TL;DR — Ruling
WHEREFORE, finding substantial evidence to hold respondent ROEL RAGAY DEGAMO liable for Grave Misconduct, he is hereby meted the penalty of DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE with accessory penalties of cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, perpetual disqualification from holding public office and bar from taking civil service examination.
WHEREFORE, finding substantial evidence to hold respondent ROEL RAGAY DEGAMO liable for Grave Misconduct, he is hereby meted the penalty of DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE with accessory penalties of cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, perpetual disqualification from holding public office and bar from taking civil service examination. In the event that the penalty of Dismissal can no longer be enforced due to separation from service of respondent ROEL RAGAY DEGAMO, the penalty shall be converted into a Fine in an amount equivalent to respondents' salary for one (1) year, payable to the Office of the Ombudsman, and may be deductible from respondent's retirement benefits, accrued leave credits or any receivable from their office. Further, the administrative charge for Grave Misconduct against MARICHU ABIERA ALPUERTO, DANILO CUAL MENDEZ and TEODORICO GUEVARA REYES is DISMISSED for lack of substantial evidence. x x x x SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 226935 - JUNE VINCENT MANUEL S. GAUDAN, VS. ROEL R. DEGAMO. G.R. NO. 228238 OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, REPRESENTED BY OMBUDSMAN CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES, ET AL., VS. ROEL R. DEGAMO.G.R. NO. 228325 JUNE VINCENT MANUEL S. GAUDAN, VS. ROEL R. DEGAMO.DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library
G.R. No. 226935 -
CaseG.R. No. 250013 - ARNALDO M. ESPINAS, VS. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library
G.R. No. 250013 -
CaseG.R. No. 227405 - OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, VS. AMADO M. BLOR, JESUS R. BARRERA, ANGELINA O. QUIJANO, POTENCIANO G. VICEDO, MIRAFLOR B. SOLIVEN, AND ANNIE F. CONSTANTINO.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library
G.R. No. 227405 -