Republic of the Philippines)

Las Pinas City ) S.S.

Counter Affidavit
I, PMAJ. ROMEO A. BRITANICO, of legal age, a member of the
Philippine National Police presently assigned at the Las Pinas City Police
Station after having duly sworn to in accordance with law do hereby deposed
and sayeth, THAT;

1. On December 14, 2014 I was the Chief of the Station Investigation and
Detective Management Branch (SIDMB) of the Las Pinas City Police Station
and likewise the concurrent chief of the Anti-Carnapping Unit of the said
Police Station;

2. Among my duties was to supervise the Police Officers serving under

me in the performance of their tasks to conduct criminal investigation of
complaints involving crimes committed within Las Pinas City. Among the
crimes that are included within the scope of their duties to investigate are those
involving involving the theft or motor vehicles or carnapping;

3. On the aforementioned date, SPO2 Ernesto Bautista informed me that

a complaint was referred to our office by a certain Mr. Raul Santos regarding
the failure of complainants, Spouses Guerrero, to return his vehicle which was
a Mitsubishi Montero. SPO2 Bautista informed me that he was of the belief
that the said Spouses Guerrero have committed the crime of carnapping
because of their act in not returning the said vehicle;

4. I asked him what his basis was for concluding that there wascarnapping
committed by the said Spouses and he informed me of the facts that were
relayed to him by Mr. Santos. He likewise showed me the documents that
were presented to him, i.e. Certificate of Registration, Official Receipts of
Registration, Promissory Note and Chattel Mortgage of the vehicle;

5. After going over the said documents, I asked him what his plan of
action was. SPO2 Bautista then informed me of his intention to conduct a
follow-up investigation at the house of the Spouses Guerrero in Bacoor,
Cavite;

-p1-
 6. Trusting the judgment of SPO2 Bautista considering that he was the
one who conducted the investigation, I allowed SPO2 Bautista and the other
respondents to conduct a follow-up investigation. However, I specifically
ordered them to perform their duties lawfully and to conduct themselves
properly during the investigation. I also ordered them to coordinate with the
proper Police Station and the Barangay Office in Bacoor, Cavite to inform
them of the investigation they were going to conduct;

7. After that a Pre-Operation Report/Coordination Sheet was prepared for

the follow-up investigation which I signed. They were then dispatched in the
morning of December 14, 2016 to perform further investigation on the
complaint of Mr. Santos and accordingly, they were able to recover the subject
vehicle from spouses Guerrero at their residence while it was parked in-front
of their house along the street thus in plain view;
8.
It should be stated that the seizure of the stolen vehicle was valid under
the plain view doctrine. Objects falling in plain view of an officer who has a
right to be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure even without
a search warrant and maybe introduced in evidence. The "plain view" doctrine
applies when the following requisites concur: (a) the law enforcement officer
in search of the evidence has a prior justification for an intrusion or is in a
position from which he can view a particular area; (b) the discovery of the
evidence in plain view is inadvertent; (c) it is immediately apparent to the
officer that the item he observes may be evidence of a crime, contraband or
otherwise subject to seizure. The law enforcement officer must lawfully make
an initial intrusion or properly be in a position from which he can particularly
view the area. In the course of such lawful intrusion, he came inadvertently
across a piece of evidence incriminating the accused. The object must be open
to eye and hand and its discovery inadvertent;

9. Aside from the plain view doctrine, they were also justified in seizing
the stolen vehicle considering the exigencies of the circumstances. The stolen
motor vehicle, being a movable object, could be immediately removed from
the premises by the Spouses Guerrero and hidden or concealed somewhere
else if the respondents would leave the place to apply for a warrant. Thus, they
were justified in seizing the said vehicle;

-p2-
 10. After recovering the stolen vehicle we filed a case of Violation of
10883 (New Anti-Carnapping Law of 2016) against spouses Guerrero before
the Las Pinas City Presecutors’ Office on December 16, 2016 docketed under
I.S. No. 16L-01163 and was further filed in court at RTC Branch 253, Las
Pinas City with Criminal Case No. 17-0302;

11. I was only doing my duty to as the Chief of the Anti-Carnaping unit
which is to serve and protect and in good faith because we followed all the
standard operating procedures in conducting the investigation;

12. To support our claim we attached herewith is a complete case folder

in connection with the said case filed against spouses Guerrero with
reservations for other documents to follow;

13. I am executing this counter affidavit to attest to the truth of foregoing

facts;

PMAJ ROMEO A. BRITANICO

Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this

_____________________, here n the city of Las Pinas.

-p3-
Republic of the Philippines)
Las Pinas City )S.S.

