This document is a motion for partial reconsideration filed by respondents PMAJ Jenny P Magan, PMSgt Redentor Pilon, and PSSgt Roman Barril Tadeo regarding a joint resolution finding them guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. The motion assigns four errors: 1) finding respondents liable for failing to provide a police blotter entry to the complainant's sister who did not have authorization, 2) finding them liable for refusing to provide a certified copy of the blotter to the sister without authorization, 3) finding Pilon and Tadeo liable when they were not the FOI officers, and 4) finding them liable for unreasonable delay in submitting the blotter to
This document is a motion for partial reconsideration filed by respondents PMAJ Jenny P Magan, PMSgt Redentor Pilon, and PSSgt Roman Barril Tadeo regarding a joint resolution finding them guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. The motion assigns four errors: 1) finding respondents liable for failing to provide a police blotter entry to the complainant's sister who did not have authorization, 2) finding them liable for refusing to provide a certified copy of the blotter to the sister without authorization, 3) finding Pilon and Tadeo liable when they were not the FOI officers, and 4) finding them liable for unreasonable delay in submitting the blotter to
This document is a motion for partial reconsideration filed by respondents PMAJ Jenny P Magan, PMSgt Redentor Pilon, and PSSgt Roman Barril Tadeo regarding a joint resolution finding them guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. The motion assigns four errors: 1) finding respondents liable for failing to provide a police blotter entry to the complainant's sister who did not have authorization, 2) finding them liable for refusing to provide a certified copy of the blotter to the sister without authorization, 3) finding Pilon and Tadeo liable when they were not the FOI officers, and 4) finding them liable for unreasonable delay in submitting the blotter to
This document is a motion for partial reconsideration filed by respondents PMAJ Jenny P Magan, PMSgt Redentor Pilon, and PSSgt Roman Barril Tadeo regarding a joint resolution finding them guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. The motion assigns four errors: 1) finding respondents liable for failing to provide a police blotter entry to the complainant's sister who did not have authorization, 2) finding them liable for refusing to provide a certified copy of the blotter to the sister without authorization, 3) finding Pilon and Tadeo liable when they were not the FOI officers, and 4) finding them liable for unreasonable delay in submitting the blotter to
RESPONDENTS PMAJ JENY P MAGAN, PMSGT REDENTOR PILON, AND PSSGT ROMAN BARRIL TADEO, hereby file this Motion for Partial Reconsideration from the 06 November 2020 Joint Resolution of ROLANDO W. CERVANTES-Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer, Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military and Other Law Enforcement Offices, a copy of which was received on 18 June 2021 by herein respondent and respectfully avers: THAT--
THE JOINT RESOLUTION SUBJECT OF RECONSIDERATION
The Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer ROLANDO W.
CERVANTES of the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military and Other Law Enforcement Offices, the decretal portion of which reads:
“WHEREFORE, Respondents PMAJ.
JENNY POPA MAGAN, PSSGT REDENTOR OSORIO PILON and PSSGT ROMAN BARRIL TADEO are found guilty of conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service and the penalty of Suspension from the service for a period of Six (6) Months and One (1) Day shall be imposed against them. If the penalty of suspension can no longer be served by reason of their separation from the service, the alternative penalty of FINE equivalent to their salary for Six (6) months shall be imposed payable to the Office of the Ombudsman, and may be deduced from their retirement or separation benefits, accrued leave credits or any receivable from their Office.
SO ORDERED. Quezon City, Philippines, 06 November 2020.
