FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 218155, September 22, 2020
FACT-FINDING INVESTIGATION BUREAU MILITARY AND OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICES (FFIB-MOLEO), PETITIONER, V. MAJOR ADELO B. JANDAYAN (RET.), RESPONDENT..
D E C I S I O N
CAGUIOA, J.:
Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 (Petition) under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the Decision2 dated October 31, 2014 and Resolution3 dated April 15, 2015 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 130017. The CA reversed and set aside the Decision4 dated February 27, 2009 and Joint Order5 dated January 21, 2013 of the Office of the Ombudsman (Ombudsman) in OMB P-A-06-0106-A insofar as respondent Major Adelo B. Jandayan (Ret.) (Jandayan) was found guilty of grave misconduct and dishonesty. The CA directed that Jandayan be paid his retirement benefits and the proscription to his re-employment in any branch or instrumentality of the government including government-owned and controlled corporations be removed.
WHEREFORE, finding substantial evidence, this Office finds respondents COL. RENATO P. MIRANDA, LT. COL. JESON P. CABATBAT, MAJOR ADELO B. JANDAYAN, CAPT. FELICISIMO C. MILLADO, and CAPT. EDMUNDO D. YURONG GUILTY of Grave Misconduct and Dishonesty pursuant to Section 19 in relation to Section 25, RA 6770 otherwise known as The Ombudsman Act of 1989, and are hereby meted out the penalty of DISMISSAL from the service effective immediately with forfeiture of all the benefits, except accrued leave credits, if any, with prejudice to re-employment in any branch or service of the government including government owned and controlled corporations.The Ombudsman found that the P36,768,028.95 was released by way of cash advances granted to Major Felicisimo C. Millado (Millado), as the checks were all payable to him.7 He encashed the check and entrusted the proceeds to Jandayan, with the approval of Colonel Renato P. Miranda (Miranda) and Gioksan Dammang8 as shown by the documents denominated as Funds Entrusted to Agent Officer/Teller.9
With respect to respondent MAJ. ADELO B. JANDAYAN, since he had already retired from service, the forfeiture of all his retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, is hereby ORDERED, and his re[-]employment in any branch or instrumentality of the government, including government-owned and controlled corporations is PROSCRIBED.
With respect to respondents BGEN. PERCIVAL M. SUBALA and CAROLYN L. BONTOLO, this case is hereby DISMISSED. (Emphasis in the original)6cralawlawlibrary
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated February 27, 2009 and the Joint Order dated January 21, 2013 of the Office of the Ombudsman, in OMB P-A-06-0106-A, insofar as it found herein petitioner Major Adelo B. Jandayan (Ret.) guilty of grave misconduct and dishonesty, are REVERSED and SET ASIDE; consequently, the complaint against him is DISMISSED. He is ordered to be PAID the [retirement] benefits denied him by reason of the assailed Decision and Joint Order; and the proscription to his re-employment in any branch or instrumentality of the government, including government-owned and controlled corporations, is REMOVED and DELETED.The CA found that Jandayan's act of signing the roster of troops and disbursement vouchers certifying that the expenses were necessary, lawful and incurred under his direct supervision did not constitute grave misconduct.14 For the CA, there was nothing irregular about the signing of the roster of troops as this has been verified before being released.15 Further, it was within his area of expertise to know who are the enlisted personnel as he was the Assistant Chief of Staff for Personnel.16 As to Jandayan's signing of the disbursement voucher saying that the expenses were lawful and necessary, the fact of necessity was known to him as he was the Assistant Chief of Staff for Personnel.17 As ruled by the CA: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
SO ORDERED.13cralawlawlibrary
xxx Since the subject of the case before the Ombudsman was whether or not the CCIE funds reached the intended enlisted personnel and not whether the CCIE allowances were indeed valid and necessary expenses, nothing in the acts of the petitioner [Jandayan] made him liable for grave misconduct.18As to the charge of dishonesty, the CA ruled that since there was no question as to the necessity of the CCIE allowance, and there was no claim that the roster of troops or anything contained therein was not genuine, thus dishonesty cannot be imputed to Jandayan.19
It is indubitable that Maj. Jandayan came into the picture only when respondent [Miranda] out of nowhere and without any valid designation or authority possessed by Maj. Jandayan suddenly brought the latter in as recipient and disburser of the funds. It was truly the final operative act which caused first the release, then the misappropriation, and finally the total loss of the funds which to date, have remained unaccounted for.Considering the foregoing, a reasonable mind will accept that Jandayan and his co-respondents were acting with one aim, with each one performing one part, and all their parts completing their aim, which was to make it appear that funds were distributed to PMC personnel when, in reality, they were not so.
