October 2008 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2008 > October 2008 Resolutions >
[A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 06-2439-P : October 08, 2008] JUDGE MARIA ELISA SEMPIO DIY V. JOVENCIO C. OLIVEROS, JR. UTILITY WORKER, RTC, BR. 102, QUEZON CITY :
[A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 06-2439-P : October 08, 2008]
JUDGE MARIA ELISA SEMPIO DIY V. JOVENCIO C. OLIVEROS, JR. UTILITY WORKER, RTC, BR. 102, QUEZON CITY
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 08 October 2008:
A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 06-2439-P (Judge Maria Elisa Sempio Diy v. Jovencio C. Oliveros, Jr.. Utility Worker, RTC, Br. 102, Quezon City)
In a letter dated October 27, 2004, Judge Maria Elisa Sempio Diy requested then Executive Judge Ralph S. Lee of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) in Quezon City to investigate Jovencio "Joey" C. Oliveros. Jr.. Utility Worker of the Regional Trial Court (RTC). Branch 102 in Quezon City, who allegedly delivered a falsified release order in the unraffled Criminal Case No. 123711. entitled People of the Philippines v. Marie Paz Ramos y Romero for Theft. According to Judge Sempio Diy. she did not issue the said release order and to prove her point, she provided a template of a release order form used by her court for comparison with the falsified release order form, and a certification that her signature in the latter was a forgery. She also submitted an affidavit of PO3 Emelito Maniquis Dela Cruz attesting that it was Oliveros who delivered the falsified release order.
Oliveros denied it was he who delivered the fake release order. He even submitted a copy of the Resolution in LS. No. 04-14262 in P/Supt. Jose Mario Espino v. Joey Oliveros for Forgery and Falsification of Public Document, issued by Assistant City Prosecutor Maximo B. Usita, Jr. dated January 27. 2005.[1] The Resolution pertained to the request of Judge Sempio Diy for investigation of the falsified release order. The case was dismissed for apparent lack of complainant to farther pursue the complaint [2]
Dela Cruz attended the first hearing conducted by Judge Lee. but in the hearings presided by Judge Ma. Victoria Alba-Estoesta who succeeded Judge Lee. Dela Cruz could no longer be contacted. Even the accused Ramos had transferred residence.
In her report dated December 10, 2005, Judge Estoesta recommended the dismissal of the complaint against Oliveros for the following reasons: (1) There was no preponderant proof that Oliveros. an employee of the RTC. delivered the falsified release order of the MeTC Branch 34; (2) it was unacceptable that the police officer did not verify why an RTC employee was delivering an MeTC release order when the MeTC had more than 50 process servers; and (3) the records indicate that Oliveros was not positively and categorically identified as the person who delivered the fake release order.[3]
Court Administrator Christopher O. Lock disagreed with the recommendation to dismiss the complaint against Oliveros and ordered a more thorough investigation.
On July 17, 2006. this Court directed Executive Judge Estoesta to continue the investigation and required the Philippine National Police Director General to cause the presence of the principal witness. PO3 Dela Cruz, during the investigation.
On March 7. 2007, PO3 Dela Cruz testified that he was the one who received the fake release order from Oliveros and that he turned over the fake order to PO1 Arsenio Mendoza, the Desk Officer on-duty that day. PO1 Mendoza effected the release of the accused. PO1 Mendoza testified that he could no longer remember the events but said he knew Oliveros since the latter lived near the police station and was a hanger-on around the station.[4]
For his part. Oliveros maintained his innocence and explained that he was a familiar face around the police station since he was often there to deliver the release orders of the RTC from the Office of Executive Judge Natividad Dizon. He averred that he was just being made a fall guy and had heard of the anomalies happening in the station.
On the basis of the positive, although uncorroborated identification of Oliveros by PO3 Dela Cruz. Judge Estoesta reversed her recommendation to dismiss the complaint against Oliveros. This time she said that she had no reason to doubt the sincerity of PO3 Dela Cruz's testimony as he had been consistent and appeared to be untainted with ill motives. Judge Estoesta recommended that Oliveros be suspended for one month considering it was his first offense.
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) agreed with the findings of Judge Estoesta but deemed the penalty imposed on Oliveros too light inasmuch as the act of delivering a fake release order constituted serious misconduct. The OCA asked that Oliveros be dismissed. This time, the OCA Report dated October 8, 2007 signed by Court Administrator Lock stated that. "There was clear showing that the act complained of was so corrupt and motivated by an intention to violate the law. Respondent's guilt has been established with solid and convincing proof." The same was reiterated in the June 10, 2008 OCA Report signed by then Court Administrator Zenaida N. Elepa�o and then Deputy Court Administrator now Court Administrator Jose P. Perez.
We agree with the recommendation to dismiss Oliveros. As pointed out by the investigating judge, there was no reason to doubt the testimony of PO3 Dela Cruz that Oliveros was the person who delivered the falsified release order and there was no ill motive on his part to lie. The positive and direct allegations of PO3 Dela Cruz must prevail over the mere denials of respondent [5] Furthermore. Oliveros had failed to overcome the presumption that the police officers were performing their tasks with regularity. In administrative cases, only substantial evidence is required, and we agree with the recommendation of the investigating judge and the OCA that there is substantial evidence to conclude that Oliveros delivered the falsified release order.
Additionally. Oliveros is charged with a grave offense. Under Article 171(2)[6]of the Revised Penal Code, public officers or employees may be held liable for falsification if. taking advantage of their official positions, they cause it to appear that a person or persons have participated in an act or a proceeding when such person did not in fact so participate in the act or the proceeding.'[7] In the present case, although it has not been established that Oliveros was responsible or took part in the preparation of the falsified release order, the mere act of delivering the falsified document is indication that he had so participated and the consequence of the falsified release order was the unwarranted release of a detention prisoner.
The Code of Conduct for Court Personnel enjoins as it does employees of the judiciary, from the justices to the lowliest employee, to be the epitome of all that is honest, fair, and ethical because any act of impropriety on their part affects the reputation of the judiciary and the people's confidence in it. Oliveros has not lived up to this ideal. His offense constitutes grave misconduct, punishable by dismissal from the service.
At the time of the writing of this Resolution, Oliveros was already dismissed from the service on July 4, 2008 in A.M. No. P-07-2303 for tardiness and falsification of his Daily Time Record, making this case moot and academic.
WHEREFORE, the instant complaint is DISMISSED for being moot.
SO ORDERED.
A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 06-2439-P (Judge Maria Elisa Sempio Diy v. Jovencio C. Oliveros, Jr.. Utility Worker, RTC, Br. 102, Quezon City)
In a letter dated October 27, 2004, Judge Maria Elisa Sempio Diy requested then Executive Judge Ralph S. Lee of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) in Quezon City to investigate Jovencio "Joey" C. Oliveros. Jr.. Utility Worker of the Regional Trial Court (RTC). Branch 102 in Quezon City, who allegedly delivered a falsified release order in the unraffled Criminal Case No. 123711. entitled People of the Philippines v. Marie Paz Ramos y Romero for Theft. According to Judge Sempio Diy. she did not issue the said release order and to prove her point, she provided a template of a release order form used by her court for comparison with the falsified release order form, and a certification that her signature in the latter was a forgery. She also submitted an affidavit of PO3 Emelito Maniquis Dela Cruz attesting that it was Oliveros who delivered the falsified release order.
Oliveros denied it was he who delivered the fake release order. He even submitted a copy of the Resolution in LS. No. 04-14262 in P/Supt. Jose Mario Espino v. Joey Oliveros for Forgery and Falsification of Public Document, issued by Assistant City Prosecutor Maximo B. Usita, Jr. dated January 27. 2005.[1] The Resolution pertained to the request of Judge Sempio Diy for investigation of the falsified release order. The case was dismissed for apparent lack of complainant to farther pursue the complaint [2]
Dela Cruz attended the first hearing conducted by Judge Lee. but in the hearings presided by Judge Ma. Victoria Alba-Estoesta who succeeded Judge Lee. Dela Cruz could no longer be contacted. Even the accused Ramos had transferred residence.
In her report dated December 10, 2005, Judge Estoesta recommended the dismissal of the complaint against Oliveros for the following reasons: (1) There was no preponderant proof that Oliveros. an employee of the RTC. delivered the falsified release order of the MeTC Branch 34; (2) it was unacceptable that the police officer did not verify why an RTC employee was delivering an MeTC release order when the MeTC had more than 50 process servers; and (3) the records indicate that Oliveros was not positively and categorically identified as the person who delivered the fake release order.[3]
Court Administrator Christopher O. Lock disagreed with the recommendation to dismiss the complaint against Oliveros and ordered a more thorough investigation.
