THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, COMPLAINANT, VS. ANTOLIANO R. PACIS, RESPONDENT.

This administrative case is an offshoot of a complaint filed on January
29, 1973 by Mr. Jaime Bernal with the Department of Justice denouncing Mr. Antoliano R. Pacis, then supply
officer of the Department of Justice, who was transferred to this Court, as the
intermediary of then Assistant City Fiscal Angel P. Purisima
of Manila^[1],
in seeking allegedly to extort P25,000.00 from him (Mr. Bernal) in
consideration of a favorable decision in Civil Case No. 83352 entitled
“Jaime Bernal vs. NAWASA, et al.”^[2]

At the outset, it should be clearly understood that while in the
course of this decision the evidence of record is discussed with specific
reference to then Assistant City Fiscal Angel P. Purisima
and his alleged scheme to extort P25,000.00 from Jaime Bernal with respondent
as his alleged collector and intermediary, such discussion should not be taken
to pass upon or make a finding (explicitly or implicitly) of former Fiscal Purisima’s guilt, since he is not a respondent and has not
been investigated in this case.

On February 14, 1973,
the Department of Justice sent a letter to Antoliano Pacis requiring him to submit a written answer.  This letter is quoted in full:

“This Office has found that a prima facie case exists against
you for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and/or
dishonesty in that around 10:00 a.m., on January 30, 1973, in the
Department of Justice Canteen, you introduced and represented yourself to
Mr. Jesus Bernal, operator of said canteen, as the person sent by Fiscal Angel Purisima to collect a sum of money being extorted from Mr.
Bernal in connection with his pending case in Branch VII, Court of First
Instance, Manila, and that you even urged Mr. Bernal to expedite the payment of
said money.

“Wherefore, you are hereby required to submit a written
answer, in detailed form, to the aforementioned charge(s) within seventy-two
(72) hours from receipt hereof.  In your
answer, please state whether you elect to have a formal investigation of the
charge(s) against you or whether you waive your right to such an investigation.

“You are also advised that you are entitled to be assisted by
counsel.”

In an answer dated February
16, 1973, Pacis denied the accusation and
averred that it has no basis.  In an
affidavit dated February 9, 1973
attached to his answer, Pacis stated the following:

“2.  That to set the record straight, I hereby
narrate hereunder all I know about this case:

“a)   On or about January 22, 1973, Mrs. Lirio
came to my office to requisition some supplies. 
While waiting for the supplies, she sat on the chair beside me and
related to me that there is a case pending in the Court of First Instance of
Manila under Judge Purisima and that Mrs. Bernal,
operator of the DJ canteen, requested her to talk to Fiscal Purisima
about the same;

“b)   On or about 3:00
p.m. on January 29, 1973,
while I was in my office, Mr. Amado Hilario came in and told me that somebody was waiting
outside and wanted to see me.  When I
looked out of the door, I saw Fiscal Purisima in his
car so I approached him.  He invited me
for snack, but I declined because I had just taken coffee.  He later told me that he was looking for
somebody whose name he did not mention. 
When he was turning his car to the left in front of the Department
gasoline station, he saw a man coming down the stairs of the ground floor of
the Department, whom I later learned to be Mr. Bernal, at the sight of whom, he
said, ‘Ayan na pala‘.  Then we
parted ways and I went back to the office;

“c)   The next day, at about 10:00 in the morning,
while I was having snack at the Department canteen and at the precise time that
I was paying the chit to Mrs. Bernal, I remember the visit to me of Fiscal Purisima so I asked her in Tagalog,
‘I think Fiscal Purisima was looking for your husband
yesterday.  Were they able to see each
other?’ She answered in the affirmative;

“d)   I did not see the Bernals
thereafter nor talk to them about any matter whatsoever.”

The Secretary of Justice, under Administrative Order No. 32 dated
February 14, 1973, assigned
this case for investigation, report and recommendation to Atty. Dominador T. de Guzman of the Department of Justice.  On May
17, 1973, he submitted his report and recommendation.  Pertinent portion of this report reads:

“It appears from the testimony of the complainant Jaime Bernal
and his wife, Elvira Bernal, that on January
30, 1973, at about 10:00 a.m.,
respondent Antoliano Pacis
went to the Department of Justice canteen and introduced himself to them as the
Supply Officer of the Department of Justice. 
Respondent told them inter alia
that he had been named by Ex-Fiscal Purisima to receive
the money he was demanding from complainants.

