Republic of the Philippines

NATIONAL POLICE COMMISSION

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE, INTERNAL AFFAIRS SERVICE
REGIONAL INTERNAL AFFAIRS SERVICE NCR
QUEZON CITY POLICE DISTRICT INTERNAL AFFAIRS SERVICE
Camp P/MGen Tomas B Karingal, Sikatuna Village, Quezon City

IN RE:ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS PCI Control No. RNCRA-NMP-2022-09-37

For: Grave Misconduct
Serious Irregularity in the
Performance of Duty (Violation of
Domicile and POP)
-versus-

PCPL FRANCO B SALVA

Respondent
x---------------------------------------------------x

POSITION PAPER
COMES NOW, the respondent in his own behalf and unto this
Honorable Summary Hearing Officer, most respectfully submit this Position
Paper and further alleges the following:

PREFATORY STATEMENTS

One’s employment is not merely a specie of property

rights. It is also the means by which he and those who depend
on him live. It is therefore protected by the guarantee of
security of tenure. And in the civil service, this means that no
government employee may be removed, suspended or
disciplined unless for cause provided by law and after due
process. Unless the constitutional guarantee of due process is
a mere platitude, it is the Court’s duty to insist on its
observance in all cases involving a deprivation, denigration or
dilution of one’s right to life, liberty and property. 1

Suit predicated on the say-so of the original complainant

without any pieces of evidence to support it is like a crumpled
paper that hits the face of an innocent bystander. While it may
not do severe harm, the ghost of mental anguish and wounded
feelings arises and the enthusiasm to work diminishes. Victim
of this suit must be accorded protection not only to improve his
morale but also to shield his family from the resulting public
ridicule and humiliation.
1
Prieto v. Atty. Corpuz, et al. A.C. No. 6517, 2006 Dec 6
 In providing protection to victim of sham suit, the
Honorable Forum should consider the fact that accusation is
not synonymous with guilt. There must always be sufficient
evidence to support the charge. This brings us to the fore the
application of the age-old but familiar rule that he who alleges
must prove his allegations.2 In administrative proceedings, the
complainant bears the burden of proving, by substantial
evidence, the allegations in the complaint. Substantial
evidence means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind
might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. 3

In this particular administrative case, herein respondent

was merely implicated in a police operation conducted by his
colleagues at Holy Spirit Police Station (PS-14), QCPD after
serving as an informant in the illegal activities that usually
transpires at respondent’s neighbor house located at 55 Diego
Silang, Brgy Pasong Tamo, Quezon City.

BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This is an administrative complaint for alleged Grave Misconduct and

alleged Serious Irregularity in the Performance of Duty arising from an
alleged violation of domicile and Police Operational Procedure which was
filed by the private complainant, Jery Lagnason and Vivian Lagnason
against the respondent for alleged grave misconduct defined in
NAPOLCOM Memorandum Circular No. 2016-002.

During the conduct of Pre-Charge Investigation, it was alleged by

complainant Jery Lagnason that herein respondent trespassed and
conducted search on August 26, 2022 at about 10:46PM together with
unidentified police officers. He was advised to gather witnesses in order for
his complaint to be acted upon. Thus, on September 12, 2022,
complainant Jery Lagnason brought Vivian Lagnason, his auntie who is
living with him, Mark Alejandro Razalo who executed their respective
Sinumpaang Salaysay corroborating the allegations of Jery Lagnason.

During the proceedings, respondent categorically and vehemently

denied that he was part of the police officers that conducted a police
operation at Roxas Compound located at 55 Diego Silang St., Veterans
Village, Brgy. Pasong Tamo, Quezon City. He averred that the
complainants were merely placing a leverage against the police personnel
of Holy Spirit Police Station in order to intimidate them not to enforce the
laws and ordinances at Veterans Village particularly at Roxas Compound
which is known to be the haven of illegal activities such as illegal gambling,
illegal drugs, robbery hold-up, illegal possession of deadly weapon.
2
Prieto v. Atty. Corpuz, et al. A.C. No. 6517, 2006 Dec 6
3
Hofer v. Tan, A.M. No P-05-1990, 2007 Jul 26
 He alleged that complainant is known to him as he grew up with him
at Veterans Village and that he was his neighbor and that complainant
knew him as a police officer assigned at Holy Spirit Police Station. That
while he knew that several illegal activities are being committed inside his
very community, he could not participate in any police operation as his
family also lives in the said community and doing so would endanger their
lives and safety while he is at the Police Station. He also admitted that his
participation in the said operation was to merely give verifiable information
of all the personalities that participate in illegal gambling, peddling of illegal
drugs, and robbery hold-up personalities that frequent their area.

