Republic of the Philippines
NATIONAL POLICE COMMISSION EN BANC
LEGAL AFFAIRS SERVICE
DILG-NAPOLCOM Building, EDSA Cor. Quezon Avenue
West Triangle, Quezon City
JERAMEL P. ENRIQUEZ, JR. PCI CASE NO. RXI-2025-
Brgy. Mambago-A, Samal Dist., 03-02
Island Garden City of Samal
Davao del Norte For: Grave Misconduct
under Sec. 2(C)(3)(r), Rule
Complainant, 21 of NAPOLCOM MC No.
2016-002 in relation to Art.
-versus- 172, Revise Penal Code;
Grave Misconduct under
PMSG. EDGAR M. LAÑOHAN Sec. 2(C)(3)(g), Rule 21 of
Panabo City Police Station, NAPOLCOM MC No. 2016-
Davao del Norte Police Provincial 002; and Conduct
Office Unbecoming of a Police
Respondent. Officer
x--------------------------------------x
ENTRY OF APPEARANCE WITH MOTION FOR
REINVESTIGATION
COMES NOW, the undersigned counsel and unto this
Honorable Office, most respectfully avers that:
ENTRY OF APPEARANCE
1. The undersigned is formally entering his appearance as
counsel for the Complainant in the above-captioned case.
2. Henceforth, let the undersigned be furnished of all
pleadings, orders and processes of this Honorable Office in his
office located at Door 5, 3/F, VCS Building, Bolton Extension,
Davao City, Philippines.
MOTION FOR REINVESTIGATION
1
3. Per the Resolution dated April 29, 2025, received by the
complainant through the undersigned on April 30, 2025, this
Honorable Office resolved to APPROVE the Pre-charge
Investigation Report dated April 29, 2025, DISMISSING the instant
complaint on the ground of lack of probable cause.
4. From the date of the receipt of the said Resolution,
complainant has three (3) days, or on or before May 3, 2025, to
file a Motion for Reinvestigation as sanctioned under Section 4,
Rule 14 of the NAPOLCOM Memorandum Circular 2016-002 (NMC
2016-002, for brevity).
5. Considering that May 3, 2025 is a Saturday and May 4,
2025 is a Sunday, then the complainant may still file the instant
Motion for Reinvestigation on the next business day; hence, this
motion is timely filed.
6. Availing of his rights as sanctioned under NMC 2016-
002, complainant moves for the reinvestigation of the aforesaid
Pre-Charge Investigation on the ground that palpable mistake was
committed in the appreciation of the complaint as shall be
discussed hereunder.
Violation of NMC No. 2016-
002, Rule 21, Sec. 2 (C)(3)
(r), in relation to Art. 172 of
the Revised Penal Code
7. In the instant case, the undersigned respectfully
submits that there is a palpable mistake committed by the
assigned pre-charge investigator in the appreciation of the
complaint.
8. At the onset, it is important to emphasize the basic rule
that the quantum of evidence required to establish a fact in cases
before administrative or quasi-judicial bodies is substantive
evidence.
9. Substantial evidence is the quantum of evidence
required to establish a fact in cases before administrative or
quasi-judicial bodies. It has been defined as "such amount of
relevant evidence [that] a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to justify a conclusion." This quantum of evidence "is
satisfied where there is reasonable ground to believe that [a
person] is guilty of the act or omission complained of, even if the
evidence might not be overwhelming.1
1
Navotas Industrial Corporation vs. Guanzon, G.R. No. 230931, November 15, 2021
2
10. In the instant case, the assigned pre-charge
investigator lackadaisically recommended the disapproval of the
instant complaint invoking the presumption of the regularity of a
notarized document and in making a sweeping conclusion that
the categorical denial of the complainant that he signed such
document, together with his identification cards and specimen
signatures, were not enough to engender a reasonable belief that
the respondent probably forged the said document.
11. We beg to disagree with the pre-charge investigator’s
findings.
