Resolution/evidence/Affidavit), from witnesses of the complainant,

Read and affirm the signature!

SHO (After reading) Now! What is the pleasure of the

Prosecutor?

PROSECUTOR- - Comment!

SHO OK! Noted!

SHO Let us mark the evidence presented!

SHO Is there any business & concern regarding this case?

If there is none. . .

SHO Since, there is no other dissenting opinion, viewpoint, regarding this case, and the
respondent submitted his ANSWER, the hearing proceeding is hereby terminated.
Upon completion of final Resolution both party-litigants shall be furnished copies
thereof.

SHO Tap the gavel twice! Tok! Tok!

 Republic of the Philippines
National Police Commission
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE
OCCIDENTAL MINDORO POLICE PROVINCIAL OFFICE
Camp Winston Sibley Ebersole, San Jose, Occidental Mindoro

PROCEDURE
ON
SUMMARY DISMISSAL PROCEEDINGS (SDP)

1. Summons- - - Five (5) days from receipt of summon, respondent should submit his answer,
list of witnesses and documentary evidence.
- - - Summons with certificate of service.

2. Notice of Pre-Hearing Conference.

- - - With certificate of service.

3. Certificate of Readiness to Appear for Hearing.

4. Subpoena Ad testificandum/Duces Tecum for witnesses.

5. Notice of First Hearing

- - - With certificate of service.

6. Minutes of Proceedings for First Hearing

7. Notice of Second Hearing

- - - With certificate of service.

8. Minutes of Proceedings for Second Hearing

9. Notice of Third Hearing

- - - With certificate of service.

10. Minutes of Proceedings for Third Hearing

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - DRAFTING OF RESOLUTION/DECISION - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
 #1
SUMMONS
Republic of the Philippines
National Police Commission
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE
OCCIDENTAL MINDORO POLICE PROVINCIAL OFFICE
Camp Winston Sibley Ebersole, San Jose, Occidental Mindoro

MR. JESUS MADRIAGA CARLOS,

Complainant,

SD Case No. ________________

-versus- For: Simple Misconduct

PO2 LEOPOLDO BAKING QUILLOY,

Respondent,
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -x

SUMMONS

TO: PO2 LEOPOLDO BAKING QUILLOY

407th Police Provincial Mobile Group (PPMG),
Camp Winston Sibley Ebersole,
San Jose, Occidental Mindoro

GREETINGS:

You are notified that the attached Complaint, together with all its annexes, has been filed
with this office for formal hearing in consonance with the Uniform Rules of Procedure before the
Administrative Disciplinary Authorities and the Internal Affairs Service of the Philippine National
Police.

WHEREFORE, you are hereby directed to submit your Answer, containing a list of
witnesses and their individual addresses, if obtaining, accompanied by documentary or other
evidence you may have in support of your defense, within five (5) days from receipt of this
summons; copy furnished the complainant.

Failure to submit your Answer shall be considered as a general denial of the charges and the
summary hearing shall proceed ex-parte.

Witness my hand this 12th day of September 2008 at San Jose, Occidental
Mindoro, Philippines.
PSUPT CECILIO RAMOS ISON JR
Summary Hearing Officer

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
 I hereby certify that a copy of the SUMMONS in Summary Dismissal Case No.
_________________ entitled Serious Irregularities in the Performance of Duty was served upon
_______________________________________ by:

_________ Personal service as evidenced by the signature of the respondent on the face of the
summons;

_________ Tendering a copy after respondent refused to receive the Summons;

_________ Personal service at his last known address as appearing in his personal file with the
Administrative Office concerned; or

_________ Constructive service at the respondent’s official station effected by leaving a copy of
the summons at

Returned this ___th day of _________ 2008.

________________________________
(Process Server)

#2
Republic of the Philippines
National Police Commission
 PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE
OCCIDENTAL MINDORO POLICE PROVINCIAL OFFICE
Camp Winston Sibley Ebersole, San Jose, Occidental Mindoro

PROVINCIAL DIRECTOR,
Complainant,

SD Case No. 2008- 010

-versus- For: Grave Misconduct

PO3 HECTOR LESCANO AGUILAR

PO2 ROMULO EVANGELISTA AQUINO,
Respondent,
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -x

NOTICE OF PRE-HEARING CONFERENCE

Pursuant to Section 5, NAPOLCOM M.C. No. 2007-001, this case is hereby set for its pre-
hearing conference on September 15, 2008 (Monday) at 10:00 o’clock in the morning for the
purpose of:

a. Defining and simplifying the issues of the case;

b. Entering into admissions and/or stipulation of facts;
c. Limiting the number of witnesses to be presented;
d. Scheduling the dates of hearing;
e. Marking of exhibits; and
f. Threshing out other matters relevant to the case.

Parties are hereby reminded that witnesses not included in the pre-hearing stipulations shall
in no case be allowed to testify.

Furthermore, parties may agree that summary hearing be dispensed with, instead,
memorandum or position papers be submitted.

And finally, the absence of counsel shall not preclude the parties from signing the certificate
of readiness to appear at the scheduled hearings, which shall be strictly followed to avoid
unnecessary delay in the proceedings.

Given this 15th day of September 2008.

PSUPT CECILIO RAMOS ISON JR

Summary Hearing Officer

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the SUMMONS in Summary Dismissal Case No.
_________________ entitled Serious Irregularities in the Performance of Duty was served upon
_______________________________________ by:
_________ Personal service as evidenced by the signature of the respondent on the face of the
summons;

_________ Tendering a copy after respondent refused to receive the Summons;

_________ Personal service at his last known address as appearing in his personal file with the
Administrative Office concerned; or

_________ Constructive service at the respondent’s official station effected by leaving a copy of
the summons at

Returned this ___th day of _________ 2008.