JOINT COUNTER AFFIDAVIT

We, PCMS ERNESTO P. BAUTISTA JR., PSSGT EARL E.

LOTERTE and PCMS JENIFER C. GLORIA, all of legal age and bona
fide members of the Philippine National Police presently assigned at the Las
Pinas City Police Station and Muntinlupa City Police Station respectively
after having duly sworn to in accordance with law do hereby desposed and
sayeth, THAT;

1. We as members of the ANTI-CARNAPPING UNIT of the Las City

Police Station are tasked to investigate are crimes involving the theft or motor
vehicles or carnapping by virtue of the Order issued by PSSUPT Jemar D.
Modequillo dated September 21, 2015 which designated respondents superior
officer, P/CINSP Romeo A. Britanico, then chief of the Anti-Carnapping
unit of the Las Pinas City Police;

2. On December 13, 2016, a certain Raul Agustin Santos went to our

office and reported to us the failure of complainants Spouses Edwin Guerrero
and Junelyn Guerrero to return his motor vehicle, a Mitsubishi Montero GLX
with plate number ABF 7543 and conduction sticker number NG4721, worth
One Million Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php1,200,000.00) which was
bought by Mr. Santos at Citimotors, Inc. Las Pinas City Branch and which is
still mortgaged with Eastwest Bank;

3. According to Mr. Santos, he purchased the said motor vehicle from

Citimotors, Inc. Las Pinas City on May 18, 2016. During that time, he was
accompanied by the Spouses Edwin and Junelyn Guerrero, the latter being the
personal assistant of Mr. Santos. Upon getting the vehicle from the dealership,
the said Spouses asked him if they could borrow the same which he agreed to
since they were very close to him. However, the said Spouses did not return
the said vehicle to Mr. Santos despite his demands for them to do so. That,
because of that, he was constrained to seek the assistance of the police;

4. To further prove his ownership, Mr. Santos also provided us a copy of

the vehicle’s Certificate of Registration and Official Receipt of Registration
showing that the same was registered under his name;

-p1-
 5. After thoroughly interviewing Mr. Santos about the circumstances
regarding his complaint and reviewing the documents he submitted, we were
able to conclude that the crime of carnapping was committed by the
complainants Spouses Guerrero;

6. Carnapping is the taking, with intent to gain, of a motor vehicle

belonging to another without the latter’s consent, or by means of violence
against or intimidation of persons, or by using force upon things.1 In the case
of spouses Guerrero, their failure to return the vehicle of Mr. Santos after he
demanded its return also constituted the crime of carnapping;

7. Thus, the next day or on December 14, 2014, we informed our

immediate superior, PMAJ Romeo A Britanico, regarding the complaint of
Mr. Santos and our intention of conducting further investigation into the
matter by visiting the residence of the Spouses Guerrero in Blk 23 Lot 3 Ridge
Crest Subd., Brgy. Pasong Buaya, Molino, Bacoor, Cavite. PMAJ. Britanico
agreed with our plan and advised us to perform our duties lawfully and
conduct ourselves properly during the investigation;

8. On December 14, 2016 we prepared a Pre-Operation

Report/Coordination Sheet which was then signed by PMAJ Britanico and we
were dispatched to perform further investigation on the complaint of Mr.
Santos;

9. Thereafter, we went to the Bacoor Police Station to coordinate with

them the intended investigation which they were going to conduct at the
residence of the Spouses Guerrero which was within their jurisdiction. As
proof thereof, the authorized personnel of the Bacoor Police Station, SPO1
Ramos, signed the Coordination Sheet which we presented to them;

10. After that, we proceeded to the Barangay Office having jurisdiction

over the residence of the Spouses Guerrero where we also coordinated our
investigation. As proof thereof, the authorized representative of the Barangay
signed the Coordination Sheet which we also presented. Likewise, we also
requested the Barangay Officials to accompany us to the residence of the
Spouses Guerrero so that we could locate the same;

11. Upon arriving at the residence of the Spouses Guerrero, we

immediately discovered the stolen motor vehicle of Mr. Santos since it was
parked in plain view or on the street in front of the residence of the said
Spouses;

-p2-

.
 12. Thereafter, we were able to talk with the Spouses when the latter
came out of their house. We calmly informed them of the complaint of Mr.
Santos and requested them to voluntarily surrender the vehicle;

13. Unfortunately, the said Spouses refused to voluntarily surrender the

vehicle. As a result thereof, we were left with no option but to seize the said
stolen vehicle. The seizure of the said stolen vehicle was properly witnessed
by the Barangay Officials who accompanied us at the residence of the Spouses
Guerrero;

