G.R. No. 229032 - CLAUDIO DELOS SANTOS GASPAR, JR., VS. FIELD INVESTIGATION OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN.

Ruling

WHEREFORE , it is hereby resolved as follows: 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 Luarca 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). If the penalty of dismissal from the service can no longer be served by reason of resignation or retirement, the alternative penalty of FINE equivalent to ONE YEAR salary is imposed, in addition to the same accessory penalties of forfeiture of retirement benefits and perpetual disqualification to hold public office. x x x" [6] (Underscoring, italics and emphasis in the original) The Ombudsman ruled that since Gaspar was a pilot, he was technically capable of determining whether or not the helicopters were brand new, and in fact he admitted that he knew the helicopters were not brand new. Despite knowing this, he did not report this. [7] Further, Gaspar failed to determine if the helicopters complied with the minimum endurance of three hours. [8] The Ombudsman further ruled that Gaspar was aware that the helicopters were not compliant with the National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM) specifications, Supply Contract and Purchase Order yet he did not report this. [9] Gaspar filed a motion for reconsideration, but the Ombudsman denied this. [10] Gaspar then appealed to the CA through a petition for review under Rule 43. CA Decision In its Decision, the CA affirmed the Ombudsman. The dispositive portion of the Decision states: WHEREFORE , the instant Petition for Review of Petitioner is DENIED . The Joint Resolution dated May 30, 2012 and the Order dated November 5, 2012, both issued by the Ombudsman, are hereby AFFIRMED . SO ORDERED . [11] (Emphasis and italics in the original) The CA affirmed the Ombudsman's ruling that Gaspar has technical expertise to determine whether the helicopters were brand new. [12] For the CA, Gaspar's failure to disclose the fact that he was aware that the helicopters were not brand new is tantamount to dishonesty. [13] The CA also ruled that the Ombudsman's findings were supported by s substantial evidence as Gaspar's act of signing his name in WTCD Report Number T2009-04A (WTCD Report) meant that he had prior knowledge of the Supply Contract and Purchase Order. For the CA, Gaspar's signing the report, wh