Republic of the Philippines

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR THE MOLEO
Ombudsman Building, Agham Road, North Triangle, Diliman, Quezon City

PCPL MIKHAIL A TOLENTINO, FOR: Threat, Abuse of Authority,

Complainant, Grave Misconduct, Grave
Neglect of Duty Conduct
-versus- Prejudicial to the Best
Interest of the Service and
Violation of RA 6713
PEMS NESTOR DE GUZMAN,
PSSG ADRIAN CUSTODIO,
PSMS MARLON GELUA,
NUP JAY SERQUINA
Respondent.
x-----------------------------------------------------x

AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLAINT

I, PCPL MIKHAIL A TOLENTINO, of legal age, police

officer by profession, Filipino, and resident of No. 3 Ernesto
Porto St., Brgy. Del Monte, Quezon City, after having been
sworn on oath in accordance with law do hereby depose and
say that:

1. I am currently assigned at Project 6 Police Station

(PS-15), Road 9, Project 6, Quezon City as a Mobile Patrol
Driver while Respondents PEMS NESTOR DE GUZMAN,
PSSG ADRIAN CUSTODIO, and NUP JAY SERQUINA are
also members of the same Police Station assigned at the
Administrative Branch and responsible for the recording of the
attendance and processing of all applications for Mandatory,
Vacation, and Sick Leave Benefits of all police officers assigned
in our police station. While Respondent PSMS MARLON
GELUA is the designated Desk Officer of the Station whose
primary duty is to record in the Police Blotter Book any incident
reported by any police officer or civilian acting as complainants;

2. That last August 8, 2022, herein complainant applied

for a five (5) days mandatory leave for the period September 8
– 14, 2022 which does not include Saturdays, Sundays, and
legal holidays. When queried for what reason or purpose that
he was applying for a mandatory leave, I told them that the
purpose of such leave which is given annually to all members of
the Philippine National Police is to be able to attend on
September 9, 2022 the 2nd birthday celebration of his son, KYLE
U. TOLENTINO who is living with his mother at Urbiztondo,
Pangasinan. Photocopy of the PSA issued Birth Certificate is
herein attached to form as an integral part of this complaint and
marked as ANNEX “A” Such application was received by
PSSG CUSTODIO who instructed him to return on August 30,
2022 to follow-up his leave application. From August 8, 2022 to
August 30, 2022, he saw his name on the white board
schedules of leave application whenever he visits the station
prior and after his tours of duty. The 30-day prior notice was
made through the Social Media FB Messenger, the screenshot
of which is herein attached and marked as ANNEX “B” ;

3. However, on August 30, 2022, he was dismayed

when he followed-up the processing of his application for
Mandatory Leave, he was told by NUP SERQUINA and
arrogantly told that “ WALANG BAKANTE SA DATES NA
SINABI MO MAY NAUNA NA NANG NAG APPLY AT KUNG
NGAYON KA LANG MAG-APPLY, DAPAT 10 DAYS PRIOR
SA LEAVE MO PARA MAAPRUBAHAN KA TYAKA
WALANG SINABI SI SIR CUSTODIO NA MAGLELEAVE
KA!”. I was also informed that his application was not
processed nor acted upon despite the submission of the
application form for leave. Copy of the said application is
herein attached and marked as ANNEX “C”;

4. I pleaded to him that I have made the application as

early as August 8, 2022 and my name, scheduled dates, and
place of leave was written in the bulletin board of the Admin
Branch. Frustrated that I would not be able to attend the
celebration of my son’s birthday and knowing that date was still
within the 10 day period to file the application for leave, he got
exasperated “BAKIT PO GANON EH AKO PO ANG NAUNA
NA MAGFILE NG LEAVE AT ALAM NIYO NAMAN NA
MAGBIBIRTHDAY ANG ANAK KO TSAKA PINAPABALIK
AKO NI SIR PSSG ADRIAN CUSTUDIO UPANG MAGFILE
NGAYON AT NAKASULAT NAMAN NA PANGALAN KO SA
BULLETIN BOARD. EH PARANG MERON
NAMEMERSONAL NAMAN SA AKIN DITO.”

5. At that instance, PEMS DE GUZMAN retorted

shouting at the complainant “TOLENTINO SINO BA ANG
NAMEMERSONAL SA IYO DITO!” Knowing that he also
experienced his abuses in the past when I was still a Jailer of
the Police Station and after denying him access to the detained
Persons Deprived of Liberty (PDLs), I answered him back
saying “IKAW SIR KASI NUNG JAILER PA AKO PINIPILIT
MONG ILABAS MO YUNG PRESO NA INUUTUSAN MO NA
MAMANGLENGKE AT PARA BUMILI NG GAMOT MO.
KAYA TULOY INILIPAT AKO SUMBONG KA NG SUMBONG
KAY COP.”
 6. For this, he was infuriated and challenged me to a
duel outside the station saying “PUTANG INA MO AH!
SUNTUKAN TAYO AT TANGGALIN MO YANG BARIL MO.”
Due to that commotion, he was prevented by PSSG ORLY
BARRACA and escorted me out of the office. Knowing that I
still have to attend the birthday of my child, I begged PEMS DE
GUZMAN to process my mandatory leave so I would not be
marked absent without official leave. But instead, he bluntly
denied my application.

