Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila THIRD DIVISION G.R. No. 184805 : March 3, 2010 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. VICTORIO PAGKALINAWAN, Accused-Appellant. D E C I S I O N VELASCO, JR., J.: The Case This is an appeal from the May 9, 2008 Decision 1 cЃacЃaląw of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 02648 entitled People of the Philippines v. Victorio Pagkalinawan, which affirmed the January 16, 2007 Joint Decision 2 cЃacЃaląw in Criminal Case Nos. 13624-D and 13625-D of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 267 in Pasig City. The RTC found accused-appellant Victorio 3 cЃacЃaląw Pagkalinawan guilty of violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The Facts The charges against appellant stemmed from the following Informations: Criminal Case No. 13624-D (Violation of Sec. 5, paragraph 1 [Sale], Art. II of RA 9165) That, on or about the 20th day of July 2004, in the Municipality of Taguig, Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without being authorized by law, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly sell, deliver, and give away to another 0.28 gram of
Transcript
Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 184805 : March 3, 2010
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. VICTORIO PAGKALINAWAN, Accused-Appellant.
D E C I S I O N
VELASCO, JR., J.:
The Case
This is an appeal from the May 9, 2008 Decision1 cЃacЃaląw of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR
No. 02648 entitled People of the Philippines v. Victorio Pagkalinawan, which affirmed the January 16, 2007 Joint Decision2
cЃacЃaląw in Criminal Case Nos. 13624-D and 13625-D of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 267 in Pasig City. The RTC found accused-appellant Victorio3
cЃacЃaląw Pagkalinawan guilty of violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
The Facts
The charges against appellant stemmed from the following Informations:
Criminal Case No. 13624-D
(Violation of Sec. 5, paragraph 1 [Sale], Art. II of RA 9165)
That, on or about the 20th day of July 2004, in the Municipality of Taguig, Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without being authorized by law, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly sell, deliver, and give away to another 0.28 gram of white crystalline substance contained in one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet, which was found positive to the test for Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride, also known as shabu, a dangerous drug, in consideration of the amount of Php500.00, and violation of the above-cited law. chanroblesvirtua|awlibary
Contrary to law.4 cЃacЃaląw
Criminal Case No. 13625-D
(Violation of Sec. 11, par. 2 [Possession], Art. II of RA 9165)
That, on or about the 20th day of July 2004, in the Municipality of Taguig, Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without being authorized by law to possess any dangerous drug, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly possess 0.13 gram and 0.08 gram, respectively, or a total of 0.21 gram of white crystalline substance separately contained in two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets, which substance was found positive to the test for Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride, also known as shabu, a dangerous drug, in violation of the above-cited law. chanroblesvirtua|awlibary
Contrary to law.5 cЃacЃaląw
On August 9, 2004, appellant was arraigned. He pleaded "not guilty" to the charges against him. After the pre-trial conference, trial on the merits ensued. chanroblesvirtua|awlibary
During the trial, the prosecution presented as its witnesses Police Officer (PO1) Rey Memoracion and PO3 Arnulfo Vicuña, both members of the Station Drug Enforcement Unit, Taguig Police Station, Taguig City. On the other hand, the defense presented as its witnesses appellant Pagkalinawan, Paula San Pedro, and May Pagkalinawan.