12. A simple perusal of the assailed Deed of Absolute Sale,
vis-à-vis the identification cards, certificates and specimen
signatures presented by the complainant would readily show a
glaring difference of his signature in the Deed of Absolute Sale
compared with his signatures in all the other documents
presented.
13. At the very least, the pre-charge investigator should
have thoroughly examined the assailed Deed of Absolute Sale and
the other documents submitted by the complainant as required
under Section 1, Rule 14 of the NMC 2016-002 which provides,
thus:
“Section 1. Pre-charge Investigation. If the
complaint is approved for pre-charge
investigation, the Disciplinary Authority or IAS or
its authorized officer shall direct its docketing in
the Pre-Charge Investigation docket book by
stamping on the face of the complaint and its
approval, the time and date of receipt; recording
and assigning a case number to it; and designate
the officer who shall conduct the investigation.
The investigation shall include the
examination of records and documents
submitted by the complainant and the PNP
member complained of, as well as
documents readily available from other
government offices for the purpose of
determining the existence of probable
cause.” (Emphasis and underlining ours)
14. In the instant case, it appears that the pre-charge
investigator solely relied, albeit erroneously, on the presumption
of regularity of a notarized document without thoroughly
3
examining the documents submitted by the complainant as
required under NMC 2016-002.
15. Had the pre-charge investigator thoroughly examined
the documents submitted by the complainant, then she should
have determined, as any reasonable person should have, that the
signature of complainant appearing on the assailed Deed of
Absolute Sale is glaringly different from the other official
documents presented by him.
16. In addition, the heavy reliance by the pre-charge
investigator on the presumption of regularity of the assailed
notarized Deed of Sale is, we respectfully submit, misplaced.
17. The case of Dela Rama vs. Papa2 is instructive, thus:
“Under Section 19, Rule 132 of the Rules of
Court, "documents acknowledged before a
notary public except for last wills and
testaments" are deemed as public
documents, and as such, under Section 23
of the same Rule, they are evidence of the
fact which gave rise to its execution and as
to its date. Excepting the other public
documents enumerated in Section 19, all
other writings are private, and before such
private document is offered as authentic, its
due execution and authenticity must be
proved either: (a) by anyone who saw the
document executed or written; or (b) by
evidence of the genuineness of the
signature or handwriting of the maker.
Accordingly, in order that the challenged deed of
sale may be accepted by the Court as genuine,
we must be satisfied by the evidence on record
establishing that its genuineness was proved by
anyone who saw the document executed or
written, or by evidence of the genuineness or
handwriting of the maker.
This shift in perspectives relieves petitioners of an
extraordinary burden to prove with clear and
convincing evidence that the deed of sale was
forged, as well as any presumption that the said
document is genuine as to its due execution. The
question now is thus whether they were able to
2
G.R. No. 142309, January 30, 2009
4
establish the fact of forgery through a
preponderance of evidence.” (Emphasis ours)
18. In the instant case, the complainant has been very
categorical in his assertion that he did not sign the said
document; a fortiori, it follows that he did not even appear before
the notary public who allegedly notarize the said assailed Deed of
Sale.
19. Accordingly, the presumption of regularity of the
assailed Deed of Absolute Sale must be overturned and it would
now be incumbent upon the respondent to prove its authenticity.
20. Moreover, in the case of Sales v. Abapon3, the Supreme
Court has held that when a person whose signature was affixed to
a document denies his signature therein, a prima facie case for
falsification is established, which the defendant must
overcome.
21. Since it is clear in the instant case that the complainant
is denying his signature on the assailed Deed of Sale, it creates a
presumption that it was falsified. As such, the respondent has
the burden of proof that it was genuine.
22. At any rate, the instant case was still in the pre-charge
investigation stage. The pre-charge investigator could have called
for a clarificatory hearing to ferret out the truth on this matter
during this stage instead of languidly recommending its dismissal
without consideration of the aforesaid premises.
