Tuesday, July 4, 2017

Summary (administrative) dismissal case; sample Position Paper.

(As Per Section 6, Rule 17, Part III, 
Xxx Memorandum Circular No. xxx, 
“Revised Rules of Procedure…”)

The RESPONDENT, assisted by counsel, respectfully states:


1. The respondent has been administratively charged with GRAVE MISCONDUCT as per Section 2, Paragraph “C”, Sub-Paragraph “3”, Rule 21, Part III of the xxx Memorandum Circular No. 2016-002 by the Prosecution Division of the xxx of the xxx. 

2. The charge is based on the Joint Affidavit of Arrest[1], dated 31 March 2017, and the Joint Supplemental Joint Affidavit, dated 4 April 2017, issued by the four complainants-arresting officers, namely, xxx, xxx, xxx, and xxx, as well as the forensic reports issued by the xxx Laboratory in support of the allegations of the complainants. 

3. Basically, the administrative charge against the respondent is based on the allegations of the complainants (a) that the respondent was caught by them, together with xxx, on xxx at about xxx in a hut at xxx Homes, xxx City, while using shabu; and (b) that the forensic examination reports submitted by the xxx Laboratory proved that the respondent was positive for the use of shabu. 



4. On the date/ and at the place referred to in the joint affidavits of the complainants (i.e., xxx at about xxx), the respondent was on a surveillance to gather evidence in connection with the information that he had received that a junior officer of the xxx Laboratory, in the person of xxx, was supplying shabu in xxx City. 

(The respondent is a resident of xxx City. He was also the head of the xxx office of the Laboratory for xxx Manila, with office location in xxx City, at the time of incident).

According to the information gathered by the respondent, xxx, a resident of xxx City, was a supplier of shabu in the southern cities of xxx, xxx, xxx and xxx. 

5. The surveillance of the respondent had the express clearance and approval, via text messages, of his superiors xxx (xxx of the xxx Laboratory) and xxx. 

6. It will be noted that in the URGENT EX PARTE MANIFESTATION AND MOTION, dated 3 May 2017, that the respondent, by counsel, had filed with the office of the xxx Hearing Officer, the following facts were alleged:

“x x x.

1. The mobile phone of the respondent was seized on March 30, 2017 in xxx City at the time of his arrest by the arresting officers of the xxx City Police Station. 

The mobile phone was turned over by the arresting officers to the investigating officer/s.

It is now under the control of the xxx of the xxx City xxx Station in the person of xxx as the xxx of the said Station.

2. The mobile phone of the respondent is described as follows: xxx.

3. The mobile phone of the respondent contains relevant and material calls and texts messages exchanged between the respondent and the xxx Officer of the xxx Laboratory of the xxx, xxx, and other officers of the xxx Laboratory. 

The call and text messages would show that at the time of the arrest of the respondent he was conducting a surveillance of an officer of the XXX Crime Laboratory in the person of xxx, an alleged drug supplier operating in xxx City, xxx City, and xxx City. 

The surveillance was approved via calls and text messages by the superiors of the respondent (xxx) and other concerned officers (xxx of the xxx Laboratory). 

The calls and text messages will prove the reason for the physical presence of the respondent at the area where he was arrested in xxx City on xxx for alleged violations of RA 9165.

4. There is a need for an order from the Hearing Officer of the instant case and any duly authorized official of the Legal Division (LAD) of the xxx addressed to the said xxx to produce the seized mobile phone of the respondent in the next scheduled hearing (continuation of the pretrial hearing) of the instant case so that the respondent could read and transcribe the text messages contained therein and thereafter to mark and present the said transcription as an exhibit in his defense in the instant case.

5. The respondent understands that only the Regional Trial Court of xxx City, where the related criminal cases of the respondent are pending, can order the said xxx to surrender and return the mobile phone of the respondent to the respondent, the same being the latter’s private property and the same being a part of his criminal defense in the Court. 

That is why this motion is limited only to the production, inspection and examination of the mobile phone of the respondent under the control of the said xxx so that the transcription of the text messages therein could be marked by the respondent as additional defense exhibits in the next scheduled hearing (continuation of pretrial hearing) of the instant case in the interest of truth and justice. 

6. It is part of the constitutional rights of the respondent to due process of law, equal protection of the law, and security of tenure to be afforded a full opportunity to cause the production, discovery, and examination and of any and all relevant and material evidence in the possession of other person, parties, or entities so that he may improve his defense. 

