POSITION PAPER

FOR THE COMPLAINANT

The COMPLAINANT through the undersigned Public Attorneys of the

Public Attorneys Office, unto this Honorable Office, most respectfully avers
that:

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Complainant in the above-mentioned case filed this administrative

complaint in connection with his apprehension for Violation of Republic Act
No. 9165 last June 23, 2017. He was brought for inquest proceedings but
opted for a preliminary investigation. Feeling aggrieved and with the
insistence to seek justice because he believes that his rights were
disregarded by the respondents, who conducted the alleged buy-bust
operation against him. Thus, this administrative case was filed.

THE PARTIES

Complainant JOHN LAWRENCE J. ORDOO is of legal age, single,

Filipino citizen and a resident of Ilocanos Sur, San Fernando City, La
Union. He is currently detained at ____________________, where he may
be served with orders, notices and other processes of this Honorable
Office.

Respondents PO1 JAY MARK A. ATANG and PO1 WELO V.

GALVAN are both of legal age, members of the Philippine National Police
assigned with the City Drug Enforcement Team (CDET) of San Fernando
City Police Station, where they may be served with orders, notices and
other processes of this Honorable Office.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

On June 23, 2017, John Lawrence J. Ordoo (Lawrence) together

with Jeff Six Rivera (Jeff) went to CSI Mall at Biday, San Fernando City, La
Union to purposely buy short pants. At around lunch time or 12 noon,
Lawrence and Jeff went inside the Penshoppe boutique at the second floor
of the mall to check if the short pants they were looking for was available,
but when they were not able to find it, they decided to check another
boutique. However, on their way to Oxygen boutique, located at the second
floor of the mall, two (2) unidentified men approached them and then
suddenly one of the unidentified man grabbed Lawrence while the other
unidentified man grabbed Jeff. The two men forcibly took and brought
Lawrence and Jeff outside the mall. While they were being brought
outside the mall, Lawrence had an argument with the man who grabbed
______________________________________________
Position Paper of John Lawrence Ordoo
Page 1 of 7
him for he was dumbfounded of what was happening. The argument went
as:

Lawrence: Anya ti basol ko? Apay ta al-alaen dak?

Man: Adda la ti damagen mi?
Lawrence: Anya aya diyay sir?
Man: Sikayo ti aglak-lako it marijuana?
Lawrence: Haan Sir! Awan iti ammok dita!

The CCTV video footage taken by one of the CCTV camera of the above-
mentioned mall on the aforementioned date and time is hereto attached
with the Affidavit of _______, who was the officer-in-charge of the
Thereafter, Lawrence and Jeff were brought by the two men to the
motorcycles parking area in front of the mall. Lawrence attempted to free
himself from the man who was holding him but suddenly the man punched
him at his chest. Lawrence was unable to retaliate from such punch
because of an operation he recently had which was adjacent to his chest.
When they reached the parking area, the two men insisted that Lawrence is
involved in trading of illegal drugs and asked him Pagal-alaam iti
marijuana? which Lawrence strongly denied for he was not involved and
he was not aware of the allegation made. After Lawrence expressed his
denial, the man punched him again on his chest. Due to pain and to
stop the man from punching him, Lawrence shouted Haan nga kasta ah!
Lawrence tried to defend himself but fear came first for the man told him
Paltugan ka! which made Lawrence defenseless.

During the confrontation, Lawrence surreptitiously texted her mother

to seek help but when the two unidentified men notice such they
immediately took away his cellular phone and even his money
amounting to Php 1,100.00. After taking his personal belongings, the two
men showed Lawrence a small plastic containing a thing of brown color
which he cannot identify what it was for being too small. Suddenly for
unknown reasons, Jeff was released while Lawrence was left being
questioned by the two men. After almost an hour, Lawrence was dragged
to the walkway area going inside the mall. Upon arrival thereat, Lawrence
saw PO1 Werlo Galvan (PO1 Galvan) in which he immediately recognized
for he frequented their place because his neighbor was PO1 Galvans
batchmate. At that time, PO1 Galvan was with PO1 Jay Mark Atang (PO1
Atang), whom Lawrence identified later on.

Lawrence was seated in a bench at the walkway for almost thirty

minutes still wandering and dumbfounded of what the two unidentified men
did to him and the next thing he knew is that the two unidentified men
introduced a media representative and barangay kagawad. Lawrence
noticed that the man who forcibly took him maintained his distance and was
already wearing a face mask. While the other man who forcibly took Jeff,
went away. After thirty minutes, Lawrence was shocked to see PO1 Atang
______________________________________________
Position Paper of John Lawrence Ordoo
Page 2 of 7
placed in the bench a transparent plastic containing brown things, the liked
of dried leaves and a one hundred peso bill. The said plastic containing
dried leaves was different from the one initially shown by the two men who
forcibly took them. Lawrence still maintained his stance that such items did
not come from him. Then, Lawrence saw that the media representative and
the barangay kagawad were signing a paper which he was not aware of the
content. Still, no one from the men and police officers explained to
Lawrence what was happening. Thereafter, Lawrence was handcuffed and
was brought to the Health Center of San Fernando City, La Union. He told
the staff at the Health Center what the men did to him and even showed his
chest as evidence. After Lawrences medical examination, he was brought
to PDEA for drug testing.