________________________________
(Process Server)

#2
NOTICE OF FIRST HEARING
Republic of the Philippines
National Police Commission
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE
OCCIDENTAL MINDORO POLICE PROVINCIAL OFFICE
Camp Winston Sibley Ebersole, San Jose, Occidental Mindoro

PROVINCIAL DIRECTOR,
Complainant,

SD Case No. _________

-versus- For: Grave Misconduct

PO3 HECTOR LASCANO AGUILAR

PO2 ROMULO EVANGELISTA AQUINO,
Respondent,
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -x

NOTICE OF HEARING

To: PO3 HECTOR LASCANO AGUILAR

 Magsaysay Municipal Police Station
Magsaysay, Occidental Mindoro

GREETINGS:

Be informed that the FIRST HEARING of the above-entitled case is set on the 28th
day of October 2008 at 2:00 o’clock in the afternoon at OCC MDO PPO, Camp Winston Sibley
Ebersole, San Jose, Occidental Mindoro.

Given this 24th day of October 2008 at OCC MDO PPO, San Jose, Occidental
Mindoro.

EDWIN FIEL GUTANG

Police Senior Inspector
Summary Hearing Officer

#2A
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the NOTICE OF FIRST HEARING in Summary

Dismissal Case No. _________________ entitled Serious Irregularities in the Performance of Duty
was served upon _______________________________________ by:

_________ Personal service as evidenced by the signature of the respondent on the face of the
summons;

_________ Tendering a copy after respondent refused to receive the Summons;

_________ Personal service at his last known address as appearing in his personal file with the
Administrative Office concerned; or

_________ Constructive service at the respondent’s official station effected by leaving a copy of
the summons at

Returned this ___th day of _________ 2008.

 ________________________________
(Process Server)

Republic of the Philippines

National Police Commission
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE
OCCIDENTAL MINDORO POLICE PROVINCIAL OFFICE
Camp Winston Sibley Ebersole, San Jose, Occidental Mindoro

OFFICER-IN-CHARGE,
Complainant,

SD Case No. 2008-014

-versus- For: Lees Grave Neglect of Duty
PO2 FERDINAND JOSE PINUELA LAREDO,
Respondent,
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -x

SUBPOENA AD TESTIFICANDUM/DUCES TECUM

To: PO2 FERDINAND JOSE PINUELA LAREDO

Aurelio Subdivision, Brgy Pag-asa,
San Jose, Occidental Mindoro

GREETINGS:

You are hereby required to appear and testify/ produce and /or bring with you the
following:

Issued Firearms Revolver Cal .38 “Armscor” Serial Number P03081

at the hearing of the above-entitled case before this Office on the 02 day of February 2009 at 9:00
o’clock in the morning.

Fail not under the penalty of the law.

 Given this 30th day of January 2009 at OCC MDO PPO, San Jose, Occidental
Mindoro.

PSUPT CECILIO RAMOS ISON JR

Summary Hearing Officer
________________________________________________________________________________
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing notice was personally served upon
____________________________________ on ____________________, 2009.

_________________________________

Process Server

#2C
CERTIFICATE OF READINESS TO
APPEAR FOR HEARING
Republic of the Philippines
National Police Commission
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE
OCCIDENTAL MINDORO POLICE PROVINCIAL OFFICE
Camp Winston Sibley Ebersole, San Jose, Occidental Mindoro

PROVINCIAL DIRECTOR,
Complainant,

SD Case No. _________

-versus- For: Grave Misconduct

PO3 HECTOR LASCANO AGUILAR

PO2 ROMULO EVANGELISTA AQUINO,
Respondent,
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -x

CERTIFICATE OF READINESS TO APPEAR FOR HEARING

This certifies that the undersigned party-litigants and their respective counsels are
available and ready to appear during the hearing of the above-entitled case, which is set on the
following dates:

__________________________ at ___________________________________________________

__________________________ at ___________________________________________________

__________________________ at ___________________________________________________
 It is AGREED and UNDERSTOOD that the afore-specified dates of hearing are
INTRANSFERRABLE in nature and as such, the hearing shall proceed on said dates despite the
absence of either or both parties/counsels, for any reason whatsoever.

The status of this case as of today.

Dated this ___th day of September 2008 at OCC MDO PPO, San Jose, Occidental
Mindoro, Philippines.

_____________________________________ ______________________________________
Complainant Respondent

_____________________________________ ______________________________________
Counsel for Complainant Counsel for Respondent

_____________________________________ ______________________________________

_____________________________________ ______________________________________
 #2D
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
Republic of the Philippines
National Police Commission
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE
OCCIDENTAL MINDORO POLICE PROVINCIAL OFFICE
Camp Winston Sibley Ebersole, San Jose, Occidental Mindoro

OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, OCC MDO PPO,

Complainant,

SD Case No. 2008- 003

-versus- For: Serious Neglect of Duty
(AWOL)

PO1 Niño Perez Magtoto,

Respondent,
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -x

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS

This is to certify that on the FIRST HEARING conducted at 2:00 o’clock in the afternoon this 29 th
day of October 2008 the following proceedings took place.

The following evidences were marked/submitted:

- - -Motion for submission of position paper as basis for final resolution marked
as Exhibit “ G”
- - -Certification for Partial payment marked as Exhibit “ H”

- - -Certification for Partial payment, as integral part of evidences in favor to

the respondent, marked as Exhibit “ 3”

And the status of the case as of today is:

- - -The respondent PO2 Leopoldo Baking Quilloy was present. During the Second
Hearing, the SHO asked the respondent about his position paper but the latter answered to submit the same
on September 23, 2008. The SHO informed party-litigants that no another hearing to be convened and
advised the respondent to submit his position paper for drafting the resolution.

Additional Remarks:
 - - - None.