X x x.”

7. In his foregoing motion, the respondent prayed for the following relief:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that an order be issued by the Hearing Officer of the instant case or any duly authorized officer of the Legal Affairs Division (LAD) of the xxx with the power to issue such an order directing the xxx of the xxx City Police Station in the person of xxx to produce the seized mobile phone of the respondent during the next scheduled hearing (continuation of the pretrial hearing) for the legal purpose stated above in the interest of truth and justice.”

7. The respondent, by counsel, reiterated the foregoing motion before the xxx hearing officer during the preliminary conference of the administrative case held on xxx at xxx. He was assured that a subpoena would be issued to ferret out the truth, in the interest of justice. 

8. While conducting his aforementioned surveillance, the respondent was approached by an unidentified male pimp and a woman (who later turned out to be a certain xxx) who offered the “short-time services” of the woman, so to speak. The respondent agreed to the offer. (It was a human weakness and mistake that the respondent has since then regretted). 

8.1. The three of them went to the private tryst (a hut) of the woman where she usually conducted her “private business” located in xxx, xxx, xxx City. 

8.2. The unidentified male pimp and the woman told the respondent to wait outside the hut for some time while the two were cleaning, arranging, fixing, and making the hut comfortable for the “short-time private transaction”.

8.3. While the respondent was waiting outside, two policemen arrived to raid the hut. They were later identified as the complainants-arresting officers xxx and xxx.

8.4. Parenthetically, the two officers, namely, xxx and xxx, who claimed, under oath, to have been part of the operation, were not actually present during the operation. 

They had committed the crime of Perjury, for reasons known only to them, by alleging under oath that they were part of the raiding team. 

(The respondent reserves the right to file the proper criminal case against them in due time).

8.5. The two arresting officers who actually raided the hut, namely, xxx and xxx, arrested the woman xxx. 

They allowed the unidentified male pimp to escape. 

They allowed the owner or occupant of the hut, whoever he/she may be, to escape. 

They have not investigated their identities and penal liabilities at any time up to the present. 

8.6. When the two officers xxx and xxx exited the hut, they likewise arrested the respondent, who was standing outside. 

8.7. The respondent, at first, thought it was a case of “hulidap” conspiracy among the two officers and the woman. 

8.8. He attempted to silently move away from the site. It was a mistake that he now regrets. 

8.9. He should have formally identified himself as a police officer and should have told the officers the truth about his “contract of short-time services” with the woman xxx to explain his presence outside the hut. 

8.10. At any rate, when the respondent was arrested, he told the two officers that he was a ranking police officer, that he was not a shabu user, and that he was at the site pursuant to a “private contract of short-time services” with the woman Xxx, assisted by her unidentified male pimp (who was allowed by the officers to escape for reasons known only to themselves). 

The respondent was brought to the xxx City xxx Station to clarify things with the superiors of the arresting officers. He was detained therein. 

9. The respondent hereby questions the authenticity of the forensic chemistry submitted by xxx of the xxx Laboratory showing that the respondent had been allegedly tested to be positive for the use of shabu. 

He likewise questions the neutrality and impartiality of the said examiner.

9.1. Xxx was a complainant against the respondent in an incident that transpired on xxx at the xxx Laboratory. 

9.2. Xxx had complained against the respondent for alleged sexual harassment. 

9.3. Xxx was not a neutral and impartial examiner. Her forensic examination report, which allegedly found the respondent positive for the use of shabu, was tainted with the motive of revenge and bad faith.

10. During the inquest and the regular preliminary investigation before the Office of the City Prosecutor of xxx City, the respondent, assisted by his former and current lawyers, insisted that he be granted the right to undergo an independent private drug examination. The Investigating Prosecutor allowed the same. 

10.1. When the respondent, by counsel, prayed that he be allowed to be temporarily released from his detention cell to proceed to the xxx Diagnostics in xxx City for purpose of the approved independent drug examination, the Investigating Prosecutor denied the request because the Prosecutor desired that the technical staff of the private laboratory be the ones to go to the detention cell for purposes of the examination. 

10.2. The laboratory staff and supervisor of xxx Diagnostics rejected the idea because it was against the rules and regulations of the Department of Health to bring out of their premises their biometrics machine to be used for such an examination unless there was a specific DOH permission for the purpose. 

