Republic of the Philippines

NATIONAL POLICE COMMISSION

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION POLICE OFFICE
OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR
Camp Bagong Diwa, Bicutan, Taguig City

Philippine National Police Administrative Case No.

Complainant, NCRPO-AC-No. 0002-022618
-versus-
Pat Teddy T Tapiru For: Grave Misconduct
Respondent,
x--------------------------------x

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Herein respondent, by himself respectfully move for a reconsideration of the Decision dated 23
May 2019, copy of which was received on September 2, 2019 on the ground that said decision is not
supported by the evidence on record, thus:

I
WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, THIS HONORABLE OFFICE ERRED IN FINDING
THE RESPONDENT GUILTY OF GRAVE MISCONDUCT.

II
WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, THIS HONORABLE OFFICE ERRED IN NOT
RULING THAT THE PROSECUTION MISERABLY FAILED TO DISCHARGE
THE BURDEN OF PROVING THE CULPABILITY OF RESPONDENTS BASED
ON THE QUANTUM OF EVIDENCE REQUIRED IN CASES OF THIS NATURE.

III
WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, THIS HONORABLE OFFICE ERRED IN ADOPTING
THE VERSION OF COMPLAINANT HOOK, LINE AND SINKER.

IV
WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, THIS HONORABLE OFFICE ERRED IN NOT
RULING THAT COMPLAINANT IS NOT A CREDIBLE WITNESS.

V
WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, THIS HONORABLE OFFICE ERRED IN NOT
FINDING THAT COMPLAINANT WAS MOTIVATED BY ILL-WILL AND
MALICE IN FILING THE INSTANT ADMINISTRATIVE CASE TO GAIN
LEVERAGE OVER RESPONDENTS.

VI
WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, THIS HONORABLE OFFICE ERRED IN NOT
RULING THAT THE FAILURE OF COMPLAINANT TO APPEAR DURING THE
PRE-HEARING CONFERENCE AND IDENTIFY HER COMPLAINT AFFIDAVIT
IS FATAL TO HER CAUSE OF ACTION.
 I

Being inter-related, the foregoing grounds shall be discussed jointly to begin

with, this Honorable Office, with all due respect, did not bother to discuss how it arrived
at a conclusion holding respondent guilty of grave misconduct. What this Honorable
Office, with all due respect, did was merely state:

“In the instant case, the culpability of the respondent is established

considering that there are other pieces of evidence which formed part
of the records of this case such as the blotter entries and a copy of
Malayang Salaysay ng Pagtestigo of the complainant’s witnesses
stipulating the facts of the incident.

The assailed Decision therefore does not contain any statement of facts and of law on which
the conclusions holding respondent guilty of grave misconduct was reached. The assailed decision
merely cited that there are pieces of evidence presented but did not even bother to explain how the
pieces of evidence points to the culpability of the respondent. In short, the evidence was not even
weighed or examined.

This is a clear violation of the Constitutional mandate that “no decision shall be rendered by any
court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based.

In Nicos Industrial Corp. vs. Court of Appeals (206 SCRA 127), the Supreme Court explained that
this constitutional provision “is a requirement of due process that the parties to a litigation be informed
of how it was decided with an explanation of the factual and legal reasons that led to the conclusions of
the court.”

On the basis of the foregoing discussion alone, the assailed Decision should be reversed and set
aside.
II

An administrative charge of grave irregularity in the performance of duty, grave misconduct and
gross incompetence, if proven, would entail dismissal from the service, requires that the quantum of
proof should be more than substantial (vda. De Nepomuceno vs. Bartolome, A.M. No. MTJ-03-1482, 04
April 2003). In other words, competent evidence should be presented.

In the instant case, the prosecution miserably failed to discharge the burden of proving the
culpability of respondent based on the quantum of evidence required in this kind of proceeding.

The complainant and her witnesses are the best persons to prove that that respondent
committed the acts complained of. But the complainant and her witnesses failed to appear during the
pre-hearing conference and such failure was never explained. Section 3 (e), Rule 131 of the Revised
Rules of Court provides that “evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced.

The Supreme Court, in applying the foregoing rule in Garcia vs. Thio (G.R. No. 154878, 16 March
2007) said:

“Last, respondent inexplicably never presented Santiago as a

witness to corroborate her story. The presumption is that “evidence
willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced.” Respondent was not
able to overturn this presumption”.
 In Goldberg cited by the Supreme Court in the case of Saunar vs. Secretary Ermita G.R. No.
186502, December 13, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court went on to highlight the importance of confronting
the witnesses presented against the claimant, viz:

In almost every setting where important decisions turn on questions of fact, due process
requires an opportunity to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses. x x x What we said in Greene
v McElroy, 360 US 474, 496-497, 3 Led 2d 1377, 1390, 1391, 79 S Ct 1400 (1959), is particularly pertinent
here:

Certain principles have remained relatively immutable in our jurisprudence. One of these is that
where governmental action seriously injures an individual, and the reasonableness of the action
depends on fact findings the evidence used to prove the Government's case must be disclosed to the
individual so that he has an opportunity to show that it is untrue. While this is important in the case of
documentary evidence, it is even more important where the evidence consists of the testimony of
individuals whose memory might be faulty or who, in fact, might be perjurers or persons motivated by
malice, vindictiveness, intolerance, prejudice or jealousy. We have formalized these protections in the
requirements of confrontation and cross-examination. They have ancient roots. They find expression in
the Sixth Amendment . . . This Court has be zealous to protect these rights from erosion. It has spoken
out not only in criminal cases, but also in all types of cases where administrative actions were under
scrutiny.
The observance of a formal hearing in administrative tribunal or bodies other than judicial is not
novel. In Perez v. Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Company,33 the Court opined that in illegal
dismissal cases, a formal hearing or conference becomes mandatory when requested by the employee
in writing, or substantial evidentiary disputes exists, or a company rule or practice requires it, or when
similar circumstances justify it.

