SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 233892. October 13, 2021
SPO4 MA. LINDA A. PADOJINOG, Petitioner, v. FIELD INVESTIGATION OFFICE-OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
GAERLAN, J.:
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Decision2 dated October 25, 2016 and Resolution3 dated August 2, 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 128050.
The assailed issuances denied the Rule 434 Petition for Review5 interposed by petitioner Senior Police Officer (SPO) 4 Ma. Linda A. Padojinog (petitioner) against the May 30, 2012 Joint Resolution6 and February 15, 2013 Order7 of the Office of the Ombudsman in OMB-C-C-11-0758-L and OMB-C-A-11-0758-L which, in turn, recommended the filing of criminal charges against petitioner for violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, as well as finding her administratively guilty of Serious Dishonesty and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, meting upon her the ultimate penalty of dismissal from the service and its accessory penalties.
Here, petitioner questions the finding of administrative liability against her in OMB-C-A-11-0758-L.
Antecedents
The instant controversy arose from the purchase made by the Philippine National Police (PNP) of three helicopter units from Manila Aerospace Products Trading (MAPTRA), which were all declared brand new, for the price of P104,985,000.00. However, a later scrutiny revealed that two of these units were secondhand models which were pre-owned by former First Gentleman Jose Miguel T. Arroyo (FG Arroyo).
On May 5, 2008, the National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM) issued Resolution No. 2008-2608 which prescribed the specifications for Light Police Operational Helicopter (LPOH) units to be purchased by the PNP, to wit:
chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
On January 5, 2009, petitioner was formally designated as a member of the PNP National Headquarters-Bids and Awards Committee Technical Working Group (NHQ-BAC TWG) on Transportation.9chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
1. Power Plant : Piston 2. Power Rating : 200 hp (minimum) 3. Speed : 100 knots (minimum) 4. Range : 300 miles (minimum) 5. Endurance : 3 hours (minimum) 6. Service Ceiling (Height Capability) : 14,000 feet (maximum) 7. T/O Gross Weight : 2,600 lbs (maximum) 8. Seating Capacity : 1 Pilot + 3 pax (maximum) 9. Ventilating System : Air-conditioned
PNP Specifications for Light | Specifications of | Remark(s) |
Power Plant: Piston | Piston-type | Conforming |
Power Rating: 200hp (minimum) | 225 | Conforming |
Speed: 100 knots (minimum) | 113 knots | Conforming |
Range: 200 miles (minimum) | 400 miles | Conforming |
Endurance: 3 Hours (minimum) | No available data | |
Service Ceiling (Height Capability: 14,000 Feet (Maximum) | 14,000 feet | Conforming |
T/O Gross Weight: 2,600 Lbs (maximum) | 2,400 Lbs | Conforming |
Seating Capacity: 1 Pilot + 3 pax (maximum) | 1 pilot + 3 passengers | Conforming |
Ventilating System: Air-conditioned | Not airconditioned | Standard Helicopter |
Aircraft instruments: Standard to include Directional Gyro Above Horizon with Slip Skid Indicator and Vertical Compass | Equipped with Directional Gyro Above Horizon with Slip Skid Indicator and Vertical Compass | Conforming |
Color and Markings: White with appropriate markings specified in NAPOLCOM Res. No. 99-002 dated January 5, 1999 (Approving the Standard Color and Markings for PNP Motor Vehicles, Seacraft and Aircraft) | White with appropriate markings as specified in Napolcom Res. No. 99-002. | Conforming |
Warranty: The supplier warrants any defect in material and workmanship within the most advantageous terms and conditions in favor of the government. | The supplier will warrant(s) [sic] any defect in material and workmanship within the most advantageous terms and conditions in favor of the government for two (2) years. | Indicated in the contract (To include time-change parts as suggested by DRD Test and Evaluation Board) |
Requirements: Maintenance Manual Operation Manual | Provided Provided | Conforming Conforming15 |
WHEREAS, after inspection and evaluation was conducted, the Committee found the said items to be conforming to the approved NAPOLCOM specifications and passed the acceptance criteria as submitted by DRD on WTCD Report No. T2009-04A.The aforementioned resolution was signed by P/CSupt. George Q. Piano, P/CSupt. Saligumba, P/SSupt. Job Nolan D. Antonio, and P/SSupt. Paatan.18 On the basis of IAC Resolution No. IAC-09-045, the procurement of the helicopter units was consummated.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, that the above mentioned items be accepted for use of the PNP.17cralawredlibrary
Concerning respondents Recometa, Padojinog and Gongona, who also signed WTCD Report No. T-2009-04-A, they are liable criminally and administratively. They were then members of the TWG tasked under Section 12.1 of the IRR-A to assist in the procurement process, particularly in the eligibility screening of the prospective supplier and in the post qualification process. Yet, they did not conduct the proper eligibility screening and post qualification procedure and allowed MAPTRA Sole Proprietorship to be awarded the contract despite its lack of technical and financial capability. Furthermore, as TWG members, they were present during the June 15, 2009 negotiations, hence, they knew that the helicopters to be delivered on September 24, 2009 must be brand new. In fact, respondents Padojinog and Gongona alleged that based on physical appearance, the delivered helicopters were brand new. Incredibly, however, they did not include this alleged observation in the WTCD Report. Hence, it is obvious they knew that the helicopters delivered were not brand new. With respect to their claim that the WTCD Report was finalized after it was deliberated upon by the DRD Test and Evaluation Board, the same is a matter of defense which is best addressed during trial.28cralawredlibraryUltimately, the Ombudsman decreed:
WHEREFORE, it is hereby resolved as follows:Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration30 was denied by the Ombudsman in its Order dated February 15, 2013.
