Republic of the Philippines

National Police Commission

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE
INTERNAL AFFAIRS SERVICE
Regional Internal Affairs Service IV-A
Camp General Vicente P. Lim, City of Calamba, Laguna

HON. HEARING OFFICER ATTY. RAIZUL ALUANG PONSARAN

IN RE: ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING AGAINST

PLTCOL MARK JOSEPH SAGUID LAYGO 0-13605;
PCpl Lonald Galea Sumalpong 210270;
Pat Robert Basa Legaspi 226778;
PSSg Christopher John Pabellanosa Siman 180675;
Pat William Allan Sanchez Ricamonte 268190;
Pat Perry Argenio Malabaguio 246747; ADMIN CASE NO: RIAS4A-MPI2-
PMSg Ismael Maano Cabriga 111972; ADM-19-0231
FOR: Grave Misconduct (Two
PCpl Kim Carlo Palanca Lavado 210538;
(2)counts of Murder, under Art.
PCpl Kimberly Magsaysay Manalo 268582; 248 of RPC); Grave Irregularity in
PCpl Sherwin Rea Abordo 193019; the Performance of Duty; Grave
Pat Roldan Carreon Panganiban 229422; Dishonesty and Conduct
PCpl Michael Lirac Rojas 210674; Unbecoming of a Police Officer
all assigned at Tayabas CPS,
Quezon PPO, PRO CALABARZON

Respondents,
x--------------------------------------------------------------x

POSITION PAPER

Respondent, PSSG CHRISTOPHER JOHN PABELLANOSA SIMAN

(“SIMAN”), through the undersigned counsel, and to this Honorable Office,
most respectfully submits this Position Paper and states that:

ANTECEDENTS

1. The Investigation, Intelligence and Prosecution Division, RIAS

4A as the nominal complainant in his capacity as Chief, IIPD, charged herein

Page 1 of 19
respondents on 27 March 2019 for administrative offenses of Grave
Misconduct (Two (2) counts of Murder, under Art. 248 of RPC), Grave
Irregularity in the Performance of Duty, Grave Dishonesty and Conduct of
Unbecoming of a Police Officer allegedly committed as follows:

FORMAL CHARGE

“That on or about March 14, 2019 in Barangay

Calumpang, City of Tayabas, Province of Quezon and within
the administrative disciplinary jurisdiction of this Service,
above-named respondents, being all members of the
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE, all assigned with Tayabas
CPS, all armed with issued firearms, with intent to kill,
treachery, evident premeditation and employing means to
weaken the defense, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully,
and feloniously shot to death the two (2) alleged suspects
identified as CHRISTOPHER ILAGAN MANALO and
CHRISTIAN TRONELA GAYETA, who was at that time
handcuffed and blindfolded, amounting to administrative
offenses of Grave Misconduct for Violation of Article 248 of the
Revised Penal Code (Murder).

Further, fabrication of facts, event and circumstances and

eventually set up a scenario that there was a valid police
checkpoint operation and that there was a shoot-out between
the respondents and alleged suspects where in fact there was
none, constitutes another administrative offenses of Grave
Irregularity in the Performance of Duty and Grave Dishonesty.

Additionally, such act of respondents disgracing themselves

as a police officer amounting to an administrative offense of
Conduct Unbecoming of a Police Officer.

Act of respondents in violation of NAPOLCOM rules and

regulation, prejudicial to the police service and subject to
disciplinary sanction.”

2. On 17 April 2019, this Honorable Office issued its Summons,

ordering respondents to file their Answer.

3. Thereafter, the Pre-Hearing Conferences were conducted, and

evidence for all parties were marked. On 21 June 2019, this Honorable Office
terminated the Pre-Hearing Conference, and all parties were given twenty

Page 2 of 19
(20) days from said date, or until 11 July 2019, within which to file their
respective Position Papers.

4. Hence, this Position Paper.

THE PARTIES

5. Siman is of legal age, married, and with residence at Phase 4,

th
4 St. Intertown Homes, Barangay Bukal, Pagbilao, Quezon.

6. PCPL MICHAEL LIRAC ROJAS (“ROJAS”) is of legal age,

single and with residence at Block 7, Lot 14, Phase 5, Intertown Homes,
Pagbilao, Quezon.

7. PAT PERRY ARGENIO MALABAGUIO (“MALABAGUIO”) is

of legal age, single, and with residence and postal address at Gladiola Street,
Capistrano Subdivision, Barangay Gulang-gulang, Lucena City.

