ChanRobles Virtual law Library
PHILIPPINE LAWS, STATUTES & CODES
A collection of Philippine laws, statutes and codes not included or cited in the main indices of the Chan Robles Virtual Law Library.
:
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS
PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ PHILIPPINE LAWS, STATUTES & CODES
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 346 -
IMPOSING THE PENALTY OF SIX MONTHS SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE ON FOREIGN
SERVICE OFFICER I JOSE P. AMPESO OF THE DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Before this Office is the 06 January 1997
recommendation of Secretary of Foreign Affairs Domingo L.zon, Jr. on
the findings made by the Investigating Committee and affirmed by the
Board of Foreign Service Administration regarding the administrative
charges filed against Foreign Service Officer I Jose P. Ampeso.
The charges, based on the
complaints filed by Foreign Service Staff Employee II Benjamin Laplana
and Foreign Service Staff Officer II Amelita G. Almeda are as follows:
a) grave misconduct; b) falsification of official documents; c) conduct
prejudicial to the best interest of the service; and d) violation of
Civil Service Law, Rules and Regulations.
On 19 May 1994, the Board of
Foreign Service Administration, acting on the charges, created an
Investigation Committee to hear the case. During the proceedings, the
complainants and the respondent were represented by counsel.
On the basis of the hearings
conducted and the evidence on record, the Investigating Committee found
Ampeso guilty of all the charges.
Regarding Laplana's complaint,
the Committee determined that a certification of his emoluments was
submitted to the Bureau of Customs and to the Department of Finance to
enable him to import a Range Rover to the country, free of duties and
taxes. The Office of Personnel and Administrative Services denied
having issued a certification on the emoluments. The Department of
Foreign Affairs likewise had no record of the said certificate.
Although there was no direct
evidence to show that the respondent falsified the documents submitted
to the Bureau of Customs, the Committee considered the following
circumstantial evidence to prove Ampeso's participation in and
awareness of the transaction: a) taking advantage of his position and
friendship with Mr. Laplana, then assigned at the Philippine Embassy in
Jakarta, respondent convinced him to fax his passport and
identification card, the same documents that were later used in the
duty-free importation of the Range Rover; b) on two occasions
respondent received money from Ampeso, the first being US $200.00 that
was given when the documents were being processed and the P25,000.00
received after the release of the Range Rover; c) Ampeso arranged the
meeting wherein a special power of attorney concerning the said vehicle
was executed between Laplana and a certain Mr. Ricafort.
Anent the complaint filed by
Mrs. Almeda, the Committee established that complainant's DFA ID and a
photocopy of her assignment and recall order were used for the tax free
importation of BMW vehicle in her name. Earlier, she entrusted said
documents to Ampeso upon his representation that they were necessary in
identifying the package which he volunteered to deliver to her family
in Vancouver. Prior thereto, respondent also verified whether
complainant had availed of her tax free privilege. When Mrs. Almeda
confronted Ampeso, the latter admitted to having arranged the shipment
of the BMW but he assured her that she will not be implicated in the
importation.
The Committee's findings were
affirmed by the Board of Foreign Service Administration during its 5
June 1995 deliberations and found respondent guilty of misconduct. The
BFSA recommended respondent's suspension from service for seven months
and 18 days.
On 14 August 1995, respondent
moved for a reconsideration of the Committee's findings. On 29 January
1996, he submitted a letter to the Office of the Secretary wherein he
attached a 15 January 1996 affidavit of desistance allegedly executed
by complainant Laplana. The affidavit stated that his complaint was
prepared under duress and intimidation and that respondent had no
participation in the illegal importation.
In light of the affidavit of
desistance, the Secretary of Foreign Affairs, on 07 March 1996, created
a committee to review the decision of the BFSA. In view however of
Laplana's death on 09 March 1996, the Committee found no legal basis
for a review. The Committee reasoned that the complainant's death
prevented them from validating the retraction and verifying the
circumstances which caused its execution. Furthermore, reliance was
placed on existing jurisprudence stating that retraction of testimony
previously given, especially if the same was made in the presence of or
upon advice of counsel is looked upon with disfavor for obvious
reasons. An affidavit of retraction can easily be secured from
witnesses, usually thru intimidation or monetary consideration, thus
recanted testimony is considered exceedingly unreliable" (Lopez v. CA
G.R. No. 101507, 29 December 1994).
Respondent's one month
suspension was thereafter recommended by the Department of Foreign
Affairs.
It may be recalled that at the
outset of the investigation, the DFA filed four charges, namely grave
misconduct, falsification of official documents, conduct prejudicial to
the best interest of the service and violation of existing Civil
Service laws, rules and regulations. While the Investigating Committee
found respondent guilty of misconduct on both the Laplana and Almeda
importation, no ruling was made on the other charges.
Nonetheless, it is sufficiently
clear from the evidence on record, particularly the Reports of the
Investigating Committee and the BFSA Resolution, that respondent
committed two counts of misconduct.
Sec. 22, Rule XIV of the
Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of the Revised Administrative Code,
specify the imposition of suspension for one (1) month and one (1) day
to six (6) months for acts constituting simple misconduct, to be
determined by the presence of any mitigating or aggravating
circumstances. Relative thereto, it is stated in Sec. 17 of the same
rules that should the respondent be found guilty of two or more charges
or counts, the penalty imposed should be that corresponding to the most
serious charge or count and the rest may be considered as aggravating
circumstances.
Thus while this Office is
inclined to impose a stiffer penalty on respondent Ampeso to send an
unequivocal signal to our fellow public servants, the clear provision
of the aforecited rules constrains us to do otherwise.
WHEREFORE, in view of the
foregoing provisions of law and the substantial evidence establishing
respondent's guilt, respondent is hereby meted the penalty of
suspension from office without pay for six (6) months with a strong
warning that a commission of similar offense in the future will be
dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED.
chan
robles virtual law library
Back
to Main
Since 19.07.98.