IMPOSING THE PENALTY OF DISMISSAL FROM THE SERVICE OF JOSE B. DAGUMAN, ASSISTANT CITY PROSECUTOR, PROSECUTION OFFICE, CITY OF MANILA

This refers to the
administrative complaint filed by then Department of Justice (DOJ) Secretary
Serafin R. Cuevas against respondent Jose B. Daguman, Assistant City
Prosecutor, Prosecution Office of the City of Manila, for grave misconduct,
dishonesty, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and conduct
unbecoming a public officer.

The facts of the case, as found
by the DOJ in its letter of October 1, 2001, are as follows:

“On April 30, 1999, complainant
Estrella R. Garame went to the office of the respondent to inquire and seek
assistance on behalf of her husband Russ L. Garame who was presented for
inquest before him on April 29, 1999. Belen Perez and Pompia Ramos accompanied
her inside the office. Respondent informed the complainant that the bail
recommended for her husband’s provisional release is P100,000.00. Informing him
that she did not have that amount, respondent talked to Pompia Ramos, a
province mate, who in turn informed the complainant that the respondent was
asking for P6,000.00. Respondent told the complainant that the amount was for
the police officers. Thereafter, he will prepare the release papers. Since the
complainant did not have that amount, respondent asked her to give at least
half the amount. Complainant was able to borrow from Belen Perez the amount of P3,000.00 consisting of small denominations, which she gave to the respondent.
Pompia Ramos witnessed the respondent receive the amount. Thereafter, he
instructed the complainant to find the means to produce the balance of in order
that her husband will be released on Monday, May 3, 1999.

On May 1, 1999, complainant was
informed by her neighbor Saldo dela Torre that the respondent was looking for
her at her house. Not being able to talk to the complainant, respondent gave
her a call in the evening inquiring if she already had the money to which she
replied in the negative. The following day, respondent returned to her
[complainant’s] house located at Nepomuceno St., Quiapo, Manila, to inquire
about the balance. Complainant was able to see the respondent at his house on
May 4, 1999, when she asked to be furnished with copies of the inquest
documents considering that Franco Galo, her uncle who was going to lend the
money was asking for it. Complainant met her uncle on May 5, 1999. Upon asking
the documents, her uncle said that her husband is under detention and he needs
to submit his answer to the complaint against him. They went to Malacanang to
see a certain Jude P. Fajardo. The latter prepared a letter addressed to Atty.
Samuel Ong of the National Bureau of Investigation. Complainant was able to
talk to Atty. Ong who in turn referred her to NBI agent Antonio Suarez. She
relayed to him that respondent demanded from her the amount of P6,000.00 but
was only able to give half the amount, and that she was still demanding for the
balance. Upon the instruction of agent Suarez, complainant made a call to the
responded at around noon informing him that she only had P2,000.00. Inquiring whether
her husband could be released, respondent directed her to proceed to his office
where they can discuss the matter. Later in the afternoon, agent Suarez
produced the. P2,000.00 placed in an envelope. NBI agent Julma Dizon-Dapilos,
who is to be complainant’s companion posing as her aunt, instructed her to hand
over the money to the respondent only when he makes the demand. Around 4:00
P.M., complainant arrived at the respondent’s office. She introduced agent
Dizon-Dapilos to the respondent, who immediately inquired about the money.
Responding that she was only able to produce P2,000.00, respondent instructed
her to place the money inside the drawer. As directed, complainant removed the
money from the envelope, folded it and placed it inside the table drawer which
was opened by the respondent. Agent Dizon-Dapilos inquired if the complainant’s
husband could be released. The latter answered that it was already late in the
afternoon and that they should return at around noon the following day. She
again inquired if it was possible to release complainant’s husband in the
morning. The respondent replied in the negative since he was busy but he will
try his best. At that instance, complainant stepped out of the room and
apprised agent Suarez about what transpired inside the room. In the meantime,
agent Dizon-Dapilos announced to the respondent that he is being placed under
arrest. He was read his constitutional rights. While complainant was waiting
inside an NBI vehicle, she saw the respondent being escorted by the NBI agents.
They all proceeded to the NBI office.

xxx

The defense raised by respondent
Daguman consists mainly of denials and explanations concerning the commission
of the offense. Respondent, in seeking his exoneration, avers that the reason,
why the present case was filed against him is because of the fact that
complainant was embarrassed and humiliated when he shouted at her inside his
office on April 30, 1999 that her husband is a snatcher. He explains that the
reason why the inquest records remained in his office is because his secretary
failed to turn them over to the docket section on May 3, 1999, in view of the
latter’s absence.