8. PMSG ISMAEL MAANO CABRIGA (“CABRIGA”) is of legal

age, married, with residence and postal address at Capistrano Subdivision,
Tayabas City, Quezon. He is assigned as an intel operative.

9. PCPL KIMBERLY MAGSAYSAY MANALO (“MANALO”) is of

legal age, single, and with residence at Barangay San Isidro, Zone 4,
Tayabas City, Quezon. She is a police officer assigned in the Intelligence
Section of Tayabas City Police Station.

10. PCPL KIM CARLO PALANCA LAVADO (“LAVADO”) is of

legal age, single, with residence at 8005 Princess Urduja Street, Tuazon
Subdivision, Tayabas City, Quezon. He is a police officer currently assigned
at Tayabas City Police Station.

11. Respondent PCPL SHERWIN REA ABORDO (“ABORDO”) is

of legal age, married, and with residence and postal address at Sitio Isla
Verde, Barangay Opias, Tayabas City. He is a police officer assigned in
Tayabas Police Station, Tayabas City.

Page 3 of 19
 12. PAT ROLDAN CARREON PANGANIBAN (“PANGANIBAN”)
is of legal age, married, and with residence at Barangay Lita, Tayabas City,
Quezon.

13. PAT WILLIAM ALLAN SANCHEZ RICAMONTE

(“RICAMONTE”) is of legal age, with residence at Blk. 3, Lot 6, Lapaz
Homes, Barangay Cabezas, Trece Martires City, Cavite.

14. PCPL LONALD GALEA SUMALPONG (“SUMALPONG”) is of

legal age, married, and a resident of Block 16, Lot 16, Barangay Sabang,
Greensborough Subdivision, Dasmariñas City, Cavite.

15. PAT ROBERT BASA LEGASPI (“LEGASPI”) is of legal age,

single, and a resident of Purok 2, Barangay Saimsim, Calamba City, Laguna.

16. PLTCOL MARK JOSEPH SAGUID LAYGO (“LAYGO”) is of

legal age, married, and a resident of Block 17, Lot 15, Gardens of Maia Alta,
Antipolo City.

17. Laygo is the current Chief of Tayabas Police Station, exercising

command and supervision over the said office.

18. All of herein respondents are currently assigned at Tayabas

CPS, Quezon PPO, PRO CALABARZON.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

19. On March 13, 2019, approaching midnight, while Siman was

resting at the Police Community Precinct (PCP) in Calumpang, Tayabas,
Quezon, he was awakened by SPO2 VALENCIA (“VALENCIA”) who is their
PCP Commander.

20. Valencia informed Siman that Laygo arrived at PCP, and that
Laygo ordered Siman to join an operation together with Malabaguio.

21. Siman stood up and went to Laygo, who was then outside their
out post.

Page 4 of 19
 22. Valencia called Malabaguio, and when both Malabaguio and
Siman were already in front of Laygo, the latter asked “May trabaho tayo
ngayon ha, ano kaya nyo ba?”

23. Since Siman was not aware of the nature of the order, he did not
respond at first. He likewise had a suspicion as to a possible irregularity
involved in the order, thus, he eventually responded “Sir dapat tatlo kami at
ako na lamang ang driver.”

24. Then, Valencia called Ricamonte, who joined them. After which,
Laygo gave instructions on the operations: Ricamonte, Malabaguio and
Siman will make it appear that there was an armed encounter with the
persons involved; the parts where the mobile patrol was hit by gun bullets;
how to position the mobile patrol that they will drive.

25. Laygo also assigned them as the persons who will sign the
affidavit, saying “Kayo ang mag-aafidavit dito, iba ang tatrabaho, ano kaya
nyo ba.”

26. Due to Siman’s suspicion, he replied “Sir, hindi ko kaya,

magdadrive na lang ako ng mobile, baka sila kaya nila.”

27. Thereafter, Laygo talked to Malabaguio and Ricamonte, while

Valencia and Siman prepared the mobile patrol that they will use.

28. On March 14, 2019, at around 1:00 AM, Laygo left the PCP with
Legaspi and Sumalpong, riding an Innova.

29. Laygo ordered Ricamonte, Malabaguio and Siman to follow

them, which they did.

30. Ricamonte, Malabaguio and Siman arrived at Barangay

Calumpang, Tayabas City, where they immediately saw Laygo, Legaspi and
Sumalpong.