The Prosecutions Version of Facts
On July 20, 2004, at around 11:00 p.m., a confidential informant arrived at the office of the Station Anti-Illegal Drugs-Special Operations Task Force (SAID-SOTF) of the Taguig City Police and reported the illegal activities of a certain "Berto," a resident of Captain Ciano St., Ibayo, Tipaz, Taguig City. chanroblesvirtua|awlibary
The leader of the group, Police Senior Inspector Romeo Paat, immediately formed a buy-bust team with PO1 Memoracion as the poseur-buyer and the rest of the group as back-up. The buy-bust money was then marked and recorded in the blotter. Afterwards, the team, along with the police informant, proceeded to where Berto lives. Upon reaching the place, PO1 Memoracion and the informant alighted from the service vehicle and walked towards Berto, who was leaning against a wall, while the rest of the team positioned themselves in strategic locations from where they could see clearly what was going on. chanroblesvirtua|awlibary
The informant introduced PO1 Memoracion to Berto as a taxi driver who wanted to buy shabu. Berto immediately took the PhP 500 buy-bust money from PO1 Memoracion and showed three (3) plastic sachets containing shabu in his palm, and asked the poseur-buyer to pick one. Once PO1 Memoracion took hold of the shabu, he took off his cap, which was the pre-arranged signal for the rest of the team to close in and arrest Berto. Berto suddenly became suspicious of PO3 Vicuña, who was coming up to them, so he attempted to flee the scene. PO1 Memoracion was able to stop him and ordered him to empty his pockets. The other two (2) sachets of shabu were recovered from him and the appropriate markings were made on them. Berto was identified later on as appellant Pagkalinawan. chanroblesvirtua|awlibary
Afterwards, the team brought appellant to its headquarters in Taguig City for investigation. After the police investigator made the request for laboratory examination of the confiscated transparent plastic sachets of suspected shabu, PO1 Memoracion brought these to the Philippine National
Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory, Southern Police District Crime Laboratory Office. Police Inspector (P/Insp.) May Andrea A. Bonifacio, Forensic Chemical Officer, conducted a qualitative examination on the specimens, which tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. She issued Physical Science Report No. D-546-04S dated July 21, 2004, which showed the following results:
SPECIMEN SUBMITTED:
Three (3) heat-sealed transparent sachets each containing white crystalline substance with the following markings and net weights:
A ("SAID-SOTF" VSP) = 0.28 gram
B ("SAID-SOTF" VSP) = 0.13 gram
C ("SAID-SOTF" VSP) = 0.08 gram
x x x x
PURPOSE OF LABORATORY EXAMINATION:
To determine the presence of any dangerous drug. x x x
FINDINGS:
Qualitative examination conducted on the above-stated specimen gave POSITIVE result to the tests for the presence of Methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. x x x
CONCLUSION:
Specimen A to C contain Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.6 cЃacЃaląw x x x
Version of the Defense
Appellant, on the other hand, interposed the defense of denial. chanroblesvirtua|awlibary
Appellant recounted that, on July 20, 2004, he was watching television inside their house at No. 10-D Ibayo, Tipaz, Taguig City. His granddaughter Paula San Pedro and sister-in-law May Pagkalinawan were with him in the house at the time. Suddenly, armed men barged into the house and introduced themselves as policemen. One of them pointed a gun at him and asked where he was keeping the shabu. He denied having what the policemen were looking after. Despite his denial, the policemen still searched his house. When they could not find any prohibited drugs there, the policemen brought him to the Drug Enforcement Unit of the Taguig City Police Station. At the police station, he was told by the policemen to amicably settle the case with them. But because he did not heed their order, cases for violation of RA 9165 were filed against him by the policemen. chanroblesvirtua|awlibary
May Pagkalinawan testified that, on July 20, 2004, she was resting inside their house at No. 10-D Ibayo, Tipaz, Taguig City after selling her wares, while appellant was watching television. Between 10:00 to 11:00 p.m., however, she went to the house of her sister-in-law Zenaida for about ten minutes, but when she returned home, she saw policemen apprehending appellant. She asked the policemen where they were bringing appellant and they told her to follow them at the police station in the Taguig City Hall. She also averred that the policemen did not present any document giving them authority to search their house and arrest appellant. She further claimed that the police officers did not apprise appellant of his constitutional rights during and after the arrest. chanroblesvirtua|awlibary
Defense witness Paula San Pedro, who claimed to be appellants granddaughter, also corroborated the stories of both May Pagkalinawan and appellant. In her testimony, she stressed that her grandfather was apprehended but not bodily frisked by the policemen inside their house; hence, it was not possible for an illegal drug to be found in the possession of appellant.
