ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 69 -
IMPOSING UPON FORMER COMMISSIONER RUFINO V. MIJARES OF THE COMMISSION
ON THE SETTLEMENT OF LAND PROBLEMS THE PENALTIES OF CANCELLATION OF
CIVIL SERVICE ELIGIBILITY AND FORFEITURE OF ALL LEAVE CREDITS AND
RETIREMENT BENEFITS, AS WELL AS DISQUALIFICATION FOR RE-EMPLOYMENT
AND/OR REINSTATEMENT IN THE GOVERNMENT SERVICE, AS ACCESSORY PENALTIES
TO DISMISSAL FROM THE SERVICE FOR CAUSE
This refers to the administrative case
initiated by the Department of Justice (DOJ) against Commissioner
Rufino V. Mijares, Commission on the Settlement of Land Problems
(COSLAP), for grave misconduct, for allegedly receiving marked money in
the amount of Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) as consideration for
assisting a certain Salud Sabado in the expeditious resolution of the
latter's ejectment case pending before the Court of Appeals and/or
expeditious resolution of her case for annulment of title pending with
the COSLAP.
As found by the DOJ, the facts of the case are as follows:
"Ms.
Salud Sabado is a respondent in a case for ejectment pending before a
Manila Regional Trial Court (RTC). Sometime in 1997 and during the
pendency of her case before the Manila RTC, she read a newspaper
advertisement claiming that respondent is in a position to help poor
people involved in land disputes. When Ms. Sabado approached
respondent, the latter advised her to file a countersuit for
cancellation of title before the COSLAP. Respondent even referred her
to a certain Frederico Aguilar (a non-lawyer) for legal assistance.
Notwithstanding respondent's advice, Ms. Sabado lost her case at the
Manila RTC. Upon advice of respondent, she subsequently filed an appeal
before the Court of Appeals.
When the Appellate Court
rendered an adverse decision, Ms. Sabado again sought respondent's
guidance on the proper action to take. Respondent intimated to Ms.
Sabado that she might have to shell-out a considerable amount for a
reconsideration of the Appellate Court's ruling.
With the adverse ruling, Ms.
Sabado followed-up the status of her case for cancellation of title
pending before the COSLAP which proved futile. In one of her visits,
Ms. Sabado chanced upon a fellow client who intimated that the reason
why probably she is not being attended to at the COSLAP is her failure
to give 'grease money'.
Exasperated and alarmed at the
'cold treatment' she is getting from respondent, Ms. Sabado sought the
assistance of Col. Rodolfo Azurin, Jr., of the Traffic Management
Group-Special Operation Division (TMG-SOD). A plan was hatched for PO2
Rosalie Santos of the TMG to accompany Ms. Sabado and meet respondent
on 10 April 2000 at the COSLAP, in order to establish whether there is
sufficient basis to support Ms. Sabado's complaint.
Upon arriving at the COSLAP, Ms.
Sabado introduced PO2 Santos as her sister married to a wealthy
Japanese, who just arrived from Japan and who is willing to shoulder
the expenses relative to Ms. Sabado's land problem. While respondent
never demanded any money, respondent nevertheless assured them that he
is willing to help and advised them to return on 14 April 2000 for a
conference.
Armed with the report of PO2
Santos and another complaint (an affidavit dated 23 March 2000 of a
certain Roger Dap-og claiming that respondent demanded P10,000.00 from
him for favorable resolution of a case pending with COSLAP) on file
with the PAOCTF, Col. Azurin decided to conduct an entrapment operation
against respondent.
On her own volition, Ms. Sabado
returned to COSLAP in the morning of 12 April 2000 to see respondent.
Respondent who then had a previous engagement, requested Ms. Sabado to
return that afternoon (4:00 p.m.). Ms. Sabado immediately called up PO2
Santos and subsequently went to the TMG-SOD. She was in turn referred
to the Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Task Force (PAOCTF) for the
preparation of the P30,000.00 marked money to be used in the entrapment
operation.
Ms. Sabado, together with the
combined forces of the TMG-SOD and the PAOCTF, went to COSLAP in the
afternoon of 12 April 2000. While Ms. Sabado and PO2 Santos were
talking with respondent, inside the latter's office, the members of the
arresting team strategically positioned themselves within the COSLAP
premises.