31. Siman parked the mobile patrol he was driving on the left side of
the road towards the direction of Tayabas City, with its front facing the side
of the road.

Page 5 of 19
 32. After they were already in position, Laygo talked to them and
gave them further instructions: “Ganito ang pwesto ninyo ha.”

33. While Siman was waiting in the mobile patrol car, Laygo gave
instructions to Legaspi, Sumalpong, Malabaguio and Ricamonte.

34. Siman observed that Laygo repeatedly gave the instructions,

until around 1:30 AM of the same day.

35. Then, Laygo ordered Ricamonte and Siman to leave the area
and position themselves somewhere not too far away – such that when they
are called to return, they will be able to immediately do so.

36. Following this order, Ricamonte and Siman went to the entrance
of Vista Verde Subdivision and waited.

37. At around 3:00 AM of the same day, Laygo called Siman and
said “Pumunta na kayo at malapit na kami doon sa area.” Siman and
Ricamonte returned to the area, and upon arrival, they positioned
themselves according to the earlier instructions of Laygo.

38. A few minutes thereafter, Legaspi’s Innova arrived, carrying

Legaspi, Sumalpong and Laygo, with the two (2) persons that they
apprehended.

39. Siman noticed that the hands of the 2 persons were each behind
their backs at the time when Legaspi ordered them to alight the vehicle.

40. When Laygo started giving instructions, Siman walked away

from the area as he felt that he could not go through with the operations –
being bothered by his own conscience. He walked towards South Gate
Subdivision in Calumpang, but after a few moments, Malabaguio called him
and asked him to return upon orders of Laygo.

41. Siman had no choice but to return, for fear that he will be
removed from the service, and considering Laygo’s ascendancy over him.
Thus, he started to walk towards the area, when he heard gunshots coming
from the place where Laygo was situated.

Page 6 of 19
 42. When he arrived in the place of the incident, he saw that one of
the persons apprehended was already sprawled on the ground. Then, he
saw that: Sumalpong grabbed the other person who was then still alive;
Sumalpong shot the person in front of his body; the person fell to the ground.

43. Out of fear, Siman again walked away from the area, towards the
front of South Gate Subdivision, and while he was walking, he continued to
hear gunshots from where Laygo and the group where situated.

44. Siman thought to just conduct a traffic control in front of South

Gate Subidivison, so that no other motorists will be involved.

ISSUES

I.

WHETHER OR NOT ROJAS SHOULD BE HELD LIABLE

FOR GRAVE MISCONDUCT (TWO (2) COUNTS OF
MURDER, UNDER ART. 248 OF RPC).

II.

WHETHER OR NOT ROJAS SHOULD BE HELD LIABLE

FOR GRAVE IRREGULARITY IN THE PERFORMANCE
OF DUTY.

III.

WHETHER OR NOT ROJAS SHOULD BE HELD LIABLE

FOR GRAVE DISHONESTY.

IV.

WHETHER OR NOT ROJAS SHOULD BE HELD LIABLE

FOR CONDUCT OF UNBECOMING A POLICE OFFICER
IN HIS CAPACITY AS PUBLIC OFFICER.

DISCUSSION
Page 7 of 19
I. With All Due Respect, Siman
Should Not Be Held Liable for Grave
Misconduct (Two (2) Counts Of
Murder, Under Art. 248 Of Rpc).

45. No. 3 of Section 2C, Rule 21, Part III of Memorandum Circular
No. 2016-002 (MC No. 2016-002) or the Revised Rules of Procedure Before
the Administrative Disciplinary Authorities and the Internal Affairs Service of
the Philippine National Police enumerates the instances constituting grave
misconduct as follows:

xxx

3) Grave Misconduct – shall include but not limited to the

following:

a) maltreat or abuse any prisoner or detained person under his

custody;
b) receive for personal use of a fee, gift or other valuable thing in
the course of official duties or in connection therewith when
such fee, gift or other valuable thing is given by any person in
the hope or expectation of receiving a favor or better treatment
than that accorded to other persons, or committing acts
punishable under the anti-graft laws;
c) join a strike or refuse to report for duty in order to secure
charges in terms and conditions of his employment, or to oust
the chief of police or any other officer from office;
d) contract loans of money or other property from persons with
whom the PNP office has business relations;
e) solicit or accept directly or indirectly, any gift, gratuity, favor,
entertainment, loan or anything of monetary value which in the
course of his official duties or in connection with any operation
being regulated by, or any transaction which may be affected
by the functions of his office. The propriety or impropriety of
the foregoing shall be determined by its value, kinship, or
relationship between the giver and receiver and the
motivation. A thing of monetary value is one which is evidently
or materially excessive by its very nature;
f) directly or indirectly have financial and material interest in any
transaction requiring the approval of his office, financial and
material interest is defined as pecuniary or proprietary interest
by which a person will gain or lose something;

