Misconduct in office related to, and connected with,

Performance of Official Duties Complainant avers that Judge Rosales and Atty. Fabella
conspired with each other to the complainant’s prejudice.
[A.M. No. MTJ-99-1459. February 17, 2000.] Complainant inquires why Judge Rosales had allowed Atty.
Fabella to repeatedly postpone the hearing of the case. He
(Formerly OCA IPI No. 97-342-RTJ) avers that Judge Rosales abused his authority and made a
sham out of court proceedings by rendering inoperative an
VICTOR D. ONG, Complainant, v. JUDGE VOLTAIRE Y. order that he had signed. Furthermore, complainant wants to
ROSALES, Regional Trial Court, Branch 83 Tanauan, know why respondent judge insisted he did not issue the
Batangas, Respondent. order when the same had his signature. Lastly, complainant
claims that respondent judge’s actions can only erode the
RESOLUTION faith in the judicial system of laymen like him. He requests
for an investigation of Judge Rosales and then appropriate
QUISUMBING, J.: sanction, if the latter is guilty. He also seeks investigation of
Atty. Fabella by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
In a sworn letter complaint dated March 16, 1997, 1
complainant Victor D. Ong charged Judge Voltaire Y. Rosales In his comment dated July 14, 1997, 4 respondent judge
of the Regional Trial Court of Tanauan, Batangas, Branch 83, denied the allegations in the complaint. He explains that he
of Misconduct and Abuse of Authority relative to Civil Case was in the process of signing the Order dated January 17,
No. C-041 entitled "Anunciacion Jayin v. Atty. Virginia 1997 when he decided to call the parties to a hearing before
Villaluz, Et Al., "for annulment of transfer certificates of titles approving the compromise agreement considering that the
covering parcels of land with a total area of 98 hectares, plaintiff, who was reportedly out of the country, was
more or less, situated in Talisay, Batangas.chanrobles obligated to pay defendants a rather large amount of money.
virtuallawlibrary:red To ensure that her rights are amply protected, he directed
the Acting Clerk of Court to set the case for
Complainant Victor D. Ong avers that in connection with the hearing.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
aforecited civil case, a compromise agreement 2 was entered
into in his behalf by his counsel, Atty. Abraham G. Espejo, Respondent judge further explains that the Order dated
and Atty. Gilbert M. Fabella, attorney-in-fact of plaintiff January 17, 1997, was inadvertently removed from his desk
Anunciacion Jayin. Judge Rosales prepared an Order 3 by one of his employees without his knowledge and without
approving the compromise agreement and signed the same instructions for its release. It was prematurely released
on January 17, 1997, a copy of which was received by the without his initials on the first page. He said, he issued an
complainant’s messenger. Complainant thought that Order in open court setting aside the Order dated January
everything was settled. Later, he received word from Atty. 17, 1997.
Fabella requesting two hundred thousand (P200,000.00)
pesos as additional compensation. Subsequently, he received Additionally, contrary to allegations that respondent judge
notice from Judge Rosales that the court had not approved allowed the postponements to favor Atty. Fabella,
the compromise agreement and his order approving the respondent judge avers that the record will show that even
compromise agreement was not effective.chanrobles defense counsel failed to appear at various scheduled
virtuallawlibrary:red hearings, reflecting that postponements were not all in favor
of one party. Respondent judge denies the existence of a should relate to or be connected with the performance of the
conspiracy between him and Atty. Fabella, claiming that he official functions and duties of a public officer. 8 No act of the
does not know the latter personally nor has he met him respondent judge appears or has been established which can
outside the courtroom. be considered here as misconduct in office. On this score,
the charge of misconduct against the respondent is, in our
In its evaluation and recommendation report 5 dated view, without sufficient basis.chanroblesvirtual|awlibrary
February 5, 1999, the Office of the Court Administrator found
negligence on the part of the respondent judge for the IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, as recommended, the Court
premature and highly irregular release of the questioned Resolved to REPRIMAND Respondent Judge Voltaire Y.
order, and recommended that the judge be reprimanded. Rosales, with a stern warning that a repetition of negligence
and irregularity abovecited or similar act in the future will be
Judges, by the very delicate nature of their functions, should dealt with more severely.
be more circumspect in the performance of their duties. 6 By
his own admission, respondent judge failed to live up to this SO ORDERED.
standard. He explained in his comment that the Order dated
January 17, 1997 was removed from his desk by someone Bellosillo, Mendoza, Quisumbing and De Leon, Jr., JJ.,
from among his staff and was released by one of his clerks to concur.
the defendant’s representative who happened to be in the
office. The respondent judge, however, hastily absolved his Buena, J., on official leave.
clerk of any wrongdoing when he said that he was convinced
that no member of his staff acted with
malice.chanroblesvirtual|awlibrary Misconduct in office related to, and connected with,
Performance of Official Duties
As correctly found by the Court Administrator, the premature
release of the questioned order is highly irregular and the
respondent judge should be held responsible for such
irregularity. It is unbecoming of a judge to lay the blame on, G.R. No. 144261-62 May 9, 2001
and then immediately absolve, his subordinate. He cannot
take refuge behind the inefficiency of his subordinates. PRUDENTE D. SOLLER, M.D., PRECIOSA M. SOLLER,
Proper and efficient management of his court is his M.D., RODOLFO I. SALCEDO, JOSEFINA B. MORADA,
responsibility. 7 MARIO M. MATINING, and ROMMEL M. LUARCA,
petitioners,
Anent the allegations, however, that the respondent judge vs.
had abused his authority and that he and Atty. Fabella had THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN and PEOPLE OF
conspired against complainant, this Court finds no evidence THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
from the documents presented to sustain such allegations.
Complainant’s mere suspicion without proof cannot be the GONZAGA-REYES, J.:
basis of disciplinary action. Likewise, the complainant failed
to prove his charge of misconduct against the respondent This special civil action for certiorari, prohibition and
judge. To constitute an administrative offense, misconduct mandamus raises the issue of the propriety of the
assumption of jurisdiction by the Sandiganbayan1 in Criminal Jerry Macabael was brought to their private medical clinic
Cases Nos. 25521 and 25522 both entitled "People of the because it was there where he was rushed by his
Philippines vs. Prudente D. Soller, Preciosa M. Soller, Rodolfo companions after the shooting, that petitioner Prudente
Salcedo, Josefina Morada, Mario Matining and Rommel Soller, who is also a doctor, was merely requested by his
Luarca" wherein petitioners are charged with Obstruction of wife Preciosa Soller, who was the Municipal Health Officer, to
Apprehension and Prosecution of Criminal Offenders as assist in the autopsy considering that the procedure involved
defined and penalized under P.D. No. 1829. The grounds for sawing which required male strength, and that Mrs.
petitioners' Motion to Quash the Informations against them Macabael's consent was obtained before the autopsy. The
are that only petitioner Prudente D. Soller occupied a two (2) police officers denied having planted three (3) shells
position classified as Grade 27 and higher and because the at the place where the shooting took place.
offenses charged were not committed by him in violation of
his office as Municipal Mayor of Bansud, Oriental The Office of the Ombudsman recommended the filing of an
Mindoro.1âwphi1.nêt Information for Obstruction of Justice (Violation of P.D.
1829), and two (2) Informations2 were filed with the
It appears that in the evening of March 14, 1997, Jerry Sandiganbayan which were docketed as Criminal Cases Nos.
Macabael a municipal guard, was shot and killed along the 25521 and 25522. The two (2) informations respectively
national highway at Bansud, Oriental Mindoro while driving a read as follows:
motorcycle together with petitioner Soller's son, Vincent M.
Soller. His body was brought to a medical clinic located in the "Criminal Case No. 25521
house of petitioner Dr. Prudente Soller, the Municipal Mayor,
and his wife Dr. Preciosa Soller, who is the Municipal Health The undersigned Graft Investigation Officer I, Office of the
Officer. The incident was reported to and investigated by Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon, hereby accuses PRUDENTE
petitioner SPO4 Mario Matining. An autopsy was conducted SOLLER, PRECIOSA SOLLER, MARIO MATINING, ROMMEL
on the same night on the cadaver of Jerry by petitioner Dr. LUARCA, RODOLFO SALCEDO, and JOSIE MORADA, of
Preciosa Soller with the assistance of petitioner Rodolfo committing the offense of Obstruction of Apprehension and
Salcedo, Sanitary Inspector, and petitioner Josefina Morada, Prosecution of Criminal Offenders as defined and penalized
Rural Health Midwife. under Section 1, Paragraph b of P.D. 1829, committed as
follows:
On the basis of the foregoing incident, a complaint was later
filed against the petitioners by the widow of Jerry Macabael That on or about March 14, 1997, prior or subsequent
with the Office of the Ombudsman charging them with thereto, at the Municipality of Bansud, Oriental Mindoro and
conspiracy to mislead the investigation of the fatal shootout within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above
of Jerry Macabael by (a) altering his wound (b) concealing name accused, all public officers, then being the Municipal
his brain; (c) falsely stating in police report that he had Mayor, Municipal Health Officer, SPO II, PO 1, Sanitary
several gunshot wounds when in truth he had only one; and Inspector and Midwife, respectively, all of said municipality,
d) falsely stating in an autopsy report that there was no conspiring and confederating with one another, did then and
blackening around his wound when in truth there was. there wilfully, unlawfully, and criminally alter and suppress
the gunshot wound and conceal the brain of JERRY
Petitioners spouses Soller denied having tampered with the MACABAEL with intent to impair its veracity, authenticity,
cadaver of Jerry Macabael, and claimed, among others that and availability as evidence in the investigation of criminal
case for murder against the accused Vincent Soller, the son its assailed Order dated April 14, 2000, the Sandiganbayan
of herein respondents. denied petitioners' Motion to Quash on the ground that the
accusation involves the performance of the duties of at least
CONTRARY TO LAW." one (1) of the accused public officials, and if the Mayor is
indeed properly charged together with that official, then the
"Criminal Case No. 25522 Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the entire case and over
all the co-accused. The Order stated that "the accused is the
The undersigned Graft Investigation Officer, I, Office of the Mayor of the municipality where the alleged incident took
Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon, hereby accuses PRUDENTE place and, therefore, any attempt to deviate or to present
SOLLER, PRECIOSA SOLLER, MARIO MATINING, ROMMEL false evidence in connection with a criminal offense
LUARCA, RODOLFO SALCEDO, and JOSIE MORADA, of committed in his municipality for which he is charged would
committing the offense of Obstruction of Apprehension and be an offense also in which the accused Mayor would be
Prosecution of Criminal Offenders as defined and penalized probably held accountable before this Court."
under Section 1, Paragraph b of P.D. 1829, committed as
follows: Motion for Reconsideration of the above order was filed on
the premise that it is not among the functions of the mayor
That on or about March 14, 1997, prior or subsequent to conduct autopsies so that any misdeed, if indeed there
thereto, at the Municipality of Bansud, Oriental Mindoro and was any, could not be an offense which would put him under
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above the jurisdiction of the court. Motion for Reconsideration was
name accused, all public officers, then being the Municipal denied, the Sandiganbyan ruling that:
Mayor, Municipal health Officer, SPO II, PO 1, Sanitary
Inspector and Midwife, respectively, all of said municipality, "The enumeration of the functions of the mayor indicate very
conspiring and confederating with one another, did then and clearly that he is the primary executive and, therefore,
there wilfully, unlawfully, and criminal give false and necessarily the primary peace officer of the municipality, for
fabricated information in the autopsy report and police report which reason, any action on his part which deviates from
to mislead or prevent the law enforcement agency, from that function is an office-related offense. In this particular
apprehending the offender by reporting that there are instance, the accused is charged for having cooperated or
several gunshot wounds in the body of the victim, JERRY co-participated with another public official of lower rank in
MACABAEL and that there is no tattooing (blackening) the same municipality in the supposed falsification of the
around the wound of the said victim when in truth and in results of an autopsy. Additionally, even if the functions of an
fact, there is only one gunshot wound and there is tattooing autopsy were totally unrelated to any of the administrative
(blackening) around the wound which would indicate that the or executive functions over which the mayor may have
victim was shot by Vincent Soller, the son of the herein supervision and, more specially, control, the fact of the
respondents spouses Prudente and Preciosa Soller. matter is that the jurisdiction of the Court covers not only
the offenses committed by the officials of Grade Level 27 or
CONTRARY TO LAW." higher as the principal accused but even where such officials
are also accused together with some other public officials
Petitioners filed a Motion to Quash on the principal ground who may be at a level below Grade Level 27 in connection
that the Sandiganbayan had no jurisdiction over the offenses with the performance of their duties.
charged; this motion was opposed by respondent People. In
In this instance, accused Mayor Prudente D. Soller, Sr. who be considered done in relation to his office if the acts were
occupies a position at Grade Level 27, is co-accused with his committed in line of duty. Respondent's position is that an
wife, the Municipal Health Officer who occupies a position at offense may be considered committed in relation to office if it
Grade Level 24, so that, necessarily, the offense attributed arose from misuse or abuse of public office or from non-
to the lower ranking officer elevates the entire case to this performance of an official duty or function; thus the offense
Court primarily because somebody over whom this Court has of falsifying autopsy and police reports is office-related
jurisdiction, the Mayor, is accused together with the lower considering that among the duties and functions of the
ranking officer."3 municipal mayor in the exercise of general supervision and
control over all programs, projects, services and activities of
Hence, this petition alleging that- the municipal government, is that he shall ensure that all
executive officials and employees of the municipality
"RESPONDENT SANDIGANBAYAN ACTED WITHOUT OR IN faithfully discharge their duties and functions. The fact that
EXCESS OF JURISDICTION OR WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF the informations do not allege that the acts charged were
DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF JURISDICTION IN committed by petitioner Prudente Soller while he was in the
HOLDING THAT IT HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE OFFENSE performance of his official functions or duties is not a fatal
CHARGED IN SUBJECT CRIMINAL CASES NOS. 25521 and defect, as the conclusion of law that his acts are in violation
25522."4 of his duties as municipal mayor could necessarily be
deduced from the informations.
Citing Section 4 of P.D. 1606 as amended, which defines the
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, petitioners claim that for Petitioners, in their Reply, reiterate that the factual
an offense to fall within the jurisdiction of the averments in the Information were fatally defective in view
Sandiganbayan, the offense must have been committed by of the absence of any specific allegation that would indicate
the officials enunciated in paragraph (a) "in relation to their that the crimes charged were committed by the defendants
office", i.e. it should be intimately connected with the office in line of duty or in the performance of their official
of the offender, and should have been perpetrated while the functions.
offender was in the performance of his official functions.
Moreover, these requisites must all be alleged in the The petition is meritorious.
information. Petitioners assert that in the subject criminal
cases, the Informations do not contain factual averments The rule is that in order to ascertain whether a court has
showing that they committed the acts charged in relation to jurisdiction or not, the provisions of the law should be
their office, i.e., the acts charged are intimately connected inquired into.5 Furthermore, the jurisdiction of the court
with their respective offices and were perpetrated by them must appear clearly from the statute law or it will not be held
while they were in the performance of their duties and to exist. It cannot be presumed or implied. For this purpose
functions. in criminal cases, the jurisdiction of the court is determined
by the law at the time of the commencement of the action.6
On the other hand, respondent People of the Philippines,
represented by the Office of the Ombudsman, through the The action here was instituted with the filing of the
Office of the Special Prosecutor, posits that even if the Informations on May 25, 1999 charging the petitioners with
offense charged was not committed by the accused while in the offense of Obstruction of Apprehension and Prosecution
the performance of his official functions, the same could still of Criminal Offenders as defined and penalized under Section
1, Paragraph b of P.D. 1829. The applicable statutory xxx xxx xxx"
provisions are those of P.D. No. 1606 as last amended by the
Republic Act No. 8249. Section 4 of P.D. No. 1606 as In Binay vs. Sandiganbayan,7 this Court held that the
amended provides insofar as pertinent: Municipal Mayor, who occupies Salary Grade 27 in the
hierarchy of positions in the government under Republic Act
"SEC. 4. Jurisdiction - The Sandiganbayan shall exercise No. 6758 and the Index of Occupational Services. Position
exclusive original jurisdiction in all cases involving: Titles and Salary Grades, falls within the exclusive original
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
a. Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended,
otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corruption Practices The bone of contention here is whether the offenses charged
Act, Republic Act No. 1379, and Chapter II, Section 2, Title may be considered as committed "in relation to their office"
VII, Book II of the Revised Penal Code, where one or more of as this phrase is employed in the above-quoted Section 4.
the accused are officials occupying the following positions in
the government, whether in a permanent, acting or interim As early as Montilla vs. Hilario,8 this Court has interpreted
capacity, at the time of the commission of the offense: the requirement that an offense be committed in relation to
the office to mean that "the offense cannot exist without the
xxx xxx xxx office "or" that the office must be a constituent element of
the crime" as defined and punished in Chapter Two to Six,
(5) All other national and local officials classified as Grade Title Seven of the Revised Penal Code (referring to the
"27" and higher under the Compensation and Position crimes committed by the public officers). People vs.
Classification Act of 1989. Montejo9 enunciated the principle that the offense must be
intimately connected with the office of the offender and
xxx xxx xxx perpetrated while he was in the performance, though
improper or irregular of his official functions. The Court,
b. Other offenses or felonies whether simple or complexed speaking through Chief Justice Concepcion said that although
with other crime committed by the public officials and public office is not an element of the crime of murder in (the)
employees mentioned in subsection a of this section in abstract, the facts in a particular case may show that -
relation to their office.
"xxx the offense therein charged is intimately connected with
xxx xxx xxx (the accused's) respective offices and was perpetrated while
they were in the performance though improper or irregular,
In cases where none of the accused are occupying positions of their official functions. Indeed (the accused) had no
corresponding to salary Grade "27" or higher, as prescribed personal motive to commit the crime and they would not
in the said Republic Act 6758, or military and PNP officers have committed it had they not held their aforesaid offices.
mentioned above, exclusive original jurisdiction thereof shall The co-defendants of respondent Leroy S. Brown obeyed his
be vested in the proper regional trial court, metropolitan trial instructions because he was their superior officer, as Mayor
court, municipal trial court, and municipal circuit trial court, of Basilan City."10
as the case may be, pursuant to their jurisdictions as
provided by Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, amended. The cited rulings in Montilla vs. Hilario and in People vs.
Montejo were reiterated in Sanchez vs. Demetriou,11
Republic vs. Asuncion,12 and Cunanan vs. Arceo.13 The case the autopsy report and police report to mislead the law
of Republic vs. Asuncion categorically pronounced that the enforcement agency and prevent the apprehension of the
fact that offense was committed in relation to the office must offender (Criminal Case No. 25522) was done in the
be alleged in the information: performance of official function. Indeed the offenses defined
in P.D. 1829 may be committed by any person whether a
"That the public officers or employees committed the crime public officer or a private citizen, and accordingly public
in relation to their office, must, however, be alleged in the office is not an element of the offense. Moreover, the
information for the Sandiganbayan to have jurisdiction over a Information in Criminal Case No. 25522 states that the
case under Section 4 (a) (2). This allegation is necessary fabrication of information in the police and autopsy report
because of the unbending rule that jurisdiction is determined "would indicate that the victim was shot by Vincent Soller,
by the allegations of the information."14 the son of herein petitioners spouses Prudente and Preciosa
Soller". Thus there is a categorical indication that the
For this purpose what is controlling is not whether the phrase petitioners spouses Soller had a personal motive to commit
"committed in violation to public office" appears in the the offenses and they would have committed the offenses
information; what determines the jurisdiction of the charged even if they did not respectively hold the position of
Sandiganbayan is the specific factual allegation in the Municipal Mayor or Municipal Health Officer.
information that would indicate close intimacy between the
discharge of the accused's official duties and the commission A cursory reading of the duties and functions of the Municipal
of the offense charged in order to qualify the crime as having Mayor as enumerated in Section 444 of the Local
been committed in relation to public office.15 Government Code will readily show that the preparation of
police and autopsy reports and the presentation and
In this case, the Informations subject of Criminal Cases Nos. gathering of evidence in the investigation of criminal cases
25521 and 25522 quoted earlier, fail to allege that are not among such duties and functions, and the broad
petitioners had committed the offenses charged in relation to responsibility to maintain peace and order cannot be a basis
their offices. Neither are there specific allegations of facts to for construing that the criminal acts imputed to petitioner
show the intimate relation/connection between the Mayor fall under his functions as Municipal Mayor.16 What is
commission of the offense charged and the discharge of obvious is that petitioners spouses probably acted as the
official functions of the offenders, i.e. that the obstruction of parents of the alleged assailant and if at all, were motivated
and apprehension and prosecution of criminal offenders was by personal reasons rather than official duty.
committed in relation to the office of petitioner Prudente
Soller, whose office as Mayor is included in the enumeration Consequently, for failure to show in the informations that the
in Section 4 (a) of P.D. 1606 as amended. Although the charges were intimately connected with the discharge of the
petitioners were described as being "all public officers, then official functions of accused Mayor Soller, the offenses
being the Municipal Mayor, Municipal Health Officer, SPO II, charged in the subject criminal cases fall within the exclusive
PO I, Sanitary Inspector and Midwife", there was no original function of the Regional Trial Court, not the
allegation that the offense of altering and suppressing the Sandiganbayan.
gunshot wound of the victim with intent to impair the
veracity, authenticity and availability as evidence in the WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED and the challenged
investigation of the criminal case for murder (Criminal Case orders are SET ASIDE and declared NULL and VOID for lack
No. 25521) or of giving false and fabricated information in of jurisdiction. No costs.1âwphi1.nêt
 Prosecutor filed a motion to withdraw the information 5 ,
SO ORDERED which motion was eventually granted by the Sandiganbayan
on July 16, 1996. 6
Misconduct in office related to, and connected with,
Performance of Official Duties Meanwhile, Criminal Case No. 23069 was assigned to the
First Division of the Sandiganbayan. Petitioner also filed a
motion for reinvestigation with the court on May 8, 1996, to
which the prosecution objected. On June 18, 1996, the court
[G.R. No. 136806. August 22, 2000.] issued a resolution deferring action on petitioner’s motion for
reinvestigation until compliance by the prosecution with the
EDUARDO A. ALARILLA, Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE court’s resolution of March 20 and 28, 1996, requiring the
SANDIGANBAYAN (First Division), Respondent. amendment of the information so as to indicate the "office-
related" character of the crime charged. On November 8,
DECISION 1996, the Office of the Special Prosecutor filed an ex-parte
motion 7 for the admission of an amended information which
GONZAGA-REYES, J.: reads —