After sometime, Ms. Sabado came
out of the room. Taking it as the sign that respondent accepted the
marked money, Maj. Ricardo G. Dandan, leader of the arresting team,
Col. Azurin and SPO4 Tito Tuanggang immediately entered respondent's
office. After Maj. Dandan shook respondent's hand the former announced
that the latter was under arrest."
The marked money amounting to Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) was
recovered from the drawer of respondent's table.
Investigation at the PNP Crime Laboratory revealed that respondent was
found positive for ultra-violet fluorescent powder on the dorsal side
of the middle and ring fingers of his right hand.
In the light of the above incident, respondent was administratively
charged with grave misconduct and immediately placed under preventive
suspension.
In exculpation, respondent denies the accusation. He avers that:
a) he was just set-up through the combined efforts of
COSLAP employees led by acting COSLAP Commissioners Lina General and
Noel Galarosa and COSLAP Hearing Officers Michael Millora and Wilberto
Tolitol. He avers that Attys. General, Millora and Tolitol were at Camp
Crame in the evening of 12 April 2000 precisely to help Ms. Sabado, et
al., in the preparation of their affidavits; and
b) while he was found positive for ultra-violet
fluorescent powder, the same was only found on the dorsal side of the
middle and ring fingers of his right hand thus arguing that he never
received the marked money and that the same was merely slapped on his
hand or that his hands may have been contaminated when he shook hands
with one of the arresting officers who prepared the marked
money.
During the investigation, respondent stood firm on his allegation that
he was just a victim of a grand conspiracy to oust him from his present
position. To corroborate his allegation, respondent presented as
witnesses Jessie Vargas and Rodrigo Magaling who both testified that at
around 3:30 p.m. of 12 April 2000, while they were at respondent's
office, they saw two (2) women (later identified as Sabado and PO2
Santos) enter the said office and surreptitiously place an envelope
inside respondent's desk and hurriedly leave afterwards. A day after,
they learned from Atty. Millora, an employee of COSLAP, that respondent
was arrested by PAOCTF for allegedly receiving marked money from the
said women.
On the other hand Sabado and PO2 Santos testified that they met
respondent at his office in the afternoon of 12 April 2000. They
inquired from respondent the exact amount needed to settle the pending
case and the latter replied that they would need a substantial amount.
Requested to give an approximate amount, respondent opined that they
would need Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00). PO2 Santos informed
respondent that she only had Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) at that
time. Respondent readily agreed to accept the same.
Prior to the giving of the marked money, respondent allegedly ordered
the other visitors in his office to immediately leave the room. After
the visitors have gone out, PO2 Santos placed the envelope containing
the marked money on respondent's desk. The envelope was then placed by
respondent inside his desk drawer. Upon seeing this, Sabado excused
herself and left the room. At this juncture, the combined PAOCTF and
TMG operatives entered the room and arrested respondent.
Prosecution witness Inspector Josephine Clemen of the PNP Crime
Laboratory testified that respondent was tested positive of the
ultra-violet fluorescent powder, the same material found on the eight
(8) pieces of P500.00 bills used in the entrapment operation.
After evaluating the evidence on record, then DOJ Secretary Artemio
Tuquero found respondent guilty as charged and recommended his
dismissal from the service, reasoning as follows:
"As
between the two versions: i.e. Ms. Sabado, et al., and respondent, this
Office believes that the former is more credible.
Majority of respondent's
evidence and testimony are self-serving and thus deserve scant
consideration. His allegation that it may have been Ms. Sabado and PO2
Santos who 'planted' the evidence prior to their meeting is far
incredible to believe. In the supposed corroborative testimony of Mr.
Jessie Vargas who allegedly saw PO2 Santos place the envelope
containing marked money inside respondent's desk prior to the
entrapment, Mr. Vargas described the incident in this wise:
'CHAIRMAN:
Noong nakita n'yo yong dalawang
babae doon sa loob ng kwarto, meron pa bang ibang tao na nandoon sa
kwartong yon?
MR. VARGAS:
Meron po akong katabi doon pero
mga tulog sila.