PSUPT CECILIO RAMOS ISON JR

Summary Hearing Officer

With our conformity:

_________________________ _____________________________
Counsel for Complainant Counsel for Respondent

_________________________ _________________________

_________________________ _________________________

_________________________ _________________________
 #3
NOTICE OF SECOND HEARING
Republic of the Philippines
National Police Commission
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE
OCCIDENTAL MINDORO POLICE PROVINCIAL OFFICE
Camp Winston Sibley Ebersole, San Jose, Occidental Mindoro

PROVINCIAL DIRECTOR,
Complainant,

SD Case No. _________

-versus- For: Grave Misconduct

PO3 HECTOR LASCANO AGUILAR

PO2 ROMULO EVANGELISTA AQUINO,
Respondent,
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -x

NOTICE OF HEARING

To: PO3 HECTOR LASCANO AGUILAR

Magsaysay Municipal Police Station
Magsaysay, Occidental Mindoro

GREETINGS:

Be informed that the SECOND HEARING of the above-entitled case is set on the
th
28 day of October 2008 at 2:00 o’clock in the afternoon at OCC MDO PPO, Camp Winston Sibley
Ebersole, San Jose, Occidental Mindoro.

Given this 24th day of October 2008 at OCC MDO PPO, San Jose, Occidental
Mindoro.

EDWIN FIEL GUTANG

Police Senior Inspector
Summary Hearing Officer

#3A
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
 I hereby certify that a copy of the NOTICE OF SECOND HEARING in Summary
Dismissal Case No. _________________ entitled Serious Irregularities in the Performance of Duty
was served upon _______________________________________ by:

_________ Personal service as evidenced by the signature of the respondent on the face of the
summons;

_________ Tendering a copy after respondent refused to receive the Summons;

_________ Personal service at his last known address as appearing in his personal file with the
Administrative Office concerned; or

_________ Constructive service at the respondent’s official station effected by leaving a copy of
the summons at

Returned this ___th day of _________ 2008.

________________________________
(Process Server)

#3B
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
Republic of the Philippines
National Police Commission
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE
OCCIDENTAL MINDORO POLICE PROVINCIAL OFFICE
Camp Winston Sibley Ebersole, San Jose, Occidental Mindoro

OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, OCC MDO PPO,

Complainant,

SD Case No. 2008- 003

-versus- For: Serious Neglect of Duty
(AWOL)
PO1 Niño Perez Magtoto,
Respondent,
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -x

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS

This is to certify that on the SECOND HEARING conducted at 2:00 o’clock in the afternoon this
29th day of October 2008 the following proceedings took place.

The following evidences were marked/submitted:

- - -Motion for submission of position paper as basis for final resolution marked
as Exhibit “ G”
- - -Certification for Partial payment marked as Exhibit “ H”

- - -Certification for Partial payment, as integral part of evidences in favor to

the respondent, marked as Exhibit “ 3”

And the status of the case as of today is:

- - -The respondent PO2 Leopoldo Baking Quilloy was present. During the Second
Hearing, the SHO asked the respondent about his position paper but the latter answered to submit the same
on September 23, 2008. The SHO informed party-litigants that no another hearing to be convened and
advised the respondent to submit his position paper for drafting the resolution.

Additional Remarks:

- - - None.

PSUPT CECILIO RAMOS ISON JR

Summary Hearing Officer

With our conformity:

_________________________ _____________________________
Counsel for Complainant Counsel for Respondent

_________________________ _________________________

_________________________ _________________________

_________________________ _________________________

#4
 NOTICE OF THIRD HEARING
Republic of the Philippines
National Police Commission
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE
OCCIDENTAL MINDORO POLICE PROVINCIAL OFFICE
Camp Winston Sibley Ebersole, San Jose, Occidental Mindoro

PROVINCIAL DIRECTOR,
Complainant,

SD Case No. _________

-versus- For: Grave Misconduct

PO3 HECTOR LASCANO AGUILAR

PO2 ROMULO EVANGELISTA AQUINO,
Respondent,
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -x

NOTICE OF HEARING

To: PO3 HECTOR LASCANO AGUILAR

Magsaysay Municipal Police Station
Magsaysay, Occidental Mindoro

GREETINGS:

Be informed that the THIRD HEARING of the above-entitled case is set on the 28th
day of October 2008 at 2:00 o’clock in the afternoon at OCC MDO PPO, Camp Winston Sibley
Ebersole, San Jose, Occidental Mindoro.

Given this 24th day of October 2008 at OCC MDO PPO, San Jose, Occidental
Mindoro.

EDWIN FIEL GUTANG

Police Senior Inspector
Summary Hearing Officer

#4A
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the NOTICE OF THIRD HEARING in Summary

Dismissal Case No. _________________ entitled Serious Irregularities in the Performance of Duty
was served upon _______________________________________ by:
_________ Personal service as evidenced by the signature of the respondent on the face of the
summons;

_________ Tendering a copy after respondent refused to receive the Summons;

_________ Personal service at his last known address as appearing in his personal file with the
Administrative Office concerned; or

_________ Constructive service at the respondent’s official station effected by leaving a copy of
the summons at

Returned this ___th day of _________ 2008.

________________________________
(Process Server)

#4B
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
Republic of the Philippines
National Police Commission
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE
OCCIDENTAL MINDORO POLICE PROVINCIAL OFFICE
Camp Winston Sibley Ebersole, San Jose, Occidental Mindoro

OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, OCC MDO PPO,

Complainant,

SD Case No. 2008- 003

-versus- For: Serious Neglect of Duty
(AWOL)

PO1 Niño Perez Magtoto,

Respondent,
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -x
 MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS

This is to certify that on the THIRD/LAST HEARING conducted at 2:00 o’clock in the afternoon
this 29th day of October 2008 the following proceedings took place.

