NAPOLCOM R6

Decision/Resolution Writing

Atty. Dephra Jane Articulo-Villoso

Attorney V
Supervisor, Legal Section
 What is a Decision?
 the written disposition of the disciplinary authority
or appellate body stating clearly the facts and the
law upon which it is based.

Period to Render Decision

 Withregard to the PLEB, each case shall be
decided within sixty (60) days from the time the
case is filed before it. (Section 16, Rule 17 of
NAPOLCOM MC No. 2016-002)
 THE FOUR (4) Cs of
EFFECTIVE DECISION
WRITING

1. Completeness
2. Correctness
3. Clarity
4. Conciseness
 I. COMPLETENESS
Contents of the Decision:
1. Full name of the Parties
2. Rank and Assignment of the Respondent
3. Offense Charged
4. Brief Statement of the Material and Relevant Facts
5. Findings
6. Conclusion
7. Applicable Laws, Rules and Regulations,
Jurisprudence
8. Disposition
Statement of Facts
The methods of reporting facts are:
1. Objective or Reportorial Method - Usually done by
summarizing, without comment, the testimony of each witness,
and the contents of each exhibit.
2. Synthesis Method - According to his best light, the hearing
officer summarizes the factual theory of the complainant, and
then that of the respondent.
3. Subjective Method - The hearing officer simply narrates what
he accepts as his own version, without explaining what the
parties’ versions are.
4. Combination of the Objective and Subjective Methods -
The hearing officer reports the testimony of each witness as in the
first type and then makes his own version as he sees fit.
Statement of the Issue/s
Example: Whether or not respondent PO1 Ricardo
Dalisay is guilty of Grave Misconduct?

The Ruling
Application of law and jurisprudence to the facts, and
explanation for the conclusions reached. Each issue, as a
rule, must be taken up and disposed of.
Dispositive Portion or Disposition.
The disposition should include:
1. Finding of culpability
2. Specific offense
3. Penalty
4. Qualifying, aggravating and mitigating
circumstances
Example:
 
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the administrative case against PO1
Ricardo Dalisay is DISMISSED for lack of substantial evidence.”

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the PLEB finds SPO1 Ricardo

Dalisay CULPABLE for Grave Misconduct and metes upon him penalty of
ONE RANK DEMOTION, there being no mitigating or aggravating
circumstance”
 II. CORRECTNESS
This means that the decision must conform to the law
and settled jurisprudence. Scholarship and research
are the landmarks of a great decision. Citations of
authorities, especially those involving novel or
difficult issues, are always desirable. Remember that
your audience is not just the parties or their lawyers,
but also the appellate body which may review your
decisions and opinions.
 III. CLARITY
A decision should be easy to read and to understand.
Be Simple. Excessive ornateness, unorthodoxy,
multisyllabic words, and obscure spelling and diction
call attention to themselves, not to the message. It
means condensing many words into a few meaningful
ones that deliver the desired message.
 IV. CONCISENESS
Question: How long should a decision be?
Answer: It depends on the facts and the issues involved.
The simple case ought not to be given a wordy or
lengthy treatment, while the most serious one
unquestionably deserves a treatment probably ten times
more fully than the former.
The hearing officer must know how to synthesize, to
summarize, to simplify. Their failure to do is one of the
main reasons for the delay in the administration of
justice.
Guidelines in Drafting Decision/Resolution
1. Do NOT quote verbatim the complaint affidavit or counter-
affidavit, and other affidavits, but you MUST quote the Formal
Charge.
2. State only the ultimate and material facts.
3. For statements made in the vernacular, do not translate.
- Respondent uttered, “Putangina mo! (Son of a Bitch!) – Incorrect
- Respondent cursed, “Putangina mo! - Correct
4. In citing cases, italicize the case title.
5. Mention the important dates (i.e. summons, pre-hearing
conference, submission of position paper, non-appearance of
complainants and witnesses) to reflect that the procedure was
followed.
6. Properly identify the offense charged.

7. State clearly the attending circumstances (mitigating and

aggravating), especially if these will affect the penalty imposed.

8. Appreciation of mitigating and aggravating circumstances.

 Aggravating circumstances must be alleged AND proved.
 Aggravating circumstances admitted by Respondent in the course of
the proceedings may be appreciated against him.
 Mitigating circumstance must be alleged and proved before the
submission of the case for resolution.
9. Do NOT dismiss the case on the ground of failure to prosecute
BUT based on lack of substantial evidence.
 Affidavit of Desistance must not be the basis for the dismissal
of the case. Other evidence submitted against Respondent
must still be considered.