“13.   Q –  You
said that you had an understanding with Fiscal Purisima
last Wednesday, what happened?

“‘A
–   The following day, Tuesday, about
10:00 in the morning a certain Mr. Pacis of the
Department of Justice, the property officer, introduced himself to my wife and
told her that he was sent by Fiscal Purisima to
inform her that Fiscal Purisima and Judge Purisima were very disappointed with what happened during
the previous Friday.  As I was approaching
my wife, I was introduced to him, Mr. Pacis.  He told me that he was the man whom Fiscal Purisima assigned to collect the money the previous Friday
and he is also the same fellow who was seen by some of the people who helped me
to approach Undersecretary Macaraig, who came inside
the car of Fiscal Purisima after we came to see
Secretary Macaraig and later disappeared.  And that Fiscal Purisima
also talked to him about our meeting at the Cultural
Center.  I left the fellow while he was eating and I
went to my office.  About an hour later I
returned to the canteen.  My wife told me
that Judge Pichay, the Judicial Superintendent of the
Department of Justice would like to talk to me. 
So I went out to see Judge Pichay but as I
came out of the canteen, one of my friends told me that Fiscal Purisima is inside the office of Judge Pichay.  So instead of going inside the office of
Judge Pichay, I went to the Office of Undersecretary Macaraig and told him about what is happening.  The Undersecretary told me that it will be
better if I will not see Judge Pichay for it may
prejudice our plans.  As I was coming out
of the office of Sec. Macaraig I saw Augusto Francisco, Jr. coming out of the office of Judge Pichay.  He told me
that it was Judge Pichay who informed Fiscal Purisima that I had made a complaint against the
Fiscal.  That afternoon I came here at
the NBI and informed Regional Director Nestor Gonzales of what had happened’ (Exh. B, Q & Ans. No. 13, Statement of J. Bernal).

“In his explanation, respondent admitted having been present
at the D.J. Canteen on January 30,
1973.  He, however, alleged
that the following was the only remark he made to Mrs. Bernal:  ‘Fiscal Purisima
was looking for your husband yesterday, did they see each other?’ He denied
ever talking to complainant Mr. J. Bernal.

“‘(c) The next
day, at about 10:00 in the morning, while I was having a snack at the
Department Canteen and at the precise time that I was paying the chit to Mrs.
Bernal, I remembered the visit to me of Fiscal Purisima
so I asked her in Tagalog:  ‘I think Fiscal Purisima
was looking for your husband yesterday. 
Were they able to see each other?’ She answered in the affirmative’ (Exh. 14-A, Statement of A. Pacis).

“The liability of the herein respondent rests principally on the
credibility of his testimony as against those of the complaining witnesses.

“The defense suggests that the claims of complainant in the
said civil case were grossly exaggerated. 
This, it is alleged, supports the view that it was complainant who took
the initiative in offering the P25,000 bribe to obtain a favorable court
decision.  On the other hand, complainant
insists on the legitimacy of his claim for damages in the civil case and
maintains that it was ex-Fiscal Purisima who
solicited the bribe.

“The above recitals of the parties, though conflicting,
establish the existence of an attempt to subvert justice in the civil case in
question.  While a determination as to
whether it was complainant or Ex-Fiscal Purisima who
suggested the giving of a bribe appears to be irrelevant, I find it necessary
to inquire into said question if only to place the statements of said parties
in their proper perspectives.  In this
connection, the undersigned believes that if complainant Jaime Bernal, who is
also the plaintiff in Civil Case No. 83352 of the CFI, Manila,
is as smart and shrewd as pictured by the defense, his offering of such a large
bribe is improbable.  Certainly,
complainant would have realized that whatever advantage he can obtain in the
lower court can still be obliterated by an unfavorable appellate judgment.  The version of respondent to my mind, would
have deserved credence if the advantage allegedly sought by complainant with
the bribe he allegedly proferred were a compromise
agreement that would be the object of the decision in the civil case.  This is so because elevating the case on
appeal in such an event would be precluded.

