REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

Department of the Interior and Local Government

National Police Commission Region VI
Cor. Fuentes-Ledesma Sts., Iloilo City
-oOo-

Deny Sayco Abindan,

Complainant,

-versus- NAPOLCOM SD CASE No. R6-2019-003

For: “Grave Misconduct”

P03 Anvir Fritz A. Pigar, et. al.,

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

MANIFESTATION WITH MOTION

Respondent, P03 Rudney H. Domingo, unto this Honorable

Commission, most respectfully manifests and avers that:

1. Last 07 February 2019, Respondent, received a copy of the

Summons and Formal Charge dated 5 March 2019 and 31 January 2019,
respectively, ordering undersigned to submit to the Commission within
seven (7) working days from receipt thereof an answer as defense for the
above-mentioned formal administrative complaint;

2. It is noteworthy to mention that due to the fact that the issue

and incident of the administrative complaint is the same, the undersigned is
repleading all the allegations and adopting his Counter Affidavit in the
instant case as Answer to the Administrative Complaint, hereto attached as
Annex “1” is the Counter Affidavit with Annexes;

3. Moreover, the said Counter Affidavit would contain the

important asseverations of the undersigned as well as the narration of the
facts and incidents of the case;

4. May it please be recalled that in ROLANDO GANZON vs.

FERNANDO ARLOS, G.R. No. 174321, October 22, 2013, the Supreme Court
provides:

1
 “xxx…

Misconduct is intentional wrongdoing or deliberate

violation of a rule of law or standard of behavior. To constitute
an administrative offense, misconduct should relate to or be
connected with the performance of the official functions and
duties of a public officer. In grave misconduct, as
distinguished from simple misconduct, the elements of
corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant
disregard of an established rule must be manifest.;

…xxx”
Emphasis supplied

5. In addition as it was held in THE OFFICE OF THE

OMBUDSMAN, Petitioner, v. P/SUPT. ROGER JAMES BRILLANTES, PO3 PETER
PAUL PABLICO, AND PO1 NOEL FABIA, Respondents, G.R. No. 213699,
September 28, 2016, it states that:

“xxx…

Misconduct, in the administrative sense, is a

transgression of some established and definite rule of action.
It is an intentional wrongdoing or a deliberate violation of a
rule of law or standard of behavior, especially by a
government official. Misconduct is considered grave if
accompanied by corruption, a clear intent to violate the law,
or a flagrant disregard of established rules, which must all
be supported by substantial evidence. If the misconduct
does not involve any of the additional elements to qualify
the misconduct as grave, the person charged may only be
held liable for simple misconduct.

Moreover, in administrative proceedings, the quantum

of proof necessary for a finding of guilt is substantial
evidence or such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind may
accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The standard of
substantial evidence is satisfied when there is reasonable
ground to believe that a person is responsible for the
misconduct complained of, even if such evidence might not
be overwhelming or even preponderant.

2
 …xxx”
Emphasis supplied

5. At the outset, Respondent, cannot be guilty of grave

misconduct as the Complainant failed to show specific overt acts of the
Respondent which may be tantamount to substantial evidence that would
establish that the Respondent had conspired with P01 Madelo to extort
money from him as the former was not even present during the actual
entrapment. Stated in another way, the Respondent was just part of the
Team who arrested the Complainant and he was just falsely blamed for
something which he does not even have any idea about (extortion);

6. Furthermore, there is no intentional wrong doing of the

Respondent or clear intent to violate the Law as there were not even any
statements in the Complainant’s Affidavit showing that the Respondent was
actually extorting money from him, or has done anything in the illegal per
se, hence, the elements of Grave Misconduct is not present in the case at
bar, thus, there is no Grave Misconduct to speak of in this case;

7. With all due respect, it is worthy to note that this

Administrative Case is also an offshoot of a previous criminal case entitled
People of the Philippines versus P01 Nestor Madelo, et. al., docketed under
Crim. Case No. 15-41377 for Robbery Extortion (Simple Robbery Under Art.
291 in rel. to Art 294 (2) of the Revised Penal Code) under Branch 54 of the
Regional Trial Court in Bacolod City was provisionally dismissed due to lack
of interest on the part of the Complainant who also executed an Affidavit of
Desistance to prove the same. Collectively attached hereto are the Affidavit
of Desistance of the Private Complainant, which is the sister of Deny
Abindan, Complainant of this Administrative Case and the Order from the
Court dismissing said Criminal Case, marked as Annexes “2” and “3”
respectively;

8. All told, the Respondent is asking the kind indulgence of the

Commission
.

PRAYER

3
 PREMISES CONSIDERED, it is humbly prayed unto this Honorable
Office, that the Respondent would be given an extension of ten (10) days
until 13 March 2019, to submit her Counter-Affidavit and supporting
documents.

Other relief and remedies deemed just and equitable under the
premises are likewise most respectfully prayed for.

Most respectfully submitted this ________________, in Bago City,

Philippines.

MS. CELESTE C. DULACA

Respondent

NOTICE

THE ASSOCIATES OF THE HONORABLE CITY PROSECUTOR:

Greetings! Kindly submit the foregoing Manifestation for the kind

action and resolution of the Honorable Prosecutor immediately upon
receipt hereof without further need of oral arguments or presence of
parties. Thank you.

MS. CELESTE C. DULACA

MS. AGUEDA C. RAYMOND:

Greetings! Kindly submit the foregoing Manifestation for the kind

action and resolution of the Honorable Prosecutor immediately upon
receipt hereof without further need of oral arguments or presence of
parties. Thank you.
MS. CELESTE C. DULACA

Copy furnished:

4
AGUEDA C. RAYMOND
Complainant
NS Araneta Street, Brgy. Poblacion
Bago City, Negros Occidental
RR No: __________________
Date: _________________

EXPLANATION

Copy of the foregoing Manifestation was served on the Complainant

through registered mail due to lack of time, to effect personal service.

MS. CELESTE C. DULACA