Anda di halaman 1dari 5

Republic of the Philippines

NATIONAL POLICE COMMISSION


PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE
CALOOCAN CITY POLICE STATION
PRE-CHARGE INVESTIGATION UNIT
Samson Road, Caloocan City
Email add: ccpspcei@gmail.com

MEMORANDUM CCPS-PCIU-04-2018-15

FOR : The Acting Chief of Police


This Station

SUBJECT : Pre-Charge Investigation Report against PO1


Zhander Jhan Suyat Ibanez, et.al. for Grave Neglect
of Duty

DATE : May 2, 2018

I. AUTHORITY:

1. References:
a. Memorandum from Chief, SIDMB dated April 16, 2018 with subject Pre-
Charge Investigation, Request for;
b. NAPOLCOM MC 2016-002; and
c. Other attached documents.

II. MATTERS TO BE INVESTIGATED:

2. To determine if there is probable cause to warrant the filing of administrative


case against the following personnel below who were on duty while the incident of mauling
that led to the death of a detainee transpired, to wit:
NO. RANK/NAME UNIT ASSIGNED
1 SPO4 Wilfredo A Muyon SDU
2 PO1 Carlota Cavinta SDU
3 PO1 Nevies Echipare SDU
4 PO1 Arjay Medallada SDU
5 PO1 Daryl Sablay SDU
6 PO1 Rizaldy Palafox SDU
7 PO1 Gevanzon Valeros SDU
8 PO1 Zhander Ibanez SDU
9 PO1 Marino Tandingan SDU
10 PO1 Jherixson Bodah SDU

III. FACTS OF THE CASE:

3. Facts shows that on or about 3:00 AM to 4:00 AM of April 12, 2018 at Caloocan
City Police Station Detention Facility while the above-named PNCOs were on duty, a
mauling incident happened that led to the death of a detainee named Ardee T Velasco
which was perpetrated by co-detention prisoners identified as Jayem Dela Cruz, John
Michael Otom, and Nasxel Rose Versoza. Investigation disclosed that at around 7:30AM,
Velasco was discovered unconscious inside the detention cell during the physical
accounting of prisoners. Immediately, he was rushed by Duty Jailers to Caloocan City
Medical Center where he was declared dead on arrival.

4. A criminal case for Murder was referred to the Office of the City Prosecutor of
Caloocan City for Inquest Proceedings against Jayem Dela Cruz, John Michael Otom,
and Nasxel Rose Versoza where probable cause was found and recommended that the
case be filed in court with no bail recommended.

5. On April 16, 2018, this Unit received a memorandum from Chief, SIDMB
requesting the conduct of Pre-Charge Investigation against Station Detention Unit
personnel to determine their administrative lapses in the performance of their duties.

6. Pursuant to NAPOLCOM MC 2016-002 provisions in the filing of administrative


case against uniformed members of the Philippine National Police, a Notice of Complaint
was issued against the respondents on April 16, 2018, directing them to submit their
respective Affidavits to the OIC, PCIU to shed light on the facts and circumstances
surrounding the death of Ardee T Velasco brought by a mauling incident that transpired
between 3:00AM to 4:00AM of April 12, 2018.

7. In compliance with the said notice, all concerned personnel submitted their
respective affidavits/answers and alleged inter alia the following, to wit:

a. SPO4 Wilfredo A Muyon averred on his counter-affidavit that he was


designated as PNCOIC, SDU effective April 9, 2018 but only assumed his position on
April 10, 2018, he started reviewing the existing policy and guidelines on the said Unit
and reiterated to PNCOs under his Unit of their commitment in performing their respective
tasks. On April 11, 2018 he reported for duty in the morning and left his Unit later in the
evening. After which, he was only informed of the incident at around 8:00 AM of April 12,
2018 through his cellular phone informing that a detainee was brought to Caloocan City
Medical Center where he was declared dead-on-arrival. Subsequently, he directed PO3
Asis to submit an Incident Report to the Chief of Police, CCPS. Likewise, he requested
for an investigation regarding the said incident to the Station Investigation Unit to
determine the cause of death of the detainee whom he later identified as Ardee Velasco.