7. In my grave frustration, I requested from the duty

Desk Officer to record the incident in the police blotter and the
denial of his application for mandatory leave. But PSMS
GELUA also denied such request saying “ITATANONG KO
MUNA KAY COP KUNG PAPAYAG SIYA NA
MAGPABLOTTER KA DIN”. After a few seconds, he came
back and said “AYAW DAW NI COP NA MAGPABLOTTER
KA AT SAGUTIN MO NALANG DAW YUNG EXPLANATION.
I said to him that blotter recording of incident is a right of every
citizen. But he still denied to place on record the Incident
Record Form I accomplished. Attached is a copy of the
Incident Record Form that should have been recorded by
PSMS GELUA and herein marked as ANNEX “D”;

8. Because of their inaction, I could not be with my child

in September 9, 2022 who would be celebrating alone with his
mother. That the act of the Respondents PEMS NESTOR DE
GUZMAN, PSSG ADRIAN CUSTODIO, and NUP JAY
SERQUINA in depriving me of my mandatory leave is in
violation of Omnibus Rules on Leave (CSC MC No. 41, s. 1998)
which states that:

Sec. 25. Five days forced/mandatory leave. – All

officials and employees with 10 days or more vacation
leave credits shall be required to go on vacation leave
whether continuous or intermittent for a minimum of
five (5) working days annually under the following
conditions:

(a) The head of agency shall, upon prior consultation with

the employees, prepare a staggered schedule of the
mandatory five-day vacation leave of officials and
employees, provided that he may, in the exigency of the
service, cancel any previously scheduled leave.

(b) The mandatory annual five-day vacation leave shall

be forfeited if not taken during the year. However, in
cases where the scheduled leave has been cancelled
in the exigency of the service by the head of the
 agency, the scheduled leave not enjoyed shall no
longer be deducted from the total accumulated
vacation leave.

9. The same memorandum circular of the Civil Service

Commission provides for penalties in cases of violation by
members of the civil service stating that “ SEC. 67. Cause for
disciplinary action.  – Any violation of the leave laws, rules or
regulations, or any misrepresentation or deception in connection with
an application for leave, shall be a ground for disciplinary action.”

10. The acts of PEMS DE GUZMAN in threatening and

challenging him of a fight is a crime of Other Light Threat which
is defined and penalized under Article 285 paragraph 3 which
states that By orally threatening another with harm not
constituting a felony.

11. As to the denial of PSMS GELUA to place on record

the incident he was reporting against PEMS DE GUZMAN, he
was liable for grave neglect of duty arising from his refusal to
perform official duty as defined under the Uniformed Revised
Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service. Further,
their collusion in denying my request and application for a
mandatory leave thereby causing him to absent himself in a
special occasion of his child amounts to Conduct prejudicial to
the best interest of the service since it is not for them to decide
whether to approve or disapprove my application for mandatory
leave considering their main function is merely to process my
application, a ministerial functions on their part.

12. As to the choice of forum, since their also handle the

grievance machinery of the Station, this complaint would not
move the investigation stage and it is wiser to file this criminal
and administrative complaint before this Honourable Office.

13. That I am executing this Affidavit of Complaint to

attest the veracity of the foregoing facts.

IN TRUTH WHEREOF I am affixing my signature this 6 th

day of September 2022, Quezon City Philippines.

PCPL MIKHAIL A. TOLENTINO

Affiant
 SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 6th
day of September 2022, Quezon City Philippines and I am
convinced that they read and understood their affidavit.

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION

OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING
I, PCPL MIKHAIL A ARAMBULO, of legal age, police officer by
profession and resident of No. 3 Ernesto Porto St., Brgy. Del Monte,
Quezon City, after having been sworn on oath in accordance with law do
hereby depose and say that:

1. I am the complainant in the above-stated case;

2. I have caused the preparation of the foregoing complaint;

3. I have read the contents thereof and the facts stated therein are
true and correct of my personal knowledge and/or on the basis of copies of
documents and records in my possession;

4. I have not commenced any other action or proceeding involving

the same issues in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other
tribunal or agency;

5. To the best of our knowledge and belief, no such action or

proceeding is pending in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any
other tribunal or agency;

6. If I should thereafter learn that a similar action or proceeding has

been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or
any other tribunal or agency, we undertake to report that fact within five (5)
days therefrom to this Honorable Office.

PCPL MIKHAIL A. TOLENTINO

Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 6th

day of September 2022, Quezon City Philippines and I am
convinced that they read and understood their affidavit.