The following evidences were marked/submitted:

- - -Motion for submission of position paper as basis for final resolution marked
as Exhibit “ G”
- - -Certification for Partial payment marked as Exhibit “ H”

- - -Certification for Partial payment, as integral part of evidences in favor to

the respondent, marked as Exhibit “ 3”

And the status of the case as of today is:

- - -The respondent PO2 Leopoldo Baking Quilloy was present. During the Second
Hearing, the SHO asked the respondent about his position paper but the latter answered to submit the same
on September 23, 2008. The SHO informed party-litigants that no another hearing to be convened and
advised the respondent to submit his position paper for drafting the resolution.

Additional Remarks:

- - - None.

PSUPT CECILIO RAMOS ISON JR

Summary Hearing Officer

With our conformity:

_________________________ _____________________________
Counsel for Complainant Counsel for Respondent

_________________________ _________________________

_________________________ _________________________

_________________________ _________________________

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
RESOLUTION
DECISION
 Republic of the Philippines
National Police Commission
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE
OCCIDENTAL MINDORO POLICE PROVINCIAL OFFICE
Camp Winston Sibley Ebersole, San Jose, Occidental Mindoro

OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, OCC MDO PPO,

Complainant,

SD Case No. 2008- 003

-versus- For: Serious Neglect of Duty
(AWOL)

PO1 Niño Perez Magtoto,

Respondent,
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -x

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS

This is to certify that on the FIRST HEARING conducted at 2:00 o’clock in the afternoon this 29 th
day of October 2008 the following proceedings took place.

The following evidences were marked/submitted:

- - -Motion for submission of position paper as basis for final resolution marked
as Exhibit “ G”
- - -Certification for Partial payment marked as Exhibit “ H”

- - -Certification for Partial payment, as integral part of evidences in favor to

the respondent, marked as Exhibit “ 3”

And the status of the case as of today is:

 - - -The respondent PO2 Leopoldo Baking Quilloy was present. During the Second
Hearing, the SHO asked the respondent about his position paper but the latter answered to submit the same
on September 23, 2008. The SHO informed party-litigants that no another hearing to be convened and
advised the respondent to submit his position paper for drafting the resolution.

Additional Remarks:

- - - None.

PSUPT CECILIO RAMOS ISON JR

Summary Hearing Officer

With our conformity:

_________________________ _____________________________
Counsel for Complainant Counsel for Respondent

_________________________ _________________________

_________________________ _________________________

_________________________ _________________________
 SUMMONS

TO: PO1 Niño Perez Magtoto,

San Jose Municpal Police Station
San Jose, Occidental Mindoro

GREETINGS:

You are notified that the attached Complaint, together with all its annexes, has been filed
with this office for formal hearing in consonance with the Uniform Rules of Procedure before the
Administrative Disciplinary Authorities and the Internal Affairs Service of the Philippine National
Police.

WHEREFORE, you are hereby directed to submit your Answer, containing a list of
witnesses and their individual addresses, if obtaining, accompanied by documentary or other
evidence you may have in support of your defense, within five (5) days from receipt of this
summons; copy furnished the complainant.

Failure to submit your Answer shall be considered as a general denial of the charges and the
summary hearing shall proceed ex-parte.

Witness my hand this 11th day of October 2008 at San Jose, Occidental Mindoro,
Philippines.

ANDRES CAMACHO TEJERERO

Police Inspector
Summary Hearing Officer

Republic of the Philippines

National Police Commission
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE
OCCIDENTAL MINDORO POLICE PROVINCIAL OFFICE
Camp Winston Sibley Ebersole, San Jose, Occidental Mindoro

OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, OCC MDO PPO,

Complainant,

SD Case No. 2008- 003

 -versus- For: Simple Misconduct

PO2 FERDINAND JOSE PINUELA LAREDO,

Respondent,
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -x

SUMMONS

TO: PO2 FERDINAND JOSE PINUELA LAREDO,

Brgy. Pag-asa, San Jose,
Occidental Mindoro

GREETINGS:

You are notified that the attached Complaint, together with all its annexes, has been filed
with this office for formal hearing in consonance with the Uniform Rules of Procedure before the
Administrative Disciplinary Authorities and the Internal Affairs Service of the Philippine National
Police.

WHEREFORE, you are hereby directed to submit your Answer, containing a list of
witnesses and their individual addresses, if obtaining, accompanied by documentary or other
evidence you may have in support of your defense, within five (5) days from receipt of this
summons; copy furnished the complainant.

Failure to submit your Answer shall be considered as a general denial of the charges and the
summary hearing shall proceed ex-parte.

Witness my hand this 18th day of December 2008 at San Jose, Occidental
Mindoro, Philippines.

GILBERT GARCELLANO SAN

JUAN
Police Inspector
Summary Hearing Officer

#2
SUMMONS

Republic of the Philippines

National Police Commission
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE
OCCIDENTAL MINDORO POLICE PROVINCIAL OFFICE
Camp Winston Sibley Ebersole, San Jose, Occidental Mindoro

PROVINCIAL DIRECTOR,
Complainant,
 SD Case No. 2008- 010
-versus- For: Grave Misconduct

PO3 HECTOR LASCANO AGUILAR

PO2 ROMULO EVANGELISTA AQUINO,
Respondent,
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -x

NOTICE OF HEARING

To: PO3 HECTOR LASCANO AGUILAR

Magsaysay Municipal Police Station
Magsaysay, Occidental Mindoro

GREETINGS:

Be informed that the SECOND HEARING of the above-entitled case is set on the
th
28 day of October 2008 at 2:00 o’clock in the afternoon at OCC MDO PPO, Camp Winston Sibley
Ebersole, San Jose, Occidental Mindoro.

