FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 221266. June 23, 2021.]
ROCKY F. CAPONONG, petitioner, vs.OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN AND HERMINIO L. SABLAWAN, JR., respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated June 23, 2021 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 221266 — (ROCKY F. CAPONONG, petitioner v. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN AND HERMINIO L. SABLAWAN, JR., respondents). — This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the March 23, 2015 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 131184, which affirmed theFebruary 5, 2013 Decision and the June 14, 2013 Order 2 of the Office of the Ombudsman, finding Rocky F. Caponong (petitioner) guilty of grave misconduct and ordered his dismissal from service with forfeiture of retirement benefits and perpetual disqualification from holding public office in OMB-C-A-12-0227-E.
The Facts
In his Sinumpaang Salaysay, 3 private complainant Herminio L. Sablawan, Jr. (Sablawan) stated that on April 10, 2012, he filed a complaint for reckless imprudence against a driver of JAC Liner with the Makati City Prosecutor's Office, which case was raffled to Assistant City Prosecutor Rocky F. Caponong. During the May 17, 2012 hearing, petitioner asked Sablawan about the job estimate of his vehicle, but got angry when complainant failed to produce the same. Petitioner then asked for P10,000.00 for the resolution of his case. Sablawan, however, told him that he only had P500.00, which petitioner accepted. Petitioner also instructed him to prepare the balance for the resolution of his case and even tried calling him on the phone asking about the balance. On May 22, 2012, Sablawan sought assistance from Erwin Tulfo of TV5. He was instructed to send petitioner a text message informing him that he already had the money. On May 23, 2012, Sablawan, along with the TV5 staff, went to petitioner's office and gave him P1,000.00. In his Karagdagang Sinumpaang Salaysay, Sablawan declared that the police gave him marked money in the amount of P5,000.00 to be used for the entrapment operation against petitioner. On May 24, 2012, when petitioner received the marked money, the police arrested him. 4
Jerico Francis Javier, segment producer of TV5 Aksyon Center, likewise executed a Sinumpaang Salaysay, stating that after Sablawan sought assistance from their program, they coordinated with the Regional Intelligence Unit of the Philippine National Police (PNP) Intelligence Group. They attached a surveillance camera on Sablawan to be able to secretly record petitioner's act of asking for money and of his receipt of the P1,000.00. Police Officer (PO) 1 Marvin M. Ancanan and PO1 Marlon P. Darpiquez executed a Joint Affidavit of Arrest, stating that on May 24, 2012, after petitioner had received the marked money, Sablawan made the pre-arranged signal. Their team immediately entered the Makati City Prosecutor's Office and saw petitioner in possession of the marked money. The initial Laboratory Report 5 indicated that petitioner was found positive of "bright orange ultraviolet fluorescent powder on both palmar and dorsal portion of his hands," the same powder on the marked money prepared by the PNP. 6
In his Partial and Supplemental Counter-Affidavits, petitioner claimed that on or about May 17, 2012, at around 1:30 p.m., Sablawan went to his office for the preliminary investigation of his complaint for reckless imprudence resulting to damage to property and physical injuries against Roberto R. Ibarreta. He inquired if Sablawan had a repair estimate of his damaged taxi, to which the latter answered that he had none. He then instructed Sablawan to submit it in order to support his complaint. Sablawan told him that he needed money because his child, who has a kidney ailment, needed medication. Sablawan lamented that his taxi operator was not helping him in securing the estimate. Petitioner offered to accompany him to repair shops once he had a budget for the repair of his taxi. Petitioner explained that the amounts of P5,000.00 to P10,000.00 pertained to his estimate of the expenses that would be incurred for the taxi's repair, and to be paid to the repair shop. Once the repair estimate was submitted, he could then immediately file the resolution of the case. 7
Petitioner denied receiving P500.00 from Sablawan, and insisted that it was the latter who placed the money on his table and hurriedly left. He also denied getting P1,000.00 from Sablawan on May 23, 2012. He asserted that the amount was intended for the taxi's repair estimate. On May 24, 2012, at around 1:30 p.m., Sablawan arrived at his office and informed him that he had the P5,000.00 for the repair of his vehicle. Sablawan placed the money on the table but he did not touch it. Several men suddenly entered his office and arrested him. They then boarded him into a van and, while in transit, someone made him clasp several five-hundred-peso bills. Petitioner was brought to the ultraviolet fluorescent powder examination room at Camp Crame. DETACa
The Ombudsman's Ruling
In a Decision dated February 5, 2013, the Office of the Ombudsman found petitioner guilty of grave misconduct, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, respondent ROCKY F. CAPONONG is found guilty of GRAVE MISCONDUCT and meted the penalty of DISMISSAL from the service with accessory penalty of forfeiture of retirement benefits and perpetual disqualification from holding public office.
SO ORDERED. 8
Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but the same was denied in an Order dated June 14, 2013.
Aggrieved, petitioner filed the petition for review before the CA.
The CA Ruling
On March 23, 2015, the CA affirmed the Decision of the Office of the Ombudsman, as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated February 5, 2013 and the Order dated June 14, 2013 of the office of the Ombudsman in OMB-C-A-12-0227-E are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
In so ruling, the CA held that petitioner' s claim that said amount of money was for the procurement of the repair estimate for complainant's vehicle is unfounded. If he knew that such money was for the subject repair estimate, then he should have returned it to complainant. The CA found substantial evidence to support the charge of grave misconduct against petitioner. His receipt of sum of money on two occasions before the entrapment; his possession of the marked money during the entrapment; and the result of the laboratory test for the ultraviolet fluorescent powder on his hands are more than sufficient proof that he had illegally solicited money from Sablawan.