In support of his defense,
respondent submitted the following pieces of documents: Exhibit T, a sketch
showing the interior of respondent’s room at the City Prosecution Office of
Manila; Exhibit ‘2’, sworn statement of Roger Roxas dated June 21, 1999;
Exhibit ‘3’, sworn statement of Asst. City Prosecutor Exequiel Y. Sison, Jr.,
dated June 18, 1999; and Exhibit ‘4’, sworn statement of respondent dated June
21, 1999.

Formal charges of grave
misconduct, dishonesty, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service
and conduct unbecoming of a public officer were filed against herein respondent
by the Secretary of Justice and docketed as NPS Administrative Case No.
99-0022-FS. After the conduct of the formal investigation, respondent Daguman
was found guilty of the charges and the penalty of dismissal from service was
recommended to be imposed upon him.”

There is no iota of doubt that
on the basis of the evidence, both testimonial and documentary presented by the
complainant, respondent Jose B. Daguman is guilty of the acts complained of.
Based on the foregoing facts, there is substantial evidence indubitably showing
that respondent committed acts of grave misconduct, dishonesty and conduct
prejudicial to the best interest of the service when he demanded from Estrella
R. Garame the amount of P6,000.00 on April 30, 1999 and actually received P3,000.00 as partial payment for the release of her husband Russ L. Garame who
was brought before him for inquest investigation on April 29, 1999.

There is no reason to doubt the
NBI agents’ testimony which is fully supported by documentary evidence showing
that respondent was indeed arrested during an entrapment operation on May 5,
1999 while in the act of receiving the balance of P2,000.00 marked money from
the complainant. Noteworthy to mention at this point is the fact that not only
do the NBI Agents enjoy in their favor the presumption of regularity in the
performance of their duties when they conducted the entrapment operation, their
testimonies, more particularly those of Agents Suarez and Dizon-Dapilos,
remained uncontroverted. Neither has the respondent sufficiently explained why
the inquest records of Russ L. Garame remained in his possession until May 5,
1999 when it was recovered by the NBI Agents inside his table drawer. Under the
normal procedure, the inquest record should have been turned over to the docket
section of the City Prosecution Office of Manila on May 3, 1999 for assignment
of an I.S. Number immediately the following working day. Nor did he bother to
present his secretary Pedrito Hebron to at least corroborate his explanation.

As against the respondent’s bare
denials, the sworn affidavits of complainant, her witnesses and the documentary
proofs attached to the records are more convincing and nearer to the truth.
They have no motive for fabricating the charges against the respondent except
to bring justice. Credence should also be given to the testimonies of the NBI
agents coming as it does from an unpolluted source. These agents had no reason
to testify falsely against the respondent prosecutor. In fact, they had caught
respondent in flagrante delicto.

For another, the claim of
respondent that there was ill-will on the part of the complainants is hardly
plausible. It is highly improbable for complainant to embark on a malicious
prosecution just to retaliate and take revenge on the respondent, knowing fully
well that the fate of her husband lies in the hands of the latter. It is more
in accord with reason and logic to presuppose that there was some sort of a
demand made by the respondent in exchange for certain favorable considerations
like working for the release of complainant’s husband from jail.

From the foregoing, the
conclusion is inescapable that respondent can easily be influenced by monetary
considerations. This act of the respondent of demanding and receiving money
from the wife of the accused constitutes serious misconduct in office. It is
this kind of gross and flaunting misconduct, no matter how nominal the amount
involved, on the part of those who are charged with the responsibility of
administering the law will surely erode the people’s respect for law and lose
faith and trust in the prosecution service which is expected to render fair and
equal justice to all.

ACCORDINGLY, premises
considered, and as recommended by the Department of Justice, respondent
Assistant City Prosecutor JOSE B. DAGUMAN is hereby DISMISSED from the service
with forfeiture of all leave credits and retirement benefits and with prejudice
to re-employment in any branch of government, including government-owned and
controlled corporations.

Done in the City of Manila,
Philippines, this 25th day of November 2002.

(Sgd.) GLORIA
MACAPAGAL-ARROYO
President of the Philippines

By the President:

(Sgd.) ALBERTO G. ROMULO
Executive Secretary