Ruling of the Trial Court
After trial, the RTC convicted appellant. The dispositive portion of its Joint Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing considerations, the Court finds accused VIRGILIO PAGKALINAWAN y Silvestre alyas "Berto" in Criminal Case No. 13624-D for Violation of Section 5, 1st paragraph, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as "The Comprehensive Drugs Act of 2002", GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, accused Virgilio Pagkalinawan y Silvestre alyas "Berto" is hereby sentenced to suffer LIFE IMPRISONMENT and ordered to pay a fine of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (PhP500,000.00).
Moreover, accused VIRGILIO PAGKALINAWAN y Silvestre alyas "Berto" is also found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt in Criminal Case No. 13625-D for Violation of Section 11, 2nd paragraph, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as "The Comprehensive Drugs Act of 2002". And since the quantity of methylamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) found in the possession of the accused is only 0.21 gram, accused Virgilio Pagkalinawan y Silvestre alyas "Berto" is hereby sentenced to suffer imprisonment ranging from TWELVE (12) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY as minimum -to- FOURTEEN (14) YEARS and TWENTY-ONE (21) DAYS as maximum. Accused Virgilio Pagkalinawan y Silvestre alyas "Berto" is further penalized to pay a fine in the amount of THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (PhP300,000.00).
Accordingly, the Jail Warden of the Taguig City Jail where accused Virgilio Pagkalinawan y Silvestre alyas "Berto" is presently detained is hereby ordered to forthwith commit the person of convicted Virgilio Pagkalinawan y Silvestre alyas "Berto" to the New Bilibid Prisons, Bureau of Corrections in Muntinlupa City, Metro Manila. chanroblesvirtua|awlibary
Upon the other hand, the shabu contained in three (3) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets with a total weight of 0.49 [gram] which are the subject matter of the above-captioned cases are hereby ordered to be immediately transmitted and/or submitted to the custody of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for its proper disposition.
Costs de oficio.
SO ORDERED.7 cЃacЃaląw
On appeal to the CA, appellant disputed the RTCs finding of his guilt beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes charged. He argued that the presumption of innocence should prevail over the principle of regularity of performance of the police officers. Further, he contended that what actually happened was an instigation and not a buy-bust operation. Lastly, he claimed that there was no compliance with the law as to the proper requirements for a valid buy-bust operation.
Ruling of the Appellate Court
On May 9, 2008, the CA affirmed the judgment of the RTC. It ruled that the prosecution was able to discharge the statutory burden of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It also dismissed the allegation of instigation, saying that what happened was actually an entrapment, to wit:
x x x It should be noted that the accused-appellant was neither cajoled nor seduced into peddling drugs. In fact, when he was told that the poseur buyer wanted to score shabu, the accused-appellant had several sachets of shabu ready in his pocket. This means that even without the slightest prodding from the police officers, the accused-appellant already harbored the intent to commit the crime of drug pushing. The feigned offer to buy on the part of the poseur-buyer was merely a ploy to entrap a drug peddler who was about to actualize his felonious intent.8
cЃacЃaląw
The dispositive portion of the CA Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing discussion, the appealed Joint decision dated 16 January 2007 is perforce affirmed in toto
.
SO ORDERED.9 cЃacЃaląw
Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal of the decision of the CA. chanroblesvirtua|awlibary
The Issue
Appellant assigns the following errors:
I. chanroblesvirtua|awlibary
The trial court gravely erred in giving credence to the incredible testimony of the prosecution witnesses while totally disregarding the evidence adduced by the defense.
The trial court gravely erred in finding that the guilt of the accused-appellant for the crime charged has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Our Ruling
We sustain appellants conviction.
Buy-Bust Operation Is a Form of Entrapment
Appellant argues that the buy-bust operation conducted was invalid and that what really happened was instigation, not entrapment. Such contention lacks basis and is contrary to jurisprudence. chanroblesvirtua|awlibary
Instigation is the means by which the accused is lured into the commission of the offense charged in order to prosecute him. On the other hand, entrapment is the employment of such ways and means for the purpose of trapping or capturing a lawbreaker. 10 cЃacЃaląw
In People v. Lua Chu and Uy Se Tieng, the Court laid down the distinction between entrapment and instigation, to wit:
ENTRAPMENT AND INSTIGATION.While it has been said that the practice of entrapping persons into crime for the purpose of instituting criminal prosecutions is to be deplored, and while instigation, as distinguished from mere entrapment, has often been condemned and has sometimes been held to prevent the act from being criminal or punishable, the general rule is that it is no defense to the perpetrator of a crime that facilities for its commission were purposely placed in his way, or that the criminal act was done at the decoy solicitation of persons seeking to expose the criminal, or that detectives feigning complicity in the act were present and apparently assisting in its commission. Especially is this true in that class of cases where the offense is one of a kind habitually committed, and the solicitation merely furnishes evidence of a course of conduct. Mere deception by the detective will not shield defendant, if the offense was committed by him, free from the influence or instigation of the detective. The fact that an agent of an owner acts as a supposed confederate of a thief is no defense to the latter in a prosecution for larceny, provided the original design was formed independently of such agent; and where a person approached by the thief as his confederate notifies the owner or the public authorities, and, being authorised by them to do so, assists the thief in carrying out the plan, the larceny is nevertheless committed. It is generally held that it is no defense to a prosecution for an illegal sale of liquor that the purchase was made by a spotter, detective, or hired informer; but there are cases holding the contrary. 11 cЃacЃaląw
One form of entrapment is the buy-bust operation. It is legal and has been proved to be an effective method of apprehending drug peddlers, provided due regard to constitutional and legal safeguards is undertaken. 12 cЃacЃaląw
In order to determine the validity of a buy-bust operation, this Court has consistently applied the "objective" test. In People v. Doria, 13 cЃacЃaląw this Court stressed that in applying the "objective" test, the details of the purported transaction during the buy-bust operation must be clearly and adequately
shown, i.e., the initial contact between the poseur-buyer and the pusher, the offer to purchase, and the promise or payment of the consideration until the consummation of the sale by the delivery of the illegal drug subject of the sale. It further emphasized that the "manner by which the initial contact was made, whether or not through an informant, the offer to purchase the drug, the payment of the buy-bust money, and the delivery of the illegal drug, whether to the informant alone or the police officer, must be subject of strict scrutiny by courts to insure that law-abiding citizens are not unlawfully induced to commit an offense." 14 cЃacЃaląw
In the instant case, the evidence clearly shows that the police officers used entrapment, not instigation, to capture appellant in the act of selling a dangerous drug. It was the confidential informant who made initial contact with appellant when he introduced PO1 Memoracion as a buyer for shabu. Appellant immediately took the PhP 500 buy-bust money from PO1 Memoracion and showed him three pieces of sachet containing shabu and asked him to pick one. Once PO1 Memoracion got the shabu, he gave the pre-arranged signal and appellant was arrested. The facts categorically show a typical buy-bust operation as a form of entrapment. The police officers conduct was within the acceptable standards for the fair and honorable administration of justice. chanroblesvirtua|awlibary
Moreover, contrary to appellants argument that the acts of the informant and the poseur-buyer in pretending that they were in need of shabu instigated or induced him to violate the Anti-Drugs Law, a police officers act of soliciting drugs from the accused during a buy-bust operation, or what is known as a "decoy solicitation," is not prohibited by law and does not render the buy-bust operation invalid.15
cЃacЃaląw This was clarified by the Court in People v. Sta Maria:
It is no defense to the perpetrator of a crime that facilities for its commission were purposely placed in his way, or that the criminal act was done at the "decoy solicitation" of persons seeking to expose the criminal, or that detectives feigning complicity in the act were present and apparently assisting its commission. Especially is this true in that class of cases where the office is one habitually committed, and the solicitation merely furnishes evidence of a course of conduct. chanroblesvirtua|awlibary
