G.R. No. 213500 - OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN AND THE FACT-FINDING INVESTIGATION BUREAU (FFIB), OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR THE MILITARY AND OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICES (MOLEO), VS. PS/SUPT. RAINIER A. ESPINA.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly, recommended their dismissal from government service. [23] Specifically, the Ombudsman held that Espina executed indispensable acts which led to the completion of the illegal transactions. [24] The Ombudsman likewise found it incredulous that the repair and refurbishment works on the LAVs were completed in only seven (7) days, i.e. , from December 20, 2007 to December 27, 2007, considering the magnitude of the work involved, which included the delivery of the LAVs for repair, the inspection and acceptance of materials to be used, the actual conduct of repair and refurbishment works, and the delivery, inspection, and acceptance of the repaired and refurbished LAVs. [25] The Ombudsman even noted the admission of one of the experts engaged in the repair of the LAVs that the repair and refurbishment works thereon were still on-going as late as February 2008 until 2010 and, hence, could not have been completed in December 2007. [26] On reconsideration, the Ombudsman, through a Joint Orde [27] dated July 8 2013, dropped the charges against Espina and several other PNP Officers, for violation of Section 65 (b) (4) of RA 9184, but sustained the other findings, including their dismissal from service in view of their administrative liability. In denying Espina's motion for reconsideration in the administrative case, the Ombudsman pointed out that while it was not Espina's duty to make his own inspections of the alleged deliveries and work as the same devolved upon the property inspectors, "it was incumbent upon [Espina] to affix his signature only after checking the completeness and propriety of the documents." [28] Such disregard of duty paved the way for the consummation of four (4) highly illegal and irregular transactions, i.e. , the disbursement of government funds despite apparent non-delivery of the items and non-performance of works procured. [29] Aggrieved, Espina filed a petition for review [30] before the CA, impleading both the Ombudsman and the FFIB-MOLEO (collectively, petitioners), docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 131114. The CA Ruling In a Decision [31] dated February 27, 2014, the CA ruled in favor of Espina and held that his act of affixing his signature on the IRFs could not be considered as Grave Misconduct because he did not: ( a ) unlawfully use his official position for the purpose of benefiting himself; [32] and ( b ) exhibit corrupt or depraved motives, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of established rules. It observed that Espina had no participation in the bidding and procurement process as he belonged to the PNP's Management Division whose function is to inspect and note the deliveries to the PNP after the required bidding and procurement process had taken place. As such, no liability could attach to him absent a nexus between his functions as Acting Chief of the Management Division and the alleged anomalous procurement process. [33] The CA found Espina guilty, instead, of Simple Misconduct, a less gr