In the present petition, petitioner argues that the CA gravely erred in affirming the findings and conclusions of the Office of the Ombudsman. He insists that he was framed up by the arresting officers.
We deny the petition.
The Court emphasizes that, as a general rule, factual findings of the Ombudsman are conclusive when supported by substantial evidence and are accorded due respect and weight, especially when affirmed by the CA. 9 It is settled that findings of fact by the Office of the Ombudsman are conclusive when supported by substantial evidence 10 or such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The requirement is satisfied where there is reasonable ground to believe that the petitioner is guilty of the act or omission complained of, even if the evidence might not be overwhelming. 11
Misconduct generally means wrongful, improper or unlawful conduct motivated by a premeditated, obstinate or intentional purpose. 12 It is intentional wrongdoing or deliberate violation of a rule of law or standard of behavior; and to constitute an administrative offense, the misconduct should relate to or be connected with the performance of the official functions and duties of a public officer. 13 It is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer. 14
To warrant dismissal from the service, the misconduct must be grave, serious, important, weighty, momentous, and not trifling. The misconduct must imply wrongful intention and not a mere error of judgment and must also have a direct relation to and be connected with the performance of the public officer's official duties amounting either to maladministration or willful, intentional neglect, or failure to discharge the duties of the office. In order to differentiate gross misconduct from simple misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of established rule, must be manifest in the former. 15
In this case, the CA correctly upheld the Ombudsman's Decision finding petitioner guilty of grave misconduct. It found that in two previous and separate occasions, petitioner asked and accepted from Sablawan the amount of P500.00 and P1,000.00, respectively. On May 24, 2012, the PNP planned an entrapment operation and prepared the marked money to be given to petitioner. During the operation at the Makati City Hall, petitioner accepted the marked money from Sablawan, and thereafter, he was arrested. He was brought to the PNP office where his hands were found to be positive of ultraviolet fluorescent powder, the same substance present on the marked money. aDSIHc
It should be noted that the police officers enjoy the presumption of regularity in the performance of their functions. The presumption of regularity of official acts may be rebutted by affirmative evidence of irregularity or failure to perform a duty. The presumption, however, prevails until it is overcome by no less than clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. Thus, unless the presumption is rebutted, it becomes conclusive. Every reasonable intendment will be made in support of the presumption and in case of doubt as to an officers act being lawful or unlawful, construction should be in favor of its lawfulness. 16 Unless there is clear and convincing evidence that the police officers were inspired by any improper motive or did not properly perform their duty, their testimonies on the operation deserve full faith and credit. 17 Thus, unless the presumption is rebutted, it becomes conclusive. 18 Considering that petitioner failed to refute the evidence presented against him, the conduct of the operation of the police officers prevails and is presumed regular.
Finally, the 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (2017 RACCS) 19 consider grave misconduct as a grave offense warranting the ultimate penalty of dismissal from service with the accessory penalties of cancellation of eligibility, perpetual disqualification from public office, bar from taking civil service examinations, and forfeiture of retirement benefits. Rule 10, Sections 50 and 57 of the 2017 RACCS provide:
Section 50. Classification of Offenses. — Administrative offenses with corresponding penalties are classified into grave, less grave and light, depending on their gravity or depravity and effects on the government service.
A. The following grave offenses shall be punishable by dismissal from the service:
xxx xxx xxx
3. Grave Misconduct;
xxx xxx xxx
Section 57. Administrative Disabilities Inherent in Certain Penalties. — The following rules shall govern in the imposition of accessory penalties:
1. The penalty of dismissal shall carry with it cancellation of eligibility, perpetual disqualification from holding public office, bar from taking civil service examinations, and forfeiture of retirement benefits.
Terminal leave benefits and personal contributions to Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), Retirement and Benefits Administration Service (RBAS) or other equivalent retirement benefits system shall not be subject to forfeiture. 20
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated March 23, 2015 in CA-G.R. SP No. 131184 is AFFIRMED. Petitioner Rocky F. Caponong is found GUILTY of grave misconduct and is hereby ORDERED DISMISSED FROM THE SERVICE with accessory penalties of forfeiture of retirement benefits and perpetual disqualification from holding public office.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
by:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 24-31; penned by Associate Justice Florito S. Macalino, with Associate Justices Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo and Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles, concurring.
2.Id. at 24.
3.Id. at 25-27.
4.Id. at 29.
5.Id. at 26-27.
6.Id. at 26.
7.Id.
8.Id. at 24.
9. See Cabalit v. Commission on Audit-Region VII, 679 Phil. 138, 157-158 (2012).
10.Miro v. Vda. de Erederos, et al., 721 Phil. 772, 784 (2013).
11.Ombudsman v. Dechavez, 721 Phil. 124, 130 (2013), citing Orbase v. Ombudsman, 623 Phil. 764, 779 (2009).
12. See Ombudsman v. Magno, 592 Phil. 636, 658 (2008).
13.Ganzon v. Arias, 720 Phil. 104, 113 (2013).
14.Amit v. Commission on Audit, et al., 699 Phil. 9, 26 (2012).
15.Commission on Elections v. Mamalinta, 807 Phil. 304, 311 (2017), citing Office of the Court Administrator v. Viesca, 758 Phil. 16, 26-27 (2015).
16.Bustillo, et al. v. People, 634 Phil. 547-556 (2010).
17.People v. Cabiles, 810 Phil. 969, 975-976 (2017).
18.Id.
19. CSC Res. No. 1701077 (2017), 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (2017 RACCS).
20. CSC Res. No. 1701077 (2017), Rule 10, Sections 50 and 57.