As here, the solicitation of drugs from appellant by the informant utilized by the police merely furnishes evidence of a course of conduct. The police received an intelligence report that appellant has been habitually dealing in illegal drugs. They duly acted on it by utilizing an informant to effect a drug transaction with appellant. There was no showing that the informant induced the appellant to sell illegal drugs to him.16
cЃacЃaląw
It bears stressing that what is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti. In other words, the essential elements of the crime of illegal sale of prohibited drugs are: (1) the accused sold and delivered a prohibited drug to another; and (2) he knew that what he had sold and delivered was a prohibited drug.17
cЃacЃaląw All these elements were satisfactorily proved by the prosecution in the instant case. Appellant sold and delivered the shabu for PhP 500 to PO1 Memoracion posing as buyer; the said drug was seized and identified as a prohibited drug and subsequently presented in evidence; there was actual exchange of the marked money and
contraband; and finally, appellant was fully aware that he was selling and delivering a prohibited drug. chanroblesvirtua|awlibary
Likewise, the prosecution was also able to prove with moral certainty the guilt of appellant for the crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs. It was able to prove the following elements: (1) that the accused is in possession of the object identified as a prohibited or regulatory drug; (2) that such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) that the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug.18
cЃacЃaląw
In the case at bar, appellant was caught in actual possession of prohibited drugs without showing any proof that he was duly authorized by law to possess them. Having been caught in flagrante delicto, there is, therefore, a prima facie evidence of animus possidendi on appellants part. 19
cЃacЃaląw
As a matter of fact, the trial court, in disposing of the case, said:
The substance of the prosecutions evidence is to the effect that accused Virgilio Pagkalinawan y Silvestre alyas "Berto" was arrested by the police because of the existence of shabu he sold to PO1 Rey B. Memoracion as well as the recovery of the buy-bust money from his possession together with the other two (2) plastic sachets similarly containing shabu. chanroblesvirtua|awlibary
To accentuate, the prosecution witnesses in the person of PO1 B. Memoracion and PO3 Arnulfo J. Vicuña positively identified accused Virgilio Pagkalinawan y Silvestre alyas "Berto" as the person that they apprehended on July 20, 2004 at Ibayo, Tipaz, Taguig City. That they arrested accused Virgilio S. Pagkalinawan within the vicinity of a store because their team was able to procure shabu from him during the buy-bust operation they purposely conducted against the aforementioned accused. chanroblesvirtua|awlibary
The buy-bust money recovered by the arresting police officers from the possession of the accused Virgilio Pagkalinawan y Silvestre alyas "Berto" as well as the shabu they were able to purchase from the accused sufficiently constitute as the very corpus delicti of the crime of "Violation of Section 5, 1st paragraph, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165", and the two (2) plastic sachets containing shabu that were recovered from the same accused Pagkalinawan similarly constitute as the corpus delicti of the crime of "Violation of Section 11, 2nd paragraph, No. 3, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165". As already established, corpus delicti has been defined x x x as the body or substance of the crime and refers to the fact that a crime has actually been committed. As applied to a particular offense, it means the actual commission by someone of the particular crime. chanroblesvirtua|awlibary
The testimony of PO1 Rey B. Memoracion that was corroborated by PO3 Arnulfo J. Vicuña, who have not shown and displayed any ill motive to arrest the accused, is sufficient enough to convict the accused of the crimes charged against him. x x x As law enforcers, their narration of the incident is worthy of belief and as such they are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary. To stress x x x testimony of arresting officers, with no motive or reason to falsely impute a serious charge against the accused, is credible.20
This Court has consistently relied upon the assessment of the trial court, which had the opportunity to observe the conduct and demeanor of the witnesses during the trial. It is a fundamental rule that findings of the trial courts which are factual in nature and which involve credibility are accorded respect when no glaring errors; gross misapprehension of facts; or speculative, arbitrary, and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings. The reason for this is that the trial court is in a better position to decide the credibility of witnesses, having heard their testimonies and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial.21
cЃacЃaląw In this case, appellant has not sufficiently demonstrated the application of any of the aforementioned exceptions.