10. Use of principle of exclusivity, forum-shopping, and res

judicata
Principle of Exclusivity – consistent with the principle of exclusivity,
the administrative case should be dismissed.
Forum-shopping – complainant initiates the filing of similar action
against respondent in different fora; OR Complainant violates the
provisions in his Certification against Non-Forum Shopping.
Res judicata – The case maybe dismissed by either barred by prior
judgment OR conclusiveness of judgment.
11. Avoid run-on sentences. Be concise and clear.
12. In the dispositive portion, mention the reason of the
decision.
Example:
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the administrative case against
PO1 Juan Dela Cruz is DISMISSED for lack of substantial evidence.” (DO
NOT USE INSUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE)
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Commission finds SPO1
Juan Dela Cruz CULPABLE for Grave Misconduct and metes upon him
the penalty of ONE RANK DEMOTION, there being no mitigating and
aggravating circumstance.”
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Commission finds PO1
Juan Dela Cruz CULPABLE for Grave Misconduct and metes upon him
the maximum penalty of DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE considering the
aggravating circumstance.”
 Republic of the Philippines
Province of Iloilo
Municipality of _____________
PEOPLES LAW ENFORCEMENT BOARD

JUAN DE LA CRUZ PLEB CASE No. ___________

Complainant,
-versus- FOR: GRAVE MISCONDUCT
PO1 RICARDO DALISAY
ILOILO CITY POLICE STATION 1
ILOILO CITY POLICE OFFICE
Respondent.
x------------------------------------------------------------x
FORMAL CHARGE
 
 The PLEB , after conduct of evaluation on the complaint filed against you, found
that probable cause exist to hold you for the administrative offense of Grave
Misconduct, committed as follows: 

That on September 26, 2016, about 8:35 in the evening at Jaro, Iloilo City and
within the jurisdiction of this Office, Complainant, while inside a makeshift nipa hut,
heard a loud bang as if something was being thrown at him; when he went out to
check, Complainant heard Respondent deliberately and intentionally threatened him
by shouting “GUWA DYAN KAY BUK-ON KO ULO MO!”;
 That prior to the said incident, sometime in January 2015, similar acts of threat
on the person of Complainant were committed by Respondent wherein he shouted and
indiscriminately fired his gun.
Contrary to law.

Aggravating circumstances of intoxication, and taking advantage of official

position are attendant to the case.

WHEREFORE, PO1 RICARDO DALISAY is hereby formally charged with

administrative offense of Grave Misconduct and hereby directed to submit his Answer
within inextendible period of seven (7) days from receipt hereof.

Given this 22nd day of June 2017 at Iloilo City, Philippines.

______________________________
Chairman, PLEB
______________________ __________________
MEMBER MEMBER
_______________________ __________________
MEMBER MEMBER
 Republic of the Philippines
Province of Iloilo
Municipality of _____________
PEOPLES LAW ENFORCEMENT BOARD
JUAN DE LA CRUZ PLEB CASE No. ___________
Complainant,

-versus- FOR: GRAVE MISCONDUCT

PO1 RICARDO DALISAY
ILOILO CITY POLICE STATION 1
ILOILO CITY POLICE OFFICE
Respondent.
x------------------------------------------------------------x
SUMMONS
 TO: PO1 RICARDO DALISAY
ILOILO CITY POLICE STATION 1
ILOILO CITY POLICE OFFICE
 
GREETINGS:
You are hereby notified that a formal administrative complaint against you, copy attached, has been
filed with this Office for the aforecited offense pursuant to Section 53 of R.A. 8551 (The PNP Reform and
Reorganization Act of 1998) in relation to NAPOLCOM Memorandum Circular No. 2016-002.
 
WHEREFORE, you are hereby required to answer in writing the above-mentioned charge(s) within
seven (7) days from receipt hereof, and to file said Answer under oath in three (3) copies, attaching therewith
such documentary evidence as you wish to present in your defense.
 