Page 8 of 19
 g) own, control, manage or accept employment as officer,
employee, consultant, counsel, broker, agent, trustee,
nominee in any private enterprise regulated, supervised or
licensed by his office, unless expressly allowed by law;
h) publicly consort with women of ill repute and/or scandalously
cohabit with or maintain a wife other than his legitimate
spouse;
i) fail or refuse to surrender or deposit his service firearm, badge,
identification card and police vehicle, if any, to his superior
officer upon demand during the period of suspension;
j) willful failure to pay just debts or obligation due to the
government;
k) appropriate for his or allow another person the beneficial use
of any stolen property that is recovered, found or abandoned;
l) solicit money, valuable or favor for the amicable settlement of
cases under investigation;
m) engage directly or indirectly in partisan political activities or
take part in any election except to vote;
n) deliberately or through gross negligence, destroy, damage or
lose government property entrusted to him for official use;
o) mutilate, deface or destroy any driver’s license, traffic citation
ticket or temporary operator’s permit issued in lieu thereof;
p) inflict physical injuries upon a suspect to force the latter to give
a confession;
q) act as mediator or fixer for the return of any stolen vehicle or
property whether held for ransom or not;
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.

xxx

46. Siman is sought to be held liable for grave misconduct in relation

to murder allegedly committed on 14 March 2019.

47. On March 29, 2019 two separate Informations for murder was
filed against Respondents Laygo, Sumalpong, and Legaspi. Criminal Case
No. 2019-560 states as follows:

That on or about 14th day of March 2019, in the City of Tayabas,

Province of Quezon, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above named accused, P/SUPT MARK
JOSEPH S. LAYGO, being then the CHIEF OF POLICE and IN-

Page 9 of 19
CHARGE of CITY POLICE STATION of said city, and PO2
LONALD G. SUMALPONG and PO1 ROBERT B. LEGASPI
being then assigned at same police station, and being all
members of the PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE, armed with a
firearm, conspiring and confederating together and mutually
helping one another other, with intent to kill, with treachery,
evident premeditation and employing means to weaken the
defense of CHRISTIAN TRONILLA GAYETA, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and use
personal violence upon said CHRISTIAN TRONILLA GAYETA,
who was then handcuffed and blindfolded, by then and there
mauling him and shooting him with said firearm, thereby inflicting
upon him serious and mortal wounds which cause his immediate
death.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

Tayabas City for Lucena City, March 29, 2019.

And Criminal Case No. 2019-561 states as follows:

That on or about 14th day of March 2019, in the City of Tayabas,

Province of Quezon, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above named accused, P/SUPT MARK
JOSEPH S. LAYGO, being then the CHIEF OF POLICE and IN-
CHARGE of CITY POLICE STATION of said city, and PO2
LONALD G. SUMALPONG and PO1 ROBERT B. LEGASPI
being then assigned at same police station, and being all
members of the PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE, armed with a
firearm, conspiring and confederating together and mutually
helping one another other, with intent to kill, with treachery,
evident premeditation and employing means to weaken the
defense of CHRISTOPHER ILAGAN MANALO, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and use
personal violence upon said CHRISTOPHER ILAGAN
MANALO, who was then handcuffed and blindfolded, by then
and there mauling him and shooting him with said firearm,
thereby inflicting upon him serious and mortal wounds which
cause his immediate death.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

Tayabas City for Lucena City, March 29, 2019.

Page 10 of 19
 48. Said cases are now pending at Regional Trial Court Branch 53
and are currently at the pre-trial stage;
.
49. Worthy it is to note that herein respondent Cabriga is not included
in the filing of the above information in relation to the events that transpired
on 14 March 2019.

50. The filing of the above informations was upon the

recommendation of the National Bureau of Investigation, after an exhaustive
fact-finding investigation on the case, shown by a letter dated 22 March 2019
signed by NBI Director ATTY. DANTE A. GIERRAN.

