EN BANC
A.M. No. P-16-3530 [Formerly A.M. No. 16-08-306-RTC], March 06, 2018
HON. JOSEPHINE ZARATE-FERNANDEZ, EXECUTIVE JUDGE AND PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 76, SAN MATEO, RIZAL, Complainant, v. RAINIER M. LOVENDINO, COURT AIDE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 76, SAN MATEO, RIZAL, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
PER CURIAM:
Before this Court is the Letter-Complaint1 dated August 15, 2016, filed by Hon. Josephine Zarate-Fernandez (complainant), Executive Judge and Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 76 of San Mateo, Rizal (RTC) against Rainier M. Lovendino (respondent), Court Aide of the same court, before the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), for the unlawful taking of drug specimens stored in the court's vault.
The Antecedents
Complainant alleged that in the case of People v. Jonathan Ursaga docketed as Crim. Case No. 12817-12818, pending before the RTC, for violation of Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, the presentation of the prosecution's evidence was re-opened upon a motion fi1ed by the prosecution to allow its witness P02 Ruel Romanillos to testify and identify several drug specimens. During the hearing, the RTC ordered that the specimens be brought out for identification.
In spite of a diligent and prolonged search by Pamela Cantara (Cantara), Clerk-In-Charge for Criminal Cases and court appointed evidence custodian, she could not find the said specimens. Cantara was the custodian of the vault where the evidences of the criminal cases were stored. As such, she keeps the key to the padlock of the vault. Cantara then searched the box supposedly containing the envelope where the specimens of the case was placed and noticed that the envelopes were in disarray and were no longer filed in the previously arranged order.
Due to the unusual condition of the envelopes, Cantara began opening each one and she discovered that they no longer contain the specimens consisting of shabu and marijuana in numerous cases. Based on the Inventory List2 prepared by Cantara, twenty (21) cases before the RTC had missing drug specimens and were apparently stolen. Complainant immediately sought the assistance of the Philippine National Police San Mateo (PNP San Mateo), as well as the Scene of the Crime Operatives (SOCO) stationed in Tikling, Taytay, Rizal.
Complainant alleged that she is convinced that respondent was responsible for the unlawful taking of the illegal drugs stored in the vault. She explained that respondent, as court aide, cleans the area of the RTC and was the only one who fixes the court records stored at the bodega located at the ground floor of the San Mateo Hall of Justice. During the court disposal month in July 2016, respondent became more familiar with the status of the cases as he was the one in-charge of arranging the records at the storage area. Notably, most of the cases with the missing specimens were already decided by the court.
Complainant added that respondent had a key to her chambers where he could access the courtroom and the vault of the court. She averred that respondent could have taken the missing specimens by rigging the padlock of the vault after office hours when there was no staff left in the courtroom. Complainant underscored that only respondent had access to the courtroom during the weekend because he was in-charge of cleaning the room.
Complainant also mentioned that respondent is included in the List3 of the Barangay Anti-Drug Abuse Council (BADAC) as a pusher and user of illegal drugs; that he had been previously indicted for the crime of frustrated homicide4 but eventually settled with the victim by payment of the civil aspect; that a certain Estellita Manec filed a case of robbery-extortion against respondent when the latter, while armed with a gun and misrepresenting himself as a police officer, barged inside her residence demanding the amount of P6,000.00; and that a certain Jong confessed to a police officer that respondent also stole .38 caliber revolvers from the court's vault, which the latter intended to sell.
Complainant emphasized that respondent is a highly dangerous man who even carried a gun while reporting for work. She added that after the discovery of the unlawful taking of the drugs, respondent had stopped reporting for duty. He also refused to make known his whereabouts as his family hurriedly left the house he was renting. Complainant concluded that respondent could have fled to avoid criminal prosecution. Attached in the letter-complaint are the Sworn Statements5 of Joni Año and Meliber Belarmino, Court Stenographer and Clerk-In-Charge of Civil Cases, respectively, of the RTC.
In a Supplemental Letter6 dated August 19, 2016, complainant informed the OCA that respondent was arrested in an entrapment operation conducted by the PNP San Mateo. It was reported therein that on August 16, 2016, around 7:00 o'clock in the afternoon, respondent was caught selling a .38 caliber Smith and Wesson revolver without a serial number. Also confiscated from him were four (4) pieces of .38 caliber live ammunition and seven (7) pieces of small transparent plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance suspected to be shabu. It was later found that the revolver was one of the missing exhibits in Criminal Case No. 15108, entitled People v. Dave Narag y Laor, pending before the RTC.
Complainant further informed the OCA that she and her staff discovered that some cash and pieces of jewelry submitted before the court as evidence in other criminal cases were likewise missing. She stated they were still in the process of conducting an inventory of the evidence submitted in the other criminal cases. She prayed that respondent be immediately dropped from the service not only because of his act of stealing court exhibits but also because he received two (2) consecutive "Unsatisfactory" ratings for the period July to December 2015 and January to July 2016. According to complainant, respondent is currently detained at the San Mateo Police Station.