x x x x
OMB-C-A-11-0758-L (ADMINISTRATIVE CASE)
1) Respondents P/Dir. Leocadio Salva Cruz Santiago, Jr., P/Supt. Ermilando Villafuerte, P/Supt. Roman E. Loreto, P/CSupt. Herold G. Ubalde, P/CSupt. Luis Luarca Saligumba, P/SSupt. Job Nolan D. Antonio, P/Dir. George Quinto Piano, P/SSupt. Edgar B. Paatan, P/SSupt. Mansue Nery Lukban, P/CInsp. Maria Josefina Vidal Recometa, P/SSupt. Claudio DS Gaspar Jr., SPO3 Ma. Linda A. Padojinog, PO3 Avensuel G. Dy and NUP Ruben S. Gongona are hereby found GUILTY of Serious Dishonesty and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, and are thus meted the penalty of DISMISSAL FROM THE SERVICE, including the accessory penalties of forfeiture of retirement benefits and perpetual disqualification to hold public office, pursuant to the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (CSC Resolution No. 991936, as amended).
x x x x
SO ORDERED.29 (Underscoring supplied)
This Court finds that there is substantial evidence showing that petitioner is guilty of dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. Petitioner's long service with the PNP since January 2, 1993, her appointment as member of NHQ-BAC TWG for Transportation, and her attendance during the negotiation for the purchase of the helicopters make her more than qualified and able to determine whether the helicopters delivered by MAPTRA are actually brand new. Petitioner's intentional omission in stating that the two (2) helicopters are brand new, opting rather to state that the helicopters physically appeared to be "brand new", is nothing but a means to defraud the government. Using qualified phrases on an official report to make it appear that the helicopters are brand new when they are actually not brand new is tantamount to making false entries in public documents, which makes petitioner also guilty of the offense of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.31cralawredlibraryThe dispositive portion of the herein assailed Decision thus reads:
WHEREFORE, the petition for review is DENIED.Petitioner interposed a motion for reconsideration of the foregoing, but the same was denied by the CA in the herein assailed Resolution dated August 2, 2017.
SO ORDERED.32chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN IN FINDING PETITIONER ADMINISTRATIVELY LIABLE FOR SERIOUS DISHONESTY AND CONDUCT PREJUDICIAL TO THE [BEST] INTEREST OF [THE] SERVICE33cralawredlibrary
A dishonest act without the attendance of any of these circumstances can only be characterized as simple dishonesty.48 In between the aforesaid two forms of dishonesty is less serious dishonesty which obtains when: (a) the dishonest act caused damage and prejudice to the government which is not so serious as to qualify as serious dishonesty; (b) the respondent did not take advantage of his/her position in committing the dishonest act; and (c) other analogous circumstances.49chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
(a) [T]he dishonest act caused serious damage and grave prejudice to the Government; (b) [T]he respondent gravely abused his/her authority in order to commit the dishonest act; (c) [W]here the respondent is an accountable officer, the dishonest act directly involves property, accountable forms or money for which he/she is directly accountable and the respondent shows an intent to commit material gain, graft and corruption; (d) [T]he dishonest act exhibits moral depravity on the part of respondent; (e) [T]he respondent employed fraud and/or falsification of official documents in the commission of the dishonest act related to his/her employment; (f) [T]he dishonest act was committed several times or in various occasions; (g) [T]he dishonest act involves a Civil Service examination irregularity or fake Civil Service eligibility such as, but not limited to impersonation, cheating and use of crib sheets; and (h) [O]ther analogous circumstances.47
To reiterate, the above-mentioned WTCD Report No. T2009-04A has irregular entries on its face such that two items therein, i.e., endurance and ventilating system, were equivocal as to their conformity with the approved technical specifications. Moreover, the requirement of the helicopters being brand new was nowhere indicated. Still, respondent, together with others, signed the same and confirmed the adherence of said helicopters with the criteria of the PNP despite such blatant irregularities in the Report.55cralawredlibraryHowever, with regard to the other persons who were involved in the entire procurement process of the LPOH units but were nevertheless not signatories to IAC Resolution No. IAC-09-045, the Court found that they were undeserving of administrative sanctions.