51. This shows that both the Office of the City Prosecutor of Tayabas
City and the NBI did not find any cause to charge herein respondent of the
crime of murder, which supposedly is the basis for the present charge for
grave misconduct.

52. Moreover, the presiding judge, Hon. Dennis Galagad Orendain

found probable cause to set the cases for trial and issued the corresponding
warrants of arrest against Laygo, Sumalpong and Legaspi in the order
dated____.

53. Noteworthy is the fact that PO2 Abordo is one of the witnesses
in the said cases. Therefore, his brave and courageous act of standing up
for the truth and justice despite fear for his life and that of his family should
be rewarded instead of being persecuted.

54. In addition, herein respondent did not commit any act constituting
grave misconduct under MC No. 2016-002.

55. Whatever action he did in relation to the events transpiring on 14

March 2019 was merely in obedience to the instructions of Laygo, the latter
being the Chief of Tayabas Police Station.

56. In fact, while the actions of Siman tended to show obedience,

there was resistance on his part in following the orders of Laygo, due to his
suspicion of irregularity in the operation. Nevertheless, as a mere part of the
Tayabas Police Station headed by Laygo, he still had no choice but to follow
the latter’s instructions, albeit hesitantly.
Page 11 of 19
 57. Under Section 3(f) the Chiefs of Police Manual of the Philippine
National Police (PNP), one of the powers of a Chief of Police is to direct,
coordinate and control the operation of the uniformed and non-uniformed
personnel.1

58. In Section 6 of the same Manual, the guidelines on the

application of the doctrine of command responsibility states that:

a. Command Responsibility refers to the accountability of every

Police Commissioned Officer (PCO) to closely supervise,
coordinate, control and monitor the discharge of duties of his
subordinates as well as the responsibility to control and
monitor the activities of others who are operating within his
area of jurisdiction and to take preventive measures as
warranted by the circumstances.
xxx
d. The director/commander/chief/supervisor of a unit or office
shall have command responsibility over the personnel under
his/her supervision and shall have responsibility for all its
assignments, whether accomplished or not.
xxx

59. As aforementioned, Laygo is the Chief of Tayabas Police Station,

thus, he has the responsibility of directing, coordinating and controlling the
operations of his personnel – including herein respondent.

60. As such Chief of Tayabas Police Station, he likewise is

accountable for controlling and monitoring herein respondent’s discharge of
duties, and shall have a responsibility for any assignment that he gives to
the latter.

61. The present case should therefore not be any different – clearly
Laygo is responsible for directing, controlling and coordinating the operations
on 14 March 2019 – and herein respondent had no choice but to follow his
orders due to the position that Laygo is holding.

1
Directorate for Human and Resource Doctrine and Development, National Headquarters, Philippine National
Police Camp Crame. Chiefs of Police Manual, December 2001 (1st Edition), Quezon City.

Page 12 of 19
 62. Misconduct has been exhaustively explained by the Supreme
Court in the case of The Office of the Ombudsman vs. P/Supt. Brillantes,
PO3 Pablico and PO1 Fabia (September 28, 2016, G.R. No. 213699):

Misconduct, in the administrative sense, is a transgression of

some established and definite rule of action. It is an intentional
wrongdoing or a deliberate violation of a rule of law or
standard of behavior, especially by a government official.
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. If the misconduct does not involve any
of the additional elements to qualify the misconduct as grave, the
person charged may only be held liable for simple misconduct.

Moreover, in administrative proceedings, the quantum of proof

necessary for a finding of guilt is substantial evidence or such
relevant evidence as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate
to support a conclusion. The standard of substantial evidence is
satisfied when there is reasonable ground to believe that a
person is responsible for the misconduct complained of, even if
such evidence might not be overwhelming or even preponderant.
(emphasis supplied).

63. In the present case, Siman did not commit any intentional
wrongdoing or deliberate violation of a law or standard of behavior. There
was no clear intent to violate the law or rules – as it was proven that any act
which he may have done on the date of the incident was due to Laygo’s
ascendancy over Siman.

64. His hesitation and resistance in following Laygo’s orders,

although he did obey, shows the lack of intention on his part. Any such action
that he may have done to further the unlawful acts of Laygo, Legaspi and
Sumalpong was merely due to an internal debate on the legitimacy of the
operations.

65. Considering the foregoing, Siman should not therefore be held

liable for grave misconduct based on two (2) counts of murder under Article
248 of the Revised Penal Code.

