A.M. No. P-04-1920 - SPOUSES NORMANDY AND RUTH BAUTISTA, COMPLAINANTS, VS. ERNESTO L. SULA, SHERIFF IV, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 98, QUEZON CITY.

Ruling

Accordingly, the OCA set the case for investigation on 23 and 24 August 2006. [31] Again, only respondent appeared in the investigation. The complainants reiterated their claim that they could not participate in the investigation unless respondent was preventively suspended. [32] In its Report [33] dated 13 September 2006, the OCA recommended that (1) the motion to preventively suspend respondent be denied; (2) the previous recommendation imposing a fine of P4,000 on respondent for grave abuse of authority be adopted; and (3) the charges for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, gross ignorance of the law, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service be dismissed for insufficiency of evidence. The Court's Ruling The Court finds respondent liable for simple misconduct. On the Charge of Violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Gross Ignorance of the Law, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service Complainants bear the burden of proving, by substantial evidence, the allegations in the complaint. "Substantial evidence means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." [34] In the instant case, complainants failed to substantiate the allegation that respondent violated the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Aside from their bare allegation that respondent demanded and received money from them, complainants did not present any substantial evidence to support the charge. The only pieces of evidence they offered were (1) respondent's admission in his reply that he approached complainants in the Hall of Justice building and (2) a witness who could testify on respondent's alleged acts of demanding and receiving money from the complainants: From the very words of the respondent Sheriff himself (page 5 of his Reply), he admitted to have [sic] APPROACHED US when he furnished us a copy of his Manifestation x x x. Why then did the respondent Sheriff approached [sic] us when his Manifestation is addressed and concerns only the Court? To put to rest that this is just a bare allegation, a third person is willing to present herself to the investigation of this Honorable Office to testify to the truth of the circumstances of the said incident which she personally witnessed but which [sic] we could not reveal her identity at the moment upon her own request because the said person makes her living in the hallway of the Hall of Justice of Quezon City. [35] Complainants, however, never appeared in any of the investigations, nor presented their witness. The fact that respondent approached complainants in the Hall of Justice building is not enough basis for this Court to conclude that respondent demanded and received money from them. On complainants' witness, the OCA found that "[t]he alleged fear from harassment of the complainants' unnamed witness [precluding her] to testify against the respondent unless the latter is suspended from office is purely specul