ROLANDO W. CERVANTES
Graft Investigation and
Prosecution Officer THE ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS
I. WITH DUE RESPECT, THE GRAFT INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION OFFICER OF THE DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR THE MILITARY AND OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICES (MOLEO) WITH DUE RESPECT COMMITTED GRAVE ERROR OF FACTS WHEN IT HELD HEREIN RESPONDENTS PMAJ JENY P MAGAN, PMSGT REDENTOR PILON, AND PSSGT ROMAN BARRIL TADEO ADMINISTRATIVELY LIABLE FOR CONDUCT PREJUDICIAL TO BEST INTEREST OF THE SERVICE, WHEN THEY FAILED TO GIVE A POLICE BLOTTER ENTRY NUMBER 99187 UPON ORAL REQUEST OF THE COMPLAINANT’S SISTER WHO AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST WAS NOT EQUIPPED WITH SPECIAL POWER OR ATTORNEY OR AUTHORIZATION COMING FROM THE COMPLAINANT;
II. THE GRAFT INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION OFFICER OF DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN (MOLEO) WITH DUE RESPECT COMMITED GRAVE ERROR OF FACTS WHEN IT HELD PMAJ JENY P MAGAN, PMSGT REDENTOR PILON, AND PSSGT ROMAN BARRIL TADEO LIABLE FOR CONDUCT PREJUDICIAL TO THE BEST INTEREST OF SERVICE WHEN THEY REFUSE TO GIVE THE CERTIFIED XEROX COPY OF THE BLOTTER ENTRIES REQUESTED BY THE COMPLAINANT'S SISTER WITHOUT SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY OR AUTHORIZATION FROM THE COMPLAINANT.
III. WITH DUE RESPECT, THE GRAFT INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION OFFICER OF THE DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR THE MILITARY AND OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICES (MOLEO) COMMITTED GRAVE ERROR OF FACTS OR LAW WHEN IT HELD HEREIN RESPONDENTS PMSGT REDENTOR PILON, AND PSSGT ROMAN BARRIL TADEO, LIABLE ADMINISTRATIVELY FOR CONDUCT PREJUDICIAL TO BEST INTEREST OF THE SERVICE, WHEN THEY FAILED TO GIVE A POLICE BLOTTER ENTRY NUMBER 99187 UPON REQUEST COMPLAINANT’S SISTER WHEN THEY ARE NOT THE FOI OFFICER RECEIVING OFFICER NOR FOI DECISION MAKING OFFICER (FDM) WHO SHOULD ENTERTAIN OR DECIDE UPON THE ORAL REUEST OF THE COMPLAINANT'S SISTER; IV. THE GRAFT INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION OFFICER COMMITTED MISAPPRECIATION OF FACTS WHEN IT HELD THE RESPONDENTS PMAJ JENY P MAGAN, PMSGT REDENTOR PILON, AND PSSGT ROMAN BARRIL TADEO LIABLE FOR CONDUCT PREJUDICIAL TO BEST INTEREST OF THE SERVICE BECAUSE OF THE UNREASONABLE DELAY IN THE SUBMISSION OF BLOTTER NO. 99187 IN COURT, WHEN IN FACT THE RESPONDENTS HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY SUBPOENA FROM THE COURT;
The said resolution was received by the undersigned
respondents on June 18, 2021. Hence, the filing of this motion for partial reconsideration is within the ten (10) days reglementary period pursuant to Section 8 of the Ombudsman Rules of Procedure (Administrative Order No. 7 as amended) .
ARGUMENTS/ DISCUSSIONS
I. The Graft Investigation Officer and Prosecution Officer
of the Deputy of Ombudsman for the Military and other Law Enforcement Offices (MOLEO) committed Grave Error of Facts of Laws when it held the herein Respondents PMSGT REDENTOR PILON, AND PSSGT ROMAN BARRIL TADEO, administratively liable for Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service when they failed to give a Police Blotter Entry Number 99187 upon oral request of the Complainant's sister, who at the time of the request was not equipped with Special Power of Attorney or Authorization coming from the Complainant
Paragraph 24 of the Sinumpaang Salaysay of Efren
Pacheco states: "Na nagpunta ang aking kapâtid na si Yolanda Villaflores sa himpilan ng Sablayan ay nakaharap sina PO2 Tadeo at SPO1 Pilon at patuloy ang pagtanggi nila na magbigay ng certified Xerox Copy ng blotter dahil iyon daw ay confidential at utos ng kanilang hepe na si PCINSP Magan na huwag magbigay"
Clearly it was not the Complainant who asked for the
copy of the blotter but his sister, who is not a party to the case hence, without the Special Power of Attorney or Authorization should not have an access to the Blotter of the Case.