In this petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of That on or about October 13, 1982, in Meycauayan, Bulacan,
Court, petitioner alleges that the Sandiganbayan 1 gravely and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
abused its discretion when it issued its Resolution dated July above-named accused, a public officer, being then the
28, 1998 denying his demurrer to evidence and the Municipal Mayor of Meycauayan, Bulacan, committing the
subsequent Resolution dated December 17, 1998 denying his crime herein charged in relation to and taking advantage of
motion for reconsideration in Criminal Case No. 23069. 2 his official functions, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully
and feloniously level and aim a .45 caliber pistol at and
The factual background of this case is set out threaten to kill one Simeon G. Legaspi, during a public
herein:chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary hearing about the pollution from the operations of the Giant
Achievers Enterprises Plastic Factory and after the said
On December 1, 1995, the Office of the Ombudsman, acting complainant rendered a privilege speech critical of the
through the Office of the Special Prosecutor, filed an abuses and excesses of the administration of said accused.
information 3 with the Sandiganbayan charging petitioner
Eduardo A. Alarilla with the crime of grave threats as defined In its resolution 8 of January 30, 1997, the Sandiganbayan
in Article 282 of the Revised Penal Code. On the same day, a admitted the amended information.
second information 4 was filed charging petitioner of having
violated section 3 (e) of Republic Act No. 3019. These Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, 9 praying that
informations were docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 23069 and the court reconsider its admission of the amended
23070, respectively. information. He claimed that the crimes charged in Criminal
Case Nos. 23069 and 23070 arose out of the same incident;
Criminal Case No. 23070 was raffled to the Second Division that considering that the latter case had already been
of the Sandiganbayan. Acting upon a motion for dismissed by the court on the ground that it had no
reinvestigation filed by petitioner, the Office of the Special jurisdiction over the same since the crime charged was not
"office-related," the same ruling should apply to the former
case. After the prosecution had filed its comment, 10 the Moreover, Accused’s violent act was precipitated by
First Division issued a resolution 11 on April 25, 1997, complainant’s criticism of his administration as the mayor or
denying petitioner’s motion for reinvestigation of Criminal chief executive of the municipality, during the latter’s
Case No. 23069 and his motion for reconsideration. With privilege speech. It was his response to private complainant’s
regards to the issue of jurisdiction, the Sandiganbayan held attack to his office. If he was not the mayor, he would not
that — have been irritated or angered by whatever private
complainant might have said during said privilege speech.
In criminal cases, the court’s jurisdiction in the first instance
is determined by the facts alleged in the complaint or x x x
information. The complaint or information must be examined
for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not the facts set
out therein and the punishment provided for by law for such The ruling in Criminal Case No. 23070 relied upon by the
acts fall within the jurisdiction of the court in which the accused will not apply in this case, because the offense
complaint or information is presented. If the facts set out in involved there was [a] [v]iolation of Section 3 (e) of R.A.
the complaint or information are sufficient to show the court 3019. It is an essential element of said offense that the act
in which the complaint or information is presented has of the accused in causing undue injury to any party including
jurisdiction, then the court has jurisdiction (U.S. v. Mallari, the Government or the giving to any party of unwarranted
24 Phil 366; Magay v. Estiandan, 69 SCRA 456; Enerio v. benefits, advantage or preference was done in the course of
Alampay, 64 SCRA 142).chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary the discharge of his official, administrative or judicial
function. The ponente, the Hon. Jose S. Balajadia, however,
A perusal of the Amended Information in the instant case found the said circumstance not obtaining in the said case
readily shows that the felony allegedly committed was (Crim. Case No. 23070) because the incident complained of
"office-related," hence, within the jurisdiction of this court. It took place after the public hearing when the accused was not
is alleged therein that accused mayor committed the crime of anymore performing any of his official administrative
grave threats when he levelled and aimed his gun at and functions. The difference lies in the fact that in the case at
threatened to kill private complainant Simeon Legazpi during bar (grave threats), said condition is not a component
a public hearing about the pollution which resulted from the element. All that the law requires for the crime to be within
operation of Giant Achievers Enterprises Plastic Factory and the jurisdiction of this court is the fact that the felony was
after said complainant rendered a privileged speech critical of committed "in relation to his office" (not during the discharge
the abuses and excesses of the administration of the of his official function).
accused. As the local chief executive, the health and
sanitation problem of the community was one of the PREMISES CONSIDERED, and on the further ground that
accused’s main concern[s]. Thus, Accused was performing accused’s primary intent in pleading a reinvestigation is the
his official duty as municipal mayor when he attended said determination of the "office-related" character of the crime,
public hearing. It is apparent from the allegations, that, which is now passed upon, his Motion for Reinvestigation is
although public office is not an element of the crime of grave hereby DENIED due course. His Motion for Reconsideration of
threat[s] in abstract, as committed by the accused, there is the Court’s Resolution dated January 30, 1997 is likewise
an intimate connection/relation between the commission of DENIED for lack of merit.
the offense and accused’s performance of his public office.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the above of the Municipal Council which, because he as mayor, the
cited ruling, but the Sandiganbayan denied the same in its accused could and did, even if unlawfully.
resolution 12 dated June 18, 1997. Thus, petitioner was
prompted to file a petition for certiorari 13 with this Court x x x
questioning the Sandiganbayan’s April 25, 1997 and June 18,
1997 resolutions, which case was docketed as G.R. No.
130231. However, in our resolution 14 dated September 22, Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was similarly denied
1997, we dismissed the petition "for failure to sufficiently by the Sandiganbayan in its December 17, 1998 resolution
show that the questioned [resolutions were] tainted with 17 explaining that —
grave abuse of discretion."
x x x
Thus, the trial of Criminal Case No. 23069 proceeded. On
May 19, 1998, after the prosecution had completed the
presentation of its evidence, petitioner filed a demurrer to Indeed, an illegal act is not an official act; rather the
evidence 15 on the ground that the prosecution had failed to question boils down to whether or not the acts attributed to
prove that he had committed the crime charged in the the accused herein were performed by him in the occasion of
information and that the act complained of took place while either the performance of his duties or of his assertion of his
he was performing his official functions.chanrob1es virtua1 authority to do so. Were the rule to be otherwise, the
1aw 1ibrary Sandiganbayan would never have jurisdiction of criminal acts
of public officers since these acts would never be the
In a resolution 16 dated July 28, 1998, the Sandiganbayan performance of official duties or be official acts, although
denied petitioner’s demurrer to evidence. The resolution they might be in the occasion thereof.
states that —
x x x
x x x

Hence, the present petition wherein petitioner asks this Court

The accused herein is charged with having threatened to kill to set aside the July 28, 1998 and December 17, 1998
Simeon Legaspi by pointing a .45 caliber pistol at him. There resolutions of the Sandiganbayan and to dismiss Criminal
is evidence on record that the acts were indeed committed. Case No. 23069. In addition, petitioner prays for the
Regardless of whether or not the pistol was cocked, the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or writ of
pointing of a firearm at a person in a hostile manner is an act preliminary injunction to enjoin public respondent from
demonstrating an intent to inflict harm to that person. further proceeding with said case until this petition has been
Whether or not the accused Mayor was in the performance of resolved. 18
his proper duties when he pointed the .45 caliber pistol is not
a proper issue of jurisdiction for this Court since all illegal The Office of the Special Prosecutor filed its Comment 19 on
acts are never proper acts of one’s public office. What is at April 22, 1999. On May 18, 1999, petitioner filed a motion to
evidence is that an ordinary citizen was not in a position to resolve 20 his application for a temporary restraining order
convoke the Sanggunian Bayan nor to preside over the and/or writ of preliminary injunction in order to enjoin the
same, much less to interfere with the legislative proceedings Sandiganbayan from further proceeding with the case, which
prayer he reiterated in a subsequent motion 21 filed with this courts will not review the prosecution’s evidence and
Court on July 22, 1999. On September 6, 1999, the Court precipitately decide whether or not such evidence has
denied petitioner’s July 22, 1999 motion for lack of merit. 22 established the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable
Petitioner filed a Reply 23 on December 6, 1999. The doubt, unless accused has established that such judicial
prosecution and the defense then filed their respective discretion has been gravely abused, thereby amounting to a
Memorandums on March 16, 2000 24 and on March 30, lack or excess of jurisdiction. 29 Mere allegations of such
2000, 25 respectively, after which the case was deemed abuse will not suffice. For the special civil action of certiorari
submitted for decision. to lie, it is crucial that

Petitioner sets forth the following issues for the Court’s . . . there must be a capricious, arbitrary and whimsical
resolution — exercise of power, the very antithesis of judicial prerogative
in accordance with centuries of both civil law and common
I. WHETHER OR NOT THE FIRST DIVISION OF THE law traditions. To warrant the issuance of the extraordinary
SANDIGANBAYAN ACTED WITHOUT OR IN EXCESS OF ITS writ of certiorari, the alleged lack of jurisdiction, excess
JURISDICTION OR WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN thereof, or abuse of discretion must be so gross or grave, as
DENYING PETITIONER’S DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE. when power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner
by reason of passion, prejudice or personal hostility, or the
II. WHETHER OR NOT THE FIRST DIVISION OF THE abuse must be so patent as to amount to an evasion of
SANDIGANBAYAN ACTED WITHOUT OR IN EXCESS OF ITS positive duty, or to a virtual refusal to perform a duty
JURISDICTION OR WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN enjoined by law, or to act at all, in contemplation of law. . .
RULING THAT THE OFFENSE CHARGED IN CRIMINAL CASE 30
NO. 23069 FALLS WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION.chanrob1es
virtua1 1aw 1ibrary When there is no showing of such grave abuse, certiorari is
not the proper remedy. 31 Rather, the appropriate recourse
III. WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONER SHOULD BE GRANTED from an order denying a demurrer to evidence is for the
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF. 26 court to proceed with the trial, after which the accused may
file an appeal from the judgment of the lower court rendered
With regard to the first issue, petitioner claims that the after such trial. 32 In the present case, we are not prepared
elements constituting the crime of grave threats have not to rule that the Sandiganbayan has gravely abused its
been proven. He insists that the prosecution had not discretion when it denied petitioner’s demurrer to evidence.
established that his act of pointing a gun at complainant Public respondent found that the prosecution’s evidence
Simeon Legaspi, assuming that it had actually occurred, satisfactorily established the elements of the crime charged.
constituted grave threats. 27 However, quite to the contrary, Correspondingly, there is nothing in the records of this case
the Sandiganbayan found that the prosecution’s evidence, nor in the pleadings of petitioner that would show otherwise.
standing unrebutted by any opposing evidence, sufficiently
established the crime charged. 28 Coming now to the second issue, petitioner assails the
Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction over the case on the ground
The resolution of a demurrer to evidence should be left to that the crime was not committed in relation to his office. He
the exercise of sound judicial discretion. A lower court’s contends that it has not been established that the crime
order of denial shall not be disturbed, that is, the appellate charged was committed by him while in the discharge of or
as a consequence of his official functions as municipal mayor. x x x
Additionally, he claims that public office is not an essential
ingredient of the crime of grave threats, which may be
committed by a public officer and a private individual alike, b. Other offenses or felonies committed by the public officials
with the same facility. Therefore, the Sandiganbayan and employees mentioned in subsection (a) of this section in
erroneously assumed jurisdiction over the present case. 33 relation to their office.

It is well established that the jurisdiction of a court to try a x x x

criminal case is determined by the law in force at the time of
the institution of the action. Once the court acquires
jurisdiction over a controversy, it shall continue to exercise Thus, to fall within the exclusive and original jurisdiction of
such jurisdiction until the final determination of the case and the Sandiganbayan, the crime charged must be either one of
it is not affected by subsequent legislation vesting those mentioned in paragraph (a) abovementioned or one
jurisdiction over such proceedings in another tribunal. A committed by a public officer in relation to his office. The
recognized exception to this rule is when the statute Court has held that an offense is deemed to be committed in
expressly provides, or is construed to the effect that it is relation to the accused’s office when such office is an
intended to operate upon actions pending before its element of the crime charged 37 or when the offense
enactment. However, where such retroactive effect is not charged is intimately connected with the discharge of the
provided for, statutes altering the jurisdiction of a court official functions of accused. This was our ruling in Cunanan
cannot be applied to cases already pending prior to their v. Arceo 38 wherein the Court explained several decisions
enactment. 34 dealing with the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction. The Court held
—
The original information in Criminal Case No. 23069 was filed
with the Sandiganbayan on December 1, 1995, whereas the In Sanchez v. Demetriou [227 SCRA 627 (1993)], the Court
amended information was filed with the same court on elaborated on the scope and reach of the term "offense
November 8, 1996 and admitted by the Sandiganbayan on committed in relation to [an accused’s] office" by referring to
January 30, 1997. The applicable law at this time would be the principle laid down in Montilla v. Hilario [90 Phil 49
Presidential Decree No. 1606 (PD 1606), as amended by (1951)], and to an exception to that principle which was
Republic Act No. 7975 (RA 7975), 35 which took effect on recognized in People v. Montejo [108 Phil 613 (1960)]. The
May 16, 1995. 36 Section 4 of PD 1606, as amended by RA principle set out in Montilla v. Hilario is that an offense may
7975, provides that — be considered as committed in relation to the accused’s
office if "the offense cannot exist without the office" such
The Sandiganbayan shall exercise original jurisdiction in all that "the office [is] a constituent element of the crime . . ."
cases involving:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library In People v. Montejo, the Court, through Chief Justice
Concepcion, said that "although public office is not an
a. Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, element of the crime of murder in [the] abstract," the facts
otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, in a particular case may show that
Republic Act No. 1379, and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII of
the Revised Penal Code, . . .chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary ". . . the offense therein charged is intimately connected with
[the accused’s] respective offices and was perpetrated while
they were in the performance, though improper or irregular,
of their official functions. Indeed, [the accused] had no
personal motive to commit the crime and they would not Misconduct in office related to, and connected with,
have committed it had they not held their aforesaid Performance of Official Duties
offices. . . ."
A.M. No. CA-02-14-P - July 31, 2002
The jurisdiction of a court is determined by the allegations in
the complaint or information. 39 In the case at bar, the LEONOR MARIANO, Complainant, vs. SUSAN ROXAS,
amended information contained allegations that the accused, CLERK III, COURT OF APPEALS, Respondent.
petitioner herein, took advantage of his official functions as
municipal mayor of Meycauayan, Bulacan when he SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:
committed the crime of grave threats as defined in Article
282 of the Revised Penal Code against complainant Simeon The present administrative case arose from the complaint-
G. Legaspi, a municipal councilor. The Office of the Special affidavit of Leonora Mariano filed with the Court of Appeals
Prosecutor charged petitioner with aiming a gun at and (CA) on May 8, 2001, docketed therein as Administrative
threatening to kill Legaspi during a public hearing, after the Case No. 01-01-G, charging Susan Roxas, Clerk III, assigned
latter had rendered a privilege speech critical of petitioner’s at the Third Division of the said court, with forgery and
administration. Clearly, based on such allegations, the crime dishonesty.
charged is intimately connected with the discharge of
petitioner’s official functions. This was elaborated upon by In her complaint-affidavit,1 complainant alleged that
public respondent in its April 25, 1997 resolution wherein it respondent refused to pay P12,110.00. This is the balance of
held that the "accused was performing his official duty as the price of jewelry items complainant sold to respondent.
municipal mayor when he attended said public hearing" and The latter insists she made an overpayment as shown by 4
that "accused’s violent act was precipitated by complainant’s receipts dated (1) January 25, 2001 for P5,525.00; (2)
criticism of his administration as the mayor or chief February 15, 2001 for P6,500.00; (3) April 14, 2000 for
executive of the municipality, during the latter’s privilege P400.00; and (4) April 16, 2000 for P400.00. These receipts
speech. It was his response to private complainant’s attack were forged.
to his office. If he was not the mayor, he would not have
been irritated or angered by whatever private complainant Complainant further alleged that in a letter dated February 5,
might have said during said privilege speech." Thus, based 2001 addressed to the Cashier of the CA, respondent
on the allegations in the information, the Sandiganbayan authorized complainant to collect her (respondent's) benefits
correctly assumed jurisdiction over the case. "on March 2001 and so on up to the total amount of
P30,000.00 more or less" as payment for her outstanding
WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is hereby obligation. However, on April 18, 2001, respondent revoked
DISMISSED. the said authorization without informing the complainant,
thus committing dishonesty.
SO ORDERED.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary
In a Memorandum dated June 5, 2001,2 Justice Cancio C.
Melo, Vitug, Panganiban and Purisima, JJ., concur. Garcia, then Acting Presiding Justice of the CA, directed
respondent to file her answer and manifest if she opts for a (Exh. F). On April 16, 2000, Mrs. Roxas paid P400.00 to Mrs.
hearing. Mariano (Exhs. F and C). On an unspecified later date, Mrs.
Roxas returned to Mrs. Mariano P30,900.00 worth of pieces
On June 14, 2001, respondent submitted her counter- of jewelry which were later sold to Armin Arzaga, another
affidavit3 and manifested her desire for a full-blown hearing Court employee, also on installment basis and which has
of the charges against her. She claimed that she had been settled (Exh. F). This left an unpaid balance of
overpaid complainant in the amount of P6,425.00; that she P24,100.00 of Mrs. Roxas as of March 12, 2001 (Exh. F-1).
could present witnesses to prove that she made several
payments on various occasions; and that complainant issued "On February 5, 2001, Mrs. Roxas executed a written
to her the corresponding receipts. authority to the Court Cashier for Mrs. Mariano to get her
benefits in March, 2001 and thereafter up to payment of the
On June 19, 2001, Acting Presiding Justice Garcia designated total amount of P30,000.00 more or less (Exh. D). Pursuant
Atty. Elisa Pilar-Longalong, Assistant Clerk of Court, to thereto, on March 9, 2001, Mrs. Mariano received P5,000.00
conduct an investigation and to submit a report and from the Court Cashier Leo Ulanday (Exhs. F, C-2, and 3-b)
recommendation. as partial payment of Mrs. Roxas. On March 12, 2001, Mrs.
Mariano again received from the Court Cashier P6,990.00 as
On July 23, 2001, respondent submitted her supplementary partial payment of Mrs. Roxas (Exhs. F, C-1 and 3-a), thus
affidavit,4 explaining that she revoked complainant's leaving an unpaid balance of P12,110.00 (Exh. F-1). On April
authority to receive from the CA whatever benefit was due 18, 2001, Mrs. Roxas revoked the authority in favor of Mrs.
her (respondent) because she had made an overpayment. Mariano by a letter to the Court Cashier on the ground that
Respondent also explained that the receipts mentioned in the she overpaid Mrs. Mariano (Exhs. 1 and 2) by P6,425.00
complaint are authentic as they were personally handed to (Exh. C).
her by complainant on two separate occasions within the CA
premises. "The amounts Mrs. Roxas claimed as overpayments referred
to alleged payments made by her on January 25, 2001 in the
On October 30, 2001, complainant filed with the CA a amount of P5,525.00, on February 15, 2001 in the amount of
supplemental affidavit-complaint5 showing respondent's P6,500.00, and on an unspecified date in the amount of
balance in the amount of P12,110.00, and denying that P400.00 (Exh. C), evidenced by receipts purportedly signed
respondent paid her debt. by Mrs. Mariano. The latter denied she received said
amounts on said dates and that she signed and issued those
After conducting an investigation, Atty. Pilar-Longalong receipts since those signatures are forgeries. She also
submitted to the CA her Report and Recommendation dated claimed that she never issues typewritten receipts as the one
January 28, 2002,6 quoted in part, thus: Mrs. Roxas presented evidencing her alleged payment on
January 25, 2001 and on February 15, 2001. This fact was
"On February 22, 2000, Mrs. Mariano sold to Mrs. Roxas a corroborated by her witness, Lorna Caraga, a friend and
total of P55,700.00 worth of assorted pieces of jewelry (Exh. former officemate who affirmed that the signature on the
F), payable on installment. Mrs. Roxas paid Mrs. Mariano aforementioned receipts are not Mrs. Mariano's whose
P2,000.00 on March 3, 2000 (Exhs. C and F) and P800.00 on signature she is familiar with and whom she knows as one
March 15, 2000 (Exh. F). On an unspecified later date, Mrs. who does not issue typewritten receipts. Moreover, Mrs.
Mariano sold one 18K gold chain necklace worth P2,500.00 Mariano presented a medical certificate (Exh. G) that on
January 25, 2001 when she was supposed to have been paid receipt are not accurate records of the transactions between
the amount of P5,525.00 for which she purportedly issued a them and do not prove that Mrs. Roxas had overpaid
typewritten receipt, she was in fact sick in Bulacan and went complainant. Mrs. Mariano would not have wasted her time,
to her doctor's clinic (Exhs. E, G, and G-1). The foregoing effort and money hiring a lawyer and commuting from
belies Mrs. Roxas' uncorroborated claim that she paid Mrs. Bulacan several times if she been fully paid the amount due
Mariano on January 25, 2001 at the Court Canteen for which her.
the latter issued the typewritten receipt (Exhs. C-4 and 3-d).
xxx-xxx-xxx
"With respect to the alleged payment on February 15, 2001
in front of the Court Auditorium for which another signed "However, the charge of forgery is a criminal offense which
typewritten receipt was issued (Exhs. C-3 and 3-c), the same should have been filed in the proper forum, not in an
is not credible as said date is only a few days after Mrs. administrative proceeding. The proper administrative offense
Roxas issued on February 5, 2001 and authority to Mrs, for the act complained of is misconduct, for which Mrs. Roxas
Mariano to get her benefits from the Court Cashier (Exhs. D maybe found liable.
and E). The testimony of Mrs. Roxas' friend Mercy Valencia
on the payment and issuance of the typewritten receipt on "Mrs. Roxas action in unilaterally revoking the authority of
said date is not credible since despite claiming being present, Mrs. Mariano to collect her benefits does not constitute
she did not know the alleged amount paid by Mrs. Roxas, did dishonesty. Her act more properly constitutes the
not read the alleged receipt issued, did not know the alleged administrative offense of refusal to pay her debts. Her
contents thereof and did not see Mrs. Mariano signed the cancellation of the authority to collect her benefits was
alleged receipt. Besides, she erroneously claimed that she deliberately done in bad faith for the purpose of avoiding
saw the prints and signature written in blue ballpen when in payment, which is tantamount to willful failure to pay just
fact the alleged receipt was typewritten with only the alleged debts. x x x.
signature in blue ink (Exhs. C-3 and 3-c). With respect to the
alleged receipt for the payment of P400.00, the same, "In view of all the foregoing, it is recommended that:
although handwritten, did not bear any signature of Mrs.
Mariano (Exhs. C-6 and 3-f), hence, can not be considered as "1. The complaint for forgery be dismissed. Instead, Mrs.
proof of her receipt of payment. Roxas be found guilty of misconduct, and since this is her
first offense, the penalty of suspension for one month and
"Moreover, an examination of the receipts which Mrs. one day be imposed on her; and
Mariano claims to be forged (Exhs. C-3 and 3-C, C-4 and 3-
d) show to the naked eye that there are differences from her "2. Mrs. Roxas be reprimanded for her willful failure to pay
genuine signatures, thus supporting Mrs. Mariano's and Mrs. her debts and that she be ordered to pay Mrs. Mariano the
Caraga's statements that those signatures are forged and balance of her debt in the amount of P12,110.00 thru payroll
not those of Mrs. Mariano. deduction by the Court Cashier by equal weekly deductions
from the salaries and benefits due her until the total amount
"Hence, Mrs. Mariano has established by sufficient evidence of P12,110.00 is fully paid. In this connection, the Court
that Mrs. Roxas still has an unpaid balance of P12,110.00 Cashier may be ordered to deduct and deliver the said
(Exh. F-1) and that the two receipts she presented whose weekly payments direct to Mrs. Mariano."
signatures Mrs. Mariano disowns and the other unsigned
Finding the Report and Recommendation of Atty. Pilar- documents in her presence. Her opinion as to complainant's
Longalong in order, then CA Presiding Justice Ma. Alicia genuine signature is admissible in evidence pursuant to
Austria-Martinez7 issued an Order dated February 6, 2002,8 Section 50, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence which
quoted as follows: provides:

"WHEREFORE, Susan Roxas is hereby found guilty of "Sec. 50. Opinion of ordinary witnesses. - The opinion of a
misconduct and since this is her first offense, the penalty of witness for which proper basis is given, may be received in
suspension for one month and one day is hereby imposed on evidence regarding -
her. She is also hereby reprimanded for her willful failure to
pay just debts to Mrs. Mariano. Mrs. Roxas is hereby ordered xxx
to pay Mrs. Mariano the balance of her debt in the amount of
P12, 110.00." (b) A handwriting with which he has sufficient familiarity;
and
Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied
in an Order dated March 26, 2002.9 x x x" (Emphasis ours)

In a letter dated April 1, 2002, the CA transmitted to this Corollarily, Section 22, Rule 132 of the same Rules provides
Court the records of this case. that:

In administrative proceedings, such as the one at bar, the "Sec. 22. How genuineness of handwriting proved. - The
quantum of proof required to establish the administrative handwriting of a person may be proved by any witness who
liability of respondent is substantial evidence, not proof believes it to be the handwriting of such person because he
beyond reasonable doubt.10 Substantial evidence means has seen the person write, or has seen writing purporting to
such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as be his upon which the witness has acted or been charged,
adequate to support a conclusion.11 and has thus acquired knowledge of the handwriting of such
person. Evidence respecting the handwriting may also be
Based on the evidence on record, we hold that respondent is given by a comparison, made by the witness or the court,
administratively liable. with writings admitted or treated as genuine by the party
against whom the evidence is offered, or proved to be
As correctly found by the CA, respondent has still an unpaid genuine to the satisfaction of the judge." (Emphasis ours)
balance of P12,110.00. The receipts she presented to prove
that she overpaid complainant P6,425.00 were forged. As Respondent's act of forging those receipts to avoid her
found by the CA, there are marked differences between the contractual obligation affects not only her integrity as a
signatures in the receipts and complainant's specimen public servant but more importantly, the integrity of the
signature which are easily discernible by the naked eye. That Judiciary where she is connected. As a court employee,
the receipts are not genuine was confirmed by Lorna respondent should bear in mind that the court is regarded by
Caraga.12 She testified that she is familiar with the signature the public with respect. For this reason, the conduct of every
of complainant who was her officemate for a period of 5 court personnel should be circumscribed with the heavy
years in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 130, burden of responsibility and must at all times be
Caloocan City. In many occasions, complainant signed characterized by, among other things, uprightness, propriety
and decorum. Respondent failed to meet this exacting SERVICE and WILLFUL FAILURE TO PAY HER JUST DEBT. She
standard. Her actuation, although arising from a private is SUSPENDED for SIX (6) MONTHS and is REPRIMANDED.
transaction, has tarnished the image of her public office.
Respondent is further ordered to PAY complainant the sum of
Respondent's offense constitutes conduct prejudicial to the P12,110.00, representing her unpaid debt, through payroll
best interest of the service, not misconduct as held by the deductions.
CA. As an administrative offense, misconduct must have
direct relation to and be connected with the performance of SO ORDERED.
official duty,13 which circumstance is absent in this case.

Pursuant to Section 52, Rule IV of the Civil Service Misconduct in office related to, and connected with,
Commission Memorandum Circular No. 19, series of 1999, Performance of Official Duties
conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service is
classified as a grave administrative offense punishable by
suspension of six (6) months and 1 day to one (1) year if
committed for the first time, as in this case. Considering that [ AM No. P-16-3447, Apr 19, 2016 ]
the value involved in the forged receipts is minimal, this LUALHATI C. GUBATANGA v. RENATO V. BODOY +
Court deems that the penalty of six (6) months suspension is DECISION
in order.
PER CURIAM:
With respect to respondent's act of revoking the authority of
complainant to collect her (respondent's) benefits in payment For our resolution is the administrative complaint filed by
of her debt, we agree with the CA that the same is Clerk of Court Lualhati C. Gubatanga (COC Gubatanga)
tantamount to a willful failure to pay just debt. Such offense, against Utility Worker Renato V. Bodoy (Bodoy), both of the
under the same CSC Circular, is classified as a light Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Balagtas, Bulacan.
administrative offense which carries a penalty of reprimand if
committed for the first time, as in this case. In addition, The case stemmed from the Affidavit Complaint[1] filed by
respondent should pay complainant her indebtedness.14 COC Gubatanga charging Bodoy with grave misconduct and
falsification of commercial document.
It may not be amiss to state that respondent, like any other
member of the Judiciary, is expected to be a model of COC Gubatanga alleged that on 14 May 2008, she noticed
fairness and honesty not only in all her official conduct but that their court's savings account reflected an unauthorized
also in her personal actuations, including business and withdrawal in the amount of Php60,000.00 on 19 March
commercial transactions. Any conduct that would be a bane 2008. She reported that inquiries made with the bank
to the public trust and confidence reposed on the Judiciary disclosed that the withdrawn amount was received by Bodoy.
shall not be countenanced.15 She was allegedly surprised as she has never ever
authorized Bodoy to make any deposit or withdrawal from
WHEREFORE, respondent Susan Roxas is adjudged GUILTY of their court's bank account. Records reveal that COC
CONDUCT PREJUDICIAL TO THE BEST INTEREST OF THE Gubatanga and then acting presiding judge of MTC Balagtas,
Bulacan Luis Enriquez Reyes (Judge Reyes) were the only
accountable officer's allowed to withdraw from the MTC's withdrawal slips, one by one before he affixes his signature
bank account, particularly Saving's Account No. 1301-0172- on them.
40, maintained at the Land Bank of the Philippines, Balagtas,
Bulacan branch. Finally, COC Gubatanga informed the Office of the Court
Administrator (OCA) that she filed a criminal complaint
COC Gubatanga further alleged that since 24 March 2008, against Bodoy involving the matter alleged in her
Bodoy has not been reporting for work. On 15 May 2008, administrative complaint and the same is pending
however, he reported for duty and sought an audience with preliminary investigation with the Office of the Provincial
Hon. Myrna S. Lagrosa (Judge Lagrosa), then newly Prosecutor of Bulacan. COC Gubatanga attached to her
appointed judge of MTC Balagtas, Bulacan. Bodoy wished to affidavit complaint the affidavits of Judges Lagrosa and
talk to Judge Lagrosa and tender to her his resignation. Reyes.

When Judge Lagrosa summoned COC Gubatanga to discuss In his Affidavit dated 5 June 2008,[2] Judge Reyes denied
the clearance requested by Bodoy, COC Gubatanga seized having signed the withdrawal slip used by Bodoy to withdraw
the opportunity to inform Judge Lagrosa regarding the the amount of Php60,000.00 on 19 March 2008. He averred
unauthorized withdrawal of Php60,000.00 from their court's that his supposed signature appearing thereon was forged.
savings account. He maintained that he never signed documents and duplicate
copies thereof using carbon paper and it is more likely that
In the presence of COC Gubatanga, Judge Lagrosa Bodoy imitated his signature in the said withdrawal slip.
confronted Bodoy on the matter. At first, Bodoy denied the Judge Reyes also reported that Bodoy has not been reporting
accusation. He eventually admitted committing the offense for work since 14 March 2008.
when he was informed by Judge Lagrosa that his signature
appears on the copy of the withdrawal slip left in the Bodoy vehemently denied the allegations in the complaint.
possession of the bank as the recipient of the amount He contended that the narrations of facts cited in the
withdrawn. complaint are self-serving statements. He further contended
that the filing of the instant administrative complaint is pre-
When Judge Lagrosa asked how he was able to withdraw the mature and has as yet, no basis in fact or law.
amount from the court's savings account, Bodoy explained
that he inserted an extra withdrawal slip among the other He argued that the basis of the administrative case is
withdrawal slips that are to be signed by COC Gubatanga and dependent upon the result of the criminal case. He
Judge Reyes in order to avail of their signatures. He also maintained that giving consideration to the administrative
admitted that he used an ordinary key to open COC complaint would result in an injustice. He further maintained
Gubatanga's drawer to get the passbook. that the allegations contained in the Complaint-Affidavit filed
with the Office of the Prosecutor do not constitute the crime
COC Gubatanga, however, dismissed Bodoy's explanation of Qualified Theft and Falsification of Commercial Documents.
and maintained that the latter falsified her signature in the
withdrawal slip, as the signature is not the customary way On 16 September 2009, Atty. Caridad A. Pabello, Chief of
she signs her name. She alleged that the same holds true Office, Office of Administrative Services, OCA; issued a
with respect to the signature of Judge Reyes since the latter Certification stating that no Daily Time Record has been
meticulously goes over the bunch of papers, including submitted by Bodoy since 2008.
 In sum, substantial evidence clearly established the irregular
In a Resolution dated 22 June 2011,[3] this Court referred and anomalous withdrawal of the amount of Php60,000.00
the administrative complaint to the Executive Judge of the from the passbook of the MTC-Balagtas, Bulacan committed
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Malolos, Bulacan for by respondent on March 19, 2008, to the damage and
investigation, report and recommendation. prejudice of the government.

In compliance with the directive, Executive Judge Renato C. xxxx

Francisco (EJ Francisco), RTC, Malolos, Bulacan submitted his
investigation report[4] dated 4 October 2011. He WHEREFORE, it is respectfully recommended to the Supreme
recommended that respondent Bodoy be found guilty of Court through the Office of the Court Administrator that
serious misconduct and be dismissed from the service. respondent Renato Bodoy be dismissed for serious
Salient portion of his investigation report, reads; misconduct.[5] (Emphasis supplied)
In the hearing conducted by the undersigned Executive In this Court's resolution dated 23 November 2011, the
Judge, respondent Renato Bodoy openly admitted that he investigation report submitted by EJ Francisco was referred
withdrew the amount of Php60,000.00 subject of this present to the OCA for evaluation, report and recommendation within
action. He was also confronted with his signature appearing sixty (30) days from receipt of the record.
in the withdrawal slip (Annex "B") to which respondent
Bodoy admitted to affixing his signature therein. In its Memorandum dated 6 June 2013,[6] the OCA
recommended that:
According to the private complainant, she has already retired (1)
since June 2011 and because of this administrative case, her This case be re-docketed as a regular administrative case
benefits and pension had not been approved and she prays against Mr. Renato V. Bodoy, Utility Worker I, Municipal Trial
for speedy resolution of this administrative action. Court, Balagtas, Bulacan, for Dishonesty; [and]
(2)
Upon judicious and sedulous examination of the evidence Mr. Renato V. Bodoy, Municipal Trial Court, Balagtas,
extant in the records, more particularly the passbook and Bulacan, be DISMISSED from the service with forfeiture of
withdrawal slip, substantial evidence point to the respondent retirement benefits except accrued leave credits, with
Bodoy as having stealthily and clandestinely withdrawn the perpetual disqualification for re-employment in government
amount of Php60,000.00 from the passbook of MTC- service.
Balagtas, Bulacan last March 19, 2008. In fact, in the The OCA agreed with the conclusions of fact and
proceedings before this [c]ourt respondent Bodoy freely and recommendation of EJ Francisco.
openly admitted his withdrawal of the said amount of
Php60,000.00 as he claimed that he was hard-pressed for The OCA, however, found Bodoy not guilty of grave
cash at that time. His culpability is buttressed by the fact misconduct but of dishonesty. It explained that misconduct,
that he has been AWOL or absent without leave since March by uniform legal definition, is a transgression of some
14, 2008 and he could not have done so had he not established and definite rule of action, more particularly,
committed the act of withdrawal of the amount of unlawful behaviour as well as gross negligence by a public
Php60,000.00. officer. To constitute an administrative offense, misconduct
should relate to or be connected with the performance of the
official functions and duties of a public officer.[7] The OCA
held that in this case, there is no direct connection between Dishonesty is a serious offense which reflects a person's
the performance of Bodoy's official functions as a Utility character and exposes the moral decay which virtually
Worker I and his unauthorized withdrawal of the amount of destroys his honor, virtue and integrity. It is a malevolent
Php60,000.00 from the trial court's bank account. act that has no place in the judiciary, as no other office in
the government service exacts a greater demand for moral
This Court agrees with the observation of the OCA. righteousness from an employee than a position in the
judiciary.[13]
It is without doubt that Bodoy is guilty of dishonesty. He
made a categorical admission that he withdrew the amount Significantly, under Section 22, Rule XIV of the Omnibus
of Php60,000.00 from the trial court's bank account because Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order 292, the
he was hard pressed for money. His admission was Administrative Code of 1987 and other Pertinent Civil Service
confirmed by COC Gubatanga that there was an Laws, the designation of the administrative offense is of no
unauthorized withdrawal from the trial court's funds, as well consequence in this case because dishonesty, like grave
as, by the documents from the bank proving that such misconduct, is considered a grave offense for which the
withdrawal was indeed effected.[8] It is hornbook doctrine penalty of dismissal is prescribed even for the first offense.
that a judicial admission binds the person who makes the Section 9 of said Rule likewise provides that the penalty of
same, and absent any showing that this was made thru dismissal shall carry with it cancellation of eligibility,
palpable mistake, no amount of rationalization can offset it. forfeiture of leave credits and retirement benefits, and the
[9] Bodoy's act of surreptitiously withdrawing Php60,000.00 disqualification from re-employment in the government
from the trial court's bank account without any stamp of service. This penalty is without prejudice to criminal liability
authority constitutes dishonesty, which is defined as follows: of the respondent.[14]
[T]he disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud;
untrustworthiness; lack of integrity; lack of honesty, probity In fine, this Court emphasizes that every employee of the
or integrity in principle; lack of fairness and judiciary should be an example of integrity, uprightness and
straightforwardness; disposition to defraud, deceive or honesty. Like any public servant, he must exhibit the highest
betray.[10] sense of honesty and integrity not only in the performance of
This Court will not tolerate dishonesty. Persons involved in his official duties but in his personal and private dealings
the dispensation of justice, from the highest official to the with other people, to preserve the court's good name and
lowest employee, must live up to the strictest standards of standing.[15] Bodoy indubitably failed to meet this strict
integrity, probity, uprightness and diligence in the public standard set for a court employee, hence, he does not
service. As the assumption of public office is impressed with deserve to remain in the judiciary.
paramount public interest, which requires the highest
standards of ethical standards, persons aspiring for public Contrary to the contention of Bodoy, the instant
office must observe honesty, candor and faithful compliance administrative complaint can proceed even before there is
with the law.[11] It has been consistently stressed that even judgment in the criminal case involving the same matter. In
minor employees mirror the image of the courts they serve; administrative proceedings, such as this case, the quantum
thus, they are required to preserve the judiciary's good name of proof required to establish the administrative liability of
and standing as a true temple of justice.[12] respondent is substantial evidence, not proof beyond
reasonable doubt. Substantial evidence means such relevant
evidence as reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
support a conclusion.[16] Misconduct in office commited during a prior term

Records reveal that on 29 May 2009, the Office of the [G.R. No. 110220. May 18, 2000.]
Provincial Prosecutor of Malolos City, Bulacan, in I.S. No. 08-
06-2769 to 2770, recommended the filing in court of the PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. HON.
appropriate information for Estafa thru Falsification of Official RODOLFO V. TOLEDANO, in his capacity as Presiding
Document against Bodoy. The criminal case was docketed as Judge of the RTC, Branch 69 and ROLANDO BUNAO,
Criminal Case No. 3763-M-09 and was raffled to RTC, Branch Accused in Criminal Case No. RTC-1274-1,
81, Malolos, Bulacan. Respondents.