In Joson v. Executive Secretary Torres (Joson),34 the Court ruled that the respondent was denied
due process after he was deprived of the right to a formal investigation with the opportunity to face the
witnesses against him.

Rule 17 Entitled Summary Proceeding and Disposition of Cases provide:

Section 5. Pre-Hearing Conference- Within fifteen (15) days from receipt

of the answer,the PLEB or the Summary Hearing Officer shall conduct the pre-
hearing conference for the purpose of; a] defining and simplifying the issue of
the case; b] entering into admission and or stipulation of facts; c] marking of
exhibits after proper identification by the parties/signatories and d) threasing
out other matters relevant to the case. The proceedings in the pre-hearing
conference shall be recorded duly signed by the parties and Summary Hearing
Officer or PLEB.

Section 17. Contents of Decision. – The decision shall contain the full
name of the parties, rank and assignment of the respondent, the offense
chrged, a brief statement the material and relevant facts, the findings as
established by the evidence on record, the conclusion, the applicable laws, rules
and regulations, jurisprudence, and the disposition thereof.

The same is true in the instant case. The prosecution, complainant and her witnesses failed to
appear and identify their affidavits during the pre-hearing conference notwithstanding that it was
incumbent upon them to go forward with the burden of proving that the respondent committed the
acts alleged in the complaint. The prosecution’s failure to do so was fatal to the complainant’s cause of
action.
 To reiterate and even assuming that the respondent committed the offense charge, no evidence
was presented to prove the culpability of the respondent considering that the pieces of evidence
attached in the records of this case was inadmissible for being hearsay for the simple reason that the
affidavits of the complainant and her witness was not properly identified and marked during the pre-
hearing conference as provided for in Rule 17 Section 5 of NAPOLCOM Memo Circular 2016-002.

III

Complainant was motivated by ill-will and malice in filing the instant administrative case to gain
leverage over respondents. Evidence on record clearly shows that the filing of this case was a mere
retaliation by the complainant against the respondent due to the criminal case filed by the latter against
the former before the City Prosecutor’s Office of Muntinlupa City.

IV

For the complainant and her witnesses’ failure appear and identify their sworn statements
during the pre-hearing conference, and considering the seriousness of the charges filed, their affidavits
must not be accepted at face value and should be treated as inadmissible under the hearsay evidence
rule.

The Supreme Court in the case of Primo C. Miro, in his capacity as Deputy Ombudsman for the
Visayas vs. Marilyn Mendoza Vda. De Erederos, Catalina Alingasa and Porferio I. Mendoza G.R. Nos.
172532 172544-45, November 20, 2013 citing the case of Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company vs.
Dumapis held that “While it is true that administrative or quasi-judicial bodies like the NLRC are not
bound by the technical rules of procedure in the adjudication of cases, this procedural rules should not
be construed as a licensed to disregard certain fundamental evidentiary rules. The evidence presented
must at least have a modicum of admissibility for it to have probative value.

In the instant case, it is glaring that the prosecution together with the complainant and her
witnesses failed to appear during the pre-hearing conference to identify and substantiate their
complaint for three consecutive scheduled hearing. It is therefore proper not to consider and admit the
affiant’s complaint affidavit and that of her witnesses.

With all due respect, this honorable office erred in adopting the version of complainant hook,
line and sinker. The Summary Hearing Officer just adopted the version of the complainant in its decision.
The decision states that the undersigned respondent was drunk and had used government property in
the commisssion of the alleged offense, but no evidence shows such as alcohol test was presented. Even
assuming that a firearm was used in the alleged incident, no evidence such as serial number or even
type of caliber was shown in the complaint affidavit of the complainant.

The allegation of the complainant is incredible if not unbelievable that the respondent would
threatened to kill them considering that the respondent is well aware that doing such act would
jeopardize and make himself open for administrative and criminal charges. In truth and in fact, the
respondent is a strong believer of justice and due process of law and it is evidenced by the case he filed
in Brgy. Lupon of Poblacion, Muntinlupa City and is now pending before the Office of City Prosecutor of
Muntinlupa City.
 VI

With all due respect, this honorable office erred in not ruling that the complainant is not a
credible witness. The complainant had propensity to stir controversy by filing charges in different fora
just to vex, humiliate and insult the undersigned. This propensity of the complainant to cause vexation
and humiliation against the respondent was evidenced by the charges she filed before the Ombudsman,
City Prosecutor of Muntinlupa and now before this Honorable Court alleging the same cause of action
which is only a product of her wild imagination.

Prayer

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed that the order, dated May 23,
2019 be reversed and set aside for utter lack of merit.

Further, the herein respondent pray for such and other reliefs as may be deemed just and
equitable in the premises.

Muntinlupa City, September 11, 2019.

PCpl Teddy T. Tapiru

Respondent

Subscribed and sworn to before me this _____ day of September 2019 in

Muntinlupa City, Philippines.

____________