CHAIRMAN:
Mga ilan ang kasama mo doon?
xxx
xxx
xxx
MR. VARGAS:
Mga apat po kami.
xxx
xxx
xxx
CHAIRMAN:
Maliban sa kanila? (referring to
PO2 Santos and Ms. Sabado)
MR. VARGAS:
Maliban po sa kanila.
CHAIRMAN:
So, anim kayong lahat?
MR. VARGAS:
Opo.
xxx
xxx
xxx
CHAIRMAN:
Magkagayon pa man, anim kayong
nandodoon sa loob ng kwarto. Sa inyong anim ay meron pa ring dalawang
tao na naglakas loob na lumapit sa lamesa ni Commissioner Mijares at
ilagay doon yong sobre, ganoon ba ang gusto mong palabasin?
MR. VARGAS:
Ganoon nga po.'
(see p. 36-38 of T.S.N. for 13
July 2000 hearing)
Ordinary and normal experience
dictates that for one to do an illicit act, such as 'planting
evidence', the same should be done as discreetly as possible and out of
sight of other people or strangers. Stated differently, if indeed PO2
Santos placed the envelope containing the marked money inside
respondent's desk, she should have been careful enough, as an
experience police officer, to have done the same surreptitiously.
Respondent tries to place in
issue the PNP-Crime Lab findings that even if he was found positive for
ultra-violet fluorescent powder, the same was only found on the dorsal
side of the middle and ring fingers of his right hand thus arguing that
he never received the marked money and that the same was merely slapped
on his hand or that his hand may have been contaminated when he shook
hands with one of the arresting officers who prepared the marked money.
(see p. 27 of T.S.N. for 13 July 2000 hearing).
When asked to explain this
apparent discrepancy, Maj. Dandan, leader of the arresting team opined
that it was possible that respondent may have wiped his hands prior to
the laboratory examination, thus negating the presence of UV powder on
his right palm.
In her testimony relative to the
nature of the ultra violet fluorescent powder, Police Inspector
Josephine Clemen, the forensic chemist who examined respondent after
the entrapment, gave the following explanation:
'CHAIRMAN:
No(w), in so far the hand is
concerned, when you say that it can be transferred, you say that by
just wiping your hand and washing. Now supposed I wipe my hand will
there be (any) residue left on my hand or is it a complete transfer?
INSPECTOR CLEMEN:
It depends on the degree how you
wash your hand.
CHAIRMAN:
No(t) just wiping(?)
INSPECTOR CLEMEN:
The reaction, Sir, is only
physical, when you, let wipe it with some kind of a cotton or wash your
hand there is a possibility that this UV powder will be gone from your
hand.
CHAIRMAN:
It will be removed?
INSPECTOR CLEMEN:
Yes, Sir, it will be removed.
CHAIRMAN:
So there is a possibility that
it can be removed?
INSPECTOR CLEMEN:
Yes, Sir because the reaction is
only physical.
CHAIRMAN:
Physical? So it can be removed
through physical means.
INSPECTOR CLEMEN:
Yes, Sir.
CHAIRMAN:
Wiping? Washing?
INSPECTOR CLEMEN:
Yes, Sir.'
(see p. 18-20 of T.S.N. for 04
September 2000 hearing)
From its very nature, we can see
that the ultra violet fluorescent powder is not a full-proof means of
determining whether a suspect did or did not receive the marked money.
Its presence or absence does not, in any way, affect the categorical
declaration of Ms. Sabado and PO2 Santos that respondent actually
received the marked money.
In his last ditch effort to
escape liability, respondent would like to make it appear that the
masterminds of the supposed entrapment were the four ranking COSLAP
officials who conspired in trying to oust respondent from office. Such
specious argument likewise deserves scant consideration. Except for the
speculative argument that Ms. Sabado hails from Naga City, where Atty.
General allegedly hails from (which Atty. General has vehemently denied
by saying that she is from Masbate), this Office does not find any
logical and evidently connection between and among the said officials
that would cast doubt on the motive, intention or integrity of the
members of the arresting team. Suffice it to say, that respondent has
failed to overcome the presumption of regularity in the performance of
one's duty, which the law accords to the members of the arresting
team.
