Republic of the Philippines

Department of the Interior and Local Government

National Police Commission
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE SPECIAL ACTION FORCE
FORCE INTERNAL AFFAIRS SERVICE
Camp Bagong Diwa, Bicutan, Taguig City

PNP Special Action Force Admin Case #: 2009-07-37

Complainant, FOR: Conduct Unbecoming
of a Police Officer
-versus- (Rape of a woman under
16 years of age)
PO2 Noel B. Logang-a
Respondent,
x----------------------------------x

ANSWER TO REPLY
(REJOINDER)

RESPONDENT unto this honorable office most respectfully submits his

position paper as an answer to reply to sworn statement of the private
complainant, Glorlene U. Allaga, as follows:

1. That Respondent, PO2 NOEL B. LOGANG-A is of legal age,

married, member of the Philippine National Police Special Action
Force and presently assigned with Special Action Force Training
Branch (SAFTB) at Fort Sto. Domingo, City of Sta. Rosa, Laguna;

2. That the Complainant’s simultaneous filing of a criminal

complaint before the Prosecutor’s Office at Sta. Rosa City,
Laguna and administrative complaint before the Directorate for
Investigation and Detective Management, NHQPNP, Camp Crame,
Quezon City springs from an alleged violation of R.A. 8353 (Anti
Rape Law);

3. That the Complainant’s criminal complaint for two (2) counts of

Rape docketed IV-19-INV-09E-00389 against the Respondent was
dismissed through a resolution by the Office of the City
Prosecutor, Sta. Rosa City, Laguna, which was already part of the
record of this administrative complaint;

1|Page
 4. That Complainant’s allegations in paragraph 2-2 on her Reply
that respondent’s submission in his Answer (Sworn Statement) is
bereft of truth and lack legal basis or that the submission is a
mere imagination or machination is utterly untrue owing to the
fact that the said submission was supported by a valid and
properly executed document, i.e., “Sinumpaang Salaysay” o “Pag-
uurong ng Sakdal o Demanda”.

4.1 The said “Affidavit of Desistance” is not a mere imagination of

the Respondent. It does exist and is complete in form and
substance for the following reasons:

a. It was freely and voluntarily executed;

b. Made in a language known to the complainant;
c. The contents thereof were explained thoroughly by no less
than the Honorable Assist. City Prosecutor;
d. It was subscribed before the proper authority or officer; and
e. It was executed with the assistance of the minor complainant’s
auntie PO3 Jenny W. Allaga who acted as her guardian.

5. That the allegations of the Complainant in paragraph 2-3 (a) and

2-3 (b) of the Complainant’s Reply to Sworn Statement that
respodent proposed an amicable settlement by virtue of an
affidavit of undertaking which is tantamount to “Admission of
Guilt” is specifically denied for lack of factual and legal basis. The
truth of the matter is that the Affidavit of Undertaking was
proposed and requested by the Complainant and her Aunt, PO3
Jenny W. Allaga to ensure that respondent will not file any
retaliatory action/s against them upon dismissal of the criminal
complaint against him. Due to respondent’s sincere desire not to
prosecute any action against them for their wrongful, wanton, and
unjustifiable filing of criminal and administrative case, and finally
to end this controversy, he acceded to their proposal and caused
the preparation of an Affidavit of Undertaking to dismiss the
pending criminal case against him. Thus, the Affidavit of
Undertaking having been secured thru fraud and machinations
should be struck and removed from the records of this case.

2|Page
 6. Complainant’s allegation in paragraph 2.3 (c) that the Affidavit of
Desistance is defective or suffers legal infirmity because the minor
complainant was assisted only by her aunt who does not have a
legal personality is self-serving and warrants no consideration
because under Article 216 of the Family Code, in default of
parents or a judicially appointed guardian, the following persons
shall exercise substitute parental authority over the child in the
order indicated:
1.) xxxxxxxxxx
2.) xxxxxxxxxx
3.) The child’s actual custodian, over twenty-one years of age,
unless unfit or disqualified.

Further, under Article 233 of the same law, the person

exercising substitute parental authority shall have the same
authority over the person of the child as the parents (Italic
supplied).

It cannot be denied that the Complainant was in custody

and living with her Aunt, PO3 Jenny W. Allaga at Camp Bagong
Diwa when the alleged incident happened. In fact, PO3 Jenny W.
Allaga has been representing herself as the guardian of the
Complainant from the time of filing the criminal complaint up to
its dismissal. Such fact was admitted both in the Sinumpaang
Salayasay of the complainant and PO3 Jenny Allaga.

Ergo, based on the provisions cited above PO3 Jenny W.