Immediately after the respondent learned of the instant complaint, he

confronted his neighbor, Jery Lagnasan why he was being implicated in an
alleged police operation conducted by PS-14 when he did not even went
inside their compound and his participation was merely to the informant
and area security being known inside the Veterans Village, Brgy. Pasong
Tamo where he grew up together with the complainant.

The respondent was informed that Jery Lagnasan was merely forced
and paid by his nephew known to their place as RR or Roldan Roxas to
incriminate him for whatever offense to jeopardize his employment with the
PNP. He supported his Answer with a Sinumpaang Salaysay ng Pagbawi
ng Unang Salaysay at Pag-urong ng Kaso executed by Jery Lagnason and
sworn before Hon. Virgilio R Follosco, Assistant City Prosecutor of Quezon
City.

He also attached the Dispatched Book of Holy Spirit Police Station

showing that: 2200H DISPATCHED SDEU OPERATIVES LED BY PLT
ANTONIO WITH SEVEN (7) OTHERS AND ONE (1) RCI TO CONDUCT
ANTI-CRIMINALITY WITHIN PS-14 AOR. PCPL SALVA, PCPLL
MADRID, PCPL OBEFIAS, PCPL JAYOMA, PCPL HERNANDEZ, PAT
PONTE, AND PAT FLORITA.

ISSUES

WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT IS GUILTY OF VIOLATION

DOMICILE DEFINED AND PENALIZE UNDER ART. 128 OF THE RPC
CONSTITUTING GRAVE MISCONDUCT

ARGUMENTS/DISCUSSIONS

The respondent must be exonerated. It is humbly submitted that

there was no violation of domicile to speak of since there was no evidence
to convincingly prove that the respondent or any of the police officers that
conducted an Anti-Criminality Operation at Diego Silang St., Brgy. Veterans
Village, entered in complainant’s or any person’s abode or residence, let
alone, conducted search in any of the residences in the said area during
their conduct of Anti-Criminality and Police Visibility Operations pursuant to
the directives of the Chief, PNP and Regional Director, NCRPO. While
none of the police officers were identified that allegedly entered the
residence of Complainant Lagnasan at Roxas Compound which is a known
asylum of criminal personalities and place of several illegal activities such
as illegal gambling, illegal drugs, and robbery hold-up, their presence in the
area were merely to preempt the illegal activities inside Roxas Compound
which is a public place. However, it is very convenient on the part of
complainant Lagnason to implicate herein respondent to an act which did
not happened at the first place.

This is because at the very beginning, the respondent is known to

them being resident also of the same area, Veterans Village, Barangay
Pasong Tamo where the police officers conducted their anti-criminality
operation. This can be shown in SINUMPAANG SALAYSAY NG PAG-
UURONG PAGPAPAWALANG BISA AT PAGBAWI NG NAUNANG
SINUMPAANG SALAYSAY wherein she stated that :

“3. Pagkatapos kong pag-aralan ang mga bagay-

bagay na may kinalaman sa nasabing kaso, aking
napagtanto at napag-isp isip na ito ay resulta lamang ng
pagtuturo sa akin ng aking pamangkin na si Roldan
Roxas at kanyang kaibigan na si Richard Mojica na
magreklamo kay PCpl Salva kahit na hindi ko siya kilala
at hindi Nakita na pumasok sa loob ng aming bahay.”

In a Sworn Handwritten Statement of the complainant, he stated that:

“Ako po si Gerry R Lagnason, nakatira sa Diego Silang

55 Q.C. ako po ay nanunumpa na magsabi ng katutunayan
na si Sir Zalba ay hindi kupa Nakita o kilala nais ko sanang
iurong ang akusa ko sa kanya dahil TINURUAN LANG PO
AKO NG PAMANGKIN KO NA SI AR AR ANG PANGALAN
AT NG KAIBIGAN NYA NASE RICHARD MOJICA.
NAKUKUNSINYA PO AKO NA AKOSAHAN SI SIR
ZALVVA PO NA WALA NA MANG KINALAMAN SA
LAHAT.”

A disinterested witness and neighbor of both complainant and

respondent executed a Sworn Handwritten Statement of their neighbor,
GERMANDO MALVAR dated October 3, 2022 in order to corroborate the
SInumpaang Salaysay of Complainant Lagnasan and his sworn
handwritten statement and sworn that “Ako po si Mando Malvar may
edad na 68 yrs ol nakatira sa 101 Diego Silang St., Area 2, Veterans
Village, Brgy. Pasong Tamo, Quezon City NA MAGPAPATUNAY SA
NAKITA SILA PLT ELMER ANTONIO AT KASAMAHAN NIYANG PULIS
A SILA PCPL FRANCO SALVA NA HINDI PUMASOK SA COMPOUND
NG MGA ROXAS O SA BAHAY NILA AT TANGING SA KALSADA
LANG SILA NAKATAMBAY DAHIL UMUULAN NG GABING IYON …
NANG AUGUST 26, 2022 BANDANG 10:PM”.

