2. Ombudsman vs Racho

CASE DIGEST: DIGEST: OFFICE OF THE THE OMBUDSMAN v. NIETO A. RACHO FACTS: DYHP Balita Action Team Team reported to Deputy Ombudsman Ombud sman for the Visayas a concerned citizen's complaint regarding the uneplained !ealth of "acho# then $hief of the %pecial &nestigation Diision of the Bureau of &nternal "eenue# BP& $ebu and P$& Ban() The Ombudsman conducted an inestigation and found that "acho did not declare his ban( deposits in his %A*+ so the Ombudsman filed a $omplaint for ,alsification of Public Document and Dishonesty against "acho) %ubse-uently# the .raft Prosecution Officer did not gie !eight to the  ban( documents because they !ere mere photocopies so he dismissed the complaint for dishonesty due to insufficiency of eidence) on reie!# reie!# Director Virginia Virginia Palanca decreed that "acho's act of not declaring said ban( deposits in his %A*+ constituted falsification and dishonesty) dishonesty) %he found "acho guilty of the administratie charges against him and imposed the  penalty of dismissal from serice serice !ith forfeiture of all benefits and perpetual dis-ualification dis-ualification to hold public office)

The case !as brought up to the $A !here "acho eplained that he !as n ot the sole o!ner of the  ban( deposits) To To support his position he presented the /oint Affidait of his brothers brothers and nephe! !hich stated that they intended to put up a business) Also# through a %pecial Po!er of Attorney# Attorney# they designated "acho as the trustee of their inestments in the business enture they !ere intending to put up and thaty they authorized him to deposit their money in the herein -uestioned  ban( accounts) The $A ordered a reinestigation) reinestigation) Ho!eer# after its inestigation# inestigation# the Office of the Ombudsman found no reason to deiate from its decision to declare "acho guilty) guilty) "acho filed a petition for reie! !ith the $A) The $A opined that in charges of dishonesty# intention is an important element in its commission) &n this case# it found that "achoneer denied the eistence of the ban( accounts and een attempted to eplain the situation) Thus# there !as lac( of intent to conceal information) ISSUE: Did the CA err in holding that there a! la"# o$ intent on the %art o$ re!%ondent Ra"ho to "on"eal in$or&ation' HE(D: The %upreme $ourt is of the ie! that "acho's non0disclosure of the ban( deposits in his %A*+ constitutes con stitutes dishonesty)

By mandate of la!# eery public official or goernment employee is re-uired to ma(e a complete disclosure of his assets# liabilities and net !orth in order to suppress any -uestionable accumulation of !ealth because the latter usually results from non0disclosure of such matters) Hence# a public official or employee !ho has ac-uired money or property manifestly disproportionate to his salary or his other la!ful income shall be p rima facie presumed to hae illegally ac-uired it) &n this case# "acho not only failed to disclose his ban( accounts containing substantial deposits  but he also failed to satisfactorily eplain the accumulation of his !ealth !ealth or een identify the sources of such accumulated !ealth) The documents that "achopresented# li(e those purportedly sho!ing that his brothers and nephe! !ere financially capable of sending or contributing large amounts of money for their business# do not proe that they did contribute or remit money for their supposed 1oint business enture) he /oint Affidaits allegedly eecuted by "achos siblings and nephe! to corroborate his story !ere later diso!ned and an d denied by his nephe!# Henry# Henry# and brother# Vieto# Vieto# as sho!n by their $ounter0Affidaits) Thus# the %PA and /oint Affidaits Affidaits !hich should eplain the sources of "achos !ealth are dubious and merit no consideration) Also# the %upreme $ourt holds that the $A erred in finding him guilty of simple neglect of duty only) only) As defined# simple neglect of duty is the failure to gie proper attention to a tas( epected 1