Given this 24th day of October 2008 at OCC MDO PPO, San Jose, Occidental
Mindoro.

EDWIN FIEL GUTANG

Police Senior Inspector
Summary Hearing Officer

Republic of the Philippines

National Police Commission
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE
OCCIDENTAL MINDORO POLICE PROVINCIAL OFFICE
Camp Winston Sibley Ebersole, San Jose, Occidental Mindoro

REGIONAL DIRECTOR,
Complainant,

SD Case No. ________________

-versus- For: Serious Irregularities in the
Performance of Duty

PO2 LEOPOLDO BAKING QUILLOY,

Respondent,
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -x

SUBPOENA AD TESTIFICANDUM/DUCES TECUM

To: SPO2 Joseph Meriales Felipe

Supply PNCO, OCC MDO PPO
 Camp Winston S. Ebersole
San Jose, Occidental Mindoro

GREETINGS:

You are hereby required to appear and testify/ produce and /or bring with you the
following documents:

- - - Records of Turn-in Slip re Issuance of Firearms from January 2002 to

December 2002, submitted to that office by SPO1 Manuel M.
Ramos of San Jose Municipal Police Station.

at the hearing of the above-entitled case before this Office on the 19th day of August 2008 at 9:30
o’clock in the morning.

Fail not under the penalty of the law.

Given this 18th day of August 2008 at OCC MDO PPO, San Jose, Occidental
Mindoro.

PSUPT CECILIO RAMOS ISON JR

Summary Hearing Officer
________________________________________________________________________________
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing notice was personally served upon
____________________________________ on ________August, 2008.

_________________________________

Republic of the Philippines

National Police Commission
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE
OCCIDENTAL MINDORO POLICE PROVINCIAL OFFICE
Camp Winston Sibley Ebersole, San Jose, Occidental Mindoro

REGIONAL DIRECTOR,
Complainant,

SD Case No. ________________

-versus- For: Serious Irregularities in the
Performance of Duty

PO2 LEOPOLDO BAKING QUILLOY,

Respondent,
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -x

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS

This is to certify that on the PRE- HEARING CONFERENCE conducted at 9:00 o’clock in
the morning this 7th day of August 2008 the following proceedings took place.

The following evidences were marked/submitted:

 - - - Pre-Charge Evaluation Report and other Allied
Documents; and
- - - Charge Sheet

- - - Answer of the Complainant consisting of Counter-

Affidavit with attachments.

And the status of the case as of today is:

- - -The respondent PO2 Leopoldo Baking Quilloy was present. He

submitted his Counter-Affidavit with attachments. The Hearing Officer ordered to summon SPO2
Manuel M. Ramos and had set another hearing which agreed to convene on August 18, 19, & 20,
2008 at 9:30 o’clock in the morning at OCC MDO PPO.

Additional Remarks:

- - - None.

PSUPT CECILIO RAMOS ISON JR

Summary Hearing Officer

Republic of the Philippines

National Police Commission
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE
OCCIDENTAL MINDORO POLICE PROVINCIAL OFFICE
Camp Winston Sibley Ebersole, San Jose, Occidental Mindoro

REGIONAL DIRECTOR,
Complainant,

SD Case No. ________________

-versus- For: Serious Irregularities in the
Performance of Duty

PO2 LEOPOLDO BAKING QUILLOY,

Respondent,
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -x

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS

This is to certify that on the formal hearing conducted at 2:00 o’clock in the afternoon this
th
4 day of July 2008 the following proceedings took place.

The following evidences were marked/submitted:

- - - Pre-Charge Evaluation Report and other Allied

Documents; and
- - - Charge Sheet dated May 05, 2008
 And the status of the case as of today is:

- - - The respondent PO1 Marleo Juanitas Arevalo was absent,

hence, the Hearing Officer had set another hearing which agreed to convene on July 10, 2008 at
2:00 o’clock in the afternoon at OCC MDO PPO.

Additional Remarks:

- - - None.

PSUPT CECILIO RAMOS ISON JR

Summary Hearing Officer

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the NOTICE OF HEARING in Summary Dismissal

Case No. _________________ entitled Serious Irregularities in the Performance of Duty was served
upon _______________________________________ by:

_________ Personal service as evidenced by the signature of the respondent on the face of the
summons;

_________ Tendering a copy after respondent refused to receive the Summons;

_________ Personal service at his last known address as appearing in his personal file with the
Administrative Office concerned; or

_________ Constructive service at the respondent’s official station effected by leaving a copy of
the summons at

Returned this ___th day of _________ 2008.

________________________________
(Process Server)
 Republic of the Philippines
Department of Interior and Local Government
National Police Commission
POLICE REGIONAL OFFICE PRO-MIMAROPA
Camp Vicente Lim, Calamba City, Laguna

REGIONAL DIRECTOR,
Complainant,

SD Case No. ________________

-versus- For: Serious Irregularities in the
Performance of Duty

PO2 LEOPOLDO BAKING QUILLOY,

Respondent,
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -x

DECISION

I- PRELIMINARY STATEMENT:

Before the Summary Dismissal Proceeding (Board) to resolve is an administrative case of

Serious Irregularities in the Performance of Duty (By ,allegedly, using his issued M16 Rifle as a
collateral to avail money (Debt) from Jonathan Lim y Morales (Civilian), filed by PCSUPT

LUISITO TINIO PALMERA, CEO VI, DPA, the current Regional Director- PRO MIMAROPA,

against PO2 Leopoldo Baking Quilloy PNP, former member of San Jose MPS, San Jose,

Occidental Mindoro. Subject respondent PNCO is presently assigned and performing his official

duty with 407th PPMG under this PPO.

