G.R. No. 152244 - OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN AND THE NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, VS. JENNIFER R. ANGELES. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the complaint is dismissed for insufficiency of evidence. (Pages 29 to 30, Rollo ) Unfortunately, while Assistant Ombudsman Abelardo L. Aportadera, Jr. recommended approval of the findings of GIO Pagunuran, Overall Deputy Ombudsman Margarito P. Gervacio, Jr. disagreed and had the findings reversed by Graft Investigator II, Julita M. Calderon, who, in a memorandum dated October 18, 1999 (pp. 50-51, Rollo) made the following recommendation, which was approved by ODO Gervacio, to wit: WHEREFORE, foregoing premises being considered, we most respectfully recommend that the herein Resolution be MODIFIED so as to include further recommendations that the administrative aspect of the case be referred to AAB for proper disposition and there being no evidence sufficient to indict respondent for the crime charged, the criminal aspect of the case be considered as DISMISSED as previously recommended. (Page 51, Rollo ) The Administrative Adjudication Bureau, to whom the administrative aspect was assigned for investigation, acting through Helen M. Acuña, GIO-I in a decision dated June 26, 2000 (pp. 44 to 48, Rollo ) made the following conclusion, thus: Moreover, as borne by the NBI Questioned Document Report No. 173-296 dated 28 February 1996 (pp. 032-033), there are no evidences/indications of alteration on the questioned passport that could have aroused respondents suspicion, much less, doubt its authenticity. Thus, the presumption of regularity in the performance of her duties have not been overturned by the complainant. (Page 48, Rollo ) Sadly, ODO Gervacio again disagreed with the findings and recommendation and had the matter again investigated by GIO II Julita M. Calderon, who issued the assailed memorandum (pp. 27 to 35, Rollo ) with the following recommendations, approved by the Ombudsman upon recommendation alone of the Overall Deputy Ombudsman, to wit: WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing discussions, this office finds respondent JENNIFER R. ANGELES be GUILTY OF SIMPLE NEGLECT OF DUTY thereby imposing on her the maximum penalty of six (6) months suspension pursuant to Section 22(a), Rule XIV, Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292. Accordingly, the herein Decision of GIO Acuña is therefore SET ASIDE . RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. (Page 25, Rollo ) The motion for reconsideration of petitioner having been denied, this instant petition was resorted to on the theory that the Honorable Ombudsman, with wanton and palpable disrespect and disregard of the law and the Constitutional right of the Petitioner to security of tenure, acted, in the manner hereinafter described, with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in imposing upon petitioner the undeserved and unwarranted penalty of six (6) months suspension merely on the basis of the unaffirmed and unsubstantiated report of the respondent NBIs agent, a certain investigator by the name of Carpeso Jr. (1 st par., Petition, p.