from an employee resulting from either carelessness or indifference) &n this case# the discrepancies in the statement of "achos assets are not the results of mere carelessness) On the contrary# there is substantial eidence pointing to a conclusion that "acho is guilty of dishonesty  because of his unmista(able intent to coer up the true source of his -uestioned ban( deposits) &t should be emphasized# ho!eer# that mere misdeclaration of the %A*+ does not automatically amount to dishonesty) Only !hen the accumulated !ealth becomes manifestly disproportionate to the employees income or other sources of income and the public officer2employee fails to  properly account or eplain his other sources of income# does he become susceptible to dishonesty because !hen a public officer ta(es an oath or office# he or she binds himself or herself to faithfully perform the duties of the office and use reasonable s(ill and diligence# and to act primarily for the benefit of the public) Thus# in the discharge of duties# a public officer is to use that prudence# caution and attention !hich careful persons use in the management of their affairs) GRANTED.

2

"epublic of the Philippines SU)REME COURT 3anila %4$O+D D&V&%&O+ G.R. No. *+,-+,

an/ar0 1*2 34**

O$$i"e o$ the O&5/d!&an2 Petitioner# s) Nieto A. Ra"ho2 "espondent)

D4$&%&O + MENDO6A2 J.:

This petition for reie! on certiorari5 under "ule 67 of the "ules of $ourt filed by the Office of the Ombudsman (Ombudsman) assails the ,ebruary 85# 899: Decision8 and +oember 89# 899: "esolution; of the $ourt of Appeals0$ebu (CA) in $A0.)") $4B0%P +o) 99s complaint regarding the alleged uneplained !ealth of "acho# then $hief of the %pecial &nestigation Diision of the Bureau of &nternal "eenue  ?BIR@# $ebu $ity)7 To support the allegation# the complainant attached copies of ban( certifications# all issued in /une of 5===# by 3etroban( $ebu ?Tabuno( Branch@#s letter) Accordingly# the Ombudsman filed a $omplaint for ,alsification of Public Document under Article 55 of the "eised Penal $ode ?O3B0V0$0980986904@ and Dishonesty ?O3B0V0A0980 985604@ against "acho) The Ombudsman# in its August 85# 8998 3emorandum# adopted the ,inal 4aluation "eport= of Administratie Officer 4lpidio 3ontecillo as the s!orn complaint) The reafter# "acho submitted his counter0affidait attac(ing the procedural infirmities of the complaint against him)59 At the scheduled clarificatory hearing# "acho ino(ed his right to remain silent) On /anuary 98# 899; # .raft Prosecution Officer (GPO) Pio Dargantes did not gie !eight to the ban( documents  because they !ere mere photocopies) As a result# he dismissed the complaint for dishonesty ?O3B0V0A098085604@ due to insufficiency of eidence)55 On reie!# Director Virginia Palanca# through a memorandum dated 3ay ;9# 899;#58 decreed that "acho>s act of not declaring said ban( deposits in his %A*+# !hich !ere disproportionate to his and his !ife>s salaries# constituted falsification and dishonesty) %he found "acho guilty of the administratie charges against him and imposed the penalty of dismissal from serice !ith forfeiture of all benefits and perpetual dis-ualification to hold public office) 3