Aside from the sweeping statements of the OMB, there is a dearth of evidence on record to arrive at a conclusion that respondent Villafuerte was complicit in a conspiracy to defraud the Government. As consistently stressed by respondent Villafuerte, the following documents were drafted upon the instruction of his superior officer, P/SSupt. Lurimer B. Detran: (i) Negotiation Committee Resolution No. 2009-04, (ii) BAC Resolution No. 2009-36, (iii) Supply Contract between the PNP and MAPTRA, and (iv) Notice to Proceed addressed to Mr. Larry B. De Vera of MAPTRA. None of the aforesaid documents suggest that respondent Villafuerte had a material role in the awarding of the contract to MAPTRA.Thus guided, We now discuss the administrative charges against petitioner.
x x x x
Here, petitioner is imputing liability to respondent Villafuerte on the simple fact that the award of the contract to MAPTRA was made through the documents that he drafted. This is egregious error. Using the same logic, respondent Villafuerte's participation in the alleged conspiracy thus becomes equivocal, to say the least, considering that he was also the one who drafted the demand letter to MAPTRA for the replacement of the LPOHs and a complaint-affidavit for Estafa against the officials of MAPTRA upon the instructions of P/Dir. George Quinto Piano. In other words, petitioner cannot judge respondent Villafuerte's actions based on the end result of the documents drafted.
Based on the foregoing, petitioner miserably failed to establish a nexus between the ministerial act of drafting the said documents and a scheme to defraud the Government. Petitioner cannot satisfy the threshold of substantial evidence using only conjectures and suppositions; the mere fact that an irregular procurement process was uncovered does not mean that all persons involved, regardless of rank or functions, were acting together in conspiracy. Moreover, as already discussed above, neither does proof of criminal conspiracy automatically impute administrative liability on all those concerned.57cralawredlibrary
In the first place, conspiracy as a means of incurring liability is strictly confined to criminal cases; even assuming that the records indicate the existence of a felonious scheme, the administrative liability of a person allegedly involved in such scheme cannot be established through conspiracy, considering that one's administrative liability is separate and distinct from penal liability. Thus, in administrative cases, the only inquiry in determining liability is simply whether the respondent, through his individual actions, committed the charges against him that render him administratively liable.The abbreviated discussions of the Ombudsman and the CA, bordering on sweeping generalizations, do not show that petitioner acted in consonance with a conscious design to defraud the government. Lumping her as a member of the inspection team is not enough. Mere assumption of petitioner's guilt cannot justify the imposition of the harshest administrative penalties against her.
In any case, it bears stressing that while the OMB's factual findings in their entirety tend to demonstrate a sequence of irregularities in the procurement of the LPOHs, this does not ipso facto translate into a conspiracy between each and every person involved in the procurement process. For conspiracy to be appreciated, it must be clearly shown that there was a conscious design to commit an offense; conspiracy is not the product of negligence but of intentionality on the part of cohorts. Conspiracy is never presumed.58cralawredlibrary
Endnotes:
* Per Special Order No. 2846 dated October 6, 2021.
1 Rollo, pp. 8-26A.
2 Id. at 28-38; penned by Associate Justice Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez with Associate Justices Rosmari D. Carandang and Mario V. Lopez (now Members of this Court) concurring.
3 Id. at 40.
4 RULES OF COURT.
5 Rollo, pp. 41-60.
6 Id. at 61-224. The Special Investigation Panel of the Office of the Special Prosecutor which rendered the Joint Decision was composed of Prosecution Bureau III Acting Director Manuel T. Soriano, Jr., Prosecution Bureau X Acting Director Omar L. Sagadal, and Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military and Other Law Enforcement Offices Director Dennis L. Garcia. The said Joint Decision was approved by Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales.