Sec. 21 of RA 9165 Provides for Exceptions
Additionally, appellant argues that the prosecution failed to show compliance with Sec. 21 of RA 9165 and its implementing rules regarding the custody and disposition of the evidence against him. He contends that absolute compliance is required and that anything short of that renders the evidence against him inadmissible.
We are not persuaded.
Sec. 21 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165 provides:
SECTION 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:
(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof; Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; Provided, further, that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items. x x x (Emphasis supplied.)
As can be gleaned from the language of Sec. 21 of the Implementing Rules, it is clear that the failure of the law enforcers to comply strictly with it is not fatal. It does not render appellants arrest illegal nor the evidence adduced against him inadmissible.22
preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused."23
cЃacЃaląw
Here, there was substantial compliance with the law and the integrity of the drugs seized from appellant was preserved. The chain of custody of the drugs subject matter of the case was shown not to have been broken. The factual milieu of the case reveals that after PO1 Memoracion seized and confiscated the dangerous drugs, as well as the marked money, appellant was immediately arrested and brought to the police station for investigation, where the sachets of suspected shabu were marked appropriately. Immediately thereafter, the confiscated substance, with a letter of request for examination, was submitted to the PNP Crime Laboratory for laboratory examination to determine the presence of any dangerous drug. Per Physical Science Report No. D-546-04S dated July 21, 2004, the specimen submitted contained methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. The examination was conducted by one P/Insp. May Andrea A. Bonifacio, a Forensic Chemical Officer of the PNP Crime Laboratory. Therefore, it is evidently clear that there was an unbroken chain in the custody of the illicit drug purchased from appellant.
Presumption of Regularity of Performance Stands
Notably, in the absence of clear and convincing evidence that the police officers were inspired by any improper motive, this Court will not appreciate the defense of denial and instead apply the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty by law enforcement agents. chanroblesvirtua|awlibary
In the instant case, the defense of appellant consists of bare denial. It is considered as an inherently weak defense, for it can easily be concocted and is a common standard line of defense in drug cases. chanroblesvirtua|awlibary
Furthermore, as found by the trial court, the defense has failed to show any evidence of ill motive on the part of the police officers:
Such allegation of the accused that his apprehension was just a result of a frame-up, as he was not really engaged in peddling shabu when he was arrested, cannot be given credence because he was not able to offer and show proof of any previous disagreement between him and the arresting law officers that may lead the police officers to concoct and hatch baseless accusations against him, or the presence of any other circumstances that may have fired up the ire of the police officers against him.24
cЃacЃaląw x x x
For this reason, we uphold the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties and find that the prosecution has discharged its burden of proving the guilt of appellant beyond reasonable doubt. chanroblesvirtua|awlibary
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision of the CA in CA-G.R. CR No. 02648 finding appellant Victorio Pagkalinawan guilty of the crimes charged is AFFIRMED.
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.
RENATO C. CORONAAssociate Justice
Chairperson
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairpersons Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.
REYNATO S. PUNOChief Justice
Endnotes:
Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURTManila
EN BANC
[A.M. No. CA-05-18-P. April 12, 2005]
ZALDY NUEZ, complainant, vs. ELVIRA CRUZ-APAO, respondent.
D E C I S I O N
PER CURIAM:
What brings our judicial system into disrepute are often the actuations of a few erring court personnel peddling influence to party-litigants, creating the impression that decisions can be bought and sold, ultimately resulting in the disillusionment of the public. This Court has never wavered in its vigilance in eradicating the so-called 'bad eggs' in the judiciary. And whenever warranted by the gravity of the offense, the supreme penalty of dismissal in an administrative case is meted to erring personnel.[1]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
The above pronouncement of this Court in the case of Mendoza vs. Tiongson[2] is applicable to the case at bar.