Page 13 of 19
II. With All Due Respect, Respondent
Siman Should Not Be Held Liable for
Grave Irregularity in the Performance
of Duty.

66. Grave irregularity in the performance of duty has been defined

in MC No. 2016-002 as:

2) Grave Irregularity in the Performance of Duty – shall include but

not be limited to the following:

a) act as bodyguard or security guard for any public official or

candidate for any elective public office or position or any other
person within three (3) months immediately preceding any
election and within one (1) month thereafter, without authority
from the Commission on Election;
b) act as bodyguard or security guard for the person or property
of any public official, or private person unless approved by the
proper authorities;
c) reveal secret or confidential police matters and information
which jeopardize police mission and operation, or which cause
injury or damage to citizens;
d) unauthorized establishment of checkpoints in any public
thoroughfare for the purpose of stopping or searching vehicles
or persons or if authorized does not comply with the Rules set
by the PNP;
e) unauthorized escorting of any vehicle carrying highly dutiable
or taxable goods, merchandise, appliances or machinery;
f) failure to turn over to the police station within a reasonable
period any apprehended or arrested person;
g) countermand any lawful order of the mayor, chief of police, or
his superior officer;
h) perform the duties and functions of customs or immigration
authorities without proper deputation in accordance with law;
i) escort or allow other members to escort detention prisoners
outside the jail in order to attend a funeral, visit a sick relative,
or solicit a bond without an order of the court of proper
jurisdiction.

67. Siman was charged with grave irregularity in the performance of

duty due to the alleged fabrication of facts, event and circumstances “and
eventually set up a scenario that there was a valid police checkpoint

Page 14 of 19
operation and that there was a shoot-out between the respondents and
alleged suspects where in fact there was none.”

68. Unfortunately, the prosecution failed to prove that herein

respondent intentionally fabricated any fact, event or circumstance.

69. Perusal of the records will show that herein respondent did not
fabricate any fact, event or circumstance or cooperate in the fabrication of
any fact, event or circumstance in the said shoot out.

70. In fact, in the even as Siman was one of those instructed to

prepare an incident to make it appear that there was an armed encounter,
he refused to sign the same, as testified to by Rojas in his Sinumpaang
Salaysay (EXHIBIT “38” attached to the Manifestation and Submission of
Common Exhibits dated 10 July 2019 filed with this Honorable Office).

71. On the contrary, any and all actions of herein respondent in

relation to and subsequent to the alleged murder which transpired on 14
March 2019 was merely the result of fear of Laygo, in the latter’s exertion of
his ascendancy as the Chief of Tayabas City Police Station where herein
respondent is assigned.

72. Further, respondent did not do any act as would constitute grave
irregularity in the performance of duty under MC No. 2016-002.

73. On this basis, Rojas should therefore not be held liable on this
ground.

III. With All Due Respect, Siman Should

Not Be Held Liable for Grave
Dishonesty.

74. MC No. 2016-002 defined grave dishonesty as follows:

4) Grave Dishonesty – involves the presence of any one of

the following attendant circumstances (a) the dishonest act
caused serious damage and grave prejudice to the
government; (b) the respondent gravely abused his
authority in order to commit the dishonest act; (c) where the
Page 15 of 19
 respondent is an accountable officer, the dishonest act
directly involves the property, accountable forms or money
for which he is directly accountable and the respondent
shows an intent to commit material gain, graft and
corruption; (d) the dishonest act exhibits moral depravity on
the part of the respondent; (e) the respondent employed
fraud or falsification of official documents in the commission
of the dishonest act related to his or her employment; (f) the
dishonest act was committed several times or in various
occasions; or (g) the dishonest act involves a NAPOLCOM
examination irregularity or fake NAPOLCOM eligibility such
as impersonation, cheating and the like.

75. In the formal charge, Siman was sought to be held liable for
grave dishonesty, due to his alleged fabrication of facts, event and
circumstances, and with his alleged setting up of “a scenario that there was
a valid police checkpoint operation and that there was a shot-out between
the respondents and alleged suspects where in fact there was none.”

76. Here, no evidence was presented to show that Siman committed

any act that would constitute grave dishonesty.

77. Perusal of the records will show that herein respondent did not
fabricate any fact, event or circumstance or cooperate in the fabrication of
any fact, event or circumstance in the said shoot out.