Given this June 22, 2017 at Iloilo City, Philippines .
______________________________
Chairman, PLEB
______________________ __________________ __________________ __________________
MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER
 Republic of the Philippines
Province of Iloilo
Municipality of _____________
PEOPLES LAW ENFORCEMENT BOARD
JUAN DE LA CRUZ PLEB CASE No. ___________
Complainant,

-versus- FOR: GRAVE MISCONDUCT

PO1 RICARDO DALISAY
ILOILO CITY POLICE STATION 1
ILOILO CITY POLICE OFFICE
Respondent.
x------------------------------------------------------------x
SUBPOENA
 
To: PO1 PEDRO SANTOS
ILOILO CITY POLICE STATION 1
ILOILO CITY POLICE OFFICE

G R E E T I N G S:
 
You are hereby required to appear and be present before the PLEB Iloilo City on July 31,, 2017
at 2:00 o’clock in the afternoon PLEB Iloilo City, Iloilo City Hall, Iloilo City, then and there to testify in
connection with the Affidavit dated February 13, 2017 you executed in connection with the above-entitled case
pending therein.
FAIL NOT UNDER PENALTY OF THE LAW
  
Given this June 22, 2017 at Iloilo City, Philippines.
______________________________
Chairman, PLEB
______________________ __________________ __________________ __________________
MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER
 Republic of the Philippines
Province of Iloilo
Municipality of _____________
PEOPLES LAW ENFORCEMENT BOARD
JUAN DE LA CRUZ PLEB CASE No. ___________
Complainant,
-versus- FOR: GRAVE MISCONDUCT
PO1 RICARDO DALISAY
ILOILO CITY POLICE STATION 1
ILOILO CITY POLICE OFFICE
Respondent.
x-----------------------------------------x
NOTICE OF PRE-HEARING CONFERENCE
 TO: JUAN DE LA CRUZ PO1 RICARDO DALISAY
Luna St. La Paz, Iloilo City ILOILO CITY POLICE STATION 1, Iloilo City__________________
________________________
GREETINGS:
 
Pursuant to Section 5 Rule 17 of NAPOLCOM Memorandum Circular 2016-002, this case is scheduled for pre-hearing
conference on JULY 31, 2017 at 2:00 PM at the PLEB Iloilo City, Iloilo City Hall, Iloilo City or the purpose of:
Defining and simplifying the issues of the case;
Entering into admissions and/or stipulation of facts;
Marking of exhibits after proper identification by the parties/signatories; and
Threshing out other matters relevant to the case.
 
You are directed to be present at the said place, date and time above-specified.
 
Further, both parties are directed to submit their respective position papers after the termination of the conference for a
non-extendible period of fifteen (15) days.
 
Given this 118th day of July 2017 in the City of Iloilo, Philippines.
______________________________
Chairman, PLEB
______________________ __________________ __________________ __________________
MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER
 Republic of the Philippines
Province of Iloilo
Municipality of _____________
PEOPLES LAW ENFORCEMENT BOARD
JUAN DE LA CRUZ PLEB CASE No. ___________
Complainant,
-versus- FOR: GRAVE MISCONDUCT
PO1 RICARDO DALISAY
ILOILO CITY POLICE STATION 1
ILOILO CITY POLICE OFFICE
Respondent.
x------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
This is an administrative case for Grave Misconduct filed by JUAN DE LA CRUZ (Complainant) against PO1 RICARDO
DALISAY (Respondent) of Iloilo City Police Station 1, Iloilo City Police Office.
The formal charge states:
STATE THE MATERIAL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ATTENDING THE COMMISSION OF THE OFFENSE.”

DEFINITION OF OFFENSE
APPLICABLE RULES
FINDINGS/RULING

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Commission finds respondent PO1 RICARDO DALISAY CULPABLE for
___________________ and metes upon him the maximum penalty of ___________________________ considering the presence of
aggravating circumstances as above-stated which were alleged and proven in this case.
SO ORDERED.
__________________, Philippines.
______________________________
Chairman, PLEB
______________________ __________________ __________________ __________________
MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER
 Sample Decision
Republic of the Philippines
Province of Iloilo
Municipality of _____________
PEOPLES LAW ENFORCEMENT BOARD