This is an administrative case for Dishonesty and Grave Misconduct[3] against Elvira Cruz-Apao (Respondent), Executive Assistant II of the Acting Division Clerk of Court of the Fifteenth (15th) Division, Court of Appeals (CA). The complaint arose out of respondent's solicitation of One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00) from Zaldy Nuez (Complainant) in exchange for a speedy and favorable decision of the latter's pending case in the CA,[4] more particularly, CA-G.R. SP No. 73460 entitled 'PAGCOR vs. Zaldy Nuez.[5] Complainant initially lodged a complaint with the Action Center of the Television program Imbestigador of GMA Network,[6] the crew of which had accompanied him to the Presidential Anti-Organized Crime CommissionSpecial Projects Group (PAOCC-SPG) in Malacaang where he filed a complaint for extortion[7] against respondent. This led to the conduct of an entrapment operation by elements of the Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Task Force (PAOCTF) on 28 September 2004 at the Jollibee Restaurant, 2nd Floor, Times Plaza Bldg., corner Taft and United Nations Avenue, ,[8] the place where the supposed hand-over of the money was going to take place.
Respondent's apprehension by agents of the PAOCTF in the course of the entrapment operation prompted then CA Presiding Justice (PJ) Cancio C. Garcia (now Supreme Court Justice) to issue Office Order No. 297-04-CG[9] (Order) which created an ad-hoc investigating committee (Committee).[10] The Committee was specifically tasked among others to conduct a thorough and exhaustive investigation of respondent's case and to recommend the proper administrative sanctions against her as the evidence may warrant.[11]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
In accordance with the mandate of the Order, the Committee conducted an investigation of the case and issued a Resolution[12] dated 18 October 2004 where it concluded that a prima facie case of Dishonesty and Serious Misconduct against respondent existed. The Committee thus recommended respondent's preventive suspension for ninety (90) days pending formal investigation of the charges against her.[13] On 28 January 2005, the Committee submitted a Report[14] to the new CA Presiding Justice Romeo A. Brawner with its recommendation that respondent be dismissed from service.
Based on the hearings conducted and the evidence received by the Committee, the antecedent facts are as follows:
Complainant's case referred to above had been pending with the CA for more than two years.[15] Complainant filed an illegal dismissal case against PAGCOR before the Civil Service Commission (CSC). The CSC ordered complainant's reinstatement but a writ of preliminary injunction and a temporary restraining order was issued by the CA in favor of PAGCOR, thus complainant was not reinstated to his former job pending adjudication of the case.[16] Desiring an expeditious decision of his case, complainant sought the assistance of respondent sometime in July 2004 after learning of the latter's employment with the CA from her sister, Magdalena David. During their first telephone conversation[17] and thereafter through a series of messages they exchanged via SMS,[18] complainant informed respondent of the particulars of his pending case. Allegedly, complainant thought that respondent would be able to advise him on how to achieve an early resolution of his case.
However, a week after their first telephone conversation, respondent allegedly told complainant that a favorable and speedy decision of his case was attainable but the person who was to draft the decision was in return asking for One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00).[19]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Complainant expostulated that he did not have that kind of money since he had been jobless for a long time, to which respondent replied, 'Eh, ganoon talaga ang lakaran dito, eh. Kung wala kang pera, pasensiya na.[20] Complainant then tried to ask for a reduction of the amount but respondent held firm asserting that the price had been set, not by her but by the person who was going to make the decision.[21] Respondent even admonished complainant with the words 'Wala tayo sa palengke iho![22] when the latter bargained for a lower amount.[23]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Complainant then asked for time to determine whether or not to pay the money in exchange for the decision. Instead, in August of 2004, he sought the assistance of Imbestigador.[24] The crew of the TV program accompanied him to PAOCCF-SPG where he lodged a complaint against respondent for extortion.[25] Thereafter, he communicated with respondent again to verify if the latter was still asking for the money[26] and to set up a meeting with her.[27] Upon learning that respondent's offer of a favorable decision in exchange for One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00) was still standing, the plan for the entrapment operation was formulated by Imbestigador in cooperation with the PAOCC.