b. PO1 Nevies Echipare and PO1 Carlota Cavinta averred in their joint
counter-affidavit that they were designated as Admin and Desk Officers and rendering
tour of duty from 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM daily. On April 11, 2018 or a day prior to the incident
they reported for duty and took the task of compiling pertinent records concerning their
Unit and inspecting visitors of detention prisoners and then left at the end of their tour of
duty. It was only the following morning April 12, 2018 when they reported for duty and
learned that the said detainee was brought to the hospital but was declared dead-on-
arrival.

c. PO1 Gevanson Valeros and PO1 Arjay P Medallada averred in their


respective counter-affidavit that on April 11, 2018 two (2) of their detainees got sick and
diagnosed with Sepsis and Cellulitis and were advised for hospital confinement, hence,
he were tasked to provide security to the detainees while undergoing hospitalization at
Caloocan City Medical Center. Therefore, they have no personal knowledge of the facts
and circumstances surrounding about the said incident. They attached the duty detail at
CCMC dated April 11, 2018 and the dispatched in the logbook.

d. In the joint affidavit of PO1 Ibanez, PO1 Palafox, PO1 Tandingan, PO1
Bodah and PO1 Sablay they manifested that they vehemently and categorically deny that
they neglected their duties as jailers of Station Detention Unit. They stated that at around
4:00 AM of April 12, 2018 their attention was called by a commotion and shoutings inside
the CCPS Detention Facility wherein three (3) detainees were involved in mauling another
detainee which later identified as Ardee T Velasco, an accused in a criminal case for
violation of RA 9165. Thereafter, they immediately opened the detention cell to stop the
commotion and brought out the involved detainees named Jayem Dela Cruz, John
Michael Otom and Nasxel Rose Versoza. Likewise, Ardee T Velasco was brought out
and was asked if he wants to be brought to the hospital but he merely wanted a glass of
water which they complied and informing him (Velasco) that they will prepare the
documentations against his three (3) co-detainees for charges of physical injuries. On the
same date, at around 5:00 AM they asked Velasco if he is okay to be sent back to the
detention cell and assured that his three (3) co-detainees responsible for his mauling were
already separated and placed in an adjacent jail which he agreed. However, at around
7:30 AM while they were conducting physical accounting they were surprised when they
learned that Velasco was not waking up. Immediately, they opened the jail and brought
out Velasco to rush him at Caloocan City Medical Center where he was given first aid
treatment but Dr. Harold Tempunco declared him dead at around 8:15 AM. At this
juncture, they immediately reported the matter to their Officer in Charge and subsequently
submitted to the Acting Chief of Police an incident report. On the same date, they effected
the arrest of Jayem Dela Cruz, John Michael Otom and Nasxel Rose Versoza and file a
case of Murder before the City Prosecutor’s Office of Caloocan against the above-named
suspects. Attached herein are the Referral Slip, Affidavit of witnesses and other allied
documents.

IV. DISCUSSION

8. In analyzing the facts and circumstances surrounding the death of CCPS


Detainee Ardee T Velasco, the undersigned opted to review the documentations of the
criminal case that was filed against the perpetrators, Jayem Dela Cruz, John Michael
Otom, and Nasxel Rose Versoza. Affidavit of witnesses uniformly states that the victim
Velasco had repeatedly went to and from the comfort room of the detention cell that
earned the ire of some detainees. When he was cited by fellow detainees, he got angry
without provocation, boxed Renato Pulido. At that juncture, three of the 147 detainees
stood against him and they confederated with each other to maul Velasco with fists and
club.

9. While the SALAYSAYs of Renato Pulido, Roberto Guanio, John Cedrik


Avila, and Ronnie Angcao were silent as to the actions of duty jailers, specifically, PO1
Ibanez, PO1 Palafox, PO1 Tandingan, PO1 Bodah and PO1 Sablay, It can safely
assumed that they immediately responded to quell the commotion. Several witnesses
also claimed that victim Ardee T Velasco was brought out of the Detention Cell to give
him water and rested at the Receiving Table of the Station Detention Facility.