Moreover, respondent's argument
that the COSLAP does not exercise jurisdiction over the case of Ms.
Sabado for cancellation of title and as such she should not have
expected any positive relief from the COSLAP, only worked to the
disadvantage of respondent. Based on Ms. Sabado's testimony, it was
respondent who advised her as early as 1997 to file a countersuit for
cancellation of title with the COSLAP. As COSLAP Chairman, he should
not have counseled Ms. Sabado to file such useless action. His bad
faith is further aggravated by the fact that even after the lapse of
three years, he still failed to act on Ms. Sabado's useless action.
Such inaction serves to support Ms. Sabado's belief that respondent was
waiting for 'something' to finally act on the matter.
On the other hand the testimony
of Ms. Sabado, PO2 Santos, Major Dandan, and Col. Azurin, taken as a
whole materially dovetails with each other leading to no other
conclusion than that respondent actually took the marked money."
In his letter of April 26, 2001, then DOJ Secretary Hernando Perez
interposed no objection to the findings and recommendation of his
predecessor.
After a careful review of the records of this case, this Office concurs
with the above findings and recommendation of the DOJ.
Without doubt, respondent failed to controvert the straightforward and
unwavering accusation of Sabado that he demanded money from the latter
in exchange for a favorable resolution of her case. It is highly
insulting to one's intelligence to believe that (1) Sabado would give
such a huge sum of money to respondent without the latter demanding it;
(2) that PO2 Santos, an experienced police officer, would place inside
respondent's desk the envelope containing the marked money, in plain
view of respondent's visitors; (3) that Attys. General, Galarosa,
Millora and Tolitol have all conspired to oust him from his present
position and take over his position where neither of them expressed or
showed interest in his position; (4) that the PAOCTF operatives would
take part in a grand scheme to frame respondent when they are presumed
under the law to have acted in the regular performance of their
official duty; and (5) that Sabado would concoct a story against the
respondent when she has no known penchant for indiscriminately filing
suits of whatever nature against any public official. What is evident
from the records is that respondent put the squeeze on Sabado to
produce money in exchange for a favorable resolution of her case and
that the former accepted the marked money given by PO2 Santos.
Among the acts constituting corrupt practices under the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act (Republic Act No. 3019, as amended) is the
receiving of any money or benefit by a public officer in connection
with any transaction between the government and a private party
(Sec. 3[b]). For a public servant to accept money and other payments
from parties he assists in the course of the performance of his duties
is inimical to the best interest of the service, as his office would be
tainted with suspicion (Tan vs. Herras, 195 SCRA 1). It has oft been
repeated by this Office that the conduct and behavior of every public
official must at all times be characterized with propriety and decorum
for they are the epitome of integrity, uprightness and honesty (Llanes
vs. Borja, 192 SCRA 288). It is patent from this case that respondent
did not only use his office to serve his nefarious activities but
altogether tainted the integrity of COSLAP to which he owes fealty and
the obligation to keep at all times unsullied and worthy of the
people's trust. He does not, therefore, deserve to remain in the
government service and should accordingly be removed therefrom.
We, however, note that respondent has not reported for work since April
2000 nor informed COSLAP of his whereabouts. Concededly, the imposition
upon him of the penalty of dismissal from the service would be plain
supererogation or vain superfluity.
Be that as it may, the government is not left without recourse against
respondent who should be made to account for his transgression. And the
remedy therefore is to impose upon respondent the accessory penalties
to dismissal from the service. Under Sec. 9, Rule XIV of the Omnibus
Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292 (Administrative
Code of 1987), the penalty for dismissal shall carry with it the
cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of leave credits and retirement
benefits, and disqualification for reemployment in the government
service.
WHEREFORE, and as recommended by the Secretary of Justice, former
Commissioner Rufino V. Mijares, Commission on the Settlement of Land
Problems, is hereby found guilty of grave misconduct and imposed upon
him the accessory penalties of cancellation Civil Service eligibility
and forfeiture of all leave credits and retirement benefits, as well as
disqualification for reemployment and/or reinstatement in the
government service.
Done in the City of Manila this
11th day of April, in the year of Our Lord, two thousand and three.
|