Although COC Gubatanga is the complainant in the criminal DECISION

case, she is in the strict sense only a witness in the case. The
real party prejudiced by the act of Bodoy is MTC, Balagtas, BUENA, J.:
Bulacan because the amount withdrawn without authority
came from the bank account of the aforesaid court. To date, In this petition for certiorari and mandamus, petitioner seeks
there has been no report received on the outcome of the to (1) annul and set aside the Orders of the Regional Trial
criminal case filed against Bodoy or on whether the full Court of Zambales in Criminal Case No. RTC 1274-I, entitled
amount withdrawn without authority has been returned to "People of the Philippines versus Rolando Bunao," dated
the trial court's bank account. Thus, it is necessary for the February 26, 1993 and April 12, 1993, which dismissed the
OCA to step in and ensure that the full amount illegally information filed against private respondent Bunao and
withdrawn by Bodoy is restituted back to the coffers of the denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the
court. dismissal order, respectively; and (2) prevent respondent
judge from hearing the case in the event of reinstatement of
WHEREFORE, respondent Renato V. Bodoy is DISMISSED the information.chanrobles.com : chanrobles.com.ph
from the service, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits,
except accrued leave credits, and with prejudice to re- On June 25, 1990, private respondent Rolando Bunao, while
employment in any branch, agency or instrumentality of the allegedly a member of the Sangguniang Bayan of Sta. Cruz,
government including government-owned or controlled Zambales and its Committee on Bids and Awards, entered
corporations. into a lease contract with said municipality covering two (2)
public market stalls. As a consequence, two (2)
The Legal Office of the Office of the Court Administrator is administrative charges for violation of Section 3(h) of
DIRECTED to coordinate with the Office of the Provincial Republic Act No. 3019 1 docketed as OMB-1-91-1482 and
Prosecutor of Malolos City, Bulacan; oversee the prosecution Republic Act No. 6713 docketed as OMB-ADM-1-91-0327
of the criminal case against Bodoy; and ensure the were filed against private respondent with the Office of the
restitution of the amount withdrawn without authority from Ombudsman for Luzon.
the fiduciary fund account of Municipal Trial Court, Balagtas,
Bulacan. On October 12, 1992 the Office of the Ombudsman dismissed
Administrative Case No. OMB-1-91-1482 but recommended
SO ORDERED. the prosecution of private respondent under Section 41, par.
(1) in relation to Section 221 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 337 (1) To engage in any business transaction with the local
otherwise known as the 1983 Local Government Code. government unit of which he is an official or over which he
Similarly, on November 24, 1992 Administrative Case No. has the power of supervision, or with any of its authorized
OMB-ADM-1-91-0327 was likewise dismissed but respondent official, boards, agents, or attorneys, whereby money is to
was enjoined to terminate and surrender the contract of be paid, or property or any other thing of value is to be
lease he executed with the municipality of Sta. Cruz, transferred, directly or indirectly, out of the resources of the
Zambales over stall nos. 115 and 116 at the new public local government unit to such person or firm;chanrobles
market of said municipality. virtuallawlibrary:red

On December 7, 1992 an information for violation of Section x x x

41(1) in relation to Section 221 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 337
was filed against private respondent before the Regional Trial
Court of Iba, Zambales. The information Section 221 of the same Code provides for the penal
reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph sanctions for such violation, thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That on or about the 25th day of June 1990, in the "SECTION 221. Engaging in Business Transactions or
municipality of Sta. Cruz, province of Zambales, Philippines, Possessing Pecuniary Interest. — Any local government
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court the above- official and any person or persons dealing with him who
named accused being then a member of the Sangguniang violate the prohibitions provided in Section 41 hereof, shall
Bayan of Sta. Cruz, Zambales and the Committee on Bids be punished with prision correccional or fine of not less than
and Awards of said Sanggunian and taking advantage of said three thousand pesos (P3,000.00) nor more than ten
positions, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and thousand pesos(P10,000.00), or both such imprisonment and
feloniously execute a lease contract with the municipality of fine at the discretion of the court."cralaw virtua1aw library
Sta. Cruz, Zambales for two (2) market stalls at the public
market thereat, in his favor, to the detriment of other stall Before arraignment, private respondent moved to dismiss
holders and business competitors. the information on the ground that the charge had already
become moot and academic and that any criminal liability he
CONTRARY TO LAW."cralaw virtua1aw library may have incurred has been extinguished. 2 In an Order
dated February 26, 1993, respondent Court dismissed the
The pertinent provision of the old Local Government Code or information, to wit:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
B.P. Blg. 337 that was allegedly violated
reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph "Considering that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"SECTION 41. Officials not to Engage in Business "1. The contract of lease is a bilateral contract perfected
Transactions or Possess Pecuniary Interest. — It shall be upon the meeting of the minds of the lessor and the lessee,
unlawful for any lawful government official, directly or and therefore cannot be consummated without the
indirectly, individually or as a member of a firm:chanrob1es knowledge and consent of both, the complainant/lessor in his
virtual 1aw library capacity as Mayor of Municipality of Sta. Cruz, Zambales and
the accused as lessee. If any crime was consummated with
the execution of the contract of lease, then the information
charging the offense should not have been only against the of Zambales and Deputized Tanodbayan Prosecutor and
accused but also against the complainant; Benjamin A. Fadera, in his capacity as Assistant Provincial
Prosecutor of Zambales and Deputized Tanodbayan
"2. The charge against the accused in OMB-ADM-1-91-0327 Prosecutor filed, on June 2, 1993, this petition for certiorari
by the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon was and mandamus questioning the Orders issued by the
dismissed by the said office; respondent court dismissing the
information.chanroblesvirtual|awlibrary
"3. It will result in absurdity and inconsistency if the accused
were made to answer and be liable in OMB-1-91-1482 and Initially, the procedural infirmity regarding the filing of this
absolved from any liability under OMB-ADM-1-91-0327 when petition, having been filed by the provincial prosecutor and
in both cases he is charged for violation of Section 41 of B.P. assistant provincial prosecutor of Zambales instead of the
Blg. 337 otherwise known as the Local Government Code; Solicitor General who is authorized to bring and defend
actions in behalf of the People or Republic of the Philippines
"4. The re-election of the accused as a Kagawad in the 11 in cases brought before the Supreme Court or the Court of
May 1992 elections; Appeals 5 was cured when this Court, in a Resolution dated
February 21, 1994, noted and granted the manifestation and
"5. The decision of the Supreme Court in Aguinaldo v. Santos motion filed by the Solicitor General "stating that they adopt
(supra); the petition as their own, and prays that the People be
impleaded as party petitioner and the reliefs prayed for in
"6. The Court should be cautious and vigilant so that it does the petition be granted." In view thereof, we now consider
not unknowingly become an instrument of any protagonist in the People as the sole petitioner in this case duly
the political arena, represented by the Solicitor General.

may the accused be still held liable under Section 41, par.(1) The petition is meritorious.
of BP Blg. 337. The answer is in the NEGATIVE.
As indicated above, respondent judge dismissed the
"WHEREFORE, the Information filed against the accused for information on the ground that the administrative case filed
violation of Section 41, par.(1) in relation to Section 221 of against private respondent Bunao with the Office of the
B.P. Blg. 337 is DISMISSED. The cashbond posted by the Ombudsman had been dismissed. In the memorandum filed
accused in the amount of P6,000.00 deposited with the Clerk by the Solicitor General dated January 11, 1995, 6 said order
of Court on 15 January 1993 under O.R. No. 147387 is of dismissal on the ground of extinction of criminal liability is
ordered reimbursed to the accused. assailed for having been issued with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction on the part of
SO ORDERED." 3 respondent judge, thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

On April 2, 1993, 2nd Assistant Provincial Prosecutor "The respondent court anchored its disposition in Criminal
Benjamin A. Fadera filed a motion for reconsideration of the Case RTC No. 1274-I on dismissal of administrative case
order of dismissal. With the denial of the motion for OMB-1-91-1482 and OMB-ADM-1-91-0327 against private
reconsideration in an Order dated April 12, 1993, 4 respondent Rolando Bunao. But Article 89 of the Revised
Dorentino Z. Floresta, in his capacity as Provincial Prosecutor Penal Code enumerates the grounds for extinction of criminal
liability; and, dismissal of an administrative charge against finds no application to criminal cases, pending against said
accused is not one of them, thus:chanrob1es virtual 1aw public officer.chanrobles virtuallawlibrary
library
Finally, Republic Act 7160, otherwise known as the Local
‘Art. 89. How criminal liability is totally extinguished. — Government Code of 1991, which repealed B.P. Blg. 337
Criminal liability is totally extinguished:chanrob1es virtual reenacted in its Section 89 the legal provision of Section 41
1aw library of B.P. Blg. 337 under which private respondent Bunao was
charged and penalizes the same act previously penalized
‘1. By the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties; under the repealed law, such that the act committed before
and as to pecuniary penalties, liability therefor is the reenactment continuous to be a crime. 9 Hence,
extinguished only when the death of the offender occurs prosecution will proceed under the provisions of Section 89 in
before the final judgment; relation to Section 514 of R.A.7160. 10

‘2. By the service of the sentence; WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED and ACCORDINGLY,
the orders of respondent judge dated February 26, 1993 and
‘3. By amnesty, which completely extinguishes the penalty April 12, 1993 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and the
and all its effects; lower court is ordered to proceed with the
case.chanroblesvirtual|awlibrary
‘4. By absolute pardon;
SO ORDERED.
‘5. By prescription of the crime;

‘6. By the prescription of the penalty; Misconduct in office not work related or committed in the
course of performance of duty
‘7. By the marriage of the offended woman, as provided in G.R. No. 124261 May 27, 2004
Article 344 of this Code;’
ARMANDO F. BERNARDO, petitioner,
"The law is clear and unequivocal. There is nothing in it vs.
which states that exoneration from an administrative charge COURT OF APPEALS, CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION and
extinguishes criminal liability."cralaw virtua1aw library LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

It is indeed a fundamental principle of administrative law DECISION

that administrative cases are independent from criminal
actions for the same act or omission. 7 Besides, the reliance CALLEJO, SR., J.:
made by respondent judge on the re-election of private
respondent as Kagawad in the May 1992 election so as to This is a petition for review on certiorari filed under Rule 45
warrant the dismissal of the information filed against him, of the Rules of Court, as amended, assailing the Decision1 of
citing Aguinaldo v. Santos 8 is misplaced. The ruling in said the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 38318.
case which forbids the removal from office of a public official
for administrative misconduct committed during a prior term, The undisputed facts of the case are as follows:
 Should the deposit be transferred to another bank prior to
Petitioner Armando F. Bernardo entered the government after (sic) incorporation this letter will also serve as authority
service on November 5, 1975 as Claims Adjuster of the Land to verify and examine the same.
Bank of the Philippines (LBP), Baliuag Branch, a government-
owned and controlled corporation. In 1986, he was the Head The representative of the Securities and Exchange
of the Loans and Discount Division of the bank. He also Commission is also authorized to examine the pertinent
maintained Savings Account No. 28-110 with the said books and records of accounts of the corporation as well as
branch. all supporting papers to determine the utilization and
disbursement of the paid-up capital.4
On January 27, 1986, Bernardo deposited the amount of
₱500,000 in his savings account.2 After making the said On January 30, 1986, the Articles of Incorporation of the
deposit, he photocopied that page in his bank passbook MTMSI was registered with the SEC.5 Bernardo signed the
where the deposit of ₱500,000 was reflected and, on the said articles6 and was one of its incorporators.7 It also
same day, withdrew the said amount. He also executed, in appears in the said articles of incorporation that Bernardo
his capacity as treasurer-in-trust of the Markay Trading and was elected as a member of the Board of Directors.8
Manpower Services, Inc. (MTMSI), a Treasurer’s Affidavit, Bernardo also executed an affidavit that he was elected
falsely certifying that: treasurer of the corporation.9

… at least 25% of the authorized capital stock of the It turned out that while Bernardo was an elected treasurer of
corporation has been subscribed and 25% of the total MTMSI, he never opened an account with the LBP, Baliuag
subscription has been paid and received by me in cash or Branch, for the account of the said corporation.10 In the
property in the amount of ₱500,000.00 in accordance with meantime, Bernardo was promoted to the position of
the Corporation Code.3 Assistant Branch Manager.

On the same day, Bernardo, still in his capacity as treasurer- On September 18, 1989, the LBP, through its president,
in-trust of the said corporation, executed a letter-authority to Deogracias N. Vistan, filed a formal charge against Bernardo
the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), worded as charging him of gross neglect, grave misconduct, conduct
follows: prejudicial to the best interest of the bank, and serious
violation of Civil Service Commission (CSC) rules and
This is to authorize your office to examine and verify the regulations, thus:
deposit in the Land Bank of the Philippines, Baliuag, Bulacan,
in my name as Treasurer-in-Trust for Markay Trading and 1. That on or about and during the period January 1 – 31,
Manpower Services in the amount of Five Hundred Thousand 1986 or prior thereto or subsequently thereafter and while
Pesos only (₱500,000.00) representing the paid-up capital of then and there wittingly, knowingly, and voluntarily indulged
the said corporation, which is in the process of incorporation. in the pursuit of private business by making yourself one of
the incorporators, allowing and accepting membership in the
This authority is valid and inspection of said deposit may be board of directors and being elected and accepted the
made even after the issuance of certificate of incorporation position of treasurer of a certain corporation called Markay
to the company. Trading and Manpower Services, Inc. which is duly registered
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 30,
1986, without the permission and authority required by the Bernardo adduced in evidence the affidavits of Saturnino
Civil Services rules and regulations. Dimatangal and Alicia Atienza, incorporator and cashier of
MTMSI, respectively, declaring that only Maricar Butalid
2. That on or about and during the aforementioned period, managed and operated the corporation after its
and while then duly employed with the Land Bank of the establishment and that Bernardo was never seen in the
Philippines, you did then and there wittingly, knowingly, offices of the corporation. Bernardo testified that he did not
voluntarily, and with utter bad faith attested and declared actually own any shares of stocks in MTMSI, nor was he ever
under oath in an official document denominated as elected to any position of the corporation. He declared that
"Treasurer’s Affidavit," viz: "I hereby certify under oath that sometime during the last week of January 1986, he was
at least 25% of the authorized stock of the corporation has approached and invited to be an incorporator of the MTMSI.
been subscribed and at least 25% of the total subscription He stated that he was almost convinced, but rejected the
has been paid and received by me, in cash or property in the invitation on January 27, 1986. He also claimed that since he
amount of not less than ₱5,000.00, in accordance with the did not engage in business, he did not secure the permission
Corporation Code," and in another official document to of the LBP.
support the aforesaid declaration, you likewise attested and
declared that the said corporation of which you were the duly On October 10, 1990, the hearing officer issued a resolution
elected Treasurer has a deposit with the Land Bank of the with the following findings and recommendation:
Philippines, Baliuag, Bulacan, in your name as Treasurer-in-
Trust for Markay Trading and Manpower Services, in the sum After due examination of the facts as borne by the
of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos Only (₱500,000.00) testimonial and documentary evidence gathered and
representing the alleged paid-up capital of the said presented by both Complainant and Respondent, Respondent
corporation, which is in the process of incorporation, when in is found guilty on both counts. Firstly, for engaging in
truth and in fact, you know fully well that such statements business, occupation or vocation without securing the
were false the truth of the matter being that there was permission of the Land Bank in violation of Sec. 36 of P.D.
neither any such cash or property ever paid and received by 807 and, secondly, for committing acts of falsification
you as the duly elected Treasurer representing alleged paid- amounting to GRAVE MISCONDUCT in office.
up capital stock of the mentioned corporation nor any
deposit of the sum of ₱500,000.00 with the Land Bank of the In the determination of the penalties to be imposed,
Philippines, Baliuag, Bulacan, in your name as Treasurer-in- mitigating and aggravating circumstances attendant to the
Trust for Markay Trading and Manpower Services. commission of the offense have been considered.

The aforementioned acts committed by you are grounds for Aside from this pending administrative case, Respondent has
disciplinary action under Article IX, Section 36, P.D. No. 807, two (2) other administrative cases pending final resolution.
particularly par. (b), sub-pars. (3), (4), (24), and (27), and Thus, we cannot consider this administrative case as his first
attended with the aggravating circumstance of habituality.11 offense to merit a mitigating circumstance in his favor.
However, we should consider his nineteen (19) years in the
During the formal investigation by Hearing Officer Manuel A. government service as one mitigating circumstance. On the
Osias, evidence was presented that during the period of other hand, in committing these offenses, Respondent
November 13, 1986 to August 24, 1987, checkbooks of utilized the facilities of the Bank and took advantage of his
MTMSI were signed by Bernardo, as treasurer, and his wife.
official position in perpetrating said offenses which are C. The decision of LBP as affirmed by the MSPB was
considered as two (2) separate aggravating circumstances. excessively harsh, unfounded and not supported by relevant
and appropriate law.13
Furthermore, since the Respondent is found guilty of both
counts, the penalty imposed should be that corresponding to On November 17, 1992, the CSC issued Resolution No. 92-
the most serious charge, which is GRAVE MISCONDUCT in 1834 affirming the penalty meted on him by the MSPB on its
office and the first offense which is less grave in character finding that Bernardo was guilty of grave misconduct,
can be considered as an aggravating circumstance. conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, and
engaging in private business without prior authority from the
Considering all of the three (3) aggravating circumstances head of office. But the CSC anchored its finding of Bernardo’s
with only one (1) mitigating circumstance to offset one (1) guilt for grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best
aggravating circumstance, it is hereby recommended that interest of the service on the following ground:
the gravest penalty should be imposed against the
Respondent pursuant to P.D. 807. … However, it is noted that Bernardo on the same day he
made the deposit also withdrew the same. He admitted that
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully recommended that the said deposited amount represented the paid up capital of
Respondent ARMANDO BERNARDO be meted out a penalty of the corporation and he held the said amount as the
FORCED RESIGNATION with the attendant administrative treasurer-in-trust of MTMSI. If that is so, the said amount
disabilities inherent thereto.12 deposited could not be withdrawn prior to the issuance of
SEC Registration and without the Resolution of the Board of
The LBP approved the recommendation of the hearing Directors. Thus, Bernardo made use of his being an
officer. Bernardo appealed to the Merit Systems Protection employee of the Bank to do this irregular act. His being able
Board (MSPB) which rendered a decision affirming the to deposit and withdraw on the same date the amount
resolution of the LBP, but modified it in that he was found representing the supposed paid up capital of the MTMSI
guilty of misrepresentation of a material fact amounting to could not have been effected if he was not connected with
dishonesty for engaging directly in a private business without that Bank. For abusing the trust and confidence of his
the permission required by the CSC rules and regulations. It, employer, Bernardo has committed Grave Misconduct and
likewise, affirmed the penalty of dismissal from the service Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service.
imposed by the LBP. Bernardo filed a motion for
reconsideration as well as a supplement to the said motion, WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, the
but the Board denied the same. Bernardo appealed to the Commission resolves to find Armando Bernardo guilty of
CSC on the following grounds: Grave Misconduct, Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of
the Service and engaging in private business without prior
A. The MSPB decision failed unconditionally to consider the authority from the head of office. He is hereby meted out the
grounds raised in the Addendum to Motion for penalty of dismissal from the Service. The decision of the
Reconsideration; MSPB, with respect to the imposition of the penalty, is
hereby affirmed.14
B. LBP and MSPB erred in finding that he did not seek
permission in joining the corporation as treasurer; The CSC absolved Bernardo of the charge of dishonesty in
connection with his execution of the treasurer’s affidavit and
the letter of authorization to the SEC. Bernardo filed a In his petition in the case at bar, the petitioner raises two
motion for reconsideration of the resolution on the following issues: (a) whether or not the CA erred in affirming the
grounds: resolution of the CSC that he violated Section 36(b)(24) of
P.D. No. 807, implemented in Section 14, Rule XVIII of the
1. The acts of the respondent which was the basis for the CSC Rules and Regulations; and, (b) whether or not the
finding of guilt was not raised in the formal charge which petitioner was deprived of his right to due process when the
amounted to the violation of his right to due process; CA affirmed the resolution of the CSC finding him
administratively guilty of grave misconduct and conduct
2. The acts of the respondent are not irregular or violative of prejudicial to the best interest of the service based on acts
any existing Civil Service law and rules; not covered by the formal charges lodged against him.