“Another circumstance which suggests the veracity of the
allegations of the complaining witnesses is the absence of any motive on their
part to perjure themselves.  We cannot
subscribe to the contention of the defense that respondent was implicated in
the extortion plot, which they describe as part of an ‘illegitimate scheme for
revenge’ simply because he works in the Department of Justice and is a townmate of Ex-Fiscal Purisima.  Moreover, I find it preposterous to assume
that complainant would impute derogatory remarks to one whom they did not know
or meet before the incident at bar.

“‘Q. According to you, there have been no incident between you and Mr.
Bernal and there was no occasion that you have seen Mrs. Bernal and Fiscal Purisima in conversation at all.  Can you think of other reasons why these
people want to put you down and make false assertions against you?

“‘A.  Well, there is one that I could think of.  They know that we are townmates
with Fiscal Purisima. 
If I may be allowed to add this – on one occasion Sergeant Morales of
the Operation Warrant of Arrest, one Saturday, according to him, they were
together with Mr. Bernal the night before. 
Then upon the prodding of Bernal, Sergeant Morales asked me if I could
testify against Fiscal Purisima and the Judge.  I politely objected to it because I know
nothing about it’ (TSN, pp. 346-347, Hearing of March 5, 1973, testimony of A. Pacis on Cross Examination).

“On the contrary, I find it more
logical to conclude that respondent became enmeshed in the unholy design
because of his personal relation with Ex-Fiscal Purisima
who prodded him into action, as the Fiscal’s growing
impatience in reaping the harvest of his nefarious scheme appear to have been
aggravated by the seeming reticence of the complainant in coming across with
the bribe money” (pp. 7-11, rec.).

The investigator’s recommendation is that respondent Pacis be found guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best
interest of the service, and that he be required to resign pursuant to
Letter of Instruction No. 14-A.

On May 23, 1973,
the Department of Justice forwarded the said report and recommendation to this
COURT.

There is no clear and convincing evidence that respondent Pacis introduced and represented himself to complainant
Jesus Bernal, operator of the Department of Justice canteen, “as the
person sent by Fiscal Angel Purisima to collect a sum
of money being extorted from Mr. Bernal in connection with his pending case in
Branch VII, Court of First Instance, Manila” or that respondent Pacis “even urged Mr. Bernal to expedite the payment
of said money.”

The testimony of Mr. and Mrs. Bernal on this point cannot be
accorded full faith and credit; because their testimony pictures respondent Pacis, then Supply Officer of the Department of Justice and
now of this COURT, to be either stupid or lacking in caution.

The Bernal spouses declared that respondent Pacis
approached Mrs. Bernal inside the Department of Justice canteen at about 10:00
o’clock in the morning and told her that he was sent by then Assistant Fiscal Purisima to collect from them P25,000.00; and that the
canteen then was crowded with officials and employees of the Department of
Justice who were having their usual merienda and some
were passing them while they (Bernal spouses and respondent) were conversing as
the aforesaid officials and employees were paying for their snacks or leaving
the cashier after paying their chits. 
Mrs. Bernal was then by the cash register.

It is unthinkable that respondent, who is a responsible supply
officer and should therefore be credited with some degree of intelligence,
would be so imprudent or so stupid as to publicly advise the spouses that he
was the agent of former Assistant Fiscal Purisima to
collect the amount of P25,000.00, which the ex-Assistant Fiscal was extorting
from them in connection with a civil case in the Manila Court of First Instance
branch presided by the brother of said former Assistant Fiscal.

Moreover, from their own evidence (Exhs.
B and C), as well as from their testimony, their allegation is that the former
Assistant Fiscal appears to be his own collector and employed no intermediary
or agent to do the collection for him, except in the last instance when he
allegedly instructed respondent to show up and introduce himself to the Bernals as the “bag-man”.