Allaga has legal personality to act as such because she has been
exercising substitute parental authority over the complainant as
the latter is under her actual custody.

Assuming for the sake of argument that indeed PO3 Jenny Allaga
has no legal personality to assist and act as guardian for the
minor complainant in the execution of the Affidavit of Desistance,
then logic dictates that this case should instantly be dismissed
because this action stemmed from a fatally defective complaint-

3|Page
 affidavit where the same PO3 Jenny Allaga acted and stood as
guardian for the minor complainant. To hold otherwise would be
the height of injustice.

7. That the allegations of the Complainant in 2.3 (d) that the

“Salaysay ng Pag-Uurong” was approved only by the City
Prosecutor without an approval of the Department of Justice is
without basis in the law or jurisprudence. Under R. A. 5180, as
amended by PD 911, An Act Prescribing a Uniform System of
Preliminary Investigation by Provincial and City Fiscals and their
Assistants, and by State Attorneys or their Assistants, Section 1
paragraph (d) xxxxxxxx Provided, that no assistant fiscal or state
prosecutor may file an information or dismiss a case except with
the prior authority or approval of the provincial or city fiscal or Chief
State Prosecutor. Thus, the City Prosecutor has the authority
under the law to approve the resolution complained of.

8. That the Complainant cannot take refuge in requesting to this

Honorable Office for full blown trial in order to comply with
procedural due process. Thus, in the case decided by the
Supreme Court, Due process in an administrative context does
not require trial-type proceedings similar to those in courts of
justice. Where opportunity to be heard either through oral
arguments or through pleadings is accorded, there is no denial of
procedural due process. A formal or trial-type of hearing is not
at all times and in all instances essential. The requirements are
satisfied where the parties are afforded fair and reasonable
opportunity to explain their side of the controversy at hand. The
standard of due process that must be met in administrative
tribunals allows a certain degree of latitude as long as fairness is
not ignored. In other words, it is not legally objectionable for
being violative of due process for an administrative agency to
resolve a case based solely on position papers, affidavits or
documentary evidence submitted by the parties as affidavits
of witnesses may take the place of their direct testimony.
(Deputy Director General Roberto Lastimoso, et al. vs.

4|Page
 P/Senior Inspector Jose J. Sayao, GR No. 154243, December
22, 2007);

9. That the Complainant’s Medico-Legal Report as well as the Spot

Report from the PNP-SAF Training Branch, Fort Sto. Domingo,
Sta. Rosa, Laguna have been superseded by the Affidavit of
Desistance executed by the Complainant categorically holding the
respondent free from all or any responsibility.

10. That Complainant’s Social Worker Assessment report is not

conclusive evidence that indeed the Respondent is guilty of the
crime charged.

11. That the allegations of the Complainant in paragraph 2-3 (f) that
the Affidavit of Desistance was not explained to her is specifically
denied. The truth of the matter is that the “Sinumpaang Salaysay
(Pag-uurong ng Sakdal o Demanda) was written in plain tagalong
which can be understandable easily by the Complainant, a
student and her Aunt, PO3 Jenny W. Allaga. Furthermore, the
said Sinumpaang Salaysay was signed and sworn to by the Assist.
City Prosecutor, Juliett V. Ibana that the content thereof had been
understand by the Complainant, to wit: “Ito ay pagpapatunay na
tiniyak kong naintindihan ng mga nagsasalaysay ang
nilalaman ng salaysay na ito sa pamamagitan ng pagtatanong
ko ng mga mapanuring katanungan at napatunayan ko na ito
ay kanilang naintindihan at naunawaan at bukal sa kanilang
kalooban”;

12. That due to the voluntary dismissal of the criminal complaint of

the herein Complainant, the same cannot questioned its legality
in the administrative body for the later has no jurisdiction thereof.

13. Finding no evidence that the Respondent indeed raped the

Complainant, it is most respectfully prayed that the case be
dismissed for lack of legal and factual basis.

5|Page
 While it is true that the dismissal of the criminal case does
not carry with it the dismissal of the administrative case but
where the facts from which administrative liability might
arise did not exist at all, such as in the instant case, then
such administrative case shall similarly be dismissed.

14. That this Rejoinder/ Answer to Reply to the Sworn Statement is

being executed to refute the charges against the Respondent and
to narrate and assert the true and material facts in support of his
argument.

Respectfully Submitted.

Sta. Rosa City, March 30, 2010

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 30th day of

March 2010, at City of Sta. Rosa, Laguna, Philippines.

PO2 NOEL LOGANG-A

Respondent

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to, before me this 30th day of March 2010, at
City of Sta. Rosa, Laguna, Philippines.

6|Page