PO1 Galvan and PO1 Atang of PNP San Fernando City Police
Station, La Union concocted that Lawrence was apprehended in a buy-bust
operation. Their entire allegations in their affidavit which was submitted to
the Prosecutors office were fabricated and were all lies. There was no buy-
bust operation conducted and such claim was supported by the annexes
submitted in favor of Lawrence.

The Counter-Affidavit of Lawrence as well as the affidavits of

Bernardo G. Macapuno, Nestor T. Flores, Jr. and a copy of the CCTV
footage are attached to this position as Annexes, to support the narrative
facts as recounted above.

ISSUE

The sole issue to be resolved in this case is WHETHER OR NOT

RESPONDENTS ARE LIABLE OF GRAVE MISCONDUCT AND
CONDUCT PREJUDICIAL TO THE BEST INTEREST OF THE SERVICE.

DISCUSSION

PO1 ATANG AND PO1 GALVAN, JOHN DOE AND JOHN DOE II ARE
LIABLE FOR GRAVE MISCONDUCT FOR WILLFUL INTENT TO
VIOLATE THE LAW OR FOR DISREGARD OF ESTABLISHED RULES.

Misconduct is defined as an intentional wrongdoing or a deliberate

violation of a rule of law or standard of behavior, especially by a
government official. 1 The misconduct is grave if it involves any of the
additional elements of corruption, willful intent to violate the law or to
disregard established rules, which must be established by substantial
evidence.2 Otherwise, the misconduct is only simple.
1
Vertudes v. Buenaflor, G.R. No. 153166, December 16, 2005, 478 SCRA 210.
2
Narvasa v. Sanchez, Jr., G.R. No. 169449, March 26, 2010, 616 SCRA 586.
______________________________________________
Position Paper of John Lawrence Ordoo
Page 3 of 7
 No doubt exists in our mind that the respondents committed grave
misconduct in this case. There is a substantial evidence to show that the
respondents had committed acts which constitute Grave Misconduct. There
was a willful intent for the respondents to violate the law or disregard
established rules for they have not conducted the alleged buy-bust
operation and arrested Lawrence without following the proper procedure.

John Doe and John Doe II are liable of grave misconduct for violation
of R.A. No. 6713, Sec. 4 (c)

Respondents are a public official which was defined as elective and

appointive officials and employees, permanent or temporary, whether in the
career or non-career service, including military and police personnel,
whether or not they receive compensation, regardless of amount.3 Being
public officials, they shall observe justness and sincerity as standards of
personal conduct in the discharge and execution of their official duties,
which includes respecting the rights of others, and shall refrain from
doing acts contrary to law, good morals, good customs, public policy,
public order, public safety and public interest.4 In this case, the forcibly
taking of Lawrence and Jeff outside the mall, the accusations made without
sufficient evidence, the taking of the personal belongings which consists of
the Php 1,100.00 and cellular phone, and the punching of one of the
respondents to Lawrence are acts that violates the rights of the
complainants and such acts are contrary to law, good morals, public order,
and public safety. The respondents used their positions and authority to
take advantage of the complainant. Thus, the acts they have committed
constitute grave misconduct for they intently violated the law and
disregarded established rules.

PO1 Atang and PO1 Galvan are liable of grave misconduct for
violation of R.A. No. 9165

Planting of evidence is defined as the willful act by any person of

maliciously and surreptitiously inserting, placing, adding or attaching
directly or indirectly, through any overt or covert act, whatever quantity of
any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical in
the person, house, effects or in the immediate vicinity of an innocent
individual for the purpose of implicating, incriminating or imputing the
commission of any violation of this Act.5 It is crystal clear in this case that
there was planting of evidence committed by the respondents for there was
no buy-bust operation that has commenced at the time of arrest. The
alleged one hundred peso bill (Php100.00) with serial number EU006311
which was used as buy-bust money and the alleged one piece of sachet

3
Rep. Act No. 6713 (1989), Sec. 3 (b)
4
Id. at Sec. 4(c)
5
Rep. Act No. 9165 (2002), Sec. 3 (cc).
______________________________________________
Position Paper of John Lawrence Ordoo
Page 4 of 7
containing dried marijuana fruiting tops with both initial marking of JMA
was not received and did not come from the complainant.