Under oath, Mr. Bernal declared in Exhibits B and C, and upon
cross-examination on March 5, 1973 (tsn, pp. 39-40),
that the pick-up date by that “somebody from the Department of
Justice” was “Friday, 26 January 1973” and not on January
30.  He testified also on
cross-examination that on the afternoon of January 29, 1973, “the final
instruction” of the then Assistant City Fiscal on the delivery of the
“extortion” money was that Mr. Bernal himself should deliver the
payola to him (fiscal) in his office at the Manila City Hall, on January
31, 1973, and not on January 30, 1973 (tsn, p.
52).  Yet, Mr. Bernal admitted that on
January 26, 1973 when that “somebody” would introduce himself to pick
up the money, the person who showed up was the then Assistant City Fiscal
himself at the Department of Justice canteen (tsn,
pp. 50, 55, 56-57, 58, 117).  And Mrs.
Bernal testified that it was the former Assistant City Fiscal who showed up on
that date at the department canteen looking for her husband.  She told him that her husband was out of town
which angered the fiscal (tsn, p. 55).  And Mr. Bernal admitted this, plus the fact
that the former Assistant City Fiscal “even told my wife, I think Friday,
‘if your husband will not arrive on Wednesday, you can forget everything’”
(tsn, p. 50). 
Exhibit C also confirmed the fact that it was the then Assistant City
Fiscal again who showed up at the department canteen on January 29, 1973. 
He was also angry, he scolded the employees therein and even pointed his
finger at Mrs. Bernal’s face.

From the start, no such intermediary came into the picture
between Mr. Bernal and the then Assistant Fiscal.  Mr. Bernal admitted that it was Assistant
City Fiscal Leocadio P. Magat,
Jr. of Manila, who introduced him to the former Assistant Fiscal on January 3,
1973 (tsn, pp. 31, 35); that he saw the former
Assistant Fiscal sometime before January 26, 1973 when the latter went to the
Department of Justice canteen (tsn, p. 37); that
prior to January 26, the former Assistant Fiscal went to the Department of
Justice canteen “every now and then”; and that “[t]here was one
time when he told me (Mr. Bernal) to go to the Swiss Inn Restaurant one lunch
time.  And then the rest mostly in the
canteen and also in his office.  He told
me ‘you go to my office, I will talk to you.’ And then one time he told me to
go to the Cultural Center”
(tsn, p. 38), and they did meet there on the
afternoon of January 29, 1973.  Mr. Bernal also declared that he used to
visit the then Assistant Fiscal in his office at the City Hall before January 26, 1973 (tsn,
p. 38).

Mr. Bernal’s testimony is quite revealing.  His contacts with the former Assistant Fiscal
from January 3, 1973, were
close, direct and personal.  No
intermediary was spoken of.  And, more
significantly, nowhere did respondent Pacis‘ name or
shadow come into the scene.

Mr. Bernal declared that he and the former Assistant Fiscal
agreed that the money will be collected through an intermediary on January 26, 1973.  But this’ is easier said than believed; it is
too loose for comfort.  For there were
vital questions left unanswered:  who
is the supposed collector or intermediary? 
Where, how and at what time should the unnamed
collector or intermediary collect the money? 
Indeed, on that day of January
26, 1973, it was the former Assistant Fiscal who showed up at the
Department of Justice canteen looking for Mr. Bernal.  And, on January 28th, no
“intermediary” showed up at the canteen (tsn,
p. 57).

From all indications, if Bernal is to be believed, the then
Assistant Fiscal seemed to be his own collector and appeared to have all the
ways, means and opportunities to collect the P25,000.00 from the complainant
and his wife.  Since January 3, 1973, the former Fiscal appeared to be
in all places.  He saw Mr. Bernal many
times at his (Fiscal’s) office; “every now and
then” he showed up at the Department of Justice canteen, at the
“Swiss Inn Restaurant”, at the “Cultural
Center”, in “Pasay City”,
and even in the “clinic” of the former Fiscal’s
sister.

WE have read and reread the report and WE found that the
investigator of the Department of Justice completely avoided discussing why Mr.
Bernal did not implicate respondent Pacis in his
first sworn statement before the National Bureau of Investigation on January
29, 1973, when on that date, as the complainant claimed, he had already seen
respondent Pacis and the then Assistant Fiscal
together in the latter’s Mercedes Benz car within the Department of Justice
compound.  Even after Mr. Bernal executed
his second sworn statement on February
1, 1973, the National Bureau of Investigation stood firm in its
report to the Department of Justice that it is “not in a position to
recommend that Mr. Pacis likewise be charged
administratively.”

