ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 141972. May 3, 2000]

GUIANAN vs. CSC, et al.

EN BANC

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAY 3 2000.

G.R. No. 141972 (Guianan vs. Civil Service Commission and Court of Appeals.)

A criminal charge for rape of a 13 year old was filed against the petitioner. The petitioner was acquitted based on reasonable doubt for failure of the examining doctor to testify with certainty that the lacerations on the vagina of the alleged victim were caused by the penetration of a penis because he examined her two months after the alleged incident.

An administrative charge was filed against the petitioner before the Bicol University Pilot High School where the petitioner was employed as property custodian and the alleged victim was enrolled as a first year high school student. After due investigation the school authorities found the petitioner guilty of grave misconduct and imposed the penalty of one year suspension. The records of the investigation were referred to the regional director of the Department of Education and Culture and Sports who then forwarded the said records to the DECS main office. The Secretary of the DECS reviewed the case and imposed the higher penalty of forced resignation without prejudice to reinstatement to public service except DECS.

Petitioner appealed to the Civil Service Commission which after review of the case further increased the penalty to dismissal from the service with all accessory penalties. On November 29, 1999 the Court of Appeals affirmed in toto the decision of the Civil Service Commission. Hence this petition for review.

Petitioner raises the same assignments of error raised before the Court of Appeals i.e., 1) it took the victim two months after the incident before she told her mother about it 2) the testimonies of the victim in the criminal case and in the administrative hearings as to how the alleged rape was committed are inconsistent. In the criminal case, she said the petitioner forced her to remove her clothes and that he covered her mouth with a cloth while he raped her while in the administrative hearings she testified that he took off her clothes and that he covered her mouth with his hands during the rape. The Court of Appeals correctly held that these circumstances do not detract from the fact that the petitioner committed the acts alleged by the victim. The petitioner also argues that the CSC erred in increasing the penalty imposed by the DECS. The Court of Appeals held that the CSC has jurisdiction to decide appeals from administrative disciplinary cases and that penalty imposed by the CSC is within the range of penalties for grave misconduct.

We find no reversible error committed by the Court of Appeals. The petition for review is denied.

Melo, Kapunan, and Purisima, JJ., are on leave.

Very truly yours,

LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO

Clerk of Court

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA

Asst. Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE