Anda di halaman 1dari 4

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

CITY OF PAGADIAN
PEOPLES LAW ENFORCEMENT BOARD
asdff,
Complainant,

Admin. Case No. P1234

-versus-

-for-

PO1 anini

GRAVE MISCONDUCT
Respondent.

x------------------------------------------x

MEMORANDUM FOR THE COMPLAINANT


Comes now, Complainant, through undersigned counsel, unto
the Honorable Board, most respectfully states: THATStatement of the Case
This case is for the conduct of the herein respondent for entering
the premises, searching for her alleged key, own by the complainant
and the latters mother without authority to do so. Respondent abused
her power as public officer when she entered premises without proper
authority or valid search warrant to do the same;
Brief Statement of the Facts
On 7 November 2015, at about 2:00 oclock in the afternoon,
more or less, respondent went to

the

building own by Mrs.

Buenaventurada Amomomo and the complainant herein, and entered


the room of Buenaventurada. Respondent, while in the performance of
her duty, upon entering the room of Mrs. Amomomo, searched for her
alleged motorcycle key without any valid search warrant issued by any
competent court. Respondent violated the right to domicile of the
complainant and Mrs. Amomomo;

ISSUE/S
Whether or not the act of entering the room of Mrs. Amomomo,
without proper authority, while in the in performance of respondents
official functions as Police Officer constitute Grave Misconduct;
Whether or not the same act was committed in respondents
official capacity as public officer;
ARGUMENTS AND DISCUSSIONS
As to the first issue, respondent herein is liable for grave
misconduct. As enunciated in Civil Service Commission vs. Ledesma
G.R. No. 154521, September 30 2015:
Misconduct
established

and

is

transgression

definite

rule

of

of

some

action,

more

particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence


by a public officer. 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


In the instant case, respondent did transgress the law when she
entered the room of Mrs. Amomomo and conducted search thereat
without proper authority considering that she was not armed at that
time with valid search warrant. Moreover, said search was made not in
accordance with the instances where warrantless search could validly
be made;
Furthermore, Section 2, Art. III of 1987 Constitution provides:

The right of the people to be secure in their


persons,

houses,

papers,

and

effects

against

unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever


nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and
no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except
upon probable cause to be determined personally by the
judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the
complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and
particularly describing the place to be searched and the
persons or things to be seized
However, in this instant case, this strict mandate of the
Constitution has been disregarded by the respondent. As a law
enforcement officer, respondent should have known that before a
search could be made, a valid search warrant should have been issued
first. Granting without admitting, for the sake of argument, that her
key was forcibly withheld by the men of the complainant, respondent
should have sought the aid of the proper court to recover the same.
Having known that her alleged key was in the possession of particular
person and located in the particular building, respondent had the
ample time to secure a search warrant before conducted her search on
the premises. But she did not bother to do the same;
Respondent intentionally violated the establish rule of law and
the Constitution itself when she entered the building co-own by the
Complainant and Mrs. Amomomo and conducted her search in the
premises of Mrs. Amomomo without search warrant and violating the
constitutional rights of Mrs. Amomomo and the Complainant against
illegal search;
As to the second issue, if whether respondent when doing the
illegal search acted in her official function as public officer, the answer

would be in the affirmative. Perusal of the Judicial Affidavits of the


respondent

and

her

witnesses,

PO3

Soon

and

Spo1

Sayson,

Respondent was on duty before and during the illegal search incident.
And when she went to the building co-own by the complainant and
Mrs. Amomomo she was acting in her public function as police officer.
In fact, she was in her uniform when she conducted the illegal search
on the premises.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully
prayed before this Honorable Board that judgment be rendered in
favor of the complainant and find the respondent Guilty for Grave
Misconduct.
Pagadian City, Philippines.
7 September 2015

Counsel for Complainant


EXPLANATION
For

lack

of

material

time

and

manpower,

the

foregoing

Memorandum is served and filed to the opposing counsel and this


Honorable Board through registered mail.
Counsel for Complainant

Copy Furnished:
ATTY. Abcd

Counsel for Respondent

REGISTRY RECEIPT NO. ______