JUAN DE LA CRUZ PLEB CASE No. ___________

Complainant,
-versus- FOR: GRAVE MISCONDUCT
PO1 RICARDO DALISAY
ILOILO CITY POLICE STATION 1
ILOILO CITY POLICE OFFICE
Respondent.
x------------------------------------------------------------x
 DECISION
This is an administrative case for Grave Misconduct filed
before this Office by private complainant Juan de la Cruz
(Complainant for brevity), a resident of Luna St., Iloilo City
against PO1 Ricardo Dalisay (Respondent for brevity),
currently assigned at Iloilo City Police Station 1. The offense
was committed as follows:
That on September 26, 2016, about 8:35 in the evening at
Jaro, Iloilo City and within the jurisdiction of this Office,
Complainant, while inside a makeshift nipa hut, heard a
loud bang as if something was being thrown at him; when
he went out to check, Complainant heard Respondent
deliberately and intentionally threatened him by shouting
“GUWA DYAN KAY BUK-ON KO ULO MO!”;
 That prior to the said incident, sometime in January
2015, similar acts of threat on the person of
Complainant were committed by Respondent wherein
he shouted and indiscriminately fired his gun.
Contrary to law.
Accordingly, Summons was issued directing Respondent to
file his Answer within seven (7) working days from receipt
thereof. Based on record, Respondent personally received
the formal charge on July 11, 2017. Upon receipt of the said
Answer, the summary hearing officer issued a Notice dated
July 18, 2017 setting the case for Pre-hearing Conference on
July 31, 2017.
 When this case was called for pre-hearing conference on
July 31, 2017 at PLEB, Iloilo City, Atty. XYZ a appeared for
Respondent. Both the Complainant and Respondent were
present, but the former was not represented by counsel. Thus,
the Complainant moved that the scheduled pre-hearing
conference be reset on August 15, 2017 for the reason that he
is yet to seek the service of a counsel. On the ground that the
Complainant has also the right to counsel, the PLEB granted
such motion. The second pre-hearing conference ensued on
August 15, 2017.
 At the end of the pre-hearing conference, the parties
were directed to submit position papers within 15 days
after the termination of the proceedings. However, the
parties mutually agreed and requested that the position
papers be submitted upon receipt of the Order. The
PLEB granted the same and accordingly issued an Order
of Pre-Hearing on August 18, 2017. The Complainant
and Respondent filed their position papers on September
11, 2017 and September 14, 2017 respectively.
 In his Complaint Affidavit filed on December 2, 2016, the
Complainant averred that sometime in September 26, 2016, at
around 8:35 o’clock in the evening, while he was resting inside
a makeshift nipa hut, he heard a loud bang as if something is
being thrown at him. As he went out to check what had
happened, he heard the Respondent shouting from his house in
this manner, “GUWA DYAN KAY BUK-ON KO ULO MO!”.
He also heard almost instantaneously a sound of a gun being
cocked as if readying the same to use it against the
Complainant.
 Right away, the Complainant reported said incident
Iloilo City Police Station 1. Prior to the aforesaid incident,
a similar act was committed by the Respondent wherein
sometime in November 24, 2015 at around 9:30 o’clock in
the evening, he threatened the Complainant by shouting,
“SIN-O ISOG DYAN, GWA DYAN, MABOK-ANAY TA
DI ULO, INDE NI KAUBOS TATLO KA MAGAZINE
AH. BASI WALA NYO KO MAKILALA GUSTO NYO
MAPAKILALA KO KA NINYO?!” He likewise purposely
revved the engine of his motorcycle for over an hour just
to annoy the Complainant.
 The Respondent has been and is still consistently
threatening the life and limb of the Complainant every
time the former is intoxicated with liquor. A previous
incident has similarly transpired sometime in January
2015 wherein the Complainant could have already filed a
criminal case against the Respondent were it not upon the
plea of forgiveness and promise not to do it again by the
Respondent. Hence, an affidavit of desistance was
executed by the Complainant in favor of the Respondent.
In his Answer to the Complaint, the Respondent averred that on
September 26, 2016 at around 8 o’clock in the morning, he,
together with PO1 Pedro Santos, went to San Joaquin, Iloilo to
serve a warrant of arrest against a certain person named Ursula.
They went home the next day, September 27, 2016.
Prior thereto or on September 25, 2016, there was an incident
where Complainant threw a stone on the rooftop of the house
owned by Respondent’s father. Subsequently, at around 4:30
o’clock in the morning of December 30, 2016, Complainant, for
another time threw stones and spoiled eggs on the roof of the
house owned by Respondent’s mother as reflected in the
Certification of Police Blotter Entry and pictures showing
remains of cracked eggs found in the roof top of the house of
Respondent’s mother.
 Respondent countered the Complainant’s claim of
continuously threatening his life and limb, as only bare
and self-serving allegations for no sufficient evidence was
adduced to bolster his claim.

