Republic of the Philippines

NATIONAL POLICE COMMISSION

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE
CAGAYAN POLICE PROVINCIAL OFFICE
Camp Tirso H Gador, Tuguegarao City

BILL DANAO
Complainant, FOR: GRAVE MISCONDUCT

-versus-

SPO1 GLEN BURGOS,

Respondent.
x------------------------------------------x

MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

COMES NOW, Complainant, through counsel, respectfully avers the

following:

1. That Complainant received a copy of the Memorandum dated 09

February 2017 the dispositive portion of which is hereunder quoted:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, respectfully

recommended that this complaint for Misconduct arising from
Criminal Cse No. 2893 for Grave Oral Defamation filed by
SPO4 Bill Danao against SPO1 Glen Burgos, PNP of
Camalanuigan PS be dropped and closed for lack of merit.

2. Within the period required by the rules, Complainant hereby moves

for the reconsideration of the said Memorandum on the ground that:

I. THE ACTS OF THE ACCUSED SATISFIES THE

ELEMENTS OF GRAVE MISCONDUCT.
II. THE IMPUTATION MADE BY ACCUSED CONSTITUTES
ORAL DEFAMATION.

DISCUSSION

3. In drawing the line of justice, it must be repeatedly emphasized that

retired SPO4 Bill Danao learned from a certain Michael Tumacder
that Respondent and his wife scurrilously uttered defamatory remarks
to the Complainant to wit: ADDAYTA DYAY LASTUG NGA PULIS
NGA AGTATAKAW KINAUT NA JAY KWARTA NI KUYA GLEN
IDYAY BULSA NA IDI AGDU-DUTY DA. PATI DAGITA
LUGLUGAN NA KET PURU UTANG DAGITA..

Page 1 of 4
 4. On this account, it must be established that the Complainant is a
retired PNP member who maintains good reputation in the service
and in the public that in the watchful eyes of society, he is of a high
profile and a respectable man of honor;

5. Lest to be misconstrued, we must take cognizance of the elements of

defamation inscribed under Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code
which states therein that:

1) There must be an imputation of a crime, or of a vice or

defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status,
or circumstance.
2) That the imputation must be made publicly.
3) That it must be malicious.
4) That the imputation must be directed at a natural or juridical
person, or one who is dead.
5) That the imputation must tend to cause the dishonour,
discredit or contempt of the person defamed.1

6. To restate, the Respondent conveying rumors that herein

Complainant is a thief by uttering Ilocano remarks to wit: ADDAYTA
DYAY LASTUG NGA PULIS NGA AGTATAKAW KINAUT NA JAY
KWARTA NI KUYA GLEN IDYAY BULSA NA IDI AGDU-DUTY DA.
is an imputation of a crime with the intent to ridicule and humiliate
which prejudiced the Complainant with his reputation.

7. If taking into the account the social standing and position of the
Complainant, thus the defamatory remarks are grave since the
Complainant is a retired SPO4 who preserves good reputation and
honor.

8. It must not be removed in the equation that when the defamatory

phrases where uttered by the Respondent and his wife, they are on
the occasion of playing cards (tong-its) with another persons, hence,
a third party can clearly hear them. It is therefore noteworthy to
emphasize that the imputation was made publicly which the second
element of the defamation was satisfied.

9. It must be remembered that every defamatory imputation is

presumed to be malicious, even if it be true, if no good intention and
justifiable motive for making it is shown. And malice may be inferred
from the style and tone of publication subject to certain exceptions 2
which are not present in the instant case. Indeed, calling SPO4 Bill
Danao a thief is defamation against his character and reputation
sufficient to cause him embarrassment and social humiliation.
1 Art. 353 of the Revised Penal Code

2 BONIFACIO L. CAAL, SR., G.R. No. 163181

Page 2 of 4
 10. In the line of truth, it is indubitable that the Respondent and his wife
when uttering those defamatory remarks they are in no way could
escape that they are clearly referring to SPO4 Bill Danao since there
was an attending circumstance that such defamatory remarks where
uttered when Complainant passed by while on board on his
motorcycle. To strengthen the matter, these defamatory phrases are
repeatedly uttered by the couple whenever the witnesses are playing
cards at their residence.

11. Unquestionably, the herein Complainant SPO4 Bill Danao who is a

retired PNP member, being defamed by his co-member creates a
negative impression to the society. To say that SPO4 Bill Danao is a
thief is irrefragably grave oral defamation. This imputes to him a
crime that is dishonorable or contemptuous that can make him feel
maligned and dishonored.

12. To dissent the pre-charge evaluation investigation of the Cagayan

Police Provincial Office which was alleged therein that mere
utterances, no matter how grossly defamatory if not made publicly
and in the presence of the person defamed does mot constitute
Grave Oral Defamation perse

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed

unto this Honorable Office that the Resolution dated November 16,
2016, be reconsidered based on the above discussions, and a new
one charging the accused for the crime of Grave Threats and Oral
Defamation be entered.
Other reliefs which are just and equitable are likewise prayed for.

This 6th day of February 2017.Tuguegarao City, Cagayan.

Respectfully submitted.

ATTY. LOUIE A. SOCRATES

Roll No. 61912
61 Annafunan West, Tuguegarao City
IBP No. 947059/12-28-16/TUG. CITY,CAGAYAN
PTR No. 1990197/01-09-17/ TUG. CITY,CAGAYAN
MCLE COMPLIANCE NO. V-0012640
(DATE OF ADMISSION: 04-25-13)
Counsel for the Complainants

Copy furnished:

ALEX BALLESTEROS

Page 3 of 4
Purok6 ,Bacring,
Amulung West, Cagayan

Page 4 of 4