14. We then brought the said vehicle to the Bacoor Police Station
(Sector 10) to inform them of what transpired during our investigation as well
as the seizure of the vehicle and thereafter brought the seized stolen vehicle
to the Las Pinas Police Station where the same was impounded as evidence;

15. It should be stated that the seizure of the stolen vehicle was valid
under the plain view doctrine. Objects falling in plain view of an officer who
has a right to be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure even
without a search warrant and maybe introduced in evidence. The "plain view"
doctrine applies when the following requisites concur: (a) the law
enforcement officer in search of the evidence has a prior justification for an
intrusion or is in a position from which he can view a particular area; (b) the
discovery of the evidence in plain view is inadvertent; (c) it is immediately
apparent to the officer that the item he observes may be evidence of a crime,
contraband or otherwise subject to seizure. The law enforcement officer must
lawfully make an initial intrusion or properly be in a position from which he
can particularly view the area. In the course of such lawful intrusion, he came
inadvertently across a piece of evidence incriminating the accused. The object
must be open to eye and hand and its discovery inadvertent;

16. Aside from the plain view doctrine, we were also justified in seizing
the stolen vehicle considering the exigencies of the circumstances. The stolen
motor vehicle, being a movable object, could be immediately removed from
the premises by the Spouses Guerrero and hidden or concealed somewhere
else if the respondents would leave the place to apply for a warrant. Thus, they
were justified in seizing the said vehicle;

17.After recovering the stolen vehicle we filed a case of Violation of 10883

(New Anti-Carnapping Law of 2016) against spouses Guerrero before the Las
Pinas City Presecutors’ Office on December 16, 2016 docketed under I.S. No.
16L-01163 and was further filed in court at RTC Branch 253, Las Pinas City
with Criminal Case No. 17-0302;

-p3-

18. After recovering the stolen vehicle we filed a case of Violation of

10883 (New Anti-Carnapping Law of 2016) against spouses Guerrero before
the Las Pinas City Presecutors’ Office on December 16, 2016 docketed under
I.S. No. 16L-01163 and was further filed in court at RTC Branch 253, Las
Pinas City with Criminal Case No. 17-0302;

19. We were only doing our duty as members of the Philippine National
Police which is to serve and protect, without fear or favor and in good faith
because we followed all the standard operating procedures in conducting the
said investigation;

20. To support our claim we attached herewith a complete case folder in

connection with the said case filed against spouses Guerrero with reservations
for other documents to follow;

21. We are executing this Joint Counter Affidavit to attest to the truth of
foregoing facts.

PCMS ERNESTO P. BAUTISTA JR. PCMS JENIFER C. GLORIA

Affiant Affiant

PSSGT EARL E. LOTERTE

Affiant

-p4-

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES)

LAS PINAS CITY, M.M. )S.S.

VERIFICATION

I, PCINSP ROMEO A. BRITANICO, of legal age, after having been

duly sworn to in accordance with law, hereby depose and state:
 1. That I am one of the respondents in the instant case;

2. That I caused the preparation of the foregoing Answer and I have

read the same;

3. That the allegations contained in the Answer are true and correct
of my own personal knowledge and/or based on authentic records.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hands this __ day of

June 2017 in Las Pinas City.

PCINSP ROMEO A. BRITANICO

Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this __ day of June 2017,

affiants personally appeared and presented his Government ID No.
______________ as competent evidence of identity showing that he is the
same persons who executed the foregoing Verification.

NOTARY PUBLIC
Doc No. ____
Page No. ___
Book No. ___
Series of 2017

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
NATIONAL POLICE COMMISSION
INTERNAL AFFAIRS SERVICE
REGIONAL INTERNAL AFFAIRS SERVICE 4-A
CAMP VICENTE LIM, CALAMBA CITY, LAGUNA

LEGAL AFFAIRS DIVISION

IN RE: ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING

SPO2 ERNESTO BAUTISTA
SPO2 JENIFER C. GLORIA AND ADM. CASE NO. RIAS4A-MP-17-0028
PO2 EARL E. LOTERTE For:Two (2) counts of Grave Misconduct
(Grave Coercion and Ignorance of the law)

PCINSP ROMEO A. BRITANICO For: Grave Misconduct

Respondents, (E.O. 266 or Command Responsibility)

x----------------------------------------------x
 ANSWER

RESPONDENT, PCINSP ROMEO BRITANICO, by counsel unto the

Honorable Office, most respectfully states that:

1. Respondent specifically denies the allegations contained in the

Complaint Sheet and Sworn Statement of complainants Spouses Edwin
Guerrero and Junelyn Guerrero the truth of the matter is that stated in the
affirmative defenses set forth herein;