3. The penalty of dismissal is excessive and therefore On the first issue, the petitioner avers that he resigned from
unjust.15 the MTMSI even before the corporation started its business
operations. He asserts that there is no evidence on record
Bernardo argued that he was deprived of his right to due that he actually engaged in business. We do not agree. The
process because he was found administratively guilty for acts evidence on record shows that he was not only an
which were not included in the formal charges lodged against incorporator, but was also a member of the Board of
him by the LBP, his employer. On May 31, 1993, the CSC Directors and was, in fact, the treasurer of MTMSI. Even
issued Resolution No. 93-2008 denying the said motion for after the incorporation of the MTMSI, the petitioner remained
lack of merit. as a stockholder and a member of the Board of Directors. He
was even elected treasurer of the corporation. He and his
Bernardo questioned the ruling via a petition for certiorari in wife signed check vouchers of the corporation during the
this Court, thus: period of November 16, 1986 to August 24, 1987:

1. The CSC Resolutions were promulgated in violation of the Bernardo claims that his alleged act of engaging directly in a
petitioner’s constitutional right to due process; private business without the required permission was
committed only during the incorporation stage of MTMSI.
2. The CSC and LBP Resolutions have no factual or legal This is, however, belied by the numerous check vouchers of
basis; MTMSI for the period from November 13, 1986 to August 24,
1987 wherein the name and signature of Bernardo or his wife
3. The penalty of dismissal imposed on the petitioner is appeared. Thus, the affidavits issued by Saturnino
unwarranted, unjust and excessive.16 Dimatangal and Alicia Atienza, who were allegedly
Incorporator and Cashier, respectively, of MTMSI, attesting
The Court gave due course to the petition but referred the that only one Maricar Butalid ran and operated the business
same to the Court of Appeals for disposition, pursuant to and that Bernardo and other incorporators resigned right
Administrative Circular No. 1-95. after its Incorporation, and that Mr. Bernardo was never seen
by Atienza in the office of MTMSI, are of no significance. The
On March 20, 1996, the CA rendered a decision dismissing finding therefore that he engaged directly in a private
the petition for lack of merit. business without prior permission from the head of office as
required by Civil Service rules and regulations is proven. The
records of the case are replete with facts and documents grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest
clearly belying respondent’s assertion that he merely of the service based on the said acts. The petitioner posits
attempted to join this corporation.17 that he was deprived of his right to be informed of the
charge against him and to adduce evidence in his defense.
The petitioner also admitted that before he engaged in He avers that consequently, the CSC erred in finding him
business, he failed to secure the permission of his employer: administratively guilty of grave misconduct and of conduct
prejudicial to the best interest of the service. On this issue,
Q. Atty. Barican – As an Official of the Land Bank, are you the CA ruled, viz:
aware of the fact that you should obtain a permit/secure
permission from the competent authority of the Land Bank of Petitioner argues that the acts invoked by the CSC as
the Philippines in order that you can act as an incorporator of constituting the offense of grave misconduct and conduct
the corporation? prejudicial to the best interest of the service were not raised
in the formal charge.
A. Mr. Bernardo – I know I must secure if I really have to
involve in the business, but … The decision of the CSC was based on the facts borne out by
the records of this case. It should be noted that the LBP,
Q. – Did you, in fact, ask or solicit for any permission or MSPB and CSC all agree that herein petitioner committed
permit? serious breaches of Civil Service rules and regulations, which
findings were all based on the same factual issues raised and
A. – I did not, Sir.18 proven in the course of the proceedings. The only difference
is how these three adjudicating bodies denominated the
On the second issue, the petitioner contends that there is no offense arising from petitioner’s unlawful acts. Said petitioner
legal and factual basis for the decisions of the MSPB and the had actual knowledge of said factual issues and had every
LBP, as well as the penalty of dismissal imposed on him. He opportunity to refute them but failed to do so.
avers that the formal charges against him were as follows:
(a) engaging in business without the permission of his Assuming, in gratia argumenti, that the CSC’s initial decision
employer, the LBP; (b) stating under oath in his treasurer’s was defective as argued by petitioner, such defect was
affidavit that as treasurer-in-trust, he received ₱500,000 as nevertheless cured when petitioner filed a Motion for
paid up capital of the MTMSI, and declaring in his letter to Reconsideration and Supplemental Motion for
the SEC that he had deposited the said amount under his Reconsideration. As held in T. H. Valderama & Sons, Inc. v.
name as treasurer-in-trust of the corporation in the LBP, Drilon (181 SCRA 308), denial of due process cannot be
Baliuag Branch, which declaration was false because he did successfully invoked where a party was given the chance to
not deposit the same in his name as treasurer-in-trust of the be heard on his motion for reconsideration.
corporation with the said branch of the bank. The petitioner
asserts that he was never charged of depositing ₱500,000 in Being a public officer, petitioner is enjoined by no less than
his name as treasurer-in-trust of the corporation, and of the highest law of the land and his employer (LBP) "at all
withdrawing the money on the same day without any board times to be accountable to the people and serve with utmost
resolution authorizing him to do so prior to the registration of responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency" in such a
the corporation’s Articles of Incorporation with the SEC. manner as to be above suspicion of irregularities (Art. XI,
Despite this, the CSC found him administratively guilty of Sec. 1 of the 1987 Constitution).19
 Atty. Samson: Hindi mo ito idiniposito para ma-issue yung
We agree that the CSC erred in finding the petitioner certification to the effect that you have in your account
administratively liable for depositing ₱500,000 in his name as ₱500,000.00?
treasurer-in-trust of MTMSI, and withdrawing the amount
prior to the incorporation thereof in the absence of any Mr. Bernardo: No Ma’am. Because that cannot be possible
resolution of its Board of Directors authorizing him to do so, inasmuch as the money was placed in my savings account
although not alleged in the formal charges. The petitioner not as treasurer-in-trust. Because in order for the bank to
was deprived of his right to be informed of the charges give a certification as treasurer-in-trust, the officers must
against him, and to accord him the right to adduce evidence jointly sign the account, the signature card of the Branch.
to controvert the said charges. But in that case, that is a savings account – personal
account.22
However, we agree with the CA that the CSC did not err in
finding the petitioner guilty of grave misconduct and conduct We thus agree with the MSPB in holding that by his
prejudicial to the best interest of the service based on the actuations, the petitioner is guilty of dishonesty:
evidence on record.
Relative to the third and fourth contentions of the appellant,
We reject the petitioner’s contention that there was no legal the Board finds that the Resolution approved by the Land
and factual basis for the decision of the MSPB and the Bank was based on the evidence/documents presented and
resolution of the CSC. The respondent LBP adduced the submitted by the complainant and respondent as well as the
requisite quantum of evidence to prove the second charge. testimonies of the witnesses to the case. The statement of
Per certificate of the LBP, Baliuag Branch, the petitioner had respondent Bernardo in his own sworn affidavit certifying
no deposit account as treasurer-in-trust of MTMSI in the said that at least 25% of the authorized capital of the Markay
bank.20 The petitioner deposited the amount of ₱500,000 in Trading and Manpower Services, Inc. has been subscribed
his personal account, Savings Account No. 28-110 on and at least 25% of the total subscription has been paid and
January 27, 1986.21 This transaction was reflected in his received by him, in cash or property, as the duly elected
passbook. A cursory reading of the said page would lead one treasurer of said corporation, is not true. There is no showing
to conclude that the petitioner had deposited the said that Bernardo ever paid and received such cash or property.
amount, without disclosing, however, that he also withdrew His letter addressed to the Securities and Exchange
the said amount on the same day. The petitioner thus made Commission (SEC), authorizing the latter to examine and
a false statement in his January 27, 1986 Letter to the SEC, verify that the MTMSI has a deposit with the LBP, Baliuag
when he stated that as treasurer-in-trust of the MTMSI he Branch, Baliuag, Bulacan, amounting to Five Hundred
had deposited ₱500,000 in his account in the LBP, Baliuag Thousand Pesos (₱500,000.00) in his name as a Treasurer-
Branch, when the truth of the matter was, the money was in-Trust is contradictory to his statement during the cross-
deposited in the petitioner’s personal savings account and examination conducted by Atty. Melissa M. Samson
was also withdrawn on the same day. (Prosecutor), he admitted as follows:

The petitioner himself admitted, on cross-examination, that Atty. Samson: "Hindi mo ito idinoposito, para ma-issue yong
he deposited the said amount not in his capacity as the certification to the effect that you have in your account the
treasurer-in-trust of the corporation: ₱500,000.00?
Mr. Bernardo: "No ma’am. Because that cannot be possible amounting to Dishonesty. In misrepresentation of a material
inasmuch as the money was placed in my savings account fact, he made it appear that his personal account in LBP
not as treasurer-in-trust. Because in order for the bank to belongs to the MTMSI placed in his name as Treasurer-in-
give a certification as treasurer-in-trust, the officers must Trust, for purposes of issuance of certificate of incorporation,
jointly sign the account, the signature card of the Branch. by the SEC and by concealing the truth he committed
But in that case, that is a savings account – personal dishonesty or deceit and put the integrity of the Bank in
account." jeopardy to the prejudice of the banking operation and to the
damage of the creditors, if any, of the corporation.23
(TSN, April 25, 1990, page 27)
In fine, we hold that the evidence extant in the records of
Moreover, the LBP Baliuag Branch Cashier and Branch this case is sufficient to support a finding that the petitioner
Manager clearly certified that respondent Bernardo has a is, indeed, guilty of the offenses lodged against him. By his
savings account with the said Bank in his personal capacity conduct, the petitioner violated the yardstick of public
but not as Treasurer-in-Trust of Markay Trading and service imposed in Section 1, Article XI of the Constitution
Manpower Services, Inc. which enunciates the state policy of promoting a high
standard of ethics and utmost responsibility in the public
The inconsistent statements of Bernardo destroys his service.24 Being a public officer, the petitioner is enjoined by
credibility, putting the same into serious doubt due to its no less than the highest law of the land and his employer,
weakness. The Supreme Court repeatedly ruled that the LBP, to uphold public interest over his personal interest
"Contradictory and inconsistent statements on material at all times. This Court has categorically pronounced that
points render testimonies doubtful." (People of the Phil. vs. "the nature and responsibilities of public officers enshrined in
Quezon, 142 SCRA 362) the 1987 Constitution and oft-repeated in our case law are
not mere rhetorical words, not to be taken as idealistic
The Board finds that this is a case of Misrepresentation sentiments but as working standards and attainable goals
amounting to Dishonesty and not Falsification of Official that should be matched with actual deeds."25
Documents. Misrepresentation is defined as a false statement
about material fact in any contract or other transaction that The petitioner’s claim that since the acts imputed as
misleads the party to whom it is made. Similarly, Dishonesty constituting the offense of grave misconduct were not
is the concealment or distortion of truth in a matter of fact. connected with the performance of his duty as an LBP
It signifies absence of integrity, a disposition to betray, cheat employee or as a government employee for that matter, the
deceive or defraud, bad faith (Arca vs. Lepanto Consolidated LBP and the CSC had no jurisdiction over the complaint
Mining Company, CA-G.R. No. 17679-R, November 24, against him, was correctly brushed aside by the respondent
1958.) To warrant conviction for Falsification of Official CA. We have held that the causes which warrant the
Documents in the instant case, the respondent must have dismissal of a civil servant need not necessarily be work-
acted in his capacity as an employee or official of the LBP related or committed in the course of the performance of
and must have altered the genuine document or execute the duty by the person charged. In Remolona v. Civil Service
false document relevant to or in connection with the Commission,26 we ratiocinated that:
performance of his duty as such. It is clear from the records
that Bernardo acted in his capacity as Treasurer of MTMSI, … [I]f a government officer or employee is dishonest or is
hence, the Board finds him guilty of Misrepresentation guilty of oppression or grave misconduct, even if said defects
of character are not connected with his office, they affect his function of the Supreme Court to analyze or weigh all over
right to continue in office. The Government cannot tolerate in again the evidence and credibility of witnesses presented
its service a dishonest official, even if he performs his duties before the lower court, tribunal or office. The Supreme Court
correctly and well, because by reason of his government is not a trier of facts. Its jurisdiction is limited to reviewing
position, he is given more and ample opportunity to commit and revising errors of law imputed to the lower court, its
acts of dishonesty against his fellow men, even against findings of fact being conclusive and not reviewable by this
offices and entities of the government other than the office Court. …29
where he is employed; and by reason of his office, he enjoys
and possesses a certain influence and power which renders IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is DENIED.
the victims of his grave misconduct, oppression and The March 20, 1996 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-
dishonesty less disposed and prepared to resist and to G.R. SP No. 38318 insofar as consistent with this decision of
counteract his evil acts and actuations. The private life of an the Court is hereby AFFIRMED.
employee cannot be segregated from his public life.
Dishonesty inevitably reflects on the fitness of the officer or SO ORDERED.
employee to continue in office and the discipline and morale
of the service. (Nera v. Garcia, 106 Phil. 1031 [1960].) Misconduct in office not work related or committed in the
course of performance of duty
…