In Mangubat v. Sandiganbayan, the Court recognized the importance of the individual acts performed by each conspirator which may at first seem to be an independent act but which, if taken together, would demonstrate the common criminal goal of the conspirators. The Court ordained: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary"xxx no doubt the defraudation of the government would not have been possible were it not for the cooperation respectively extended by all the accused, including herein petitioner. The scheme involved both officials and employees from the Regional Office. Some made the falsifications, others worked to cover-up the same to consummate the crime charged. Petitioner's role was indubitably an essential ingredient especially so because it was he who issued the false LAAs, which as previously mentioned, initiated the commission of the crime. When the defendants by their acts aimed at the same object, one performing one part, and the other performing another part so as to complete it, with a view to the attainment of the same object, and their acts though apparently independent, were in fact concerted and cooperative, indicating closeness of personal association, concerted action and concurrence of sentiments, the court will be justified in concluding that said defendants were engaged in a conspiracy xxx'"The Court keenly notes that from day one up until now, respondent has not produced the authority of Maj. Jandayan, if any, to receive and disburse the funds in question. Too, respondent up until now has not directly or indirectly responded to the core issue against him, albeit he alleged lot of things in his pleadings before the Office of the Ombudsman, the Court of Appeals and this Court. Nowhere in any of these pleadings did respondent ever give a direct response to, let alone, refutation of, the damaging evidence against him.30cralawlawlibrary
SECTION 75. Transfer of Funds from One Officer to Another. — Transfer of government funds from one officer to another shall, except as allowed by law or regulation, be made only upon prior direction or authorization of the Commission or its representative.Jandayan failed to prove that he had any authority to receive the money. Further, it is unrebutted that the normal accounting procedure of the PMC was for the funds to be distributed to the individual disbursing or liaison officers of the different PMC units and that these individuals were tasked to distribute the proceeds to each of the qualified PMC personnel in their units.32 Jandayan failed to explain why he received the proceeds of the checks even though he was not a disbursing officer but the Assistant Chief of Staff for Personnel.
"x x x disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud; untrustworthiness, lack of integrity," is classified in three (3) gradations, namely: serious, less serious, and simple. Serious dishonesty comprises dishonest acts: (a) causing serious damage and grave prejudice to the government; (b) directly involving property, accountable forms or money for which respondent is directly accountable and the respondent shows an intent to commit material gain, graft and corruption; (c) exhibiting moral depravity on the part of the respondent; (d) involving a Civil Service examination, irregularity or fake Civil Service eligibility such as, but not limited to, impersonation, cheating and use of crib sheets; (e) committed several times or in various occasions; if) committed with grave abuse of authority; (g) committed with fraud and/or falsification of official documents relating to respondent's employment; and (/?) other analogous circumstances, x x x34 (Emphasis in the original)Based on the foregoing, a reasonable mind would arrive at the conclusion that Jandayan transgressed an established rule of action and that there was a flagrant disregard of such rule. He also caused serious damage and prejudice to the government involving money for which he was accountable.
Endnotes:
* Designated as Additional Member per S.O. No. 2788 dated September 16, 2020.
1 Rollo, pp. 12-37, excluding Annexes.
2 Id. at 39-54. Penned by Associate Justice Victoria Isabel A. Paredes and concurred in by Associate Justices Ricardo R. Rosario and Pedro B. Corales.
3 Id. at 56-57.
4 Id. at 58-65.
5 Id. at 103-110.
6 Id. at 40-42.
7 Id. at 62.
8 Also appears as Giokson Dammang in some parts of the rollo.
9Rollo, pp. 62-63.
10 Id. at 63.
11 Id.
12 Id. at 103-110.
13 Id. at 53.
14 Id. at 45.
15 Id.
16 Id.
17 Id.
18 Id.
19 Id. at 46.
20 Id at 48.
21 Id.
22 Id. at 49.
23 Id. at 50.
24 Id. at 19.
25 Id. at 50.
26 Id.
27Fact-Finding Investigation Bureau (FFIB) - Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military and Other Law Enforcement Offices v. Miranda, G.R. No. 216574, July 10,2019, p. 14. The Decision was rendered by the Second Division; penned by Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier and concurred in by Associate Justices Antonio T. Carpio, Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe, Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa, and Jose C. Reyes, Jr.
28Rollo, pp. 66-84.
29 Supra note 27.
30 Id. at 10-11.
31 Ordaining and Instituting a Government Auditing Code of the Philippines, June 11, 1978.
32Rollo, pp. 26, 63.
33Fact-Finding Investigation Bureau (FFID) - Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military and Other Law Enforcement Offices v. Miranda, supra note 27, at 12-13, citing Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas v. Castro, 759 Phil. 68, 79 (2015) and Vertudes v. Buenaflor, 514 Phil. 399, 424 (2005).
34 Id. at 12, citing Office of the Ombudsman, el al. v. PS/Supt. Espina, 807 Phil. 529, 540-542 (2017).
35 G.R. No. 221848, August 30, 2016, 801 SCRA 586.
36 Id. at 596.
37 Id.chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary