IMPOSING THE PENALTY OF DISMISSAL FROM THE SERVICE ON ASSISTANT PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR ARTURO G. CABARON, PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE OF CEBU

This refers to the formal charge (Administrative Case No. 95-010)
against Arturo G. Cabaron, Assistant Provincial Prosecutor (APP),
Provincial Prosecutor’s Office of Cebu, for grave misconduct.

The formal charge stemmed from the alleged extortion by APP Cabaron,
thru his wife Brigida Cabaron ( Brigida, for brevity), from the
party-litigants relatives of litigants in the cases involving Josefina
Aljo and Pablo Maningo. The facts of each case are treated separately,
thus:

RE: Josefina Aljo case

Aljo testified that sometime in December, 1992, after being
introduced by Rev. Zacarias Perocillo, her church pastor, to APP
Cabaron, she sought the advice of the latter regarding five (5) bouncing
checks issued to her by Gemma Clausen. APP Cabaron and Brigida assured
her, ” kami ang bahala diyan”. On December 8, 1992, she brought the
rubber checks to APP Cabaron’s office and Brigida prepared the
complaint-affidavit. A week later, Aljo went back to Cabaron’s office
and, as agreed upon, gave Brigida two envelopes: one, containing Five
Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) as partial payment for the attorney’s fees of
Atty. Quijano, and the other, containing Three Thousand Pesos
(P3,000.00) for Brigida.

The criminal complaint against Clausen was assigned to APP
Cabaron for preliminary investigation. During the hearing held in May
1993, Brigida convinced Aljo, in the presence of APP Cabaron, to
withdraw her complaint against Clausen because the latter had showed
them two (2) checks worth one million (P1,000,000.00) pesos each, which
she (Clausen) could encash after forty-five (45) days. Aljo did not see
the checks but she trusted the Cabarons because they were recommended to
her by her church pastor. As per Brigida’s instruction. Aljo signed the
affidavit of desistance prepared by Atty. Quijano. Brigida thereafter
reminded her to pay Atty. Quijano the balance of Seven Thousand Pesos
(P7 ,000.00) for his attorney’s fees. Subsequently, Brigida borrowed the
amount of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10 ,000.00) from Aljo. At the expiration
of the forty-five day period. Aljo discovered that the said
million-peso checks was a “fraud”.

Faith Petrocillo, pastor of the El Shaddai Congregation,
testified that Aljo authorized him to collect the Ten Thousand Pesos
(P10 ,000.00) from Brigida.

RE: Pablo Maningo case

Helen Maningo (Helen, for brevity), testified that on May 31,
1994, she went to the Regional Office of the National Bureau of
Investigation (NBI) and executed a sworn statement against the Cabaron
spouses in connection with the arrest of Pablo Maningo, her
brother-in-law, during a raid in his house by elements of the PNP-CISC
for illegal possession of ammunition on April 19, 1994. The case against
Pablo Maningo was assigned to APP Cabaron for inquest. Helen and her
companions attended the inquest proceedings. Brigida interviewed Pablo
Maningo and his witnesses. APP Cabaron did not participate in the
clarificatory examination. When Pablo Maningo informed them that his
lawyer was Atty. Rolindo Navarro. Brigida recommended Atty. Quijano
under the pretext that Atty. Navarro had some personal conflict with APP
Cabaron. Brigida, in the presence of APP Cabaron, demanded and received
from Helen an acceptance fee of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20 ,000.00) for
Atty. Quijano. Brigida promised Helen that the case could be amicably
settled with the help of APP Cabaron and two (2) other prosecutors. On
April 22, 1994, Helen went back to APP Cabaron’s office, as instructed,
to discuss the settlement of the case. Brigida informed her that the
amount needed for the three (3) prosecutors was Seventy-Five Thousand
Pesos (P75 ,000.00), to be delivered to the Cabaron residence. On the
next day. Helen, together with Florecita Lapag, gave the amount of Fifty
Thousand Pesos (P50 ,000.00) to Brigida. On April 28, 1994, APP Cabaron
and Brigida instructed Pablo Maningo to look for a military man who
would admit ownership of the seized ammunition. The idea baffled Pablo
Maningo since he thought that he had a good defense because the place
where the ammunition was seized was leased to Roberto Castanas. As per
Cabaron’s instruction, an affidavit was prepared for SPO3 Maximo Parawan
of the Danao City Police Station. However, said officer, although
willing to have his name used in the memorandum receipt, was reluctant
to swear to a falsehood. Brigida reminded Helen of the balance of
Twenty-Five Thousand Pesos (P25 ,000.00) which was to be paid on
installment basis at Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) per installment.

SPO3 Parawan corroborated the statements of Helen regarding the
advice to them of APP Cabaron to look for someone from the military or
the PNP who would admit ownership of the seized ammunition.

In defense, APP Cabaron denies the charge and avers that he
dismissed the aforestated complaint filed by Aljo against Clausen on the
basis of Aljo’s affidavit of desistance.

With respect to the Maningo case, he contends that Helen Maningo,
who followed-up the complaint against Pablo Maningo, was discourteous
and demanding in asking for the early resolution of the case. He
responded by saying “I will resolve the case based on the evidence on
record”. Helen’s complaint against him before the Ombudsman was
dismissed for insufficiency of evidence. The similar case which was
filed against him by the NBI before the Ombudsman was also dismissed.

For her part, Brigida Cabaron argues that she never
misrepresented herself as an employee of the Department of Justice; that
she never transacted with Aljo, in that, she is able to fix her case by
proffering the services of Atty. Quijano as her lawyer; that she
borrowed money from Aljo in the course of the latter’s business
undertaking and not with the promise to exert influence on APP Cabaron
to decide the case in her favor; and that, she had already paid her
indebtedness to Aljo.

With respect to the complaint filed by Helen Maningo against
them, Brigida claims that the first time she met Helen was in the office
of APP Cabaron when she was following-up a case. The second time was
when Helen went to their house, pleading that she be permitted to talk
to APP Cabaron.

After the formal investigation, the Secretary of Justice found
that the testimonies of the complainants and their witnesses were more
credible than those of the respondent, thus proving the imputation of
grave misconduct by substantial evidence, which is the quantum of proof
required in administrative cases. The affidavits in support of the
complaint were executed by disinterested persons who were not expected
to fabricate the same for purposes of lending credence to the complaint
and their statements were straightforward, consistent and logical even
when subjected to the intensive cross-examination by the defense
counsel. All the testimonies yielded the following: that Brigida Cabaron
was a permanent fixture in the office of APP Cabaron; her imposition
upon the complainants for the availment of the services of Atty.
Quijano, coupled with the demand for the payment of his attorney’s fees;
and, the collection of additional amounts for APP Cabaron and herself.

APP Cabaron seemed to have been oblivious of the basic tenet that
his office is a public trust, which exacts moral righteousness and
uprightness. As such official, he must comport himself at all times in
such manner that his conduct, official or otherwise, can bear the most
searching scrutiny of the public who look up to him as the epitome of
integrity and justice.

WHEREFORE, APP Arturo G. Cabaron is hereby found administratively
liable for grave misconduct in the performance of his duties.
Consequently, he is hereby dismissed from the service with forfeiture of
all benefits and disqualification from re-employment in the government
service.

Adopted: 04 Oct. 2000

BY THE PRESIDENT:

(SGD.) RONALDO B. ZAMORA
Executive Secretary