The, department investigator pointed out that there was “absence
of any motive” on the part of the complaining witness and his wife
“to perjure themselves”; and that “it (is) preposterous to
assume that complainant would impute derogatory remarks to one whom they did
not know or meet before the incident at bar.” Apart from the fact, which
cannot be discounted, that at heart, the husband and wife who teamed together
seek to establish their serious complaint of “extortion” at all costs
to obtain a favorable outcome, there is a good motive why they would implicate
the respondent.  The evidence on record
is firm and unrebutted that, as respondent Pacis declared, Sgt. Morales of the Department Operation
Warrant of Arrest, requested respondent Pacis, upon
complainant’s own prodding, to testify against the former Assistant
Fiscal.  But he begged to be excused, for
he “knows nothing about it.”

The investigator found “it more logical that respondent
became enmeshed in the unholy design because of his personal relation with
Ex-Fiscal Purisima who prodded him into action x x x.” due to the ex-Fiscal’s “growing impatience ….. aggravated by the
seeming reluctance of the complainant in coming across with the bribe
money.” But the report miserably failed to exert and amplify as well as
cement with positive and unequivocal assurances and details what appeared to be
a casual and loose reference to respondent Pacis‘
supposed complicity in the extortion scheme, or what special power and
influence respondent had over the complainant Bernal as would break down his
“seeming reticence” and make him come across with the supposed
pay-off.  While the report speaks of
“personal relation”, the only link that was pointed out is that
respondent is a “townmate” of the former
Assistant City Fiscal.  But this alone is
too tenuous to prove closeness of personal relationship or association between
them when conspiracy implies con­cert of design.  The evidence proves nothing whatsoever of any
previous or even coetaneous understanding or common cause or negotiations to
weld respondent Pacis with then Assistant City Fiscal
Purisima.  At
any event, it would be dangerous to hold that “unholy design” was
proved simply because respondent Pacis was seen with
the former Assistant City Fiscal in the latter’s car on January 29, 1973, at 3:30 p.m. at the Department of Justice compound.

WHEREFORE, THIS ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT AGAINST
RESPONDENT ANTOLIANO R. PACIS IS HEREBY DISMISSED.

Muñoz Palma, Concepcion,
Jr., and Martin, JJ., concur.

Teehankee, (Chairman), J., concurs and files a brief concurring opinion.

^[1]
His resignation was accepted by the President.

^[2] Upon
receipt of this complaint, Undersecretary of Justice Macaraig
called upon the Regional Director, HORO, NBI for a conference in his
office.  Mr. Bernal, upon advice of the
Undersecretary, went to the NBI and executed a sworn statement dated January 29, 1973 (Exh.
A, pp. 54-56, rec.) narrating the following incidents:

Sometime in 1971, Jaime Bernal
filed a civil suit against the NAWASA, now the Metropolitan Waterworks and
Sewerage System, for collection of the sum of P223,000 representing the
latter’s obligation for janitorial services rendered by Bernal’s men.  The case was assigned in the Court of First
Instance Branch of Manila presided by Judge Amante Purisima.  On
December 21 or 22, 1972, the case was submitted for decision.

Sometime in the first week of
January, 1973, while Jaime Bernal was waiting for Assistant Fiscal Villaluz of Manila in connection with the hearing of a
certain estafa case filed by said Jaime Bernal
against one of his employees, Assistant Fiscal Angel Purisima,
brother of Judge Amante, arrived.

Fiscal Magat
introduced Bernal to Fiscal Purisima, who commented
that he used to see him in the sala of his brother,
Judge Amante Purisima.  Bernal replied that he has a pending case
there.  Fiscal Purisima
then inquired whether Bernal needed any help and the latter answered that he
needed all the help he could get. 
Bernal, upon being asked by the Fiscal where they could see each other,
designated the canteen in the Department of Justice being operated by his wife.