10. In the impartial determination of the existence, presence and liability for
neglect of duty, every personnel who were on duty has to be investigated as to their
presence, absence, or rendition of other duties when the incident of mauling transpired.
Careful and judicial analyzation of all facts, the undersigned cannot find any probable
liabilities to any of the member of the Station Detention Unit. Neglect of Duty is defined
as “the omission or refusal, without sufficient excuse, to perform an act or duty,
which it was the peace officer’s legal obligation to perform; it implies a duty as well
as its breach and the fact can never be found in the absence of duty.”1.

11. SPO4 Muyon, PO1 Echipare and PO1 Cavinta cannot be held liable
considering at the time of incident, they were not present at the SDU and has not yet
resumed their respective functions. Relatively, PO1 Gevanson Valeros and PO1 Arjay P
Medallada who were rendering security duty on hospital arrested detainees cannot be

1
NAPOLCOM MEMO CIRC. 2016-002.
held responsible in the incident as they have no personal knowledge of facts and
circumstances surrounding the incident.

12. As far as PO1 Ibanez, PO1 Palafox, PO1 Tandingan, PO1 Bodah and PO1
Sablay who were on duty at the Station Detention Cell, their allegations that they were
able to quell the commotion after they heard the shouting inside the jail remains
uncontroverted. While this Station is relentlessly upgrading the living standards of its
inmates, the death of a detention prisoner is sometimes unavoidable specially when one
hundred forty-seven (147) detainees are sharing in a seventy square meter detention cell.
Hence, when a commotion or fight occurs inside , duty jailers has to consider several
factors before they could open the jail, quell the fight, and bring out those involved without
initially considering the safety of responding police officers and detainees and the
possibility of taking advantage of the incident to escape.

13. In this type of proceedings and during evaluation of administrative case,


probable cause is necessary to be established in the filing of a complaint. Probable cause
has been defined as the existence of such facts and circumstance as would excite the
belief, in a reasonable mind, acting on the facts within the knowledge of the prosecutor,
that the person charged was guilty of the offense for which he was prosecuted. 2 Even
the Court had stated that probable cause need not be based on clear and convincing
evidence of guilt, neither on evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt and,
definitely, not on evidence establishing absolute certainty of guilty; but it certainly
demands more than bare suspicion and can never be left to presupposition,
conjecture, or even convincing logic.3

14. Lastly, police officers on duty enjoys the presumption of regularity in


performing their official functions. The presumption, however, prevails until it is overcome
by no less than clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. Thus, unless the
presumption is rebutted, it becomes conclusive. Every reasonable intendment will be
made in support of the presumption and in case of doubt as to an officer’s act being lawful
or unlawful, construction should be in favor of it lawfulness.

V. CONCLUSION

15. In the absence of a clear and convincing evidence that the duty police
officers neglected or failed to quell the commotion that led in the death of a detainee, this
Pre-Charge Investigator recommend the dropping and closing of this administrative case.
It has been provided that “It is better that ten guilty persons go free than that one
innocent person be convicted.

VI. RECOMMENDATION:

15. Request approval of paragraph 15.

PO3 Reginaldo V Bucu, LLB


OIC, PCIU

2
Jose Antonio U. Gonzalez vs. Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corp., GR No. 164904,
2007 Oct 19 3rd Division.
3
Kilosbayan, Inc. vs. COMELEC, 345 Phil 1174 (1997).
I concur with the findings and recommendations of the OIC, PCIU.

ENRIQUE A TORRES
Police Chief Inspector
Chief, SIDMB

RECOMMENDING APPROVAL

FERDINAND M DEL ROSARIO


Police Superintendent
Asst, Chief of Police for Administration

APRROVED / DISAPPROVED

RESTITUTO B ARCANGEL
Police Senior Superintendent
Acting Chief of Police, CCPS