The principle is that when an officer or employee is G.R. No. L-13160 January 30, 1960
disciplined, the object sought is not the punishment of such
officer or employee but the improvement of the public BIENVENIDO NERA, petitioner-appellee,
service and the preservation of the public’s faith and vs.
confidence in the government. (Bautista v. Negado, 108 Phil. PAULINO GARCIA, Secretary of Health, and
283 [1960].) TRANQUILINO ELICANO, Director of Hospitals,
respondents-appellants.
The rule is that the findings of fact of administrative bodies,
if based on substantial evidence, are controlling on the Jose Tumanong Guerrero for appellee.
reviewing authority. It is settled that it is not for the Acting Solicitor General Guillermo E. Torres and Solicitor
appellate court to substitute its own judgment for that of the Camilo D. Quiason for appellants.
administrative agency on the sufficiency of the evidence and
the credibility of the witnesses. Administrative decisions on MONTEMAYOR, J.:
matters within their jurisdiction are entitled to respect and
can only be set aside on proof of grave abuse of discretion, Respondents are appealing the decision of the Court of First
fraud or error of law.27 None of these vices has been shown Instance of Manila, dated October 30, 1957, ordering them
in this case. As we held in Pabu-aya v. Court of Appeals:28 to reinstate petitioner Bienvenido Nera to his former position
as clerk in the Maternity and Children's Hospital, and to pay
… Factual findings of administrative agencies are generally him his back salary from the date of his suspension until
held to be binding and final so long as they are supported by reinstatement.
substantial evidence in the record of the case. It is not the
The facts in this case are not in dispute. Petitioner Nera a for a reconsideration of his suspension, which request was
civil service eligible, was at the time of his suspension, denied. Petitioner then filed the present special action of
serving as clerk in the Maternity and Children's Hospital, a prohibition, certiorari and mandamus to restrain respondents
government institution under the supervision of the Bureau from proceeding with the administrative case against him
of Hospitals and the Department of Health. In the course of until after the termination of the criminal case; to annul the
his employment, he served as manager and cashier of the order of suspension dated December 19., 1956, and to
Maternity Employer's Cooperative Association, Inc. As such compel respondents to lift the suspension. After hearing of
manager and cashier, he was supposed to have under his this special civil action, the appealed decision was illegally
control funds of the association. On May 11, 1956, he was suspended, first because the suspension came before he was
charged before the Court of First Instance of Manila with able to file his answer to the administrative complaint,
malversation, Criminal Case No. 35447, for allegedly thereby depriving him "of his right to a fair hearing and an
misappropriating the sum of P12,636.21 belonging to the opportunity to present his defense, thus violating the due
association. process clause"; also, that assuming for a moment that
petitioner were guilty of malversation or misappropriation of
Some months after the filing of the criminal case, one the funds of the association, nevertheless, said irregularity
Simplicio Balcos, husband of the suspended administrative had no connection with his duly as clerk of the Maternity and
officer and cashier of the Maternity and Children's Hospital, Children's Hospital.
named Gregoria Balcos, filed an administrative complaint
case then pending against him. Acting upon this In connection with the suspension of petitioner before he
administrative complaint and on the basis of the information could file his answer to the administrative complaint, suffice
filed in the criminal case, as well as manager and cashier of it say that the suspension was not a punishment or penalty
the association, he was liable in the amount of P12,636.21, for the acts of dishonesty and misconduct in office, but only
the executive officer, Antonio Rodriguez, acting for and in the as a preventive measure. Suspension is a preliminary step in
absence of the Director of Hospitals, required petitioner of an administrative investigation. If after such investigation,
the communication, Exhibit D, why he should not be the charges are established and the person investigated is
summarily dismissed from the service for acts involving found guilty of acts warranting his removal, then he is
dishonesty. This period of seventy-two hours was extended removed or dismissed. This is the penalty. There is,
to December 20, 1956. Before the expiration of the period as therefore, nothing improper in suspending an officer pending
extended, that is, on December 19, 1956, Nera received a his investigation and before the charges against him are
communication from respondent Director of Hospital heard and he given an opportunity to prove his innocence.
suspending him from office as clerk of the Maternity and
Children's Hospital, effective upon receipt thereof. This As to the holding of the trial court about dishonesty or
suspension carried the approval of respondent thereof. This misconduct in office having connection with one's duties and
suspension carried the approval of respondent Garcia, functions in order to warrant punishment, this involves an
Secretary of Health. interpretation of Section 694 of the Revised Administrative
Code, which for purpose of reference we reproduced below:
The petitioner asked the PCAC to intervene on his behalf,
which office recommended to respondents the lifting of the SEC. 694. Removal or suspension. — No officer or employee
suspension of petitioner. Upon failure of respondents to in the civil service shall be removed or suspended except for
follow said recommendation, petitioner asked respondents cause as provided by law.
The President of the Philippines may suspend any chief or It will be noticed that it introduces a small change into
assistant chief of a bureau or office and in the absence of Section 694 of the Revised Penal Code by placing a comma
special provision, any other officer appointed by him, after the words "grave misconduct," so that the phrase "in
pending an investigation of his bureau or office. With the the performance or neglect", as it did under Section 694 of
approval of the proper head of department, the chief of a the Revised Administrative Code, now qualifies only the last
bureau in his bureau or under his authority pending an word "neglect", thereby making clear the person charged is
investigation, if the charge against such subordinate or guilty merely to neglect, the same must be in the
employee involves dishonesty, oppression, or grave performance of his duty; but that when he is charged with
misconduct or neglect in the performance of duty. (Emphasis dishonesty, oppression or grave misconduct these need have
supplied). no relation to the performance of duty. Thus is readily
understandable. If a Government officer or employee is
It will be observed from the last four lines of the second dishonest or is guilty of oppression or grave misconduct,
paragraph that there is a comma after the words dishonesty even if said defects of character are not connected with his
and oppression, thereby warranting the conclusion that only force, they affect his right to continue in office. The
the phrase "grave misconduct or neglect "is qualified by the Government cannot well tolerate in its service a dishonest
words "in the performance of duty". In other words, official, even if he performs his duties correctly and well,
dishonesty and oppression to warrant punishment or because by reason of his government position, he is given
dismissal, need not be committed in the course of them more and ample opportunity to commit acts of dishonesty
performance of duty by the person charged. against his fellow men, even against offices and entities of
the Government other than the office where he is employed;
Section 34 of Republic Act No. 2260, known as the Civil and by reason of his office, he enjoys and possesses a
Service Act on 1959, which refers to the same subject matter certain influence and power which renders the victims of his
of [preventive suspension, throws some light on this seeming grave misconduct, oppression and dishonesty less disposed
ambiguity. We reproduced said section 34; and prepared to resist and to counteract his evil acts and
actuations. As the Solicitor General well pointed out in his
SEC. 34. Preventive Suspension. — The President of the brief, "the private life of an employee cannot be segregated
Philippines may suspend any chief or assistant chief of a from his public life. Dishonesty inevitably reflects on the
bureau or office and in the absence of special provision, any fitness of the officer or employee to continue in office and
other officer appointed by him, pending an investigation of the discipline and morals of the service."
the charges against such officer or pending an investigation
of his bureau or office. With the approval of the proper Head It may not be amiss to state here that the alleged
of Department, the chief of a bureau or office may likewise misappropriation involved in the criminal case is not entirely
preventively suspend any subordinate officer or employee in disconnected with the office of the petitioner. True, the
his bureau or under his authority pending an investigation, if Maternity Employee's Cooperative Association that own, the
the charge against such officer, or employee involves funds said to have been misappropriated is a private entity.
dishonesty, oppression or grave misconduct, or to believe However, as its name implies a, it is an association composd
that the performance of duty, or if there are strong reason to of the employees of the Maternity Children's Hospital where
believe that the respondent is guilty of charges which would petitioner was serving as an employee. Moreover, if
warrant his removal from the service. (Emphasis supplied). petitioner was designated to and occupied the position of
manager and cashier of said association, it was because he RUFINA GREFALDE, MANUEL DIAZ, LINDY TVS
was an employee of the Maternity and Children's Hospital. ENRIQUEZ and FELIX LAWRENCE SUELTO, petitioners,
The contention though indirect, and, in the opinion of some, vs.
rather remote, exists and is there. SANDIGANBAYAN (Third Division), and THE PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
The trial court cites a cases of Mondano vs. Silvosa 97 Phil.,
143; 51 Off. Gaz., [6], 284 Lacson vs. Roque (92 Phil., 456; x-----------------------x
49 Off. Gaz., 93), and others to support its holding that an
official may not be suspended for]irregularities not G.R. No. 136505 December 15, 2000
committed in connection with his office.
MANUEL DIAZ, petitioner,
These cases, however, involve elective officials who stand on vs.
ground different from that of an appointive officer or SANDIGANBAYAN and THE PEOPLE OF THE
employee, and whose suspension pending investigation is PHILIPPINES, respondents.
governed by other laws. Furthermore, an elective officer,
elected by popular vote, is directly responsible only to the DECISION
community that elected him. Ordinarily, he is not amendable
to rules of official conduct governing appointive officials, and GONZAGA-REYES, J.:
so, may not be fortwith and summarily suspended, unless his
conduct and acts of irregularity have some connection with Before us is the latest of a number of graft convictions
his office. Furthermore, an elective official has a definite appealed to this Court from the Sandiganbayan, involving
term of office, relatively of short duration; naturally, since transactions of the highway engineering districts of the then
suspension from his office said suspension should not be Ministry of Public Works and Highways ("MPWH" or "the
ordered and done unless necessary to prevent further Ministry")1 in Region VII (Central Visayas) during the late
damage or injury to the office and to the people dealing with 1970s.2
said officer.
Petitioners are four of the fifty six (56) persons indicted for
In view of the conclusion that we have arrived at, we deem it graft charges affecting transactions of the Negros Oriental
unnecessary to discuss and determine the other questions Highways and Engineering District ("NOHED") in 1977 and
raised in the appeal. In view of the foregoing, the appealed 1978. For violation of Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and
decision is hereby reversed, with costs. Corrupt Practices Act or Republic Act No. 3019 ("R.A.
3019")3 , petitioners Rufina Grefalde and Lindy Enriquez
Paras, Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, were charged before the Sandiganbayan in fifty five (55)
Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Endencia, Barrera and Gutierrez Informations in Criminal Case Nos. 1445-1499; petitioner F.
David, JJ., concur. Lawrence Suelto, Jr., in seventeen (17) Informations in
Criminal Case Nos. 1448, 1458-1459, 1461, 1463, 1467-
Misconduct in office proved by substantial evidence 1468, 1470, 1474, 1458-1478, 1487-1489 and 1495-1496;
and petitioner Manuel Diaz in three (3) Informations in
G.R. No. 136502 December 15, 2000 Criminal Case Nos. 1475, 1481 and 1492.
All four petitioners are employees of the MPWH assigned at PEDROZA, JR., Laborer, NOHED, Dumaguete City; and
NOHED, Dumaguete City in 1977 to 1978. Petitioner Grefalde OTHERS whose identities are not yet known in conspiracy
was the district accountant; petitioner Enriquez was the with each other, all taking advantage of their official
property custodian; petitioner Suelto a project engineer, and positions, with the indispensable cooperation and/or direct
petitioner Diaz was a laborer/checker under the supervision participation of CLODUALDO GOMILLA, Private Contractor,
of petitioner Enriquez. with evident bad faith, manifest partiality and/or gross
inexcusable negligence did there and then willfully,
The Informations in all these cases were worded similarly, knowingly and unlawfully cause undue injury to the Republic
except for the names of the persons charged, dates and of the Philippines in the amount of THIRTY THOUSAND FOUR
places of commission of the offense, amounts involved, and HUNDRED AND SEVENTY PESOS (P30,470.00)5 , Philippine
supporting documents. For brevity, we adopt the method of Currency, by falsifying Negros Oriental Highway Engineering
the Sandiganbayan in its decision and reproduce only the District General Voucher No. 10336 dated September 8,
Information in Criminal Case No. 1445, underlining and 1977 and Treasury Check No. 2887422 7 dated September
indexing with numbers the portions thereof which differ from 9, 1977 in the amount of P30,470.00 and its supporting
those alleged in the other Informations. Thus: documents, such as, the Request for Obligation of Allotment
("ROA"), Request for Supplies and Equipment ("RSE"),
That on or about August 2, 1977 up to and including Purchase Order ("PO"), Report of Inspection ("ROI"), Daily
September 9, 1977,4 in the Cities of Cebu, Dumaguete and Tally Sheets and Delivery Receipts ("DR"), simulating them
the Province of Negros Oriental and within the jurisdiction of to appear regular as payment for 1,000 cubic meters8 of
the Honorable Sandiganbayan, the accused NORBERTO Item 200 and charging this General Voucher 1033 to Letter
BERNAD, District Engineer, NOHED, Dumaguete City; of Advice of Allotment No. 107-703-038-77; 107-703-038-
MANUEL DE VEYRA, Director, MPH, Region VII, Cebu City; 77; 107-703-037-77 and 107-703-037-779 ,when in truth
ADVENTOR FERNANDEZ, Highway Regional Director, MPH, and in fact as all the accused knew there were no actual
Region VII, Cebu City; RUFINA GREFALDE, District deliveries and receipts of the said Item 200, the foregoing
Accountant, NOHED, Dumaguete City; NAPOLEON CLAVANO, documents were simulated, falsified and incorrect and that
Supervising Civil Engineer I, NOHED, Dumaguete City; the LAA No. 107-703-038-77; 107-703-038-77; 107-703-
ROLANDO MANGUBAT, Regional Accountant, MPH, Region 037-77 and 107-703-037-77 are without budgetary basis
VII, Cebu City; ANGELINA ESCAÑO, Finance Officer, MPH, and not covered by any Sub-Advice of Allotment from the
Region VII, Cebu City; LINDY TVS ENRIQUEZ, Property Ministry of Public Highways, Manila, and further by
Officer/Custodian, NOHED, Dumaguete City; EFREN COYOCA, manipulating the books of accounts of the MPH, Region VII,
District Auditor, NOHED, Dumaguete City; HERACLEO all for the purpose of covering their criminal act, and finally,
FAELNAR, Acting Assistant Regional Director, MPH, Region upon receipt of the said amount of THIRTY THOUSAND FOUR
VII, Cebu City; JAIME OBSEQUIO, Assistant District Engineer HUNDRED AND SEVENTY PESOS (P30,470.00), Philippine
III, NOHED, Dumaguete City; TEODORICO QUILNET, Currency, the said accused misappropriated, converted and
Materials Testing Engineer, NOHED, Dumaguete City; BLAS misapplied the same for their personal gain and profit.
BALDEBRIN, Administrative Officer, NOHED, Dumaguete
City; GLORIA RENACIA, Auditing Aide II, District Auditor’s CONTRARY TO LAW.10
Office, NOHED, Dumaguete City; DELIA PREAGIDO, Assistant
Regional Accountant, MPH, Region VII, Cebu City; ORLANDO
RAMIREZ, Employee, NOHED, Dumaguete City; JESUS
The following tabulation supplies the data corresponding to
the particulars alleged in each of the Informations for which
petitioners are charged:
In a unanimous Decision dated December 17, 1998, the
Third Division of the Sandiganbayan11 found that the
government had been defrauded in the NOHED anomalies of
close to P2,000,000.0012 , and declared petitioners guilty of
all charges, except in Criminal Case No. 1463 (where
petitioner Rufina Grefalde was acquitted) and Criminal Case
No. 1496 (where the case was dismissed), and sentenced
them in each case to suffer a penalty ranging from four (4)
years as minimum to seven (7) years as maximum, and to
perpetual disqualification from public office.1âwphi1

Except for the case number, names of the petitioners and

amount of indemnity, the dispositive portion of the decision
in the subject criminal cases is worded similarly as follows:

In Criminal Case No. 1445, the Court finds accused RUFINA

GREFALDE, NAPOLEON CLAVANO, LINDY TVS ENRIQUEZ,
EFREN COYOCA, GLORIA RENACIA, ORLANDO RAMIREZ and
CLODUALDO GOMILLA, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as
co-principals in the crime of violation of Section 3(e) of R.A.
3019, as amended, and hereby sentences each of them to a
penalty ranging from four (4) years and one (1) days as
minimum, to seven (7) years as maximum; to suffer
perpetual disqualification from public office; to indemnify
jointly and severally the Republic of the Philippines in the
amount of P30,470.00; and to pay their proportionate share
of the costs.13
Petitioners Rufina Grefalde and Lindy Enriquez were ordered
to indemnify the Government, jointly and severally with
other accused, in the amounts stated as follows:
For a clearer understanding of the crimes of which petitioners On the basis of the ROA, the District Office puts up
were convicted, it will be important to set out the procedures advertisements, conducts biddings, makes awards, and
governing allotments, receipts of disbursements, and prepares purchase orders which are served on the winning
accounting in the MPWH during the late 1970s. Thus: bidder. The District Office also prepares a summary of
deliveries with the corresponding delivery receipts and tally
On the basis of appropriation laws and upon request made sheets, conducts inspection and prepares the General
by heads of agencies, the then Ministry of Budget released Voucher for the payment of deliveries. Once the General
funds to the various agencies of the government by means of Voucher ("GV") has been prepared, the corresponding check
an Advice of Allotment ("AA") and a Cash Disbursement in the form of a Treasury Check Account for Agency ("TCAA")
Ceiling ("CDC"). The Advice of Allotment is an authority for is drawn by the Disbursing Officer and finally released to the
the agency to incur obligations within a specified amount in contractor.
accordance with approved programs and projects. The Cash
Disbursement Ceiling is an authority to pay. Upon receipt of At the end of every month, the Report of Checks Issued by
the AA and CDC from the Budget Ministry, the Central Office the Deputized Disbursing Officer ("RCIDDO") is prepared. It
of the agency prepares the Sub-Advice of Allotment ("SAA") lists all the checks issued during that period. THE RCIDDO is
and the Advice of Cash Disbursement Ceiling ("ACDC") for submitted to the accounting division of the region. Upon
each region, in accordance with the disbursement allotment. receipt of the RCIDDO, the Regional Office draws a journal
These are sent to the Regional Office. Upon receipt, the voucher, debiting the account obligation (liquidated or
Budget Officer of the Regional Office prepares the unliquidated obligation, whichever is applicable), and
corresponding Letters of Advice of Allotment ("LAA") which crediting the account Treasury Check Account for Agency
are forwarded to the various districts of the Region. (The ("TCAA"). The RCIDDO is recorded in the Journal of Checks
amount that goes to each district is already indicated in the Issued by the Deputized Disbursing Officer ("JCIDDO") and
Advice of Allotment.) Only upon receipt of the LAA is the posted in the general ledger at the end of each month.
district office authorized to incur obligations.
Simultaneous with the flow of the RCIDDO, the ROAs are
For the funds to be released by the Regional Office to the summarized in the Reports of Obligations Incurred ("ROI") in
different districts and paid out to contractors, the District the District Office, once or twice a month, depending upon
Engineer must submit to the Regional Director a request for the volume of transactions. The ROI is then submitted to the
allotment in accordance with the program of work prepared Regional Office. Upon receipt of the ROI, the accountant of
by the former. This procedure starts with the preparation of the Regional Office draws a journal voucher taking up the
a Requisition for Supplies and Equipment ("RSE") in the following entry: debiting the appropriation allotted (090-000)
District Office by the Senior Civil Engineer, approved by the and crediting the obligation incurred (0-82-000). This is
District Engineer, and signed by the Chief Accountant of the recorded in the general voucher and posted to the general
Highway Engineering District, who certifies as to the ledger at the end of each month. The journal voucher is
availability of funds. The RSE is then submitted to the prepared, closing the account 8-70-70914 to 8-71-100-
Regional Director for approval. Once it is approved, a 19915 at the end of each month. It is also recorded and
Request for Obligation of Allotment ("ROA") is prepared by posted to the general ledger. At the end of each month, the
the Chief Accountant of the district. The ROA signifies that a balances of each account shown in the general ledger are
certain amount of district funds has been set aside or summarized in a statement called the trial balance. The trial
earmarked for the particular expenditures stated in the RSE. balance is submitted to the MPH Central Office in Manila
where it is consolidated with other trial balances submitted circumvention of government-installed control measures. In
by other regional offices.16 the instant cases, the claims were split into several vouchers
for amounts less than P50,000.00 to go around the
As established in Mangubat vs. Sandiganbayan, 147 SCRA requirement (for project requisitions in amounts higher than
478, the "ghost project" anomalies that beset the MPWH- P50,000.00) of elevating the vouchers for the review and
Region VII in the late 1970s were masterminded by a core approval of the Regional Auditor;
group of officers and employees of the regional office headed
by the chief accountant, Rolando Mangubat. The scheme 2. payments drawn against the prior year’s obligations, a
made use of fake LAAs, SACDCs, and supporting documents practice contrary to sound accounting procedure; and
(RSEs, abstracts of bids, purchase orders, delivery receipts,
tally sheets, reports of inspection, and the like) which the 3. the papers being signed by Rolando Mangubat, who had
core group sold to officers and employees in the highway no authority to sign because he had been transferred to the
engineering districts. The LAAs, SACDCs, and their MPWH Central Office in Manila as of October 1977.
supporting documents constituted a chain of indispensable
papers which had to be accomplished before a check could These circumstances, and the fact that Grefalde was
be issued and released to the supplier in payment of the positively identified by Delia Preagido, one of the members of
materials purchased from and delivered by him.17 The other Mangubat’s core group who turned state witness in the
officers and employees, which allegedly included herein instant case, as one through whom the fake LAAs and
petitioners, perpetuated the crime by signing the spurious SACDCs were sold in NOHED, convinced the Sandiganbayan
documents or allowing such documents to pass inspection. that Grefalde was part of the conspiracy.
Thus, their convictions were predicated upon a finding of
implied conspiracy. Petitioner Enriquez, the property custodian of NOHED, was
charged on 55 counts but was shown to have signed
Petitioner Grefalde, the district accountant of NOHED, was documents in only 54 cases.19 He was indicted because he
charged on 55 counts but was found to have signed put his signature on vouchers and receipts of supplies and
documents on only 53 cases.18 Her defense was that she materials, some of which turned out to be "ghost deliveries".
merely certified to the availability and adequacy of funds, In his defense he stated that although he did not personally
and she was unaware of the anomaly because all the witness the deliveries, he relied on the word of his checker
vouchers she signed had complete and duly signed and co-petitioner, Manuel Diaz, that there were actual
supporting documents. The Sandiganbayan, however, stated deliveries; besides, he did not sign the vouchers without
that prior to certifying on the availability of funds Grefalde making sure that the supporting documents were complete.
needed to examine the sources of these funds, i.e., the LAAs The Sandiganbayan was not persuaded by his claims, and
and SACDCs. A study of the vouchers and their observed that aside from vouchers Enriquez also signed
accompanying documents would have easily apprised her of: several requisitions for supplies, abstracts of bids, purchase
orders and reports of inspection. In each of these documents
1. the splitting of accounts, a procedure prohibited by COA a splitting of accounts can be clearly observed; hence,
Circular No. 76-41, dated July 30, 1976, whereby purchases Enriquez could not conveniently invoke his reliance on Diaz
taken out from the same project are reflected in different on the regularity of the deliveries since the defects are
vouchers, each voucher declaring a claim of less than readily seen on the face of the papers that he signed.
P50,000.00. Splitting of requisitions is prohibited to prevent
As for petitioners Suelto and Diaz, the Sandiganbayan found 1. The Honorable Sandiganbayan erred when it disregarded
that of the 17 counts that Suelto faced he appeared to have crucial testimony favorable to the petitioners.
signed documents only in 16 cases,20 while evidence against
Diaz, who was charged on three counts, was presented only 2. The Honorable Sandiganbayan erred when it
in two cases. Both Suelto and Diaz contended by way of misappreciated and misconstrued facts.
defense that they actually witnessed gravel and sand
delivered to the jobsites. Their claims were dismissed by the 3. The Honorable Sandiganbayan erred when it relied on
Sandiganbayan which stated that the deliveries they may fallacies, speculation, surmise and conjectures to convict the
actually have seen were those covered by legitimate LAAs petitioners.22
and SACDCs.
Preliminarily, let us put to rest the objections of the Solicitor
The Sandiganbayan, quoting from its decision in People vs. General that appeal by certiorari is unavailing because the
Mangubat, et. al., SB Criminal Cases Nos. 2073-95 and petition raises only factual matters. We find that the findings
3323-45, promulgated May 30, 1989, thus held: of the Sandiganbayan in these appealed cases fall under the
well-established exceptions to the rule respecting
Where the acts of each of the accused constitute an essential conclusiveness of factual findings of lower courts, among
link in a chain and the desistance of even one of them would them: (1) the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on
prevent the chain from being completed, then no conspiracy speculation, surmise and conjectures; (2) the inference
could result as its consummation would then be impossible or made is manifestly mistaken; (3) there is grave abuse of
aborted, but when each and everyone of the accused in the discretion; (4) the judgment is based on a misapprehension
instant cases performed their assigned tasks and roles with of facts; and (5) the findings of fact are premised on the
martinet-like precision and accuracy, by individually absence of evidence and are contradicted by the evidence on
performing essential overt acts, so much so that the common record.23
objective is attained, which is to secure the illegal release of
public funds under the guise of fake or simulated public Our review of the records leaves us with no reason to doubt
documents, then each and everyone of said accused are the findings of the Sandiganbayan on the existence of the
equally liable as co-principals under the well-established and falsified documents and of the fraudulent scheme, the
universally accepted principle that, once a conspiracy is principal objective of which was to obtain payment for "ghost
directly or impliedly proven, the act of one is the act of all deliveries". We limit the issue of this petition to whether
and such liability in the execution of the non-participation in petitioners’ alleged participation in the conspiracy has been
every detail in the execution of the offense. (People vs. established beyond reasonable doubt.
Alonzo, 73 SCRA 434; People vs. Sumayco, 70 SCRA 438;
People vs. Monroy, 194 Phil. 759.) Petitioner Grefalde was positively identified by state witness
Delia Preagido as one of the conspirators. Preagido testified
In these consolidated cases for review on certiorari under that Grefalde received fake LAAs and SACDCs from
Rule 45,21 petitioners challenge their convictions by the Mangubat’s group at the MPWH-Region VII office, and also
Sandiganbayan and set out the following assignments of turned over the proceeds of the sale of the fake documents
error: to the same persons. The following portions of Preagido’s
testimony are pertinent:
PROSECUTOR GERVACIO
A: She handed money to Mr. Mangubat, or when Mr.
Q: Do you know whether or not fake LAAs and SACDCs were Mangubat was not around, she would give the money to me.
sold by the accused Rufina Grefalde?
Q: And after the money had been given to Mr. Mangubat or
A: Yes, sir. to you in the absence of Mr. Mangubat, what more, if any,
would your group do with Mrs. Grefalde?
xxx
A: Mr. Edgardo Cruz, sir, gave some LAAs to Mrs. Rufina
Q: Who delivered these fake LAAs and SACDCs to Mrs. Grefalde.
Rufina Grefalde?
Q: xxx Where were you when these fake LAAs or fake
A: Sometimes, sir, Mr. Mangubat personally handed them to SACDCs were given to Mrs. Grefalde?
Mrs. Rufina Grefalde, or Mr. Sayson, or Mr. Cruz.
A: In my table, sir, in my office.
Q: And during what period were these fake LAAs and
SACDCs sold to Mrs. Grefalde? Q: Could you observe them?

