SPO2 JERRY T. VILLARIN AND PO3 ESTANISLAO AVENIDO, PETITIONERS, V. ELIZABETH GALLARDE, RESPONDENT.
ELBINIAS, J.:
The antecedent facts are those as stated in the OMB-MOLEO’s assailed Decision[6] dated January 31, 2008, as follows:
“Allegedly, in the morning of 10 March 2006, at Moalboal PNP Station, respondent PO3 Avenido (petitioner Avenido here) told complainant (respondent here) that SPO3 Villarin (petitioner Villarin here) wanted to talk to her regarding the possible settlement of the case against her son Mark James who was caught in a buy-bust operation for selling shabu and who was detained at Moalboal police station.
In the afternoon of 13 March 2006, complainant (respondent) met SPO2 Villarin at the Office of the Chief of the Moalboal police station. While inside said office, SPO2 Villarin locked the door and said: ‘AKO ANG TEAM LEADER MANANG SA PAGDAKOP SA IMONG ANAK NGA SI MACMAC (Mark James). PERO DUNA GYUY NEGOSASYON. MAKAHATAG KA NAKO UG P80,000.00?‘ (I am the team leader of the group who arrested your son Macmac. But this is subject to a negotiation. Will you be able to give me P80,000.00?) SPO2 Villarin further told complainant (respondent) that if she will be able to give the amount of P80,000.00, her son will be charged with a lesser offense, thus, her son could post bail. Complainant (respondent) replied that she will first look for money.
In the afternoon of the same day, complainant (respondent) met with Mayor Titing Cabaron who told her that he will help her should she report what transpired at the Office of the Chief of Police with SPO2 Villarin to the NBI Regional Office VII.
On 14 March 2006, complainant (respondent) went to the NBI and she was told to come back on 17 March 2006 to execute an affidavit and plan an entrapment of the policemen involved in her complaint.
On 15 March 2006, PO3 Avenido and SPO2 Villarin asked complainant (respondent) to meet them again at the Office of the Chief of Police, Moalboal PNP Station. Complainant (respondent) obliged and while inside the said office, SPO2 Villarin demanded an additional P5,000.00 from the original amount of P80,000.00 they demanded, claiming that the P5,000.00 will be given to the Chief of Police. Complainant (respondent) answered that the amount is too much and that she only has P35,000.00. PO3 Avenido told complainant (respondent) that the P35,000.00 was enough and asked her to hand over the money.
However, complainant (respondent) told respondents (petitioners) that the money was with her sister Margarita Lipag. SPO2 Villarin told complainant (respondent) to come back with the P5,000.00 as the Chief urgently needed the said amount. Complainant (respondent) left the station and did not go back.
On 17 March 2006, complainant (respondent) went to the NBI and filed a complaint.
On 22 March 2006, complainant (respondent) informed the NBI that PO3 Avenido told her to meet them at the Palace of Justice and hand them the agreed amount of P35,000.00. At around 11:30 a.m. of the same day, a briefing was conducted at the NBI for the conduct of an entrapment operation.
Thereafter, complainant (respondent), together with her son Mark James and two (2) policemen, met respondents (petitioners) at the Palace of Justice. PO3 Avenido and PO2 Amancio brought complainant (respondent) outside the compound of the Palace of Justice and insisted that she hand them the money at the house of SPO2 Villarin. Complainant (respondent) disagreed. Upon the instruction of PO3 Avenido, complainant (respondent) left the money inside the newspaper on top of the table of a carenderia. When PO3 Avenido took the money, agents of the NBI arrested him. PO1 Amancio and SPO2 Villarin were also arrested at the compound of the Palace of Justice.“[7] (Emphasis Supplied)
As a result, the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas filed before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 21 of Cebu City (“RTC-Cebu” for brevity) an Information for Direct Bribery against petitioners SPO2 Jerry T. Villarin and PO3 Estanislao Avenido (“petitioners” for brevity), and PO2 Godofredo Amancio (“PO2 Amancio” for brevity)[8]. Respondent Elizabeth Gallarde (“respondent” for brevity) also filed before the OMB-MOLEO an administrative case for Gross Misconduct against petitioners and PO2 Amancio[9], which administrative case is the subject of the Petition for Review[10] at bench.
Petitioners and PO2 Amancio, however, denied having demanded any money from respondent. The rest of the facts are continued in the OMB-MOLEO’s assailed Decision[11] dated January 31, 2008, to wit:
“Respondents (petitioners) denied the material allegations of the complaint. Their version of the incident is as follows:
On 10 March 2006 and 13 March 2006, complainant (respondent) approached PO3 Avenido and SPO2 Villarin, respectively, to discuss the case of her son Mark James who was arrested pursuant to a buy-bust operation. In both instances, respondents (petitioners) told complainant that they could not do anything as the criminal complaint against her son was already filed with the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor on 7 March 2006.
Respondents (petitioners) did not hear from complainant (respondent) again until 22 March 2006 when SPO2 Villarin, PO3 Avenido and PO2 Amancio brought Mark James to the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor following the expiration of the extension period of the Waiver of Detention. When respondents (petitioners) arrived at the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor at around 11:30 a.m., SPO2 Villarin asked the clerk if there was already a resolution in the case of Mark James. But the clerk told them to wait for awhile as Provincial Prosecutor Jane Petralba had not yet replied. Thus, respondents (petitioners) decided to take their lunch at a nearby restaurant. At around 1:30 p.m., while respondents (petitioners) continued to wait at the administrative section, SPO2 Villarin and PO3 Avenido went outside to smoke. PO3 Avenido then became thirsty, thus, he went back to the restaurant for a drink. There, he met complainant (respondent) who approached him and told him that she was willing to give them money in exchange for the downgrading of her son’s case. Complainant (respondent) pleaded with PO3 Avenido claiming that they were relatives, and that her husband and three (3) sons were already languishing in jail. She further asked him if he had a grudge against her family. PO3 Avenido retorted that he was merely doing his job as police officer. Complainant (respondent) then handed him something wrapped in a newspaper. PO3 Avenido felt insulted, pushed the thing back towards complainant (respondent), and stood up to leave the restaurant. However, before he could leave the place, NBI operatives arrested and searched him, and brought him to their office.
Thereafter, the NBI also arrested SPO2 Villarin and PO2 Amancio.“[12] (Emphasis was made in the original)
On January 31, 2008, the OMB-MOLEO rendered its assailed Decision[13] finding petitioners administratively liable for Grave Misconduct, and which Decision in turn, recommended the dismissal of petitioners from service. However, the OMB-MOLEO recommended the dismissal of the administrative complaint against the other respondent below, PO2 Amancio, on ground of lack of substantial evidence. The dispositive portion of the Decision read as follows:
“WHEREFORE, it is respectfully recommended that respondents SPO2 JERRY VILLARIN and PO3 ESTANISLAO AVENIDO be meted the penalty of Dismissal from the Service for having committed GRAVE MISCONDUCT pursuant to Section 52(A), Rule IV, Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in Civil Service.
For lack of substantial evidence, it is respectfully recommended that the administrative complaint for Grave Misconduct against SPO2 GODOFREDO AMANCIO be Dismissed.
Let a copy of this Order be furnished the Chief, Philippine National Police, for its proper implementation.
SO ORDERED.“[14] (Emphasis was made in the original)
Petitioners then filed a Motion for Reconsideration[15] of the OMB-MOLEO’s Decision[16] dated January 31, 2008, which found petitioners liable for Grave Misconduct.
Pending resolution of such Motion for Reconsideration[17], the RTC-Cebu in its Decision[18] dated October 13, 2009 dismissed the Criminal Case for Direct Bribery against petitioners and PO2 Amancio on ground of reasonable doubt.
Petitioners then filed a “SUPPLEMENT TO THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (earlier filed on May 21, 2009)”[19] (“Supplement MR” for brevity), invoking their acquittal in the Criminal Case for Direct Bribery.
After petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration[20] and Supplement MR[21] were denied in the OMB-MOLEO’s assailed Order[22] dated July 29, 2010, petitioners filed the Petition for Review at bench, praying as follows:
“WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court of Appeals, to reverse the Decision of the OMB-MOLEO and enter a new judgment acquitting herein petitioners of the administrative charge of grave misconduct. It is likewise prayed that, pending the decision of the main case, the salaries, allowances and emoluments of the petitioners from June, 2009 until February 07, 2011 shall be released.
Other relief consistent with justice and equity are likewise prayed.”[23]
Petitioners raised the following issues:
“I
WHETHER OR NOT THE JUDGMENT OF
CONVICTION FOR GRAVE MISCONDUCT
BEFORE THE OMB-MOLEO WAS SUPPORTED BY
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE?
II
WHETHER OR NOT A JUDGMENT OF
CONVICTION FOR GRAVE MISCONDUCT WITH
A PENALTY OF DISMISSAL IS IMMEDIATELY
EXECUTORY PENDING A MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION?”[24]
As properly argued by petitioners in their first assigned issue, there was absence of substantial evidence to hold petitioners liable for Grave Misconduct.
In holding petitioners liable for Grave Misconduct, the OMBMOLEO’s assailed Decision[25] stated as follows:
“At issue is whether or not respondents (petitioners) may be held administratively liable for demanding money from complainant (respondent) in exchange for the downgrading of the charge against complainant’s son Mark James.
We rule in the affirmative as regards respondents SPO2 Villarin and PO3 Avenido (petitioners), and in the negative with respect to PO2 Amancio.
Substantial evidence abounds in the instant case showing respondent[s] SPO2 Villarin and PO3 Avenido’s guilt for Grave Misconduct.
SPO2 Villarin was the team leader of the group who conducted a buy-bust operation against Mark James Gallarde, while PO3 Avenido was a member of the said group.
Respondents PO3 Avenido and SPO2 Villarin (petitioners here) admitted that they talked with complainant (respondent Elizabeth here) regarding the possible downgrading of the charge against complainant’s (respondent) son Mark James Gallarde. However, respondents (petitioners) denied that they demanded money in exchange for the downgrading of the offense. As jurisprudence dictates, to be believed, denial must be buttressed by strong evidence of non-culpability, otherwise, it is purely self-serving and has practically no evidentiary value.
Militating against respondents’ (petitioners) claim is the fact that respondent (petitioner) PO3 Avenido met with complainant (respondent) at the restaurant. We are not convinced that the said meeting was merely accidental as claimed by PO3 Avenido. Moreover, the members of the NBI who conducted the entrapment operation attested that PO3 Avenido received the marked money. Physics Report No. 2006-P-3003 revealed that PO3 Avenido’s hands yielded positive for florescent powder.“[26] (Italics was made in the original, Emphasis Supplied)
Negating the OMB-MOLEO’s findings however, is that respondent’s allegations in her Complaint were not supported by substantial evidence, or by such pieces of evidence that would support the conclusion that petitioners had demanded money from respondent in exchange for petitioners’ downgrading of the charge filed by them against respondent’s son, who in turn had earlier been arrested in a buy-bust operation.