7 Id. at 225-252. The Special Investigation Panel of the Office of the Special Prosecutor which rendered the Order was composed of Assistant Special Prosecutor II Lynette Jandoc-Ludan, Assistant Special Prosecutor III Jennifer A. Agustin-Se, Assistant Special Prosecutor III Rohermia J. Jamsani-Rodriguez, and Prosecution Bureau VII Acting Director Rodrigo V. Coquia. The said Order was recommended for approval by Deputy Special Prosecutor Jesus A. Micael and, thereafter, approved by Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales.
8 See https://www.napolcom.gov.ph/images/pdf/res%202008-260.pdf, last accessed September 17, 2021.
9 Rollo, p. 311.
10 Id. at 286-288. Minutes of Negotiation for Helicopters, prepared by Non-Uniformed Personnel (NUP) Jenerla DC Pascua.
11 Id. at 292-293; signed by Police Directors Luizo C. Ticman, Ronald D. Roderos, and Romeo C. Hilomen, along with Police Chief Superintendent Leocadio SC Santiago, Jr.
12 Id. at 295.
13 Id. at 312.
14 See http://legacy.senate.gov.ph/lisdata/1238310418!.pdf, last accessed September 17, 2021. Senate Committee on Accountability of Public Officers (Blue Ribbon), Committee Report No. 74 dated October 13, 2011.
15 NAPOLCOM Resolution No. 2008-260, supra note 8 at 31-32.
16 Id. at 32.
17 Id. at 34.
18 Id.
19 Rollo, pp. 253-284.
20 Id. at 269.
21 Id. at 302-309.
22 Id. at 303.
23 Id.
24 Id. at 303-304.
25 Id. at 304.
26 Id. at 307.
27 Id. at 307-308.
28 Id. at 169.
29 Id. at 215-219.
30 Id. at 396-414.
31 Id. at 37.
32 Id. at 38.
33 Id. at 14.
34 Office of the Ombudsman v. Tanco, G.R. No. 233596, September 14, 2020.
35 Heirs of Teresita Villanueva v. Heirs of Petronila Mendoza, 810 Phil. 172, 177 (2017).
36 Carbonell v. Carbonell-Mendes, 762 Phil. 529, 536 (2015).
37 Office of the Ombudsman v. Mallari, 749 Phil. 224, 249 (2014).
38 Fajardo v. Corral, 813 Phil. 149, 156 (2017).
39 Philippine Bank of Communications v. Court of Appeals, 805 Phil. 964, 971 (2017).
40 Medina v. Asistio, Jr., 269 Phil. 225, 232 (1990).
41 Ramos v. Rosell, G.R. No. 241363, September 16, 2020.
42 Domingo v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 236050, June 17, 2020.
43 Gupilan-Aguilar v. Office of the Ombudsman, 728 Phil. 210, 232 (2014).
44 Carbonel v. Civil Service Commission, 644 Phil. 470, 479 (2010).
45 Ombudsman v. Espina, 807 Phil. 529, 541 (2017).
46 Light Rail Transit Authority v. Salvaña, 736 Phil. 123, 153 (2014).
47 Sabio v. Field Investigation Office, 825 Phil. 848, 858-859 (2018).
48 Ombudsman v. Espina, supra note 45 at 542.
49 Id.
50 Villanueva v. Reodique, G.R. Nos. 221647 & 222003, November 27, 2018.
51 Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas v. Castro, 759 Phil. 68, 81 (2015).
52 Civil Service Commission v. Catacutan, G.R. Nos. 224651 & 224656, July 3, 2019.
53 Civil Service Commission v. Rodriguez, G.R. No. 248255, August 27, 2020.
54 G.R. No. 212293, June 15, 2020.
55 Id.
56 G.R. Nos. 219771 & 219773, September 18, 2018.
57 Id.
58 Id.
59 715 Phil. 722, 731 (1989).
60 Lihaylihay v. People, 715 Phil. 722, 731 (2013).
61 Wooden v. Civil Service Commission, 508 Phil. 500, 512 (2005).
62 Daplas v. Department of Finance, 808 Phil. 763, 772 (2017).
63 Ombudsman v. De Villa, 760 Phil. 937, 953 (2015).
64 Philippine National Police-Criminal Investigation and Detection Group v. Villafuerte, supra note 56.cralawredlibrary