A: I cannot remember the month, sir, but it was in the years A: Yes, sir, because we were in the same room.
1977 and 1978.
Q: Would you know whether or not Mrs. Grefalde knew that
Q: Where would Mrs. Grefalde receive these fake LAAs and these LAAs and SACDCs were, according to you, fake?
SACDCs?
xxx
A: In our office, Ministry of Public Highways regional office.
A: Yes, Your Honor.
ASSOCIATE JUSTICE MOLINA
ASSOCIATE JUSTICE MOLINA
Q: In the office where you were holding office also?
Q: How would you know?
A: Yes, Your Honor.
A: Because, Your Honor, I told her that those LAAs were not
PROSECUTOR GERVACIO funded and were not covered by SAAs from the central
office.24
Q: And after receiving these fake LAAs, would you see Mrs.
Grefalde again? xxx

A: Yes, sir, the following week. PROSECUTOR GERVACIO

Q: And what would she do the following week?

Q: You said sometime back that Mrs. Grefalde would deliver Q: How about the year, 1977 or 1978?
a week after receiving these fake documents. She would
come back and deliver to your office the consideration or the A: Maybe 1977.25
purchasing price. Were there occasions where monies of the
same nature were delivered to you or to your group outside Grefalde challenges the testimony of Preagido for being lame
of Cebu City? and uncorroborated, there being no evidence of receipts or
other papers documenting the transfer of the fake
A: Yes, sir. documents from Mangubat’s group to Grefalde. She
dismisses Preagido as a "perjured witness" and "polluted
Q: Where? source", a state witness anxious to prove her usefulness to
the prosecution even at the expense of implicating the
A: In the Manila Monte Hotel. innocent.

xxx By the evidence on record, there is no indication that

Grefalde’s accusations had basis. Preagido identified Grefalde
Q: Now, to who did Mrs. Grefalde deliver the money at the in a clear and straightforward manner --- in fact, she was
Manila Monte Hotel at Avenida, Rizal, Manila? singled out among all the other accused, including the other
three petitioners, whom Preagido admitted she did not know.
A: She was looking for Mr. Mangubat, sir, but Mr. Mangubat We see no reason to doubt Preagido’s credibility after the
was not around and so she gave it to me. Sandiganbayan, who had the first-hand opportunity to
question and observe her testify, spoke of her testimony in
xxx this manner:

Q: Could you remember the amount that was delivered to Despite her previous convictions, We find Preagido’s direct
you xxx ? and positive testimony against her close conspirators,
particularly Mangubat, Cruz and Sayson, to be credible
A: Ten thousand. because it clearly explains how the entire scheme of
defraudation was conceived, planned, carried out and for a
JUSTICE MOLINA long while kept undetected. Her testimony is corroborated
not only by the findings of the NBI-Treasury-Auditing team
Q: It was given only on one occasion? but more convincingly by the voluminous documents
presented in evidence by the prosecution. Her declaration is
A: Yes, Your Honor. replete with facts too detailed and too elaborate to have
been merely drawn from thin air. Inspite of intensive and
PROSECUTOR GERVACIO exhaustive cross-examination by highly skilled, experienced
and renowned trial lawyers, her credibility remained intact on
Q: And when was that, if you remember the date? material points. Having passed this tested crucible of truth,
her testimony cannot be set aside upon the stigma of her
A: I cannot remember the date. prior conviction. Even a thief can tell the truth.26
On Grefalde’s argument that no receipts were produced to she will get it from Mr. Jose Sayson, Edgardo Cruz,
corroborate Preagido’s accusation, during the trial it was Mangubat, and sometimes from me.
established that receipts were routinely issued for the
legitimate issuance of LAAs and SACDCs to the engineering xxx
districts. This certainly is not the case in fake LAAs and
SACDCs, for indeed, what criminal would venture to issue a Q: So on all these occasions that she went to Cebu City to
receipt for an illegal transaction? pick up genuine LAAs and SACDCs it was always in the
Budget Section that she picked them up?
ASSOCIATE JUSTICE MOLINA
A: Yes, Your Honor.
Q: Now in other instances when she [Grefalde] went to your
office to pick up genuine LAAs and SACDCs, did she sign any Q: And does it necessarily follow that if the LAAs and
receipt for those genuine LAAs and genuine SACDCs? SACDCs are not delivered officially by the Budget Division
but by somebody else, that LAA and/or SACDC is fake?
xxx
A: Only issued to Mrs. Grefalde, Your Honor, the fake LAA,
A: Yes, Your Honor, in the Budget Section. Your Honor.

Q: So it was only on this instance when she got the fake Q: Now, aside from Mrs. Grefalde, was there any other
LAAs and fake SACDCs that she did not sign any receipt? employee in the Dumaguete office of the Engineering District
who picked up the LAA and the SACDC from the regional
A: Yes, Your Honor.27 office?

It was also made clear that legitimate LAAs and SACDCs A: There is, Your Honor, if the LAA and the SACDC is
were issued by the Budget Division of the Regional Office. genuine, sometimes the maintenance engineer or the
Grefalde’s act of obtaining these documents from the office highways district engineer.
of Mangubat and Preagido was by itself questionable.
Q: But on those occasions xxx when those two officials were
ASSOCIATE JUSTICE MOLINA the ones who got the LAAs, they were taken from the Budget
Division?
Q: Now, you said that Mrs. Grefalde knew what LAAs and
SACDCs were fake? A: Yes, Your Honor.28

A: Yes, Your Honor. Preagido’s positive identification of Grefalde as a co-

conspirator is corroborated by the voluminous documents
Q: Why do you know that? submitted by the prosecution. Grefalde approved 53
vouchers funded out of fake LAAs and SACDCs, allowing a
A: Because the genuine LAAs and SACDCs, she will get in the grand total of spurious payments of P1,879,109.18.29 Her
Budget Section, the genuine, Your Honor, but the fake LAAs, signatures on the general vouchers, in her capacity as
district accountant, certifying to the availability and
adequacy of funds, were an indispensable link to the Though it will not affect the conclusion, we find it necessary
accomplishment of the fraud. to modify the findings of the Sandiganbayan insofar as it
declared that Rolando Mangubat’s signature on the fake LAAs
In all the 53 vouchers Grefalde approved, the amount was an indicator of the spuriousness of these documents. In
claimed was always less than P50,000.00. Several of them Escaño vs. Sandiganbayan, supra, we explained that
were made in payment for the same kind of material (gravel Mangubat had authority to sign LAAs and SACDCs under
and sand) to be delivered to the same project, and payable Memorandum Circular No. 111, issued by the Ministry of
to the same suppliers. The payments were drawn against the Public Highways, which granted the chief accountant of the
prior year’s obligation, which in itself is not normal procedure Region authority "to act as the Finance Officer for and in the
and should have put Grefalde on her guard. The situation absence of the Finance Officer." The screen of authority
here is different from that in Tan vs. Sandiganbayan, 225 accorded him by this memorandum facilitated the
SCRA 156, concerning another Region VII district accountant proliferation of the spurious LAAs and SACDCs, which he
who certified to the availability of funds of spurious vouchers signed alongside the legitimate ones. This is evident in the
despite the fact that the funds were irregularly charged to testimony of Delia Preagido. Thus:
the prior year’s obligations.30 Other than to adopt in
wholesale the arguments of Tan, Grefalde gave no PROSECUTOR GERVACIO
independent and plausible explanation for her actions
whether in her pleadings or testimony. Q: Now, who signs the genuine (LAAs)?

Again, Grefalde was convicted on 53 counts. The splitting of A: For the availability of funds, Mr. Rolando Mangubat and
accounts and charging to the prior year’s obligations were for the regional director, Mrs. Angelina Escaño.
manifest in the documents Grefalde signed on each of these
53 instances, and it may be reasonably concluded that they Q: In the fake LAAs who signs or whose signature were
were consciously and deliberately resorted to in order to hide there?
the massive corruption that these fake documents facilitated.
In Veloso vs. Sandiganbayan,31 we held that "(t)he number A: In the fake LAAs, there are the signatures of Mr. Rolando
of transactions in which petitioner is involved and the Mangubat, the signature of Mr. Adventor Fernandez and
magnitude of the amount involved also prevent a reasonable Faelnar.
mind from accepting the proposition that petitioner was
merely careless or negligent in the performance of his Q: Now, is Mr. Rolando Mangubat authorized to sign it?
functions." But worse than the petitioner in Veloso, who was
convicted upon a decisive chain of circumstancial evidence, A: Yes, sir, in the absence of Mrs. Escaño.
the evidence against Grefalde herein is not only
circumstancial; there was a positive identification of her by Q: Now, is the signature of Mr. Rolando Mangubat genuine
no less than one of the core instigators of this conspiracy, on those alleged fake LAAs and SACDCs?
and a detailed description of her role and participation in the
consummation of the crime. Thus, we sustain the A: Yes, sir.
Sandiganbayan’s conviction of Grefalde as having been
proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Q: How about the other persons you mentioned, are they that Mangubat no longer had authority to sign LAAs and
also authorized to sign those LAAs and SACDCs, the persons SACDCs because as of October 1977 he had already been
you mentioned? transferred to the central office of MPWH. This
notwithstanding, we reiterate that Grefalde’s conviction was
A: Yes, sir. duly established by other evidence.

xxx We now look into the convictions of the other three

petitioners, which were based upon their signatures on
ATTY. FLORES various documents certifying to the receipt of certain
deliveries (of sand and gravel) in the jobsites, which
Q: In other words, Mrs. Preagido, these alleged fake LAAs deliveries were proved to be non-existent.
marked as Exhibits J-1 to J-7, as well as the alleged fake
SACDCs marked Exhibits M-1 to M-10 carry the genuine It was established by the Sandiganbayan that although some
signatures of Mr. Mangubat and the other signatories there? materials were indeed delivered, these being those covered
by genuine vouchers from regularly issued LAAs and
xxx SACDCs, the prosecution had ably established that no
deliveries were made of the materials declared under the
A: Yes, sir. fake LAAs and SACDCs, since all the payments on these
vouchers went to the pockets of the conspirators. While we
xxx will not reverse this finding, we find that there was
insufficient evidence to show that Enriquez, Suelto and Diaz
ASSOCIATE JUSTICE MOLINA were part of the conspiracy.

Q: Insofar as the authority and genuineness of the Although a conspiracy may be deduced from the mode and
signatures of those persons are concerned, they are alright? manner by which the offense was perpetrated,34 it must,
like the crime itself, be proven beyond reasonable doubt.35
A: Yes, Your Honor. Mere knowledge, acquiescence or approval is not enough
without a showing that the participation was intentional and
Q: And what only made those documents fake is the absence with a view of furthering a common criminal design or
of what you indicated to be the proper markings on the purpose.36 In the instant case, the prosecution had nothing
genuine ones? to implicate Enriquez, Suelto and Diaz with but their
signatures on the documents37 , which served as
A: Yes, Your Honor.32 attestations that materials which met the desired
specifications were received in the jobsites, and their daily
Since Mangubat signed both legitimate and spurious LAAs, time records (DTRs), which showed that at the time the
his signature was not altogether a badge of the spuriousness questioned deliveries were supposed to have arrived they
of the documents. The authority granted to Mangubat under were not in the jobsites but in their respective offices. The
Memorandum Circular No. 111 was revoked only on May 17, prosecution used the DTRs to prove that Enriquez, Suelto
1978;33 thus, no merit could be accorded to the reasoning and Diaz did not actually witness the deliveries, contrary to
of the Sandiganbayan that Grefalde ought to have known their testimonies.
 Commissioner Edgar Dula Torres and the CHIEF,
The Court holds that the evidence against the three PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE, Respondent.
remaining petitioners is too weak and specious to support
the grave charge of conspiracy. The DTRs are too unreliable DECISION
an indicator of the whereabouts of employees at certain
times within the working day. The signatures, by themselves, SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:
while they may have contributed to or facilitated the
consummation of the crime, do not represent direct or Before us is a petition for review on certiorari assailing the
competent proof of connivance. In the case of Enriquez, the Decision1 and Resolution2 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
NOHED property custodian who also set his signature on the SP No. 31407, "Jenny Zacarias, Petitioner, v. National Police
spurious vouchers, there is paucity of proof that from the Commission, et al., respondents."
nature of his functions he could detect patently irregular
vouchers or irregularly issued supporting documents. As The facts of this case as culled from the records are as
stated by this Court in Macadangdang vs. Sandiganbayan:38 follows:

Simply because a person in a chain of processing officers Sometime in June 1987, Jenny Zacarias, petitioner, then a
happens to sign or initial a voucher as it is going the rounds, member of the Western Police District Command, Manila,
it does not necessarily follow that said person becomes part was detailed at the Anti-Kidnapping Task Force, Criminal
of a conspiracy in an illegal scheme. It is all too easy to be Investigation Service Command (CISC), Philippine National
swept into a long prison term simply because the guilt of Police (PNP), Camp Crame, Quezon City.3cräläwvirtualibräry
some conspirators is overwhelming and somehow it attached
to all who happen to be charged in one indictment. On November 5, 1991, Chief Inspector Ruben Zacarias, then
Chief, Intelligence and Operations of the Anti-Kidnapping
WHEREFORE, all premises considered, the conviction of Task Force, issued an order assigning petitioner to be on
petitioner Rufina Grefalde is AFFIRMED, and petitioners Lindy duty at the Office of the Special Team, also of the Anti-
Enriquez, F. Laurence Suelto, Jr. and Manuel Diaz are hereby Kidnapping Task Force. Detained there were Alfredo "Joey"
ACQUITTED based on reasonable doubt. de Leon, suspected commander of the notorious "Red
Scorpion Group" charged with kidnapping with ransom
SO ORDERED. cases,4 and Nicanor Attractivo who was charged with
robbery and homicide.
Melo, (Chairman), Vitug, and Panganiban, JJ., concur.
At around 9:00 oclock in the morning of November 8, 1991,
Misconduct in office conduct unbecoming of a police officer the two detainees escaped while in the custody of petitioner,
then the outgoing guard on duty.5cräläwvirtualibräry
G. R. No. 119847 - October 24, 2003
Immediately, the Police Inspector General conducted an
JENNY ZACARIAS, Petitioner, vs. NATIONAL POLICE investigation. Petitioners version of the incident is that at
COMMISSION, represented by Acting Vice Chairman & about 9:00 oclock in the morning of November 8, 1991,
Executive Officer GUILLERMO P. ENRIQUEZ, NATIONAL before he went to the comfort room, he saw detainee Alfredo
APPELLATE BOARD (Second Division), represented by de Leon lying inside the room adjacent to the Office of the
Special Team. When he returned to his office after two to Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied
three minutes, the two detainees were no longer around. by the NAB.
Petitioner immediately searched the premises but to no avail.
He informed SPO2 Matammu, the incoming duty guard, Petitioner then filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for
about it. They then reported the matter to Senior Inspector certiorari, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 31407. In its
Gil Menesses who immediately formed a team to locate the Decision11 dated April 28, 1994, the Appellate Court
two detainees. But still, they could not be dismissed the petition which, in effect, upheld petitioners
found.6cräläwvirtualibräry summary dismissal from the service. It ruled that "the laxity
and inefficiency of petitioner as the police guard on duty,
SPO2 Romeo Matammu gave his sworn statement, resulting in the escape from his custody of Alfredo de Leon,
confirming that when he arrived at the Office of the Special the notorious leader of the Red Scorpion Group, constitutes
Team at about 9:00 oclock in the morning of November 8, conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman which,
1991, as the incoming duty guard, petitioner informed him under paragraph (c) of Section 42 of the PNP Law, is a
that the two detainees escaped. He immediately drove his ground for summary dismissal."12cräläwvirtualibräry
jeep around the camp and searched for them, but they could
not be found.7cräläwvirtualibräry Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but it was
denied.
The Police Inspector General found that "the escape was an
outcome of the laxity and non-performance of official duty of Petitioner now comes to us via the instant petition for review
outgoing duty guard SPO3 Jenny Zacarias when the latter did on certiorari. Essentially, he ascribes to the Court of Appeals
not padlock the room where the detainees were temporarily the following errors:
detained before going to the comfort room. x x x."8
Accordingly, the Police Inspector General recommended that I
petitioner be summarily dismissed from the service pursuant
to Section 42 of Republic Act No. 6975.9cräläwvirtualibräry RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFENSES OF NEGLECT OF DUTY OR
Consequently, petitioner was administratively charged with INEFFICIENCY OR INCOMPETENCE IN THE PERFORMANCE OF
neglect of duty, inefficiency and incompetence in the OFFICIALDUTIES CONSTITUTE CONDUCT UNBECOMING OF A
performance of his duties. POLICE OFFICER WHICH MAY BE THE PROPER GROUND FOR
SUMMARY DISMISSAL FROM THE SERVICE UNDER SECTION
On December 4, 1991, the Chief of the PNP, acting upon the 42, R.A. 6975; AND
Inspector Generals recommendation, rendered a decision
dismissing summarily from the service petitioner effective on II
the same day.10cräläwvirtualibräry
RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT
On appeal, docketed as NAB SD Case No. 2-92-007, the CONCLUDING THAT PETITIONER WAS DENIED DUE
National Appellate Board (NAB) of the NAPOLCOM affirmed PROCESS.13
the PNP Chiefs decision. The NAB held that on the basis of
the evidence on hand, petitioner is guilty as charged.
The Solicitor General, in his comment,14 disputes petitioners B. When the respondent is a recidivist or has been
claims and prays that the petition be dismissed for lack of repeatedly charged and there are reasonable grounds to
merit. believe that he is guilty of the charges.

The summary dismissal of petitioner by the PNP Chief and xxx

the NAB was anchored on Section 42 of R.A. 6975 which
provides: C. When the respondent is guilty of conduct unbecoming of a
police officer.
"SEC. 42. Summary Dismissal Powers of the PNP Chief and
Regional Directors. The Chief of the PNP and Regional Conduct unbecoming of a police officer refers to any behavior
Directors, after due notice and summary hearings, may or action of a PNP member, irrespective of rank, done in his
immediately remove or dismiss any respondent PNP member official capacity, which, in dishonoring or otherwise
in any of the following cases: disgracing himself as a PNP member, seriously compromises
his character and standing as a gentleman in such a manner
(a) When the charge is serious and the evidence of guilt is as to indicate his vitiated or corrupt state of moral character;
strong; it may also refer to acts or behavior with any PNP member in
an unofficial or private capacity which is dishonoring or
(b) When the respondent is a recidivist or has been disgracing himself personally as a gentleman, seriously
repeatedly charged and there are reasonable grounds to compromises his position as a PNP member and exhibits
believe that he is guilty of the charges; and himself as morally unworthy to remain as a member of the
organization."15 (Underscoring supplied)
(c) When the respondent is guilty of conduct unbecoming of
a police officer." (Underscoring supplied) Petitioner contends that the charges of neglect of duty and
inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of official
The Court of Appeals, in its assailed Decision, cited Section 3 duties against him cannot be classified under any of the
of NAPOLCOM Memorandum Circular No. 92-006 three cases enumerated above. Hence, the Chief of the PNP
promulgated on August 6, 1992 defining the causes for and the NAB cannot dismiss him summarily from the service.
summary dismissal of erring PNP members, thus:
Webster defines "unbecoming" conduct as "improper"
"Section 3 Causes for Summary Dismissal. Any of the performance. Such term "applies to a broader range of
following can be a cause/reason for summary dismissal of transgressions of rules not only of social behavior but of
any PNP member: ethical practice or logical procedure or prescribed
method."16cräläwvirtualibräry
A. When the charge is serious and the evidence of guilt is
strong. Obviously, the charges of neglect of duty, inefficiency and
incompetence in the performance of official duties fall within
xxx the scope of conduct unbecoming a police officer. Thus, we
agree with the Court of Appeals when it ruled:
"Even assuming that the charge against petitioner is not side or an opportunity to seek for a reconsideration of the
serious within the contemplation of paragraph (a) of Section action or ruling complained of.18 And any seeming defect in
42 above quoted, or that he is not a recidivist within the its observance is cured by the filing of a motion for
context of paragraph (b), he could nonetheless fall within the reconsideration.19 A formal or trial-type hearing is not at all
ambit of paragraph (c) thereof, in that, because of his laxity times and in all instances essential. The requirements are
and inefficiency in the performance of his duties, he is guilty satisfied where the parties are afforded fair and reasonable
of conduct unbecoming of a police officer."17 (Underscoring opportunity to explain their side of the controversy at
supplied) hand.20 What is frowned upon is the absolute lack of notice
and hearing. There is no denial that the essence of due
We thus hold that under Section 42 of R.A. 6795 and Section process was sufficiently complied with in the present case.
3 of NAPOLCOM Memorandum Circular No. 92-006 the
summary dismissal of petitioner from the service is in order. In conclusion, we rule that the Court of Appeals did not err in
And, under Section 8 of Memorandum Circular No. 92-006, upholding petitioners summary dismissal from the service.
such dismissal from the service is immediately executory, We quote with approval its finding, thus:
thus:
"As for petitioners plea that we take another hard look into
"The decision of the PNP Summary Dismissal Authorities the National Appellate Boards decision affirming the formers
imposing upon respondent a penalty of dismissal from the summary dismissal from the service, we reiterate the well-
service shall be immediately executory. However, in the ensconced rule that the findings of fact of administrative
event that the respondent is exonerated on appeal, he shall bodies, if based on substantial evidence, are controlling on
be considered as having been under suspension during the the reviewing authority (Jaculina vs. NAPOLCOM, 200 SCRA
pendency of the appeal, with entitlement to back salaries 489).
and allowances." (Underscoring supplied)
"Substantial evidence has been defined to be
On petitioners contention that he was denied due process, it
bears stressing that the Police Inspector General conducted x x x such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might
an investigation wherein the petitioner and other witnesses accept as adequate to support a conclusion, and its absence
were heard. It was only after the investigation that the Police is not shown by stressing that there is contrary evidence on
Inspector General recommended to the PNP Chief that record, direct or circumstantial, for the appellate court
petitioner be dismissed from the service summarily. As held cannot substitute its own judgment or criterion for that of
by the NAB in its decision affirming the PNP Chiefs action, the (administrative body) in determining where lies the
petitioner, by his own declaration, had furnished the weight of evidence or what evidence is entitled to belief
evidence against himself, which was duly corroborated by (Velasquez vs. Nery, 211 SCRA 28, 34-35, citing Picardal vs.
SPO2 Romeo Matammu, then the incoming guard on duty. Lladas, 21 SCRA 1483).
Consequently, petitioners claim that he was denied due
process is totally baseless. "Accordingly, it is not for us to substitute our own judgment
for that of the National Appellate Board on the sufficiency of
We have consistently held that the essence of due process is the evidence and credibility of witnesses (Asst. Executive
simply an opportunity to be heard, or, as applied to Secretary for Legal Affairs of the Office of the President vs.
administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain ones Court of Appeals, 169 SCRA 27). Administrative decisions of
administrative agencies performing quasi-judicial functions
within their jurisdiction are entitled to respect and can only In a Memorandum dated March 31, 2008, CHR Legal Division
be set aside on proof of grave abuse of discretion, fraud, or Chief Atty. Efren Ephraim G. Lamorena rendered an opinion
error of law (Dadubo vs. Civil Service Commission and DBP, that respondent Cortes' appointment is not covered by the
G.R. No. 106498, June 28, 1993). We see none of these rule on nepotism because the appointing authority, the
vices in the present case." Commission En Banc, has a personality distinct and separate
from its members. CHR Chairperson Purificacion C. Valera
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. Quisumbing, however, sent respondent a letter on the same
day instructing her not to assume her position because her
SO ORDERED. appointment is not yet complete.