2. Respondent also specifically denies that he committed any

misconduct in the performance of his duties as commanding officer of
respondents SPO2 Ernesto Bautista, SPO2 Jenifer C. Gloria and PO2 Earl E.
Loterte. The truth of the matter is that respondent performed his duties
regularly and within the bounds of the law as discussed in the affirmative
defenses stated herein;

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

3. Respondent repleads and incorporates by reference the foregoing

material allegations and further states that:

4. Respondent is the Chief of the Station Investigation and

Detective Management Branch (SIDMB) of the Las Pinas City Police Station.
He is likewise the concurrent chief of the Anti-Carnapping Unit of the said
Police Station as shown by the hereto attached Order issued by PSSUPT Jemar
D. Modequillo dated September 21, 2015 marked as Annex “A” and made an
integral part hereof;

5. Among the duties of respondent is to supervise the Police

Officers serving under him in the performance of their tasks to conduct
criminal investigation of complaints involving crimes committed within Las
Pinas City. Among the crimes that are included within the scope of their duties
to investigate are those involving involving the theft or motor vehicles or
carnapping;

6. On December 14, 2014, SPO2 Ernesto Bautista informed

respondent herein that a complaint was referred to our office by a certain Mr.
Raul Santos regarding the failure of complainants, Spouses Guerrero, to return
his vehicle which was a Mitsubishi Montero. SPO2 Bautista informed
respondent that he was of the belief that the said Spouses Guerrero have
committed the crime of carnapping because of their act in not returning the
said vehicle;

7. Respondent asked him what his basis was for concluding that
there was carnapping committed by the said Spouses and he informed
respondent of the facts that were relayed to him by Mr. Santos. He likewise
showed me the documents that were presented to him, i.e. Certificate of
Registration, Official Receipts of Registration, Promissory Note and Chattel
Mortgage of the vehicle;

8. After going over the said documents, respondent asked him what
his plan of action was. SPO2 Bautista then informed respondent of his
intention to conduct a follow-up investigation at the house of the Spouses
Guerrero in Bacoor, Cavite;

9. Trusting the judgment of SPO2 Bautista considering that he was

the one who conducted the investigation, respondent allowed SPO2 Bautista
and the other respondents to conduct a follow-up investigation. However,
respondent specifically ordered the other respondents to perform their duties
lawfully and to conduct themselves properly during the investigation.
Respondent also ordered them to coordinate with the proper Police Station
and the Barangay Office in Bacoor, Cavite to inform them of the investigation
they were going to conduct;

10. After that a Pre-Operation Report/Coordination Sheet was

prepared for the follow-investigation which herein respondent signed. A copy
of which is hereto attached as Annex “B” and made an integral part hereof;

11. The other respondents were then dispatched in the morning of

December 14, 2016 to perform further investigation on the complaint of Mr.
Santos;

12. From the foregoing, the only act which herein respondent
performed relative to the incident subject of this case was the act of signing
the Pre-Operation Report/Coordination Sheet. Other than that, respondent did
not participate in any other act relative to the instant case;

13. Moreover, a reading of the Sworn Statement of complainants will

reveal that herein respondent was not being complained and no unlawful act
was attributed to him;

14. Thus, respondent herein should have not been charged

administratively as no illegal or unlawful act was alleged against him;

15. Furthermore, a reading of Memorandum Circular 2016-002 or

the Revised Rules of Procedure Before The Administrative Disciplinary
Authorities and the Internal Affairs Service of the Philippine National Police
will reveal that none of the acts constituting Grave Misconduct are present in
this case against the herein respondent. In fact, no act was ever attributed to
the respondent aside from his signature on the Pre-Operation
Report/Coordination Sheet which is definitely not one of those acts
contemplated under the said Rules as constituting Grave Misconduct;
 16. As regards respondent’s implication in this case under the
doctrine of command responsibility, it must be stressed that in order to be
found liable for the same it must be shown that respondent had knowledge or
is presumed to have knowledge that a crime or offense has been committed or
will be committed by his subordinates and that he did not take preventive or
corrective action despite his knowledge;

17. In this case, no criminal act was committed by respondent’s

subordinates. The investigation of the case of Mr. Santos as well as the
subsequent seizure of the stolen motor vehicle from the possession of the
complainants, Spouses Guerrero, by the respondent’s subrdinates were lawful
and valid;

18. Likewise, the Memorandum dated April 3, 2017 which gave rise
to the instant case and which stated that the circumstances of the complaint of
Mr. Santos did not constitute carnapping is erroneous;