II- FACTS OF THE CASE:

Records of this case show that respondent (PO2 Leopoldo Baking Quilloy PNP) was
charged for an administrative offense of Serious Irregularities in the Performance of Duty
(By ,allegedly, using his issued M16 Rifle as a collateral to avail money (Debt) from Jonathan Lim
y Morales (Civilian)) that transpired sometime on the month of November 2002 at Bonifacio St.,
Brgy. 2, San Jose, Occidental Mindoro), by the Office of the Regional Intelligence and
Investigation Division (Now RIDMD), in connection with the recommendation of the Provincial
Director, PIAS-4B, forwarded before the office of the Regional Intelligence and Investigation
Division (RIID) for Pre-Charge Investigation. As per records, subject PNCO, allegedly, used his
issued M16 Rifle as collateral to avail money (Debt) from Jonathan Lim y Morales (Civilian) that
transpired sometime on the month of November 2002 at Bonifacio St., Brgy. 2, San Jose,
Occidental Mindoro.

A Pre-Charge Investigation was conducted by the Office of the Regional Intelligence and

Investigation Division (RIID), PRO MIMAROPA, relative to the administrative case of Serious

Irregularities in the Performance of Duty (By ,allegedly, using his issued M16 Rifle as a collateral

to avail money (Debt) from Jonathan Lim y Morales filed against PO2 Leopoldo Baking Quilloy

PNP, wherein subject respondent was recommended to be subjected for Summary Dismissal

Proceedings (SDP). Thus, a Summary Hearing Proceedings were instituted against the respondent

PNCO. During the entire process of Summary Hearing Proceedings, subject PNCO personally

submitted his Counter-Affidavit; PNP Personal Data Sheet duly executed under oath dated August

19, 2008; Memorandum Receipt of Issued firearm from Supply PNCO of San Jose MPS dated

August 20, 2002; Certification re Turn-in of Firearm dated October 18, 2002; Turn-in Slip of Issued

Firearm of the respondent dated November 20, 2002; and Turn-in Slip of Issued Firearm dated

November 21, 2002.

III- EVIDENCE:

1. For the Complainant

 a. Charge Sheet dated February 20, 2006;
b. Pre-Charge Investigation Report from Chief, RIID, dated February 17, 2006;
c. Pre-Charge Investigation Report from Provincial Director, PIAS 4-B, dated
December 26, 2005, and other Allied Documents;
d. Non-Forum Shopping; and
e. Others
2. For the Respondent:

a. Counter-Affidavit of the respondent;

b. PNP Personal Data Sheet of the respondent” duly executed under oath by the
respondent dated August 19, 2008;
c. Memorandum Receipt of Issued Firearm from Supply PNCO of San Jose
MPS dated August 20, 2002;
d. Certification re Turn-in of Issued Firearm dated October 18, 2002;
e. Turn-in Slip of Issued Firearm of the respondent dated November 20, 2002;
f. Turn-in Slip of Issued Firearm of the respondent dated November 21, 2002;
and
g. Others

IV-FINDINGS:

All of the pieces of evidence, (documentary) submitted/presented by the herein nominal

complainant PCSUPT LUISITO TINIO PALMERA, CEO VI, DPA, the current Regional
Director- PRO MIMAROPA, have been carefully examined and evaluated on the basis of its
material and substantial weight, Rules on Evidence, Sec 5, Rule 133 explicitly provides “In cases
filed before the administrative or quasi-judicial bodies, a fact may be deemed established if it is
supported by the substantial evidence, as the amount or relevant evidence which is reasonable mind
might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.

Thus, Summary Hearing Officer (Designate) in this case, soundly established his honest to
goodness positive reception of those pieces of evidence submitted and found out that there is NO
corroborative evidence to indict the herein respondent of the administrative case of Serious
Irregularities in the Performance of Duty (By ,allegedly, using his issued M16 Rifle as a collateral
to avail money (Debt) from Jonathan Lim y Morales.

V- CONCLUSION:

Records of this case show that contending parties were reasonably accorded reasonable
period of time for them to adduce pieces of evidence in their respective defenses during the conduct
of the Summary Hearing Proceedings. It is significant that respondent PNCO appropriately
established and secured substantial pieces of evidence in his behalf.
 During the entire proper forum of Summary Dismissal Proceedings (SDP), the herein
respondent successfully acquired and presented the substantial pieces of evidence (Documents)
which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. It was clearly stated from
the said documents that the issued firearm of the respondent was NOT used as collateral to avail
money.

Further, considering the above-mentioned substantial pieces of evidence presented, there is

NO sufficient existing ground to indict and penalize PO2 Leopoldo Baking Quilloy PNP for the
alleged offense of Serious Irregularities in the Performance of Duty.

Thus, Summary Hearing Officer, designate POLICE SUPERINTENDENT CECILIO

RAMOS ISON JR found the respondent “NOT GUILTY” of the administrative offense, as
charged.

This Summary Dismissal Authority, (Summary Hearing Officer, Designate) found that PO2
Leopoldo Baking Quilloy PNP, former member of San Jose MPS and now member of 407 th PPMG
under OCC MDO PPO is “ABSOLVED” of the administrative offense of “Serious Irregularities in
the Performance of Duty”.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, that the administrative case for Serious Irregularities
in the Performance of Duty (By ,allegedly, using his issued M16 Rifle as a collateral to avail money
(Debt) from Jonathan Lim y Morales filed against PO2 Leopoldo Baking Quilloy PNP is hereby
ordered DROPPED and CLOSED for lack of probable cause.

SO ORDERED.

Done in the City of Calamba, Province of Laguna, this ____th of ___________ 2008.