The OCA Report and Recommendation
In its Memorandum7 dated August 22, 2016, the OCA found that there exists a strong prima facie case for Grave Misconduct, Serious Dishonesty and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service against respondent. It held that the loss of the court exhibits consisting of shabu and marijuana had been properly documented through the inventory list of missing pieces of evidence and that the letter-complaint stated that respondent had access to these exhibits.
The OCA also highlighted that respondent had involvement in illegal drugs and was caught in possession of a firearm that was stolen from the RTC, along with live ammunition and white crystalline substance suspected to be shabu. It opined that respondent's failure to report for work after the discovery of the loss of exhibits and his sudden transfer of dwelling are indicia of his guilt. The OCA recommended that the letter-complaint be considered as a formal complaint against respondent; that the matter be redocketed as a regular administrative matter; that respondent be investigated; and that he be preventively suspended, without pay and other benefits, until further order from the Court. The recommendation of the OCA was adopted by the Court in its Resolution8 dated August 23, 2016.
In its Memorandum9 dated May 8, 2017, the OCA found that despite receipt of the two (2) directives to file his comment, respondent still failed to comply. It emphasized that non-compliance with its directive tantamount to insubordination to the Court itself. The OCA recommended that respondent be required to show cause why he should not be administratively dealt with for failure to submit his comment despite its two (2) directives and to submit the required comment within ten (10) days from receipt of notice. In its Resolution10 dated August 1, 2017, the Court adopted the recommendation of the OCA.
In its Memorandum11 dated September 15, 2017, the OCA informed the Court regarding the status of the different cases filed against respondent. Criminal Case No. 13262, entitled People v. Marlyn Pocabo and Rainier Lovendino, for frustrated homicide was provisionally dismissed; in Criminal Case Nos. 18094-16 to 18096-16, entitled People v. Rainier Lovendino, for violation of R.A. No. 10591, Sec. 11 of R.A. No. 9165, and qualified theft, the pre-trial conference was reset to September 6, 2017 because respondent had no counsel; and in Criminal Case No. 10294-016, entitled People v. Rainier Lovendino, for resistance and disobedience upon an agent of a person in authority, the Municipal Trial Court of Rodriguez, Rizal found that respondent had already served the maximum imposable penalty of the offense.
The OCA also stated that at present, respondent is detained at the San Mateo Municipal Jail due to the pending criminal cases relative to the stolen exhibits in the RTC.12
In its Memorandum13 dated January 15, 2018, the Clerk of Court En Banc reported that the Court's resolution dated August 1, 2017 addressed to respondent was personally received on August 30, 2017 per attached proof of service. However, respondent has yet to file his comment as required by the said resolution.
In its Resolution14 dated January 16, 2018, in view of respondent's failure to file comment, the Court resolved to consider as waived the right of respondent to file a comment on the complaint.
| Very truly yours, |
(SGD) | |
EDGAR O. ARICHETA | |
Clerk of Court |
Endnotes:
** Acting Chief Justice per Special Order No. 2539, dated February 28, 2018.
1Rollo, pp. 7-9.
2 Id. at 10.
3 Id. at 11.
4 Id. at 16-l7.
5 Id. at 19-23.
6 Id. at 24-25.
7 Id. at 1-5.
8 Id. at 31-32.
9 Id. at 77-79.
10 Id. at 80-81.
11 Id. at 82-83.
12 Id. at 84.
13 Id. at 100.
14 Id. at 101.
15Office of the Court Administrator v. Musngi, 691 Phil. 117, 122 (2012).
16Office of the Court Administrator v. Judge Indar, 685 Phil. 272, 286-287 (2012).
17Office of the Court Administrator v. Lopez, 654 Phil. 602-608 (2011).
18Office of the Court Administrator v. Acampado, 721 Phil. 12, 30 (2013).
19Contreras-Soriano v. Salamanca, 726 Phil. 355, 361-362, (2014).
20Dalmacio-Joaquin v. Dela Cruz, 604 Phil. 256, 261 (2009).
21 See Re: Anonymous Letter Complaint v. Judge Samson, A.M. No. MTJ-16-1870, June 6, 2017.
22Judge Pamintuan v. Comuyog, Jr., 766 Phil. 566, 575, (2015).
23 Ibid.
24 783 Phil. 734 (2016).
25 200 Phil. 82 (1982).
26 Supra note 22 at 579.
27Judge Tolentino-Genilo v. Pineda, A.M. No. P-17-3756, October 10, 2017.
28Office of the Court Administrator v. Dequito, A.M. No. P-15-3386, November 15, 2016.