First, respondent’s claim in her “Affidavit of Complaint”[27] that petitioners offered to downgrade the charge against respondent’s son in exchange for Eighty Thousand Pesos (Php 80,000.00) was thwarted by the fact that when petitioners supposedly made the offer to respondent on March 13, 2006[28], petitioners had already filed, on March 7, 2006, before the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor, a Criminal Case for Violation of Section 5 (Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs), Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (“R.A. No. 9165” for brevity), otherwise known as the “Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002” against respondent’s son. A case having been filed by petitioners against respondent’s son on March 7, 2006 was shown in the “Certification” dated March 22, 2006 issued by the Office of the City Prosecutor of Cebu City, to wit:
“This is to certify that an inquest criminal case with waiver for Violation of Sec. 5, Art. II, R.A. 9165 was filed before this office against Mark James Gallarde y Limpaga on March 7, 2006 with I.S. No. 06-00473 and assigned before Inquest Prosecutor Marvin G. Dela Peña.”[29] (Emphasis Supplied)
The offense charged against respondent’s son could therefore no longer be downgraded by petitioners, as was also concluded in the RTC-Cebu’s Decision[30] dated October 13, 2009 in the Criminal Case against petitioners, to wit:
“It was no longer within the authority of the policemen to reduce the complaint against the accused Mark James Gallarde since the case had already been filed in the provincial prosecutor’s office. The case after it was filed by the policemen in the fiscal’s office is no longer within the competence of the policemen. xxx.”[31] (Emphasis Supplied)
Second, the allegations in respondent’s “Supplemental Affidavit”[32] and in the NBI Agents’ “Joint-Affidavit”[33] that petitioner PO3 Estanislao B. Avenido (“petitioner PO3 Avenido” for brevity) had “picked-up”[34] and “received”[35] the marked money were contradicted by the “Physics Report No. 2006-P-3003”[36] dated March 22, 2006 (“Report” for brevity) issued by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), which Report was submitted to the OMBMOLEO by respondent herself[37].
The Report[38] revealed that traces of fluorescent powder applied on the marked money that was used in the entrapment operation were only present in the dorsal portion of the hands of petitioner PO3 Avenido, so as to conclude that petitioner PO3 Avenido did not “pick-up” or “receive” the marked money. The Report stated the following results:
“FINDINGS:
Ultraviolet light examination conducted on the dorsal and palmar aspect of the left and right hands of the above Subject (petitioner PO3 Avenido) showed the following results:
LEFT HAND: POSITIVE for the presence of yellow fluorescent powder with location:
- Smudges, distal phalange, little finger, dorsal.
- Smudges, middle phalange, little finger, dorsal.
- Smudges, distal phalange, ring finger, dorsal.
- Smudges, middle phalange, ring finger, dorsal.
RIGHT HAND: POSITIVE for the presence of yellow fluorescent powder with location:
- Smudges, middle phalange, little finger dorsal.“[39] (Emphasis Supplied)
In fact, the presence of the fluorescent powder in the dorsal portion of the hands of petitioner PO3 Avenido supported petitioner PO3 Avenido’s defense in his “Counter-Affidavit”[40] that he pushed the money back to respondent[41], as was also found by the RTC when it ruled for the acquittal of petitioners in the Criminal Case for “Direct Bribery” in its Decision[42] dated October 13, 2009, to wit:
“xxx Exhibit H is the prosecution’s evidence which supposedly prove that accused received the marked money. But instead the same evidence proved that the money was not received by the accused Avenido but appeared rejected or thrown away. That is why the smudges were located at the dorsal portion of the hands of the accused.“[43] (Emphasis Supplied)
Third, respondent’s allegations in her “Affidavit of Complaint”[44] and “Supplemental Affidavit”[45] were not corroborated by any other evidence, which allegations therefore could not be considered as substantial evidence. This is pursuant to the following declaration of the Supreme Court in Honorable Ombudsman Simeon V. Marcelo vs. Leopoldo F. Bungubung and Hon. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 175201, April 23, 2008:
“Within the field of administrative law, while strict rules of evidence are not applicable to quasijudicial proceedings, nevertheless, in adducing evidence constitutive of substantial evidence, the basic rule that mere allegation is not evidence cannot be disregarded.” (Emphasis Supplied)
The rule is indeed settled that in administrative proceedings, the complainant, such as respondent here, has the burden of proving by substantial evidence the allegations in her Complaint. This burden in turn, respondent however, failed to overcome.