The family of the respondent forthwith informed the Investigating Prosecutor about the matter. 

The daughter of the respondent, in the person of xxx, had executed an Affidavit, dated xxx, for the purpose.

10.3. Hence, while in detention, the respondent was not able to avail himself of an independent drug examination. 

10.4. However, the day following his release from detention on bail on xxxx, the respondent immediately subjected himself to an independent drug examination at the xxx Diagnostics xxx in xxx City. The result thereof was NEGATIVE. 

10.5. Every week thereafter, he freely subjected himself to continuing drug examinations. The results were all NEGATIVE.

10.6. On xxx, the respondent voluntarily underwent a drug test at the Hi Precision Diagnostics in Xxx City. The result was NEGATIVE. 

The drug test report (a new exhibit that was acquired only after the preliminary conference held on xxx) is being attached hereto as Exhibit 45.

10.7. On xxx, the respondent voluntarily underwent a drug test at the xxx Diagnostics in xxx City. The result was likewise NEGATIVE. 

The drug test report (a new exhibit that was acquired only after the preliminary conference held on xxx) is being attached hereto as Exhibit 46.

11. Please note that for the period 1999 to 2016, all the past drug tests and annual physical and medical examinations of the respondent that were conducted by the xxx Laboratory and/or Health Service, the xxx Laboratory and/or Health Service, and the xxx District xxx Laboratory and/or Health Service had shown that the respondent was NEGATIVE of drug use and was in good physical and medical condition.

12. The latest Police Clearance, dated xxx, of the respondent shows that he has NO DEROGATORY RECORD. 

13. The latest National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Clearance, dated xxx, issued to the respondent shows that he has NO CRIMINAL RECORD. 

A copy of the latest NBI Clearance of the respondent (a new exhibit that was acquired only after the preliminary conference held on xxx) is being attached hereto as Exhibit 47.

14. For the record, the Office of the City Prosecutor of xxx City has dismissed the criminal cases for alleged violations of Sections 13 and 14 of RA No. 9165 against the respondent. 

14.1. He was indicted only for alleged violation of Section 12 (paraphernalia [i.e., a lighter]) and Section 15 (use) of RA No. 9165. 

14.2. He vigorously contests the criminal charges before the Regional Trial Court, Branch xxx, of xxx City.

15. The respondent has been a very strict disciplinarian as a leader in his unit. 

This is proven by Exhibits 37 to 42 and 44, with submarkings, which are records of various incidents in the xxx Laboratory where the respondent was the complainant. 

As earlier stated, one personnel involved therein was forensic examiner xxx who submitted the “positive” drug test report against the respondent. 

The report was done by the examiner xxx out of hate, revenge, ill motive, and bad faith. 


16. The exhibits of the respondent were marked as Exhibit 1 to Exhibit 44 during the preliminary conference held on xxx. 

16.1. The respondent is submitting herewith as additional exhibits the three additional documents referred to above as Exhibits 45 to 47, supra. 

16.2. They were acquired by the respondent only after the preliminary conference held on xxx. 

16.3. They are newly discovered evidence under the Rules of Evidence. 

16.4. In the interest of justice, the said additional Exhibits 45 to 47, copies of which are attached to this Position Paper, must be admitted in evidence. 

16.5. The Prosecution is hereby furnished herewith copies of the additional Exhibits 45 to 47 which are attached to this Position Paper. 

16.6. During the preliminary conference held on xxx, the Prosecution was duly furnished complete copies of the marked Exhibits 1 to 44. 

There is therefore no need to attach them (Exhibits 1 to 44) to this Position Paper, for convenience and economy.


17. The sole issue in this administrative case is whether or not the respondent is guilty of GRAVE MISCONDUCT based on the mandatory quantum of substantial evidence as required by law and existing jurisprudence in the adjudication of administrative cases. 


18. As stated in the Rejoinder, dated xxx, which the respondent had subscribed and sworn to before (and filed with) the Investigating Assistant City Prosecutor xxx, during the continuation of the preliminary investigation on the said date (xxx), there are crucial facts, issues and discrepancies, which tend to prove the innocence of the respondent, that should be noted. They are discussed hereinbelow. 

19. Please compare the Joint Reply, dated xxxx, of the complainants-arresting officers with their earlier Affidavit of the Arresting Officers, dated xxx. 

The divergence and contradictions between the two documents are patent.