Misconduct or Malfeasance is defined by NAPOLCOM Memorandum

Circular No. 2016-002 is any wrongful, improper or unlawful conduct
motivated by pre-meditated, obstinate or intentional purpose. It usually
refers to transgression of some established usually refers to transgression
of some established and definite rule of action, where no discretion is
left except where necessity may demand. In the above allegations,
statement, and facts, no actionable offense can be found. Facts that was
merely coerced, induced, and concocted by the complainant and his
witness merely want that police officers will not stay, patrol, guard, and
conduct police operation in their area which is the haven of illegalities.

The basic rule that mere allegation is not evidence cannot be

disregarded and that he who alleges must always prove the fact
subject of the assertion4. The burden of proof rests on the complainant
and the case against the respondent must be established by clear,
convincing and satisfactory proof. Thus, the adage that “he who asserts,
not he who denies, must prove. 5

In Boyboy vs. Yabut, Jr. 6, the High Court said “…a mere charge or
allegation of wrongdoing does not suffice. Accusation is not synonymous
with guilt. There must always be sufficient evidence to support the charge.
This brings to the fore the application of the age-old but familiar rule that he
who alleges must prove his allegations…[R]espondent …is not under
obligation to prove his negative averment, much less to disprove what has
not been proved by complainants. Thus, we have consistently held that
if the complainant, upon whom rests the burden of proving his cause
of action, fails to show in a satisfactory manner the facts upon which
he bases his claim, the respondent/defendant is under no obligation
to prove his exception or defense.

With the categorical statement of the complainant that the case she
filed merely arose out of inducement by a known criminal personality in the
person of Ronald Roxas and Richard Mojica that usually leads the conduct
of illegal gambling in the area (poker) and the presence of police officers in
their street is detrimental to their illegal business thereby earning their
anger for halted operation arising from the presence of police officers
conducting legitimate police operations in the area can be considered a
recantation of what he has initially alleged. The Constitutional duty of any
tribunal is not only to acquit the innocent after trial but to insulate, from
the start, the innocent from unfounded charges. For it is aware of the
4
GSIS vs CA, 296 SCRA 514, 531.
5
ANGELES vs. FIGUEROA, A.C. No. 5050. September 20, 2005.
6
401 SCRA 622, April 29, 2003.
strains of a criminal or administrative accusation and the stresses of
litigation which should not be suffered by the clearly innocent. The filing of
unfounded complaint in any tribunal exposes the innocent to severe
distress. Even an acquittal of the innocent will not fully bleach the
dark and deep stains left by a baseless accusation for reputation
once tarnished remains tarnished for a long length of time. The
expense to establish innocence may also be prohibitive and can be more
punishing especially to the poor and the powerless. Innocence ought to be
enough and the business of the Court is to shield the innocent from
senseless suits right from the start.7

In administrative proceedings, the complainant has the burden of

proving by substantial evidence to the contrary. Charges based on mere
suspicion and speculation cannot be given credence. Hence, when the
complainant relies on mere conjectures and suppositions, and fails to
substantiate his claim, as in this case, the administrative complaint must be
dismissed for lack of merit.8

Absence of any violation or offense, the charges or complaint of

grave misconduct must fail. In guiding judges, the Court stated that “We
recognize that perjury strikes at the very administration of the laws;
that it is the policy of the law that judicial proceedings and judgments
shall be fair and free from fraud; that litigants and parties be
encouraged to tell the truth, and that they be punished if they do not. 9

Victims of groundless suit suffer not only the ghost of mental anguish
and wounded feelings but also the collapse of their dreams that someday
they would get the rank they have dreamed of since entering the
organization. Hence, dictate of fairness and a sense of justice have
compelled the court to adopt with approval and consistency the dictum of
ancient respectability that it is better to let the guilty go scot-free than to
convict an innocent person10.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of

the Honorable Office that this Position Paper be noted and that the case of
Grave Misconductbe dismissed and the respondent be exonerated from
this administrative case.

7
Dissenting Opinion, Justice Renato Puno. Roberts, Jr. v. Court of Appeals,
254 SCRA 307, March 5, 1996.
8
Ever Emporium, Inc. v. Judge Maceda, A.M. Nos. RTJ-04-1881 and RTJ-04-1882,
October 14, 2004, 440 SCRA 298.
9
People v. Cainglet, 123 Phil. 568, 575 (1966).
10
Pp v. Melencion, G.R. No. 121902, March 26, 2001
 Other reliefs just and equitable under the circumstances are likewise
being prayed for.

Quezon City, Philippines. October ___, 2022.

PCPL FRANCO B SALVA

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this October ___, 2022

in Quezon City, Philippines. I HEREBY CERTIFY that I personally
examined the affiant and I am fully convinced and satisfied that he
voluntarily executed and understood this Position Paper.