LUISITO TINIO PALMERA, CEO VI, DPA

Police Chief Superintendent
Regional Director, PRO MIMAROPA
(Summary Dismissal Authority)

Republic of the Philippines

National Police Commission
 PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE
OCCIDENTAL MINDORO POLICE PROVINCIAL OFFICE
Camp Winston Sibley Ebersole, San Jose, Occidental Mindoro

REGIONAL DIRECTOR,
Complainant,

SD Case No. ________________

-versus- For: Serious Irregularities in the
Performance of Duty

PO2 LEOPOLDO BAKING QUILLOY,

Respondent,
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -x

RESOLUTION

I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT:
1. This instant administrative case was filed before the Summary Hearing Officer by
PCSUPT LUISITO TINIO PALMERA, CEO VI, DPA, the current Regional Director- PRO
MIMAROPA against PO2 Leopoldo Baking Quilloy, a PNP member, formerly assigned with San
Jose Municipal Police Station, San Jose, Occidental Mindoro and now presently assigned with 407 th
PPMG under this PPO. Subject PNCO was charged for an administrative case of Serious
Irregularities in the Performance of Duty (By ,allegedly, using his issued M16 Rifle as a collateral
to avail money (Debt) from Jonathan Lim y Morales (Civilian) that transpired sometime on the
month of November 2002 at Bonifacio St., Brgy. 2, San Jose, Occidental Mindoro) by the Office of
the Regional Intelligence and Investigation Division (Now RIDMD), in consonance with the
recommendation of the Provincial Director, PIAS-4B, and the case was forwarded before the office
of the Regional Intelligence and Investigation Division (RIID).

2. A Pre-Charge Investigation was conducted by the office of the Regional Intelligence

and Investigation Division (RIID) relative to the administrative case of Serious Irregularities in the
Performance of Duty against PO2 Leopoldo Baking Quilloy PNP. Four (4) consecutive
summons/notices were sent to subject PNCO and all were personally received by the respondent
himself wherein he appeared during the PRE-HEARING CONFERENCE, affirmed his ANSWER
under oath, and has attended the three (3) scheduled FORMAL HEARINGS. During the conduct of
summary hearing, subject PNCO categorically denied the allegations stated on the administrative
case filed against him.

During the proceedings, the following documents were utilized:

2. Memorandum from Chief, RIID dated February 20, 2006 (TAB”A”);
3. Approved Memorandum from RD, PRO MIMAROPA dated February 20,
2006, subject: SDP Against PO2 Leopoldo Baking Quilloy PNP (TAB “B”);
 4. Special Orders No. 69 from PD, OCC MDO PPO dated July 22, 2008 (TAB
“C”);
4. Approved Memorandum from PD, OCC MDO PPO, dated July 22, 2008,
designating PSUPT CECILIO RAMOS ISON JR as Summary Hearing Officer (TAB “D”);
5. Radio Message dated August 06, 2008(TAB “E”);
6. Radio Message dated August 1, 2008, and Summons for submission of
ANSWER dated July 31, 2008 (TAB “F”);
7. Notice of Pre-Hearing Conference dated August 05, 2008, and Certificate of
Service (TAB “G”);
8. Certificate of Readiness to Appear for Hearing dated August 07, 2008 (TAB
“H”);
9. Notices for hearings for the respondent dated August 17, 18 & 19, 2008; and
Certificate of Services (TAB”I”);
10. SUBPOENA AD TESTIFICANDUM/DUCES TECUM dated August 17,
2008, and Certificate of Service (TAB “J”).
11. SUBPOENA AD TESTIFICANDUM/DUCES TECUM dated August 18,
2008, and Certificate of Service (TAB “K”)
12. Minutes of the proceedings dated August 17, 18 & 19, 2008 (TAB”L”).

II. STATEMENT OF THE CASE:

3. For the Complainant Version:
3.1. Pursuant to section I, Article XI, 1987 Philippine Constitution which expressly
provides that “ Public Office is a public trust and public officers and employees must be
accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency,
act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives”.
3.2. Records of this case show that respondent PNCO was charged for an administrative
case of Serious Irregularities in the Performance of Duty (By ,allegedly, using his issued M16 Rifle
as a collateral to avail money (Debt) from Jonathan Lim y Morales (Civilian)) before the office of
the Regional Intelligence and Investigation Division (RIID), PRO MIMAROPA, through
memorandum from the Provincial Director, PIAS 4-B, dated December 26, 2005, with
recommendation that a summary hearing be conducted against PO2 Leopoldo Baking Quilloy PNP
for Serious Irregularities in the Performance of Duty, after subject PNCO, allegedly, used his issued
M16 Rifle as a collateral to avail money (Debt) from Jonathan Lim y Morales, a civilian.

3.3. A Pre-Charge Investigation was conducted by the Regional Intelligence and

Investigation Division (RIID), PRO MIMAROPA, relative to the administrative case of Serious
Irregularities in the Performance of Duty against PO2 Leopoldo Baking Quilloy PNP, thus subject
respondent was recommended to be subjected for Summary Dismissal Proceedings for alleged
Serious Irregularities in the Performance of Duty.
 3.4. For the Respondent Version:
Four (4) consecutive summons/notices were sent to subject PNCO and all were
personally received by the respondent himself wherein he appeared during the PRE-HEARING
CONFERENCE, affirmed his ANSWER under oath, and has attended the three (3) scheduled
FORMAL HEARINGS. On the first scheduled hearing, subject PNCO appeared and categorically
denied the allegation imputed against him, contending that the allegation was baseless and outright
lies. Thus, the Summary Hearing Officer ordered him to secure corroborative pieces of evidence in
his behalf and ordered the respondent to submit the same on the next hearing. On the following
scheduled of hearing, the respondent appeared before the Summary Dismissal Proceedings (Board)
wherein PO3 Manuel Munar Ramos, former Supply PNCO of San Jose MPS, appeared and
submitted a certified true copy of MEMORANDUM RECEIPT dated August 20, 2002, certifying
therein that the respondent had already turned-in his issued M16 rifle with serial no. 157731, now
under Summary Proceedings. On the second scheduled of hearing, PO3 Ariel Roldan, PAIS PNCO
of this PPO, as per verbal instruction by the Summary Hearing Officer, appeared before the
Summary Hearing Proceedings (Board) and confirmed that the respondent was assigned with San
Jose MPS when the alleged violation of the PNP Rules and Regulations committed. On the last
scheduled of hearing, subject PNCO appeared before the Summary Hearing Proceedings (Board)
and presented a Certified True Copies of Certification dated October 18, 2002; Turn- in Slip re
Issuance of Firearm” dated November 20, 2002; and Turn- in Slip of Issued Firearm of the
respondent dated November 21, 2002, stated therein that the respondent had already turned-in his
issued M16 rifle with serial no. 157731, now in issue.

