A.M. No. P-17-3768 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 17-4734-P] - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. RUEL V. DELICANA.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

ACCORDINGLY , it is respectfully RECOMMENDED for the consideration of the Honorable Court that Delicana RUEL V. DELICANA , be found GUILTY of Prejudicial Conduct that Gravely Besmirches or Taints the Reputation of the Service and be ORDERED DISMISSED FROM THE SERVICE , with prejudice to re-employment in any government agency, including government-owned or controlled corporations, and with forfeiture of retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits. [68] The JIB held that administrative cases are independent from criminal actions for the same acts or omission; an absolution from a criminal charge is not a bar to an administrative prosecution or vice versa. [69] Thus, the dismissal of the criminal cases, upon which the instant administrative case is anchored, does not automatically entail the dismissal of the latter, especially so since the dismissal of the former was only based on private complainant's lack of interest to prosecute and not on its merits. [70] The JIB further held that in an administrative proceeding, a private complainant is a mere witness; he or she is not indispensable to the proceedings because there are no private interests involved. [71] More importantly, the private complainant in the criminal cases is not even a party in this case. [72] The JIB emphasized that per Rule 140, Section 8 of the Rules of Court, as amended by A.M. No. 21-08-09-SC, [73] the investigation of the JIB of disciplinary actions shall not be terminated by reason of the desistance of the private complainant, settlement, compromises, restitution, or withdrawal; or failure of the private complainant to prosecute the same. [74] Based on its evaluation, the JIB held that Delicana's administrative liability was proven by substantial evidence, especially through private complainant's Sinumpaang Salaysay and the supporting documents attached thereto. [75] The JIB held that despite private complainant's recantation and withdrawal of the complaint, the OCP found probable cause to indict Delicana for the criminal acts. [76] The JIB agreed that private complainant's recantation did not categorically state that she is taking back her allegations in her Sinumpaang Salaysay . [77] Moreover, a thorough review of the private complainant's affidavits purportedly manifesting her recantation, retraction, desistance, and quitclaim, will show that they do not negate the commission of rape. [78] As expressly stated in the affidavits, they were executed after a discussion with Delicana, which gives an impression that private complainant was influenced by Delicana. [79] On the other hand, as the JIB observed, private complainant's Sinumpaang Salaysay was executed within a few hours from the occurrence of the complained acts which are clearly reflected in the said document, wherein private complainant vividly illustrated how Delicana violated her; this was also supported by the Medico-Legal Certificate. [80] The JIB further held that while Delicana's acts are evidently not di