"acho moed for reconsideration5; but his motion !as denied in an Order dated /uly 57# 899;)56 "acho appealed the said order of dismissal to the $A) On /anuary 8s ruling and ordered the reinestigation of the case)57 &n compliance !ith the $A>s decision# the Ombudsman reinestigated the case) &n his $omment#5< "acho denied sole o!nership of the ban( deposits) &n support of his position# he  presented the /oint Affidait5 of his brothers and nephe!# particularly Vieto# Dean and Henry "acho# allegedly eecuted on December 5:# 8996) &n the 1oint s!orn statement# it !as alleged that he and his siblings planned to put up a business and eentually established  Angelsons  Lending and Ines!o"s# Inc$# a corporation registered5: !ith the %ecurities and 4change $ommission (S%C) on April ;9# 5===) To proe their agreement# "acho presented a %pecial Po!er of Attorney#5= dated /anuary 8:# 5==;# !herein his brothers and nephe! designated him as the trustee of their inestments in the business enture they !ere intending to put up and authorized him to deposit their money into his -uestioned ban( accounts to defray business0 related epenses) "acho aerred that his !ife also set up a small business named  Nal Pa&  Phone Se"ices registered under the Department of Trade and &ndustry (D'I) on April ;9# 5===)89 On /anuary 59# 8997# in its "einestigation "eport# the Office of the Ombudsman0Visayas found no reason to deiate from its preious findings against "acho)85 Thus# the "einestigation "eport disposedE Cith all the foregoing# undersigned finds no basis to change# modify nor reerse her preious findings that there is probable cause for the crime of ,A*%&,&$AT&O+ O, PFB*&$ DO$F34+T# defined and penalized under Article 55 of the "eised Penal $ode# against respondent +ieto A) "acho for ma(ing untruthful statements in a narration of facts in his %A*+) As there are additional facts established during the reinestigation# reE failure of 3r) "acho to reflect his business connections# then the &nformation filed against him should be amended to include the same) *et this Amended &nformation be returned to the court for further proceedings) %O "4%O*V4D)88 "acho filed a motion for reconsideration8; but the Ombudsman denied it in its April 5# 8997 /oint Order)86 "acho eleated the case to the $A by !ay of a petition for reie!87 under "ule 6; of the "ules of  $ourt assailing the administratie aspect of the April 5# 8997 /oint Order of the Ombudsman0 Visayas) On ,ebruary 85# 899:# the $A rendered the challenged decision) $iting Ple&!o $ Philiine  Na!ional Police (PNP)C"iminal Ines!iga!ion and De!ec!ion G"ou (CIDG)#8s %pecial Po!er of Attorney itself such as a statement that the date o f registration of the +al Pay Phone %erices !as last April ;9# 5===#> !hen the %pecial Po!er of Attorney had been allegedly eecuted on 8: /anuary 5==;);6 The Ombudsman insists that these inconsistencies should hae alerted the $A to dele more deeply into the case and chec( if "acho>s eplanation through the supposed dubious documents should be gien !eight at all);7 THE COURT;S RU(ING

The $ourt finds merit in the petition) As a general rule# only -uestions of la! may be raised in a petition for reie! on certiorari  because the $ourt is not a trier of facts);< Chen supported by substantial eidence# the findings of  fact of the $A are conclusie and binding on the parties and are not reie!able by this $ourt# unless the case falls under any of the follo!ing recognized eceptionsE ?5@ Chen the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation# surmises and con1ecturesI ?8@ Chen the inference made is manifestly mista(en# absurd or impossibleI ?;@ Chere there is a grae abuse of discretionI ?6@ Chen the 1udgment is based on a misapprehension of factsI ?7@ When the findings of fact are conflicting I ?s siblings and nephe! to corroborate his story !ere later diso1ned and denied b& his nehe1# Hen"&# and b"o!he"# 0ie!o# as sho!n by their $ounter0Affidaits)66 Henry aerred that he !as out of the country at the time of the alleged eecution of the /oint Affidait on December 5:# 8996 and he arried in 3anila only on %eptember 5s income or other sources of income and the public officer2employee fails to  properly account or eplain his other sources of income# does he become susceptible to dishonesty because !hen a public officer ta(es an oath or office# he or she binds himself or herself to faithfully perform the duties of the office and use reasonable s(ill and diligence# and to act primarily for the benefit of the public) Thus# in the discharge of duties# a public officer is to use that prudence# caution and attention !hich careful persons use in the management of their affairs) 7= The $ourt has consistently reminded our public serants that public serice demands utmost integrity and discipline) A public serant must display at all times the highest sense of honesty and integrity# for no less than the $onstitution mandates the principle that a public office is a  public trustI and all public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people and sere them !ith utmost responsibility# integrity# loyalty and efficiency)