The Complainant has only submitted his Complaint-

Affidavit, and other supporting annexes. Respondent
likewise raised the issue of credibility of the Complainant
considering that the latter was once convicted for the
crime of Homicide.
 The Complainant and the Respondent adapted the same
issue to be resolved, as follows:
Whether or not respondent should be held administratively
liable for Grave Misconduct.
Before examining into the merits of the case, it is
indispensable to discuss the offenses as authoritatively defined
under the Rules and jurisprudence.
As defined under Section 1, paragraph 3, Rule 21 of
NAPOLCOM Memorandum Circular 2016-002 , misconduct is
“any wrongful, improper or unlawful conduct motivated by
premeditated, obstinate or intentional purpose. It usually refers
to transgression of some established and definite rule of action,
where no discretion is left except where necessity may demand; it
does not necessarily imply corruption or criminal intention.”
 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.

Rule 21 (C), paragraph 3 of the same memorandum

circular enumerates the acts constituting Grave
Misconduct. One of them is as follows:
xxxxx
(r) commit any act or omission that constitutes a crime
punishable under the Revised Penal Code or special laws
where the duration of the imposable penalty is imprisonment
of not lower than six (6) months and one (1) day.
 To sustain a finding of administrative liability or
culpability, it is sufficient that substantial evidence exist.
Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla. It means
such substantial evidence as a reasonable mind must accept
as adequate to support a conclusion. The Supreme Court has,
time and again, ruled that "mere allegation or claim is not
proof." (Sadhwani vs. Court of Appeals, 281 SCRA 75).

The standard of substantial evidence is satisfied when

there is reasonable ground to believe that respondent is
responsible for the misconduct complained of, even if such
evidence might not be overwhelming or even preponderant.
 After carefully evaluating the testimonies of the
parties and their witnesses, the undersigned is convinced
that evidence weighs comprehensively in favor of the
Complainant.
Respondent’s administrative liability is anchored on
his acts of threatening to kill the Complainant that
would constitute the crime of Grave Threats punishable
under Article 282 of the Revised Penal Code where the
duration of the imposable penalty is imprisonment of
not lower than six (6) months and one (1) day.
Article 282 of the RPC holds liable for Grave Threats "any
person who shall threaten another with the infliction upon
the person x x x of the latter or his family of any wrong
amounting to a crime[.]" This felony is consummated "as
soon as the threats come to the knowledge of the person
threatened."
In the case at bar, applying these parameters, it is clear
that Respondent’s threat to kill the Complainant and crack
open the latter’s skull are wrongs on the person amounting
to at the very least homicide or serious physical injuries as
penalized under the RPC. These threats were consummated
when Complainant heard the Respondent utter his
threatening remarks, to wit: “GWA DYAN KAY BUK-ON
KO ULO MO!, and simultaneously heard the cocking of a
gun as if readying to shoot the Complainant.
 The foregoing established by substantial evidence that the
conduct of Respondent Dalisay when he repeatedly threatens
the life and limb of Complainant De la Cruz are clear showings
of a willful intent to violate the law and flagrant disregard of
established rules, which are tantamount to Grave Misconduct.
However, the aggravating circumstances of intoxication,
and taking advantage of official position as alleged in the
formal charge were not substantially proven by evidence on
record. The Complainant failed to establish that the
Respondent was in the state of intoxication at the time he
committed the crime.
 Neither did the Respondent take advantage of his
official position when he threatened to kill the
Complainant. For the aggravating circumstance of
taking advantage of official position to be appreciated as
such, it must be proven that the crime would not have
been perpetrated were it not for the official position of
the Respondent.
Since the offense committed by Respondent was
neither attended by aggravating nor mitigating
circumstance, the appropriate penalty is One (1) rank
demotion to be imposed upon the Respondent pursuant
to Section 5 (c), Rule 22 of the NAPOLCOM
Memorandum Circular 2016-002.
However, to impose upon the Respondent the penalty of One (1) rank
demotion considering that his present rank as per Certification of
Active Duty Status issued by the Office of the Regional Personnel
and Human Resource Development Division, Police Regional Office
6, is Police Officer 1 (PO1), which is the starting rank in entering
police service, would be tantamount to imposing the maximum
penalty of Dismissal. Hence, for this reason, the most appropriate
penalty to be imposed is Suspension for Six Months.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the PLEB finds that

Respondent PO1 RICARDO DALISAY is CULPABLE for Grave
Misconduct and metes upon him the penalty of SIX (6) MONTHS
SUSPENSION.
SO ORDERED.
Iloilo City, Philippines. September 30, 2017.
 ______________________________
Chairman, PLEB
______________________ __________________
MEMBER MEMBER

______________________ __________________
MEMBER MEMBER
Thank you!