On July 17, 2006. this Court directed Executive Judge Estoesta to continue the investigation and required the Philippine National Police Director General to cause the presence of the principal witness. PO3 Dela Cruz, during the investigation.
On March 7. 2007, PO3 Dela Cruz testified that he was the one who received the fake release order from Oliveros and that he turned over the fake order to PO1 Arsenio Mendoza, the Desk Officer on-duty that day. PO1 Mendoza effected the release of the accused. PO1 Mendoza testified that he could no longer remember the events but said he knew Oliveros since the latter lived near the police station and was a hanger-on around the station.[4]
For his part. Oliveros maintained his innocence and explained that he was a familiar face around the police station since he was often there to deliver the release orders of the RTC from the Office of Executive Judge Natividad Dizon. He averred that he was just being made a fall guy and had heard of the anomalies happening in the station.
On the basis of the positive, although uncorroborated identification of Oliveros by PO3 Dela Cruz. Judge Estoesta reversed her recommendation to dismiss the complaint against Oliveros. This time she said that she had no reason to doubt the sincerity of PO3 Dela Cruz's testimony as he had been consistent and appeared to be untainted with ill motives. Judge Estoesta recommended that Oliveros be suspended for one month considering it was his first offense.
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) agreed with the findings of Judge Estoesta but deemed the penalty imposed on Oliveros too light inasmuch as the act of delivering a fake release order constituted serious misconduct. The OCA asked that Oliveros be dismissed. This time, the OCA Report dated October 8, 2007 signed by Court Administrator Lock stated that. "There was clear showing that the act complained of was so corrupt and motivated by an intention to violate the law. Respondent's guilt has been established with solid and convincing proof." The same was reiterated in the June 10, 2008 OCA Report signed by then Court Administrator Zenaida N. Elepa�o and then Deputy Court Administrator now Court Administrator Jose P. Perez.
We agree with the recommendation to dismiss Oliveros. As pointed out by the investigating judge, there was no reason to doubt the testimony of PO3 Dela Cruz that Oliveros was the person who delivered the falsified release order and there was no ill motive on his part to lie. The positive and direct allegations of PO3 Dela Cruz must prevail over the mere denials of respondent [5] Furthermore. Oliveros had failed to overcome the presumption that the police officers were performing their tasks with regularity. In administrative cases, only substantial evidence is required, and we agree with the recommendation of the investigating judge and the OCA that there is substantial evidence to conclude that Oliveros delivered the falsified release order.
Additionally. Oliveros is charged with a grave offense. Under Article 171(2)[6]of the Revised Penal Code, public officers or employees may be held liable for falsification if. taking advantage of their official positions, they cause it to appear that a person or persons have participated in an act or a proceeding when such person did not in fact so participate in the act or the proceeding.'[7] In the present case, although it has not been established that Oliveros was responsible or took part in the preparation of the falsified release order, the mere act of delivering the falsified document is indication that he had so participated and the consequence of the falsified release order was the unwarranted release of a detention prisoner.
The Code of Conduct for Court Personnel enjoins as it does employees of the judiciary, from the justices to the lowliest employee, to be the epitome of all that is honest, fair, and ethical because any act of impropriety on their part affects the reputation of the judiciary and the people's confidence in it. Oliveros has not lived up to this ideal. His offense constitutes grave misconduct, punishable by dismissal from the service.
At the time of the writing of this Resolution, Oliveros was already dismissed from the service on July 4, 2008 in A.M. No. P-07-2303 for tardiness and falsification of his Daily Time Record, making this case moot and academic.
WHEREFORE, the instant complaint is DISMISSED for being moot.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
�(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, p. 18.
[2] Id. at 83.
[3] Id. at 84
[4] Id. at 98.
[5] Pablejan v. Calleja, A.M. No. P-06-2102. January 24. 2006. 479 SCRA 562. 568.
[6] 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 :
(2) Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding when they did not in fact so participate.
[7] Report on the Alleged Spurious Bailbonds and Release Orders Issued by the RTC Br. 27. Sta. Cruz. Laguna. A.M. No. 04-6-332-RTC. April 5. 2006. 486 SCRA 500.515.