20. The Affidavit of the Arresting Officers, dated xxx, shows the following contradictions that tend to prove his innocence:

(a) Only the woman Xxx was seen by the arresting officers as “humihithit” and holding (“may hawak ng”) a lighter and an aluminum foil. 

(b) The respondent was not seen by the arresting officers as “humihithit” and “may hawak ng” aluminum foil and/or plastic sachet.

(c) What the arresting officers claimed to have recovered from the herein respondent was simply a pink “lighter”. It is not a crime to possess a “lighter.”

(d) The arresting officers alleged that they recovered from the floor (“lapag”) three pieces of aluminum foils and three pieces of plastic sachet. 

(e) When the arresting officers received a “tip” from an unknown “concerned citizen”, they rushed (“agad na pumunta”) to the alleged pot session shanty. 

(f) They did not name the tipster in their earlier affidavit. But in their Reply, dated xxx, they named the alleged tipster as “Aka xxx”.

21. In the earlier Affidavit of the Arresting Officers, dated xxx, the complainants alleged that upon receiving a tip from an unknown tipster, they forthwith proceeded to the shanty (“agad na pumunta sa nasabing lugar”). 

But in their Reply, dated xxx, they alleged that they first interviewed the tipster, they reported the tip to their “duty officer” (“agad naming pinaalam sa aming duty desk officer”), they blottered the tip (“pinatala sa blotter”), and the arresting officers were thereafter “dispatched” by their duty officer (“idinispatch”).

22. In Par. 3 of the Reply, dated xxx, of the complainants they alleged that the tipster “xxxy” joined them (“kasunod” si “xxx”) in going to the shanty, that it was “xxx” who pointed the shanty to them (“itinuro”; “dito po, Sir”), that it was “xxxy” who suddenly pushed open the door (“agad niyang itinulak and pinto”). 

All of these facts were missing in the earlier Affidavit of the Arresting Officers, dated xxxx. 

The earlier Affidavit of the Arresting Officers alleged that they alone performed the entire raid (police operation) and the arrest of the two respondents (without any operational participation from “xxx” and Kgd. xxx).

23. The earlier Affidavit of the Arresting Officers, dated xxx, claimed that many neighbors pointed the shanty to them (“may naglapitan sa aming mga tao sa lugar”; “itinuro sa amin ang direksyon ng bahay”). 

This allegation was not re-affirmed in their Reply, dated xxxx. Neither did they secure the sworn statements of some, if not all, of the said neighbors.

24. Note, too, that the complainants took no effort to investigate and arrest the unidentified male pimp of Xxx and the owner or lessee of the hut.

25. The Affidavit, dated xxx, of Kgd. Xxx did not mention any participation of “xxx” in the raid/police operation. 

“xxx” did not have a role in it. 

It was the arresting officers who pushed open the door, raided and entered the shanty, and arrested the two respondents, according to Kgd. Xxx. 

Moreover, xxx did not allege anything incriminating against the herein respondent. 

He incriminated only the woman Xxx. 

26. The Chain of Custody Form, which is part of the Record, only shows the five transfers of the evidence within the xxx City xxx organization (i.e., the “Station Anti-Illegal Drug Special Action Task Group”). 

The chain of custody of the evidence did not show the full and complete movements, safety and integrity of the evidence from the initial field source (shanty and precinct level) up to the “actual laboratory examination stage” at the xxx Laboratory and the “return of the reports” to the xxx City xxx Station. 

The chain of custody is defective and dubious. 

It renders dubious the examinations of the specimens. 

27. The Receipt of Property Seized, dated xxx, which is part of the Record, shows that only a non-incriminating “lighter” was recovered from the herein respondent. 

28. Please note that the xxx Laboratory did not examine the two lighters recovered from the two respondents. 

Possession per se by the herein respondent of a harmless lighter per se is not a crime. 

(The respondent denies that he was in possession of a lighter at the time of the incident. He is not a smoker).

Please note that the Record shows that the herein respondent was not shown to be in “possession” of shabu according to the arresting police officers themselves. 

Sec. 13 therefore does not apply to him.

29. On xxxx the Office of the City Prosecutor of xxx City indicted the respondent only for two violations of R.A. 9165, i.e., violations of Sec. 12 and Sec. 15. 

He was absolved for violation of Secs. 13 and 14 of the law. 

30. The Chemistry Reports No. xxx and No. xxx, signed by xxx of the xxx Laboratory, which reported a positive finding for methamphetamine and negative for THC-metabolites, are dubious because she was not a neutral examiner. 