Further, Paragraph 28 of the Sinumpaang Salaysay of
the Complainant reads: " Na para makahingi ng dokumentong kailangan ko sa pagdipensa ng aking kaso ay sumulat ang ate ko na si Yolanda Villaflores na naka address kay PCINSP Magan na may petsang ika-18 ng Disyembre 2018 at ito ay natanggap ni PO3 Punong Bayan pero hanggang ngayon ay hindi rin nila inaksyunan ang
nasaboing liham
This bolsters the fact that when the initial requests
were made, it was done orally by the sister of the Complainant. Also noteworthy was the accusation of the Complainant in his Sinumpaang Salaysay that the letter request of her sister dated December 18, 2018 for the copy of the blotter was not acted upon by PCINSP Magan. This was an utter lie because on the same day PCINSP Magan caused the preparation and issuance of the EXCERPT FROM THE OFFICIAL POLICE BLOTTER which was also received by the Complainant's sister attached as ANNEX 12 in the Answer of PCINSP Magan.
II. The Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer of the
Deputy Ombudsman (MOLEO) with due respect committed grave error of facts when it held PMAJ JENY P MAGAN, PMSGT REDENTOR PILON, AND PSSGT ROMAN BARRIL TADEO liable for Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of Service when they refuse to give the certified xerox copy of the blotter entries requested by the Complainant's sister without Special Power of Attorney or Authorization from the Complainant.
On July 23, 2016 Executive No. 2 series 2016 of the
Office of the President Rodrigo Roa Duterte, Section 8 entitled People’s Freedom to Information (FOI) Manual directed every government office to prepare its own People’s FOI Manual which shall include (c) the procedure for the filing and processing of the request.
In line with Executive Order No. 2 series of 2016 the PNP
adopted the PNP Manual on People’s Freedom of Information Chapter 2 which states that (2.1) (e) if the requesting person is asking for public information on behalf of someone else, he/she must submit an authorization letter or Special Power of Attorney. Consequently, PCINSP Magan could not have caused the photocopying of the blotter book and certifying the same without violating the mandate of the abovementioned PNP Manual. Nevertheless to help alleviate the agony and so as not to prejudice the right of the Complainant and out of compassion for the sister of Complainant who untiringly trying to get the copy of the blotter, PCINSP Magan caused the preparation and issuance of the EXCERPT FROM THE OFFICIAL POLICE BLOTTER. Therefore, it cannot be said that PCINSP Magan unlawfully and willfully withheld from the Complainant the contents of the blotter book. If such was the intent of PCINSP Magan, without the Special Power of Attorney or authorization letter, he could have entirely denied the request of the Complainant's sister.
III. With due respect, the Graft Investigation and
Prosecution Officer of the Deputy Ombudsman(MOLEO) committed grave error of facts when it held respondents PMSGT REDENTOR PILON, AND PSSGT ROMAN BARRIL TADEO, administratively liable for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of service when they failed to give a police blotter entry number 99187 upon the requests of the Complainant's when they are not the FOI Receiving Officer nor FOI Decision Making Officer who should entertain or decide upon the oral request of the Complainant's sister.
As per FOI Manual Chapter 1 (1.5) the PNP FOI Receiving
Officer shall be a Police Non-Commissioned Officer (PNCO) while (1.6) the FOI Decision Maker (FDM) the designated Officer-in-Charge shall automatically assume the duties and responsibilities.
Further, (2.4) (a) of the PNP Manual on People’s Freedom of
Information states that: "the FOI Decision Maker shall be responsible for granting the request for access information."
It can be inferred from the manual herein above mentioned,
that for purposes of requesting information coming from the Philippine National Police there is a particular person who should received the request and there is also a particular person who should grant or deny the request. It is also evident that Respondents PMSGT REDENTOR PILON, AND PSSGT ROMAN BARRIL TADEO cannot be an FOI Decision Making Officer not being the Officer-in-Charge of Sablayan Municipal Police Station. The question that remains therefore is whether or not PMSGT REDENTOR PILON, AND PSSGT ROMAN BARRIL TADEO are the designated FOI Receiving Officer.