19. There was indeed carnapping perpetrated by the Spouses

Guerrero as shown by the Resolution of the Office of the City Prosecutor of
Las Pinas City which found probable cause to charge the Spouses Guerrero
with the crime of Violation of 10883 (New Anti-Carnapping Law of 2016). A
copy of the Resolution of the Office of the City Prosecutor of Las Pinas City
is hereto attached as Annex “C”;

20. Moreover, the Regional Trial Court of Las Pinas City also found
probable cause that the complainants committed the crime of carnapping and
issued a warrant for their arrest. A copy of the Order of Arrest against the
Spouses Guerrero is hereto attached as Annex “D”;
21. Verily, the Spouses Guerrero had committed the crime of
Carnapping and the respondent’s subordinates were justified in pursuing their
lawful duties in investigating the complaint of Mr. Santos as well as in the
seizure of the stolen vehicle;

22. It should also be stated that the seizure of the stolen vehicle was
valid under the plain view doctrine. Objects falling in plain view of an officer
who has a right to be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure
even without a search warrant and maybe introduced in evidence. The "plain
view" doctrine applies when the following requisites concur: (a) the law
enforcement officer in search of the evidence has a prior justification for an
intrusion or is in a position from which he can view a particular area; (b) the
discovery of the evidence in plain view is inadvertent; (c) it is immediately
apparent to the officer that the item he observes may be evidence of a crime,
contraband or otherwise subject to seizure. The law enforcement officer must
lawfully make an initial intrusion or properly be in a position from which he
can particularly view the area. In the course of such lawful intrusion, he came
inadvertently across a piece of evidence incriminating the accused. The object
must be open to eye and hand and its discovery inadvertent.2

2
People of the Philippines vs. Doria, G.R. No. 125299, January 22, 1999.
 23. The presence of respondent’s subordinates at the residence of the
Spouses Guerrero was lawful and legal considering that they were there for
the purpose of conducting a follow-up investigation on the complaint of Mr.
Santos;

24. Likewise, their discovery of the vehicle was merely by chance

since the stolen vehicle was plainly visible to them being parked on the street
in front of the residence of the Spouses Guerrero;

25. Consequently, it was lawful for the respondents to have seized

the stolen vehicle under the said plain view doctrine;

26. Aside from the plain view doctrine, they were also justified in
seizing the stolen vehicle considering the exigencies of the circumstances. The
stolen motor vehicle, being a movable object, could be immediately removed
from the premises by the Spouses Guerrero and hidden or concealed
somewhere else if the respondents would leave the place to apply for a
warrant. Thus, they were justified in seizing the said vehicle;

27. In fine, respondent herein cannot be administratively charged

with the offense of Grave Misconduct under the doctrine of command
responsibility as there was no crime or offense committed by his subordinates.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed of the Honorable Court that the

instant case be DISMISSED for failure of the complainants to show that
respondents committed Grave Misconduct and for utter lack of merit.

Other reliefs and remedies just under the premises are also prayed for.

Las Pinas City for Calamba City, Laguna, June 27, 2017.

RODRIGUEZ LAW OFFICE

Counsel for Respondent
16 CRM Rhia St., BF Almanza,
Las Pinas City
Tel. No. 805-4089

By:

EUGENE HENRY C. RODRIGUEZ

IBP No. 1068023/1-18-17/Q.C.
PTR No. 11269719J/ 2-24-17/L.P.
Roll No. 50868
 MCLE Compliance No. V-0022902
Dated July 8, 2016

Copy furnished:
Atty. Joseph Maganduga
Counsel for Complainants
G/F JP Tuason Bldg.,
Sta. Lucia St., San Antonio,
Paranaque City

EXPLANATION

A copy of the foregoing Answer was served on the adverse party by

registered mail with return card due to distance, time constraints and lack of a
messenger to serve it personally.

EUGENE HENRY C. RODRIGUEZ

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES)

LAS PINAS CITY, M.M. )S.S.

VERIFICATION

I, PCINSP ROMEO A. BRITANICO, of legal age, after having been

duly sworn to in accordance with law, hereby depose and state:

1. That I am one of the respondents in the instant case;

2. That I caused the preparation of the foregoing Answer and I have

read the same;

3. That the allegations contained in the Answer are true and correct
of my own personal knowledge and/or based on authentic records.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hands this __ day of

June 2017 in Las Pinas City.

PCINSP ROMEO A. BRITANICO

Affiant
 SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this __ day of June 2017,
affiants personally appeared and presented his Government ID No.
______________ as competent evidence of identity showing that he is the
same persons who executed the foregoing Verification.

NOTARY PUBLIC
Doc No. ____
Page No. ___
Book No. ___
Series of 2017