She was an interested party who had an axe to grind against the respondent. 

It must be noted, at this point, that the respondent has been the subject of unfair complaints by xxx, xxx, and their colleagues who were his subordinates at the crime laboratory because of his strict and disciplinarian management style as a leader and manager. 

He has duly answered all of their complaints. 

31. One example of a case that shows the dedication, strictness, and disciplinarian leadership of the respondent as a commissioned officer was the fact that in 2003 he personally arrested xxx, who was then assigned under him, when he caught the latter using shabu inside the toilet of the crime laboratory. Xxx resisted arrest. 

The respondent subdued him. Thereafter the respondent caused the filing of the proper criminal cases against xxx and cooperated as a witness in the prosecution thereof. 

32. The respondent is not a shabu user. 

He has never been a shabu user in his whole life. 

His regular annual drug tests as a dedicated commissioned officer of the Philippine National Police (XXX) for many years (1999 to 2016) have all been NEGATIVE. 

During the preliminary conference held on xxx, the respondent moved for issuance of subpoena to cause the production of the complete copies of the results of all his drug tests and physical examinations from 1999 to 2016.

The respondent prays that the XXX hearing officer act thereon with dispatch in the interest of justice.

33. Although it is not relevant and material to the instant administrative case, in the interest of justice and to protect the reputation of the respondent, it must be noted that the respondent had learned that there was an alleged neuro-psychiatric examination report, dated xxx, signed by xxx, MD (psychiatrist) and xxx, MD (Chief, NP Section). 

It unjustly diagnosed him as allegedly suffering from substance-induced psychotic disorder. 

The respondent vehemently questions its validity, authenticity, and neutrality. 

The scientific methodologies adopted by the said examining officers, if any, were not discussed in the report. 

There was no showing that scientific methodologies were applied during the alleged neuro-psychiatric examination. 

For the record, if necessary, the respondent hereby moves for leave to be allowed to undergo an independent psychiatric/psychological examination by a licensed psychiatrist/psychologist of his own choice and at his own expense to disprove the validity of the abovementioned report of xxx and xxx, MD. 

34. The Office of the City Prosecutor has indicted the respondent for alleged violation of Sec. 12 (“paraphernalia” provision) of RA 9165 based on the allegation that the arresting police officers found in respondent’s possession a lighter. 

The respondent vehemently submits that to possess a lighter per se is not a crime under Philippine laws. 

(The respondent does not smoke. He had no reason to possess a lighter. He does not drink alcohol, too). 

35. The Office of the City Prosecutor also indicted him for violation of Section 15 of the law (“use of illegal drug” provision) based on the bxxxed report of forensic chemist xxx, who has an axe to grind against him, as explained above. 

36. The respondent is entitled to the (a) right to be “presumed innocent”, (b) the right to “due process of law”, (c) the right to “equal protection of the law”, and (d) the right to “security of tenure” under the 1987 Constitution. 

37. The burden of proof to dismiss him from the service, based on “substantial evidence” as the quantum of proof required by law and jurisprudence, must be strictly complied with by the complainants. 


38. In the case of HUBERT NUÑEZ vs. SLTEAS PHOENIX SOLUTIONS, INC., through its representative, CESAR SYLIANTENG, G.R. No. 180542, April 12, 2010, it was held that “as mere allegation is not evidence, the rule is settled that plaintiff has the burden of proving the material allegations of the complaint which are denied by the defendant, and the defendant has the burden of proving the material allegations in his case where he sets up a new matter.”

39. In the case of ANTONIO M. LORENZANA vs. JUDGE MA. CECILIA I. AUSTRIA, Regional Trial Court, Branch 2, Batangas City, A.M. No. RTJ-09-2200, April 2, 2014 (formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 08-2834-RTJ), it was held that “in administrative cases, the complainant bears the onus of proving the averments of his complaint by substantial evidence”. 

In the aforecited case the complainant “merely pointed to circumstances based on mere conjectures and suppositions”. 

These, by themselves, however, are “not sufficient to prove the accusations”. 

“Mere allegation is not evidence and is not equivalent to proof”.

40. In the case of People vs. Saturno, 355 SCRA 578, it was held that “the equipoise rule provides that where evidence in a criminal case is evenly balanced, the constitutional presumption of innocence tilts the scales in favor of the accused.”