In thid regard, ANNEX B of paragraph 28 of the Sinumpaang
Salaysay of the Complainant or the letter request of the Complainant's sister revealed that it was neither Respondent PMSGT REDENTOR PILON nor PSSGT ROMAN BARRIL TADEO who received such request hence they could not have acted upon the request. Additionally even if it was one of the Respondents PMSGT REDENTOR PILON or PSSGT ROMAN BARRIL TADEO who received the letter request, they can neither approve nor deny such request not being the FOI Decision Maker. With respect to the oral request made by the Complainant's sister under paragraph 24 of the Complainant's Sinumpaang Salaysay, the FOI PNP Manual is very telling that Respindent's could and should not act on such oral request.
IV. The Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer
committed Grave Error if Facts when it held the Respondents PMAJ JENY P MAGAN, PMSGT REDENTOR PILON, AND PSSGT ROMAN BARRIL TADEO, administratively liable for Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service because of the unreasonable delay in the submission of Blotter 99187 in court, when in fact the Respondents have not received subpoena from the court
With all due respect to the Graft Investigation Prosecutor, it
can be inferred from the records of the case that none of the Respondents PMAJ JENY P MAGAN, PMSGT REDENTOR PILON, AND PSSGT ROMAN BARRIL TADEO was not furnished by any communication coming from the court relevant to the case Criminal Case No. R-9827 filed against the Complainant. Even the copy of the Decision where the delay in the submission of the blotter was mentioned will reveal that the Respondents was not copy furnished of the same.
In G.R. No. 171722 Remedios Pascual vs Benito Burgos et
al states that Grave abuse of discretion refers not merely to palpable errors of jurisdiction; or to violations of the Constitution, the law and jurisprudence. It refers also to cases in which, for various reasons, there has been a gross misapprehension of facts. All said, this is the legal, moral and factual surrounding the case whereby this MOTION FOR PARTIAL RECONSIDERATION to the Joint Resolution of the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military and Other Law Enforcement Offices, dated 06 November 2020.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully
prayed that the Joint Resolution dated November 6, 2020 of the Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer ROLANDO W. CERVANTES of the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military and Other Law Enforcement Offices be reconsidered and set aside and a new one entered in favor of appellants.
Other reliefs and remedies which may be deemed just and
equitable under the premises are likewise prayed for.
Sablayan, Occidental Mindoro, June 18, 2020.
PMAJ JENY P MAGAN PMSGT REDENTOR PILON
Affiant Affiant
PSSGT ROMAN BARRIL TADEO
Affiant
Respondents for and on their own behalf
Brgy. Buenavista, Sablayan, Occidental Mindoro
Copy Furnished:
MR. EFREN V. PACHECO
Barangay Ibud, Sablayan, Occidental Mindoro EXPLANATION (Pursuant to Sec. 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure)
Copy of the foregoing Motion for Partial Reconsideration was served
on the other party by registered mail with return card due to lack of available messengerial personnel to effect personal service or delivery.
PMAJ JENY P MAGAN PMSGT REDENTOR PILON
Affiant Affiant
PSSGT ROMAN BARRIL TADEO
Affiant VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION
We, PMAJ JENY P MAGAN, PMSGT REDENTOR PILON and
PSSGT ROMAN BARRIL TADEO, Filipino, all of legal age, after having been duly sworn to in accordance with law, do hereby depose and state:
1. That We are the respondents in the above-entitled case;
2. That We have caused the preparation of the foregoing
Motion for Reconsideration, and I have read the contents thereof and affirm that the same are true and correct based on my own personal knowledge and authentic documents;
3. That We have not commenced any other action or
proceeding involving the same issues as in the instant complaint in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or any other tribunal or agency. To the best of my knowledge, no such action or proceeding is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or the different divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency. If I should learn that a similar action or proceeding has been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or the different divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency, I undertake to inform this Honorable Office of such fact within five (5) days from notice thereof.
Done this 21st day of June 2021, at Sablayan, Occidental
Mindoro.
PMAJ JENY P MAGAN PMSGT REDENTOR PILON
Affiant Affiant
PSSGT ROMAN BARRIL TADEO
Affiant SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 23rd day of April 2012, in Pasig City, Philippines. Affiant appears in person and presents his Driver License No. _________________, identifying himself through a competent evidence of identifying and signing this document in my presence and affirming under oath the truthfulness of this document.
NOTARY PUBLIC
Doc. No.________; Page No.________; Book No.________; Series of 2021.
