G.R. Nos. 219771 & 219773 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE-CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION AND DETECTION GROUP (PNP-CIDG), VS. P/SUPT.* ERMILANDO VILLAFUERTE.DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, it is hereby resolved as follows: 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 Laurca 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). [19] (Additional emphasis supplied) Respondent Villafuerte thereafter questioned the OMB Resolution via a Petition for Review [20] under Rule 43 with the Court of Appeals (CA), which was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 127801. The case was consolidated with an appeal filed by P/Supt. Roman E. Loreto, which similarly assailed the OMB Resolution. [21] In his appeal, respondent Villafuerte argued that his duties and functions as a member of the BAC Secretariat are merely administrative and ministerial in nature and that he was merely following the instructions of his superiors. [22] Respondent Villafuerte claimed that it is the Technical Working Group of the NHQ-BAC that has the duty and responsibility to verify whether a proponent is indeed technically, legally, and financially capable to enter into a contract with the PNP. [23] Lastly, respondent Villafuerte argued that there was no positive and conclusive evidence to support the OMB's finding of conspiracy against him and his co-respondents. [24] Ruling of the CA In the Decision [25] dated January 28, 2015, the CA reversed the OMB Resolution and exonerated respondent Villafuerte from the administrative charges: WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The assailed Joint Order dated 30 May 2012 and Order dated 05 November 2012 issued by the Office of the Ombudsman are REVERSED and SET ASIDE with respect to petitioner PSUPT. Roman E. Loreto and PSUPT. Ermilando O. Villafuerte. Accordingly, PSUPT. Roman E. Loreto and PSUPT. Ermilando O. Villafuerte are EXONERATED from the administrative charges against them for lack of substantial evidence. SO ORDERED.