41. In the case of Tin vs. People, GR 126480, Aug. 10, 2001, it was held that “where the evidence on an issue of fact is in equipoise or there is doubt on which side the evidence preponderates, the party having the burden of proof loses”. 

The equipoise rule finds application “if the inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two or more explanations, one of which is consistent with the innocence of the accused and the other consistent with his guilt, for then the evidence does not suffice to produce a conviction.”

42. By analogy, in the case of PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. FABIAN URZAIS Y LANURXXX, ALEX BAUTISTA, AND RICKY BAUTISTA, G.R. No. 207662, April 13, 2016, it was held, inter alia, that: 

“It is the primordial duty of the prosecution to present its side with clarity and persuasion, so that conviction becomes the only logical and inevitable conclusion. What is required of it is to justify the conviction of the accused with moral certainty. Upon the prosecution’s failure to meet this test, acquittal becomes the constitutional duty of the Court, lest its mind be tortured with the thought that it has imprisoned an innocent man for the rest of his life. The constitutional right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty can be overthrown only by proof beyond reasonable doubt.”

43. The said case further held that “the equipoise rule states that where the inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two or more explanations, one of which is consistent with the innocence of the accused and the other consistent with his guilt, then the evidence does not fulfil the test of moral certainty and is not sufficient to support a conviction.” 

As earlier stated, the equipoise rule provides that “where the evidence in a criminal case is evenly balanced, the constitutional, presumption of innocence tilts the scales in favor of the accused”. 

44. The good faith of the herein respondent must be appreciated by the xxx. 

It is a valid defense in administrative cases.

45. In the case of Heirs of Severa Gregorio vs. Court of Appeals, et al, G. R. No. 117609, December 19, 1998, it was held that: 

(a) “(I)t is axiomatic that good faith is always presumed unless convincing evidence to the contrary is adduced”; 

(b) “It is incumbent upon the party alleging bad faith to sufficiently prove such allegation”; 

(c) “Absent enough proof thereof, the presumption of good faith prevails”; 

(d) “Without a clear and persuasive substantiation of bad faith, the presumption of good faith in favor of respondents stands”. 

46. In the analogous case of FRANCISCO M. LECAROZ, et. al. vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, et. al., G.R. No. 130872, March 25, 1999, it was held that “the rule is that any mistake on a doubtful or difficult question of law may be the basis of good faith”. 

47. In the case of People vs. De Guzman, GR 106025, Feb. 9, 1994, it was held that: (a) Innocence, and not wrong-doing, is presumed; and (b) Good faith is presumed. 

48. As argued in the body of this Position Paper, the herein respondent submits that the arresting officers failed to observe strictly the rule on the chain of custody of evidence under RA 9165 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations. 

49. In the case of PEOPLE vs. FERMIN, et al, G.R. No. 179344, August 3, 2011, it was held that: 

“Strict compliance with the prescribed procedures is required because of the unique characteristic of illegal drugs, rendering them indistinct, not readily identifiable, and easily open to tampering, alteration or substitution either by accident or otherwise. Hence, we have the rules on the measures to be observed during and after the seizure, during the custody and transfer of the drugs for examination, and at all times up to their presentation in court.” 

50. In the case of H. HARRY L. ROQUE, JR., et al vs. Vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, et al, G.R. No. 188456, FEBRUARY 10, 2010, it was held that “speculations and conjectures are not equivalent to proof; they have little, if any, probative value and, surely, cannot be the basis of a sound judgment.” 

51. The bad faith of the forensic examiner APOSTOL was prejudicial to the rights of the herein respondent. 

In the case of Ford Philippines, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 99039, February 3, 1997, it was held that “bad faith means bad judgment or negligence, a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of wrong, a breach of a known duty through some motive or interest or ill will that partakes of the nature of fraud”.

52. As to the inconsistencies in the affidavits of the complainants-arresting officers, which are discussed above, sufficed it to say that as held in the case of YU BUN GUAN vs. ELVIRA ONG, G.R. No. 144735. October 18, 2001, the unnatural and contradictory testimony of witnesses makes them unreliable. 

53. In conclusion, the herein respondent submits that the prosecution has failed to prove with substantial evidence his administrative guilt.


WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that the instant administrative charge for GRAVE MISCONDUCT be DISMISSED for lack of merit.

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

Xxx City, xxx .

Xxx xxxx xxx