IMPOSING THE ACCESSORY PENALTIES OF DISQUALIFICATION FROM THE GOVERNMENT SERVICE AND FORFEITURE OF ALL FINANCIAL BENEFITS, ON JOVITO VERNON S. VALENTE, THEN DIRECTOR IV, ADMINIS…

Quoted hereunder are the findings of
facts and law of the Presidential Anti-Graft Commission as contained in
its Resolution dated March 26, 2002, thus —

“On August 3, 2001, the criminal
aspect of the case was referred to the Office of the Ombudsman for
appropriate action. (p. 167, Records)

“On August 30, 2001, this Commission
requested the Chief, Personnel Division of the said DBM to bring
certified true copies of the 201 File of the respondent. (p. 168,
Records)

“On September 12, 2001, the Chief,
Personnel Division appeared bringing with her the requested papers. She
affirmed the truth and authenticity of the documents attached to the
letter complaint, more particularly, the alleged misrepresentations of
the respondent in his Personal Data Sheet.

“On September 20, 2001, finding the
existence of a prima facie case against the respondent, this Commission
issued an order requiring him to file his counter-affidavit or verified
answer to the complaint. (pp. 169-170, Records)

“The respondent failed to comply,
hence, on January 10, 2002, this Commission issued another order
stating, among other things: (a) that until then respondent failed to
file his required counter-affidavit; and (b) that because of the gravity
of the offense charged, and his not being able to consider the
consequences of his failure to file the required counter-affidavit, that
is: waiver of his right to file the same and present evidence in his
behalf (Sec. 2, Rule 5 of the Revised Rules of Procedure).

“On February 6, 2002, at the
preliminary conference, because the respondent still failed to file his
counter-affidavit, he was again given another fifteen (15) days to file
the same.

“On March 18, 2002, in his letter to this Commission dated March 15, 2002, he informed that Secretary Boncodin was desisting from pursuing the case against him. (p. 174, Records)

“On March 22, 2002, this Commission,
bending a little backward, for the last time, gave respondent until
April 3, 2002 to file the said counter-affidavit and to attend the
preliminary conference on April 10, 2002.

“Still, respondent failed to comply.

“On April 10, 2002, at the
preliminary conference, both parties failed to appear despite due
notice. Hence, this Commission, considering that the evidence for the complainant have
already been presented, ordered that the hearing be terminated and the
case be considered submitted for resolution based on the records of the
case.

“The records of the case disclose that in a letter of the respondent to Secretary Boncodin
dated April 10, 2002, respondent expressed true contrition of the
things he had done, and hoped that the Secretary ‘will find it in her
heart to be understanding and drop the case against’ him.  Thus, we quote:

                                           ‘I have suffered through many sleepless nights and have been constantly bothered by my conscience.  My wrongdoings have affected my health and more important(ly), my peace of mind.  Inasmuch
as I had already suffered so much and equally gave up so much, my
career and hopes for a better future, I appeal for your compassion and
humanitarian consideration.  Finally, I regret whatever damage or inconvenience I may have caused.’

“These are words manifesting acts of contrition for a wrong done.  They
are, nevertheless, admission of a wrongful act with dire consequences
as it leaves no doubt as to the truth of the allegations of the
letter-complaint.

“The term ‘admission’ embraces any
statement of fact made by a party which is against his interest or
unfavorable to the conclusion for which he contends or inconsistent with
the facts alleged by him. (Gomez vs. Lituania, 65 OG 7592)

“While this Commission commiserates
with him, the law must be enforced; justice must prevail as a stark
lesson to those inclined to inflict injury to any party including the
government.

“Respondent committed acts of falsification in violation of Art. 171 (4) of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Sec. 4, (par. A), subpar. (c) of Republic Act 6713, the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees.

“Thus, par. 4, Art. 171 of the Revised Penal Code reads, as follows:

                                       ‘Art. 171.          Falsification by public officer, employee; or notary or ecclesiastical minister. — The penalty of prision
mayor and a fine not to exceed 5,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any
public officer, employee, or notary who, taking advantage of his
official position, shall falsify a document by committing any of the
following acts:

1.   x x x                 x x x                 x x x

2.   x x x                 x x x                 x x x

3.   x x x                 x x x                 x x x

4.   Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts.’

And Sec. 4, par. (A), sub-par, (c) of R.A. 6713 reads as follows:

                                       ‘(c)       Justness and sincerity. — Public officials and employees shall remain true to the people at all times.  They
must act with justness and sincerity and shall not discriminate against
anyone, especially the poor and the underprivileged.  They shall at all times respect the right of others, and shall
refrain from doing acts contrary to law, good morals good customs
public policy, public order, public safety and public interest.  They
shall not dispense or extend undue favors on account of their office to
their relatives whether by consanguinity or affinity except with
respect to appointments of such relatives to positions considered
strictly confidential or as members of their personal staff whose terms
are coterminous with theirs.’ (Underscoring ours)

“Dura lex sed lex — The
law may appear to be harsh, yet the law is the law and its validity
presumed, so that its majesty should be respected and obeyed.  (Donato vs. Aquino, 00214-R (CAR), October 2, 1972)

“WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED,
this Commission finds the respondent GUILTY and so recommends to Her
Excellency, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo
that, the respondent being no longer in the government service, only
the accessory penalties of disqualification from the government service
and forfeiture of all his financial benefits be imposed.

“SO RESOLVED.”

After a careful review of the records of the case, this Office affirms in toto the findings of the Commission holding the respondent GUILTY of the charges against him.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing
considerations, and as recommended by the Presidential Anti-Graft
Commission, the accessory penalties of disqualification from the
government service and forfeiture of all financial benefits are hereby
imposed on respondent Jovito Vernon S. Valente, then Director IV, Administrative Service, Department of Budget and Management.

Adopted: 01 Oct. 2002

BY THE PRESIDENT:

(SGD.) ALBERTO G. ROMULO
Executive Secretary