Given that the findings of fact by the OMB-MOLEO were not supported by substantial evidence, then such findings are not binding upon the courts. Such a consequence is pursuant to the following pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the same case of Honorable Ombudsman Simeon V. Marcelo vs. Leopoldo F. Bungubung and Hon. Court of Appeals[46], cited earlier:
“As stated above, the fundamental rule in administrative proceedings is that the complainant has the burden of proving, by substantial evidence, the allegations in his complaint. Section 27 of the Ombudsman Act is unequivocal: Findings of fact by the Office of the Ombudsman when supported by substantial evidence are conclusive. Conversely, therefore, when the findings of fact by the Ombudsman are not adequately supported by substantial evidence, they shall not be binding upon the courts. Such is the case in the present Petition.” (Emphasis Supplied)
As a result, the OMB-MOLEO should have absolved petitioners from the administrative charge for Grave Misconduct and should not have recommended the dismissal of petitioners from the service.
However, petitioners’ second assigned issue questioning their immediate dismissal from service by the Philippine National Police (“PNP” for brevity) despite their having filed a timely Motion for Reconsideration of the OMB-MOLEO’s assailed Decision[47] dated January 31, 2008 is not a proper matter to be raised in the Petition for Review[48] at bench. Petitioners should therefore raise before the proper forum the propriety of their immediate dismissal by the PNP. This, considering that the PNP was not impleaded as a party in the Petition for Review[49] at bench, and could not therefore be bound by this Decision. This result is pursuant to the declaration of the Supreme Court in National Housing Authority vs. Jose Evangelista, G.R. No. 180615, June 27, 2012, as follows:
“In this case, it is undisputed that respondent was never made a party to Civil Case No. Q-91-10071. It is basic that no man shall be affected by any proceeding to which he is a stranger, and strangers to a case are not bound by judgment rendered by the court.” (Emphasis Supplied)
After careful consideration of all the facts, arguments, and issues appearing on the records, as well as of the pertinent laws and jurisprudence, and, in accordance with what is best determined to be just under the circumstances, the following disposition is therefore made on this matter.
GIVEN ALL THESE, the Petition for Review is GRANTED. The assailed Decision and Order of the OMB-MOLEO are SET ASIDE and REVERSED, and a new one is rendered absolving petitioners from the charge of Grave Misconduct.
SO ORDERED.
Dicdican (Chairman) and Paredes, JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo, p. 3-32
[2] Rollo, pp. 88-94
[3] Rollo, p. 88
[4] Rollo, pp. 124-127
[5] Rollo, pp. 95-98, with a “SUPPLEMENT TO THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (earlier filed on May 21, 2009), Rollo, pp. 103-108
[6] Rollo, pp. 88-94
[7] Rollo, pp. 88-89
[8] Rollo, pp. 109-115
[9] Rollo, pp. 88
[10] Rollo, p. 3-32
[11] Rollo, pp. 88-94
[12] Rollo, pp. 90-91
[13] Rollo, pp. 88-94
[14] Rollo, p. 93
[15] Rollo, pp. 95-98
[16] Rollo, pp. 88-94
[17] Rollo, pp. 95-98
[18] Rollo, pp. 109-115
[19] Rollo, pp. 103-108
[20] Rollo, pp. 95-98
[21] Rollo, pp. 103-108
[22] Rollo, pp. 124-127
[23] Rollo, p. 29
[24] Rollo, pp. 17-18
[25] Rollo, pp. 88-94
[26] Rollo, pp. 91-92
[27] Rollo, pp. 33-34
[28] Rollo, p. 88
[29] Rollo, p. 154
[30] Rollo, pp. 109-115
[31] Rollo, p. 114
[32] Rollo, pp. 35-36
[33] Rollo, pp. 37-39
[34] Rollo, p. 35
[35] Rollo, p. 38
[36] Rollo, p. 152
[37] Rollo, p. 90
[38] Rollo, p. 152
[39] Rollo, p. 152
[40] Rollo, pp. 49-53
[41] Rollo, p. 51
[42] Rollo, pp. 109-115
[43] Rollo, p. 114
[44] Rollo, pp. 33-34
[45] Rollo, pp. 35-36
[46] G.R. No. 175201, April 23, 2008
[47] Rollo, pp. 88-94
[48] Rollo, pp. 3-32
[49] Rollo, pp. 3-32