Violation of NMC No. 2016-
002, Rule 21, Sec. 2 (C)(3)
(g)
23. In recommending the dismissal of the instant complaint
for Violation of NMC No. 2016-002, Rule 21, Sec. 2 (C)(3)(g), the
assigned pre-charge investigator categorically stated that
Republic Act 6713 and NMC No. 2016-002 do not prohibit ALL
outside employment, but only those “in any private enterprise
regulated, supervised or licensed by their office, such as private
security agencies, and manufacturers, importers, or dealers of
firearms, ammunitions, and other explosives.”
24. Following the logic of the undersigned prosecutor, it
appears that the general rule is that police officers are allowed to
seek outside employment and only those private enterprise
3
5
regulated, supervised or licensed by their office, such as private
security agencies, and manufacturers, importers, or dealers of
firearms, ammunitions, and other explosives are the exceptions.
25. We submit that such categorical pronouncement may
be problematic because police officers are supposed to fully
devote their time in their mission to serve and protect especially
so that crimes are not respecter of any time or place.
26. A question may be asked: When is a private enterprise
not deemed to be regulated, supervised or licensed by the
Philippine National Police (PNP, for brevity) office? More
specifically in the instant case, is a real estate company not
deemed to be under the regulation or supervision of the PNP?
27. We submit that a real estate company is under the
regulation or supervision of the PNP.
28. The pre-charge investigator should have known that a
real estate business involves public interest, to the point that the
PNP, together with the respective housing agencies, created a
task force fight against illegal real estate operators and “colorum”
(unregistered) brokers and agents.4
29. In view thereof, it cannot be denied that the real estate
business is being under the regulation and supervision of the PNP;
needless to say, the employment thereof by the respondent
involves a conflict of interest and is a violation of RA 6713 and
pertinent laws and rules.
30. Ironically for the respondent, he admitted that he is
indeed engaged in the sale as referrer of a sale transaction where
he earns commission for every successful sales transaction.
31. The pre-charge investigator should have known that the
said act of the respondent constitutes a violation of Republic Act
9646 or the Real Estate Service Act of the Philippines where
respondent admitted being engaged in the selling of real estate
without any showing that he is accredited or licensed to engage in
the practice of real estate service in the Philippines.
32. On this score alone, it is already sufficient to find a
probable case against the respondent for his violation of NMC No.
2016-002.
4
https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1177117?
fbclid=IwAR3Vv1KNc4yWeJy8x1U1GSVmXDSRUKcp3sm2uYkO_n2VwFGc8fPjGQ63LxY
6
33. This MOTION is filed in good faith and based solely on
the reasons above-stated and is not intended to cause undue
delay to the proceedings.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully
prayed of this Honorable office that the foregoing Motion For
Reinvestigation be GRANTED.
Other relief and remedies just and equitable under the
premises are likewise prayed for.
Respectfully submitted this May 5, 2025 at Davao City (for
Quezon City), Philippines.
By:
ATTY. MUHAMMAD MONJID DUMAMA ABPI
Counsel for the Complainant
Roll No. 67034
IBP OR. No. 497947; 01/04/2025 for Davao City
PTR No. 0811462; 12/13/2024 for CY 2025; Davao City
MCLE Compliance No. VIII: (Already complied but the MCLE
Compliance Number and Certificate are still on process)
Valid until April 14, 2028
rd
Door 5, 3 floor, VCS Bldg., Bolton Ext., Davao City
Tel. No. (082) 225-3601
email:
[email protected]Greetings!
Please take notice that the undersigned is submitting the
foregoing for the consideration of this Honorable immediately
upon receipt thereof, sans appearance.
Due to time constraint, lack of manpower and distance, the
service of this document to the Honorable Office and to the
NAPOLCOM Regional Office XI were done via accredited private
courier.
ATTY. MUHAMMAD MONJID DUMAMA
ABPI