Several days later, Fiscal Purisima arrived at the canteen and informed Bernal that
his case “is not very good”. 
He was surprised and told the Fiscal that the NAWASA failed to dispute
his claim.  However, Fiscal Purisima proposed that he could help Bernal if the latter
could give him a sub­stantial amount from the amount to be awarded to
Bernal.  Bernal replied that he would pay
if he could afford and after the decision shall have become final.  Fiscal Purisima
promised to return as soon as the decision has been prepared.

Subsequently, Fiscal Purisima returned to the canteen and on January 23 or 24,
1973 (Tuesday or Wednesday), instructed Bernal to be ready with the amount of
P25,000 by Friday (January 26, 1973).  Bernal said he has to go to the province to
raise the money and added that he must see the decision first.  He went to the province but failed to raise
the necessary amount.

On Friday (January 26), Fiscal Purisima went to the canteen and talked to Mrs. Bernal,
instructing her to prepare the money by Sunday (January 28), otherwise she
should forget the whole thing.  The
Fiscal further instructed her to call him at 1:00
p.m. on Sunday at the house of Judge Purisima;
and gave her the telephone number.

Bernal was not able to call up
Fiscal Purisima at 1:00
p.m. that day because he “tried to raise the money”.  He called up at 4:00
p.m. and a woman answered, saying that the Fiscal was not there any­more;
but left instruction to call him up at his office on Monday morning (January
29).  But before Bernal could make the
call, Fiscal Purisima went to the canteen and
instructed one of the employees to inform Mrs. Bernal to see him at his
office.  However, before Mrs. Bernal
could leave, Fiscal Purisima returned to the canteen
and told her to be ready with the money by Wednesday (January 31).  Before lunch that day, the Fiscal went to the
canteen and told Mrs. Bernal that the decision will be withheld only until
Wednesday (January 31).

Jaime Bernal consulted his friends
who accompanied him to the office of Undersecretary of Justice Catalino Macaraig in the
afternoon of that day, Monday (January 29). 
The Undersecretary advised him to go to the NBI.

After giving his sworn statement to
the NBI, Bernal was advised to fulfill his engagement with Fiscal Purisima at the Cultural
Center.

Two NBI agents and a photographer
were immediately dispatched to the Cultural
Center and they saw Fiscal Purisima and Bernal talking to each other.  Then the Fiscal left, followed by Bernal in
his own car.  The NBI agents followed but
lost them at Libertad, Pasay City.

On February 1 (Thursday), Bernal
returned to the NBI and in his executed second sworn statement dated February 1, 1973 (Exh.
B, pp. 56-59, rec.), narrated that from the Cultural Center, they proceeded to
the clinic of Fiscal Purisima’s sister somewhere in Pasay City, and in a doctor’s room, Fiscal Purisima let Bernal read a carbon copy of the decision
(bearing initials) in the civil case aforementioned, and instructed him
“to be on time the coming Wednesday when he will give the instructions on
how to deliver the money.”

Bernal also stated in his sworn
statement that at around 10:00 a.m. on January 30 (Tuesday), the day following
his meeting with Fiscal Purisima at the Cultural
Center, respondent went to the canteen, and introduced himself to Mrs. Bernal
and told her that he was sent by Fiscal Purisima to
inform her that he and his brother Judge Amante Purisima, “were disappointed with what happened during
the previous Friday” as the pay-off did not materialize.  When Bernal approached his wife, she introduced
him to respondent.  Respondent told
Bernal that he was the man whom Fiscal Purisima
assigned to collect the money the previous Friday.  According to Bernal, respondent was also the
same fellow who was inside the car of Fiscal Purisima
and later disappeared.  This incident was
seen by Bernal’s friends after they came from the office of Undersecretary Catalino Macaraig in the
afternoon of January 29.  Respondent also
told Bernal that Fiscal Purisima informed him
(respondent) about their meeting at the Cultural
Center.  Thereafter, Bernal left respondent while he
was eating.

On February 9, 1973, Jaime Bernal executed a third sworn
statement before the Operation Center,
Dept. of Justice (Exh. “C” pp. 60-63, rec.)
as supplement to his sworn statements dated January 29 and February 1 taken
before the NBI.

Clean
Clean

6 pt
6 pt
0
3

MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:””;
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:”Times New Roman”;}