III. EVIDENCE:
4. During the course of Summary Dismissal Proceedings, the following pieces of
evidences were introduced and admitted for evaluation:
4.1. For the complainant:
a. Charge Sheet dated February 20, 2006 (TAB”M”);
b. Pre-Charge Investigation Report from Chief, RIID, dated February 17, 2006
(TAB”N”);
c. Pre-Charge Investigation Report from Provincial Director, PIAS 4-B, dated
December 26, 2005, and other Allied Documents (TAB”O”);
d. Non-Forum Shopping (TAB”P”); and
e. Others
4.2. For the Respondent:
a. Counter-Affidavit of the respondent (TAB”1”);
b. PNP Personal Data Sheet of the respondent” duly executed under oath by the
respondent dated August 19, 2008 (TAB”2”);
 c. Memorandum Receipt of Issued Firearm from Supply PNCO of San Jose MPS dated
August 20, 2002 (TAB”3”);
d. Certification re Turn-in Firearm dated October 18, 2002 (TAB”4”);
e. Turn-in Slip of Issued Firearm of the respondent dated November 20, 2002
(TAB”5”);;
f. Turn-in Slip of Issued Firearm of the respondent dated November 21, 2002
(TAB”6”); and
g. Others

IV. EVALUATION OF THE CASE:

5. In the case at bar, during the entire process of Summary Hearing Proceedings, the

respondent pleaded NOT GUILTY of the administrative charged against him. However, the

presence of Administrative Complaint, accompanied by Sworn Statements, executed under oath by

the complaining witnesses and after the conduct of Pre-Charge Investigation, is a crystal clear

starting point that respondent should be subjected for Summary Hearing Proceedings. Moreover, the

apprehensive only is, “Is there corroborative pieces of evidence to indict the herein respondent of

the administrative case filed against him? All available efforts of the herein Summary Hearing

Officer, purposely to give the respondent every opportunity to present any incontrovertible

evidences in his favor have been made. The herein Hearing Officer, will anchored its evaluation and

finding based solely on the pieces of evidence presented/submitted by the herein complainant, the

Charge Sheet; Pre-Charge Investigation Report with its allied supporting documents; Counter-

Affidavit of the respondent; PNP Personal Data Sheet of the respondent” duly executed under oath

dated August 19, 2008; Memorandum Receipt of Issued Firearm from Supply PNCO of San Jose

MPS dated August 20, 2002; Certification re Turn-in Firearm dated October 18, 2002; Turn-in Slip

of Issued Firearm of the respondent dated November 20, 2002; and Turn-in Slip of Issued Firearm

of the respondent dated November 21, 2002, which submitted by the respondent during the conduct

of Summary Hearing.

V- FINDINGS/CONCLUSION:
6. Respondent have been accorded administrative due process, noninterventionist time,

to refute the assertion label against his person by the herein complainant during the entire process of

Summary Hearing, wherein he submitted inconvertible pieces of evidence in his behalf for his
alleged offense (By, allegedly, using his issued M16 Rifle as a collateral to avail money (Debt)

from Jonathan Lim y Morales, a civilian) committed.

7. Based on the foregoing, it can be concluded that with the timely presentation of the
above-mentioned PNP legal documents, the herein respondent had successfully presented the
substantial evidence or is that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to justify a conclusion, affording a substantial basis of fact which the fact in issue can be
reasonably inferred. Hence, it is cleared that the said firearm was NOT used as collateral to avail
money. Therefore, upon presentation of the above-mentioned PNP legal documents, the “GUILT”
of the respondent PO2 Leopoldo Baking Quilloy PNP could not be established. Further, the liability
of the respondent to the Supply PNCO of this PPO had been EXTINGUISHED, as evidenced of
“Memorandum Receipt” duly signed by the Supply PNCO of San Jose MPS dated August 20,
2002.

8. Hence, after a careful evaluation of the substantial pieces of evidence submitted by

both parties, the herein Summary Hearing Officer concluded that there is NO sufficient existing

ground to indict and penalize PO2 Leopoldo Baking Quilloy PNP for the alleged offense of Serious

Irregularities in the Performance of Duty (By, allegedly, using his issued M16 Rifle as a collateral

to avail money (Debt) from Jonathan Lim y Morales, a civilian), considering the pieces of

substantial evidence presented by the respondent PNCO.

VI. RECOMMENDATION:

9. WHEREFORE, premises considered, strongly recommend that the administrative

complaint for Serious Irregularities in the Performance of Duty (By, allegedly, using his issued M16
Rifle as a collateral to avail money (Debt) from Jonathan Lim y Morales, a civilian) imputed
against PO2 Leopoldo Baking Quilloy PNP be DROPPED and CLOSED for lack of probable
cause.

CECILIO RAMOS ISON JR

Police Superintendent
Designate, Summary Hearing Officer
iii
iv