Puno, (Chairman), Panganiban, Corona, and Carpio-Morales, On April 4, 2008 the Civil Service Commission-NCR (CSC-
JJ., concur. NCR) Field Office informed Chairperson Quisumbing that it
will conduct an investigation on the appointment of
Nepotism respondent Cortes.

G.R. No. 200103 April 23, 2014 On April 9, 2008 Velda E. Cornelio, Director II of the CSC-
NCR Field Office informed Chairperson Quisumbing that the
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, Petitioner, appointment of respondent Cortes is not valid because it is
vs. covered by the rule on nepotism under Section 9 of the
MARICELLE M. CORTES, Respondent. Revised Omnibus Rules on Appointments and Other
Personnel Actions. According to the CSC-NCR, Commissioner
DECISION Mallari is considered an appointing authority with respect to
respondent Cortes despite being a mere member of the
ABAD, J.: Commission En Banc.

This case concerns the validity of appointment by the Respondent Cortes appealed the ruling of Director Cornelio
Commission En Banc where the appointee is the daughter of but the same was denied on September 30, 2008.
one of the Commissioners.
Consequently, respondent Cortes filed a petition for review
The Facts and the Case on November 24, 2008 before the CSC.

On February 19, 2008 the Commission En Banc of the On March 2, 2010 the CSC issued Resolution 10-0370 where
Commission on Human Rights (CHR) issued Resolution A it denied the petition and affirmed the nepotic character of
2008-19 approving the appointment to the position of respondent Cortes’ appointment. Respondent Cortes filed a
Information Officer V (IO V) of respondent Maricelle M. Motion for Reconsideration but the same was denied in
Cortes. Commissioner Eligio P. Mallari, father of respondent Resolution 10-1396 dated July 12, 2010.
Cortes, abstained from voting and requested the CHR to
render an opinion on the legality of the respondent's
appointment.
Consequently, in a letter dated August 10, 2010, CHR By way of exception, the following shall not be covered by
Commissioner and Officer-in-Charge Ma. Victoria V. Cardona the prohibition: (1) persons employed in a confidential
terminated respondent’s services effective August 4, 2010. capacity; (2) teachers; (3) physicians; and (4) members of
the Armed Forces of the Philippines.2 In the present case,
On August 16, 2010, respondent Cortes filed a Petition for however, the appointment of respondent Cortes as IO V in
Review with Prayer for Issuance of Temporary Restraining the CHR does not fall to any of the exemptions provided by
Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction with the Court of law.
Appeals (CA).
In her defense, respondent Cortes merely raises the
On August 11, 2011, the CA rendered its Decision granting argument that the appointing authority referred to in Section
the petition and nullified Resolution 10-0370 dated March 2, 59 of the Administrative Code is the Commission En Banc
2010 and 10-1396 dated July 12, 2010. The CA also ordered and not the individual Commissioners who compose it.
that Cortes be reinstated to her position as IO V in the CHR.
The purpose of Section 59 on the rule against nepotism is to
Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration but the same take out the discretion of the appointing and recommending
was denied by the CA in a Resolution dated January 10, authority on the matter of appointing or recommending for
2012. appointment a relative. The rule insures the objectivity of the
appointing or recommending official by preventing that
Hence, this petition. objectivity from being in fact tested.3 Clearly, the prohibition
against nepotism is intended to apply to natural persons. It
Issue of the Case is one pernicious evil impeding the civil service and the
efficiency of its personnel.4
Whether or not the CA erred when it ruled that the
appointment of respondent Cortes as IO V in the CHR is not Moreover, basic rule in statutory construction is the legal
covered by the prohibition against nepotism. maxim that "we must interpret not by the letter that killeth,
but by the spirit that giveth life." To rule that the prohibition
Ruling of the Court applies only to the Commission, and not to the individual
members who compose it, will render the prohibition
The petition is impressed with merit. meaningless. Apparently, the Commission En Banc, which is
a body created by fiction of law, can never have relatives to
Nepotism is defined as an appointment issued in favor of a speak of.
relative within the third civil degree of consanguinity or
affinity of any of the following: (1) appointing authority; (2) Indeed, it is absurd to declare that the prohibitive veil on
recommending authority; (3) chief of the bureau or office; nepotism does not include appointments made by a group of
and (4) person exercising immediate supervision over the individuals acting as a body.1âwphi1 What cannot be done
appointee.1 Here, it is undisputed that respondent Cortes is directly cannot be done indirectly. This principle is
a relative of Commissioner Mallari in the first degree of elementary and does not need explanation. Certainly, if acts
consanguinity, as in fact Cortes is the daughter of that cannot be legally done directly can be done indirectly,
Commissioner Mallari. then all laws would be illusory.
In the present case, respondent Cortes' appointment as IO V The Case
in the CHR by the Commission En Banc, where his father is a
member, is covered by the prohibition. Commissioner Before us is a Petition for Review2 under Rule 45 of the Rules
Mallari's abstention from voting did not cure the nepotistic of Court, seeking to reverse the January 31, 2002 Decision3
character of the appointment because the evil sought to be and the May 13, 20024 Resolution of the Court of Appeals
avoided by the prohibition still exists. His mere presence (CA) in CA-GR SP No. 63369. The assailed Decision disposed
during the deliberation for the appointment of IO V created as follows:
an impression of influence and cast doubt on the impartiality
and neutrality of the Commission En Banc. "IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the Petition' is
DISMISSED for lack of merit."5
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The Decision
dated August 11, 2011 and Resolution dated January 10, The assailed Resolution denied petitioner's Motion for
2012 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP 115380 are Reconsideration.
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Resolution of the Civil
Service Commission dated March 2, 2010 affirming the CSC- The Facts
NCR Decision dated September 30, 2008 invalidating the
appointment of respondent Maricelle M. Cortes for being The facts are narrated by the CA as follows:
nepotistic is hereby REINSTATED.
"On June 28, 1989, Alejandrino C. Valera, the Regional
SO ORDERED. Director of the Department of Interior and Local Government
(Cordillera Administrative Region), appointed Alex A. Biteng,
Grounds for disciplinary action under the code of conduct and as Municipal Government Operations Officer, in the Cordillera
ethical standards Administrative Region. Under his appointment, Alex A. Biteng
was recommended by his sister, Evangeline B. Trinidad, the
[G.R. NO. 153894 : February 16, 2005] Chief of the Administrative Services Division of the Region.
Ruby Esperanza V. Valera, Personnel Officer III of the
ALEX A. BITENG, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF Region, certified that 'all requirements and supporting papers
INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (Cordillera pursuant to Memorandum Circular No. 6, 1985 had been
Administrative Region), Respondent. complied with and found to be in order. 'On May 25, 1990,
Alex A. Biteng submitted to the Department of Interior and
DECISION Local Government his 'Personal Data Sheet' in support of his
application for appointment as Local Government Operations
PANGANIBAN, J.: Officer V in the Administrative Region of the Department of
Interior and Local Government. In Answer' to 'Question No.
Public office is a public trust. Government officials must 23,' in his Personal Data Sheet,' if he was related, within the
serve the people with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty third degree of consanguinity [or affinity] to the
and efficiency. A person aspiring for public office must recommending authority, he placed an X' on the box for the
observe honesty, candor, and faithful compliance with the answer No' . On June 4, 1990, the Regional Director
law. Nothing less is expected.1 approved the appointment of Alex A. Biteng, as Local
Government Operations Officer V in the Cordillera
Administrative Region of the Department of Interior and
Local Government. On the face of the appointment, the b. Evangeline B. Trinidad - who was the Recommending
recommending officer was Evangeline B. Trinidad, the sister Officer in the appointment of Mr. Alex A. Biteng, her brother.
of Alex A. Biteng.
4. There is irregularity in the appointments of all the subject
"On July 20, 1994, the Civil Service Commission received a personnel as there were no documents/records shown to
letter purportedly coming from DILG-CAR BELOW THE prove that they have undergone the personnel recruitment
POVERTY LINE EMPLOYEES' complaining against Marino B. and/or selection process.
Trinidad, the PLGOO, DILG-Bangued, Abra, and Evangeline
B. Trinidad, the Chief of the Administrative Services Division xxx
of the Cordillera Administrative Region of the Local
Government Department, for Nepotism' and irregularities in RECOMMENDATION
the issuance of appointments to Antonio B. Trinidad, Melchor
T. Adame and Rolando A. Briones. The Special Audit Team of This Special Audit Report is hereby respectfully forwarded to
the Personnel Inspection and Audit Division of the Civil Atty. Elvira L. Lomboy, Attorney VI, Legal Division, CSC-CAR,
Service Commission conducted its investigation, during the for her Information and appropriate action with respect to
period from August 10 to 12, 1994. In the course of its audit, the anonymous letter-complaint dated July 20, 1994.'
the Team decided to include the appointments of Alex A.
Biteng and Abraham A. Biteng, as 'subjects' of their "On September 6, 1994, the Acting Regional Director of the
investigation. Under the Report' of the Audit Team, it made Civil Service Commission filed a Formal Charge' against Alex
the following conclusion and recommendation: A. Biteng, docketed as Administrative Case No. 94-08' for
Falsification and Dishonesty,' quoted infra, as follows:
'CONCLUSION
'Preliminary investigation and result of the special audit
In view of all the foregoing, we conclude that: conducted by this Office shows that a prima facie case exists
against Alex A. Biteng, Local Government Operations Officer
1. The appointments of Antonio B. Trinidad, Rolando A. V, Department of Interior and Local Government, Cordillera
Briones, and Alex A. Biteng are nepotistic; Administrative Region, for Dishonesty and Falsification, for
indicating a 'No' Answer in Item No. 23 of his Personal Data
2. Falsification of public document was committed by Messrs. Sheet. On the face of his appointment, it was indicated that
Antonio A. Trinidad, Rolando A. Briones and Alex A. Biteng he was recommended by his sister Evangeline B. Trinidad.
particularly with respect to their Personal Data Sheets x x x;
x x x x x x x x x'
3. The following subject personnel favored the appointments
of their relatives within the third degree of consanguinity and "Alex A. Biteng submitted an Affidavit' where he alleged,
of affinity; inter alia, that he never solicited the assistance of his sister
for his appointments; neither was the latter the
A. Mr. Marino B. Trinidad - who exercised direct/immediate recommending authority:
supervision over Mr. Antonio B. Trinidad, his brother, and Mr.
Rolando A. Briones, his nephew.
'4.4 That I answered 'NO' to item 23 of CS Form No. 212 inter alia, that Evangeline B. Trinidad was not the
because even if Evangeline Biteng-Trinidad is my sister and recommending authority and that her signatures on the
at that time was Administrative Officer of the Regional Office appointments of Alex A. Biteng were by his directive.
of the DILG-CAR, I NEVER solicited her assistance, help nor
recommendation. Besides my sister is NEITHER the xxx
RECOMMENDING NOR the APPOINTING AUTHORITY NOR
THE CHIEF OF THE BUREAU OR OFFICE; "On September 13, 2000, the Civil Service Commission came
out with Resolution No. 002145' finding Alex A. Biteng guilty
'4.5 That the position I applied for is a vacancy at the DILG of dishonesty and ordering his dismissal from the service:
Mt. Province where my immediate Boss is the Provincial
Government Operations Officer; 'It is clear from the June 4, 1990 appointment of Biteng that
his recommending officer is his own sister, Evangeline B.
'4.6 That I was myself surprised when I received my Trinidad. His sister's printed name and signature appear on
Appointment (Form 33) and saw the signature of my sister said appointment as the recommending
under 'Recommended By' since I did not even make a official.ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ
previous solicitation.'
This being so, Biteng is under legal and moral obligation to
"[Alex A. Biteng] also submitted, as part of his evidence, the disclose this relationship with her but failed to do so when he
Affidavit' of Evangeline B. Trinidad, claiming, inter alia, that: deliberately answered 'No' to item 23 on his PDS which he
accomplished on May 25, 1990. Hence, he is guilty of
xxxxxxxxx Dishonesty. '"6

9. That I hereby stress that in signing under the phrase Ruling of the Court of Appeals
'Recommending Approval' in CS Form 33 of my brother
Alexander Biteng, I was not recommending him in the sense Affirming the Civil Service Commission (CSC), the Court of
that I chose him in particular, the truth being that as stated Appeals held petitioner liable for dishonesty. The CA said that
above this was an office procedure for all candidates whose the appointments of petitioner, having been made upon the
papers are complete and who can be recommendation of his sister Evangeline B. Trinidad, violated
appointed;ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω the rule against nepotism.
lιbrαrÿ
Hence, this Petition.7
10. That I hereby stress that my brother Alex has NEVER
solicited my recommendation assuming it was needed nor Issues
sought my assistance in relation to his appointment; That if
ever he got his appointment it was purely on his own merits Petitioner submits the following issues for our consideration:
considering that he passed all the series of qualifying
examinations;' "1. With due respect, the Honorable Court of Appeals
seriously erred in declaring petitioner guilty of dishonesty for
"Alejandrino C. Valera, the Regional Director of the Cordillera failure to disclose in his Personal Data Sheet (CS Form 212)
Administrative Region, also executed an Affidavit' declaring his relationship to his sister who signed as recommending
officer when such signature was not meant to be such, making a false statement therein amounts to
such.ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ dishonesty and falsification of an official document."11

"2. With due respect, [p]etitioner has been denied due Petitioner admits that he twice answered "No" to Item 23 of
process when the Honorable Court of Appeals, and so did the his two Personal Data Sheets, an item that required him to
Civil Service Commission, did not consider the evidence disclose his relationship with the recommending or
presented by the petitioner."8 appointing authority. He asserts that while Trinidad is indeed
his sister, he never solicited her assistance, help or
The Court's Ruling recommendation; and that his appointments were based on
his own merits, as he had passed all the qualifying
The Petition has no merit. examinations.

First Issue: That petitioner did not seek his sister's assistance in securing
the position is immaterial, the issue being his failure to
Non-Disclosure of Relationship with Recommending Authority disclose the relationship as required by civil service rules.
Neither does passing all the requisite examinations validate
Petitioner contends that he had no intention of concealing his his actions, since the prohibition on nepotism12 applies
relationship with Evangeline B. Trinidad. He avers that if he without regard to the qualifications of the appointee.13
intended to conceal the fact, he could have simply omitted it
from his Statement of Assets and Liabilities. Petitioner maintains that he was unaware of the functions of
his sister at the time he accomplished his first Personal Data
We agree with the CA that petitioner is guilty of dishonesty. Sheet on February 18, 1989. He was allegedly later surprised
He was duty-bound to disclose his sibling relationship, not to find her signature on his appointment papers dated June
only in his sworn Statement of Assets and Liabilities, but also 28, 1989. Propriety and candor dictated that he should have,
in all other documents required for employment under the at the time, immediately informed the CSC or his superiors
law and civil service rules. of such fact.

"Dishonesty is 'intentionally making a false statement in any More important, since he already knew that his sister as the
material fact, or practicing or attempting to practice any recommending authority had signed his June 28, 1989
deception or fraud in securing his examination, registration, appointment papers, he should have already been placed on
appointment or promotion. '"9 Stressing that a false alert when he set out to accomplish his second Personal Data
statement in a Personal Data Sheet "amounts to dishonesty," Sheet dated May 25, 1990.
the Court recently echoed this definition inRatti v. Mendoza-
de Castro:10 Petitioner should have taken extra precaution and inquired
into the circumstances of his new appointment in order to
"The accomplishment of false statements in a Personal Data prevent a repeat of his previous inadvertence. Thus, he
Sheet, being a requirement under Civil Service Rules and cannot now claim that when he denied his relationship with
Regulations in connection with employment in the his sister in his May 25, 1990 Personal Data Sheet, he was in
government, the making of untruthful statements therein is, good faith. Good faith requires honesty of intention. He
therefore, ultimately connected with such employment. As
should have been free from any knowledge of circumstances for all public servants has been ruled by this Court in Civil
that ought to have prompted him to undertake an inquiry.14 Service Commission v. Cortez,18 from which we quote:

Second Issue: "x x x. Th[ese] constitutionally-enshrined principles, oft-

repeated in our case law, are not mere rhetorical flourishes
Sufficiency of Evidence or idealistic sentiments. They should be taken as working
standards by all in the public service.
Petitioner contends that both the CSC and the CA have failed
to consider the evidence presented on his behalf; thus, he xxx
asks this Court to review their findings of fact. He claims that
despite the clear and unequivocal signature of his sister on "To end, it must be stressed that dishonesty and grave
his appointment papers, she was, in fact, not the misconduct have always been and should always remain
recommending authority with respect to his appointment. anathema in the civil service. They inevitably reflect on the
fitness of a civil servant to continue in office. When an officer
It is a well-established rule, however, that in a Petition for or employee is disciplined, the object sought is not the
Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, only punishment of such officer or employee but the improvement
questions of law, not of fact, may be raised before this of the public service and the preservation of the public's faith
Court.15 and confidence in the government."19

Administrative agencies' factual findings that are affirmed by WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED and the assailed
the Court of Appeals are conclusive upon and generally not Decision AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.
reviewable by this Court.16 We find no cogent reason to
disturb the findings of the appellate court, as these are SO ORDERED.
amply supported by the evidence on record.ςηαñrοblεš
νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago,
Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona,
By signing under the phrase "Recommended By," the sister Carpio-Morales, Azcuna, Tinga, Chico-Nazario, and Garcia,
of petitioner explicitly declared herself to be the JJ., concur.
recommending officer with respect to his questioned
appointments. It was not for him to decide whether the Callejo, Sr., J., no part.
functions of her position included the authority to
recommend. As far as he was concerned, she possessed such
authority; he cannot now legally make a denial that would
suit his defense and avoid liability.

Public office is a public trust. Government officials and

employees must at all times be accountable to the people
and serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty,
and efficiency.17 That these principles are working standards