It can be deduced from the facts and evidence presented that the
statements of the respondents are mere allegations. It was alleged in the
joint affidavit of PO1 Atang and PO1 Galvan that a buy-bust operation
commenced at around 1:50pm of June 23, 2017. They made such
operation for they alleged that they have received a report, at around
12:40pm of the same date, from their regular male confidential informant
that Lawrence is engaged in illegal drug pushing activities and is looking for
buyers of marijuana. However, it was shown from the CCTV footage
obtained by the mother of the complainant from the CSI Mall that at around
12:13 to 12:17 in the afternoon, Lawrence and Jeff were already being
brought out of the mall by the two unidentified men and brought in the
parking lot. Such CCTV footage was validated by Nestor T. Flores Jr.,
house guard of the said mall with the duties of maintaining and securing the
CCTV recording equipment Annex __. As stated also by Bernardo G.
Macapuno, security guard employed at New CNO Security and
Investigation Agency and was assigned as a roving security guard at CSI
Mall on the same date. His area of jurisdiction was the parking wherein he
saw a lot of people gathered around someone, which later on he have
known as Lawrence, at past 12:00 noon Annex __. The evidence and
statements clearly show that the allegations in the affidavit of PO1 Atang
and PO1 Galvan were not factual. Thus, the evidence presented by the
prosecution was insufficient to show that Lawrence was caught in flagrante
delicto in a legitimate entrapment operation conducted by the police and
that the illegal drugs that was alleged to be seized from the complainant is
not supported by any substantial evidence.

The alleged facts stated by the respondents should not be given any
weight as it lacks the credibility because they themselves who are
implementers of the law do not follow to such rules. Thus, the respondents
have the willful intent to violate the law or to disregard established rules
which constitute grave misconduct and this is supported by substantial
evidence as presented above.

Disciplinary action

As a penalty if found guilty of planting of evidence, Section 29 of

Republic Act No. 9165 provides:

Section 29. Criminal Liability for Planting of Evidence. Any

person who is found guilty of "planting" any dangerous drug
and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical, regardless
of quantity and purity, shall suffer the penalty of death.6

6
Id., Sec. 29
______________________________________________
Position Paper of John Lawrence Ordoo
Page 5 of 7
 In addition, misconduct is one of the grounds for disciplinary action,
but no officer or employee in the Civil Service shall be suspended or
dismissed except for cause as provided by law and after due process.7 It is
worthy to note that the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in
the Civil Service, which governs the conduct of disciplinary and non-
disciplinary proceedings in administrative cases, classifies grave
misconduct as a grave administrative offense.8

The misconduct committed by the respondents was acts of willful

intent to violate the law or to disregard established rules, which is an
additional element to constitute an act as grave. Public officials, as
provided by the Civil Service Rules, who committed a grave misconduct is
a grave administrative offense, hence, subject to suspension or dismissal
from service. Thus, respondents PO1 Atang, PO1 Galvan, John Doe and
John Doe II, being police officers, must be subject for disciplinary action for
the purpose of justice.

PO1 ATANG AND PO1 GALVAN ARE ALSO LIABLE FOR CONDUCT
PREJUDICIAL TO THE BEST INTEREST OF THE SERVICE.

Conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service is committed if it

tarnishes the image and integrity of his/her public office. Such act need not
be related to or connected with the public officers official functions.9 Under
the Civil Service law and rules, there is no concrete description of what
specific acts constitute the grave offense, however, the Supreme Court has
considered the following acts or omissions, among others, as constituting
conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, misappropriation of
public funds, abandonment of office, failure to report back to work without
prior notice, failure to safe keep public records and property, making false
entries in public documents and falsification of court orders.10

The allegations made in the affidavit of PO1 Atang and Galvan are
false as this are being contradicted by Lawrences witnesses and evidence
presented. The alleged buy-bust operation has not been carried out and
that the series of facts stated were not based on facts. Thus, the
respondents have made false entries in their joint-affidavit, a public
document.

Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service is also

classified as a grave offense and if found guilty, shall be suspended or

7
Exec. Order No. 292 (1987), Book V, Title I, Subtitle A, Sec. 46 (b)(4)
8
Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (2011), Rule 10, Sec. 46
9
Teodulo v. Lagro v. CA, CSC, NPC and Olandesca, G.R. No. 177244, November 20, 2007,
537 SCRA 721
10
GSIS v. Mayordomo, G.R. No. 191218, May 31, 2011, citing Philippine Retirement Authority
v. Thelma Rupa, G.R. No. 140519. August 21, 2001, 415 Phil. 713
______________________________________________
Position Paper of John Lawrence Ordoo
Page 6 of 7
dismissed from service.11 Thus, respondents PO1 Atang and PO1 Galvan
being police officers, must be subject for disciplinary action.

CONCLUSION

In summary, considering the above articulated arguments, PO1

Atang, PO1 Galvan, John Doe and John Doe II have committed grave
administrative infractions. The complainant has shown by substantial
evidence that there was violation on the part of the respondents relative to
their conduct of their alleged buy-bust. It is so grave because it is attended
by the element of willful intent to violate the law or to disregard established
rules. This warrants their dismissal from service and subsequently their
prohibition of re-entry into any government agency.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed of this

Honorable Office to render judgment in favor of complainant finding PO1
Jay Mark A. Atang and PO1 Werlo V. Galvan of PNP, San Fernando City,
La Union administratively liable for Grave Misconduct and Conduct
Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service and for them to be meted out
the corresponding penalty therefor as provided by law.

Other just and equitable reliefs under the premises are likewise
prayed for.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this ____________ at San Fernando

City, La Union for Quezon City, Philippines.

11
Supra note 7, Sec. 46 (4)(27)
______________________________________________
Position Paper of John Lawrence Ordoo
Page 7 of 7