78. In fact, in the even as Siman was one of those instructed to

prepare an incident to make it appear that there was an armed encounter,
he refused to sign the same, as testified to by Rojas in his Sinumpaang
Salaysay (EXHIBIT “38” attached to the Manifestation and Submission of
Common Exhibits dated 10 July 2019 filed with this Honorable Office).

79. Any act which he did in relation to the alleged murder on 14

March 2019, and subsequent thereto, were done in obedience to Laygo, the
latter being the Chief of Tayabas Police Station having ascendancy over him.

80. On the contrary, Siman’s acts of resisting and hesitating in

following the orders of Laygo shows honesty on his part – that his conscience
cannot bear the execution of acts upon his suspicion of irregularity in the
instructions of his Chief – but since the latter has ascendancy over him, he
still had no choice but to follow.

Page 16 of 19
 81. Futhermore, any delay on the part of Siman in reporting the
incident was merely for his fear of Laygo, the latter exercising disciplinary
control over him. He feared that he would lose his job, and all that he has
worked hard for, at the expense of his family and dependents who are all
relying on him.

82. Despite this delay, it must be emphasized that he voluntarily

gave his statements at the time when it was most needed. This shows
integrity and value for the truth – which was present even at the onset of the
incident when Siman was repelling the instructions of Laygo.

83. On this basis, Siman should therefore not be held liable for grave
dishonesty.

IV. With All Due Respect, Siman

Should Not Be Held Liable for
Conduct Unbecoming a Police
Officer in his Capacity as Public
Officer.

84. Conduct unbecoming a police officer has been defined in MC No.

2016-002 as follows:

5) Conduct Unbecoming of a Police Officer – any act or

behavior of a police officer, irrespective of rank, done in his
official or private capacity which, in dishonoring or
disgracing himself as a police officer, seriously
compromises his character and standing in the PNP in such
a manner as to indicate vitiated or corrupt state of moral
character which shows his unworthiness to remain in the
police service.

85. A review of Siman’s participation in the alleged murder incident

would show that he did not do any act to dishonor or disgrace himself as a
police officer, as would compromise his character and standing in the PNP.

86. On the date of the incident, Siman merely drove the mobile patrol
to the operations, acting upon the stern orders of Laygo.

Page 17 of 19
 87. He did not do any act to assist Laygo in the commission of
murder – and any act that he did which may have aided in the commission
of the crime was merely due to Laygo’s ascendancy over him.

88. In fact, it was apparent that at that time, Siman already had
doubts on the legitimacy of the operations, and he acted upon it by refusing
to fully obey the orders of Laygo.

89. There is no evidence to support that Siman had actual

knowledge of the criminal design of Laygo at the time that he was following
the orders of the latter. As such, he cannot be held responsible for any act
which may appear to further the latter’s crime, considering his lack of
participation and consent to the murder.

90. Considering these, Siman should therefore not be held liable for
conduct unbecoming of a police officer.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed before

this Honorable Office for the formal charges to be dismissed against PSSG
CHRISTOPHER JOHN PABELLANOSA SIMAN.

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

Lucena City, this 10th day of July 2019.

Most respectfully submitted:

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
PUBLIC ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
LUCENA DISTRICT OFFICE
3rd Floor, Midtown Pavilion Building
Quezon Avenue, Lucena City

Page 18 of 19
 CARMI D. MAGSINO-ARAZA
DPA / Public Attorney III
Roll No. 55414

Internal Affairs Service – Philippine National Police

National Police Commission

Please be advised that the undersigned is submitting the foregoing for

the consideration and resolution of this Honorable Office upon receipt hereof.
Thank you.

ATTY. CARMI D. MAGSINO-ARAZA

EXPLANATION OF SERVICE
Copy of this pleading was served to the other parties and filed with this
Honorable Office by registered mail due to time constraint and the lack of
available staff who can serve the same in person.

ATTY. CARMI D. MAGSINO-ARAZA

Copy furnished:

ATTY. CESAR M. ORTEGA

Ranada Malaya Sanchez Simpao and Ortega Law Offices
Counsel for Respondents Laygo, Sumalpong and Legaspi
Suite 422 Chateau Verde Condominium
Valle Verde I (Gate 2), E. Rodriguez, Jr. Avenue
Barangay Ugong, 1604 Pasig City

ATTY. CRISANTO BUELA

Counsel for Private Complainants
No. 229, Merchan Street
Lucena City

Page 19 of 19