On 24 September 2004, complainant and respondent met for the first time in person at the 2nd Floor of Jollibee, Times Plaza Bldg.,[28] the place where the entrapment operation was later conducted. Patricia Siringan (Siringan), a researcher of Imbestigador, accompanied complainant
and posed as his sister-in-law.[29] During the meeting, complainant clarified from respondent that if he gave the amount of One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00), he would get a favorable decision. This was confirmed by the latter together with the assurance that it would take about a month for the decision to come out.[30] Respondent also explained that the amount of One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00) guaranteed a favorable decision only in the CA but did not extend to the Supreme Court should the case be appealed later.[31]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
When respondent was asked where the money will go, she claimed that it will go to a male researcher whose name she refused to divulge. The researcher was allegedly a lawyer in the CA Fifth (5th) Division where complainant case was pending.[32] She also claimed that she will not get any part of the money unless the researcher decides to give her some.[33]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Complainant tried once again to bargain for a lower amount during the meeting but respondent asserted that the amount was fixed. She even explained that this was their second transaction and the reason why the amount was closed at One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00) was because on a previous occasion, only Eight Hundred Thousand Pesos (P800,000.00) was paid by the client despite the fact that the amount had been pegged at One Million Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P1,300,000.00).[34] Complainant then proposed that he pay a down payment of Seven Hundred Thousand Pesos (P700,000.00) while the balance of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00) will be paid once the decision had been released.[35] However, respondent refused to entertain the offer, she and the researcher having learned their lesson from their previous experience for as then, the client no longer paid the balance of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) after the decision had come out.[36]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Complainant brought along copies of the documents pertinent to his case during the first meeting. After reading through them, respondent allegedly uttered, 'Ah, panalo ka.[37] The parties set the next meeting date at lunchtime on 28 September 2004 and it was understood that the money would be handed over by complainant to respondent then.[38]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
On the pre-arranged meeting date, five (5) PAOCTF agents, namely: Capt. Reynaldo Maclang (Maclang) as team leader, SPO1 Renato Banay (Banay), PO1 Bernard Villena (Villena), PO1 Danny Feliciano, and PO2 Edgar delos Reyes[39] arrived at around 11:30 in the morning at Jollibee.[40] Nuez and Siringan arrived at past noon and seated themselves at the table beside the one occupied by the two (2) agents, Banay and Villena. Complainant had with him an unsealed long brown envelope containing ten (10) bundles of marked money and paper money which was to be given to respondent.[41] The envelope did not actually contain the One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00) demanded by respondent, but instead contained paper money in denominations of One Hundred Pesos (P100.00), Five Hundred Pesos (P500.00) and One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00), as well as newspaper cut-outs.[42] There were also ten (10) authentic One Hundred Peso (P100.00) bills which had been previously dusted with ultra-violet powder by the PAOCTF.[43] The three other PAOCTF agents were seated a few tables away[44] and there were also three (3) crew members from Imbestigador at another table operating a mini DV camera that was secretly recording the whole transaction.[45]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Respondent arrived at around 1:00 p.m.[46] She appeared very nervous and suspicious during the meeting.[47] Ironically, she repeatedly said that complainant might entrap her, precisely like
those that were shown on Imbestigador.[48] She thus refused to receive the money then and there. What she proposed was for complainant and Siringan to travel with her in a taxi and drop her off at the CA where she would receive the money.[49]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
More irony ensued. Respondent actually said that she felt there were policemen around and she was afraid that once she took hold of the envelope complainant proffered, she would suddenly be arrested and handcuffed.[50] At one point, she even said, 'Ayan o, tapos na silang kumain, bakit hindi pa sila umaalis?,[51] referring to Banay and Villena at the next table. To allay respondent's suspicion, the two agents stood up after a few minutes and went near the staircase where they could still see what was going on.[52]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Complainant, respondent and Siringan negotiated for almost one hour.[53] Complainant and Siringan bargained for a lower price but respondent refused to accede. When respondent finally touched the unsealed envelope to look at the money inside, the PAOCTF agents converged on her and invited her to the Western Police District (WPD) Headquarters at United Nations Avenue for questioning.[54] Respondent became hysterical as a commotion ensued inside the restaurant.[55]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
On the way to the WPD on board the PAOCTF vehicle, Banay asked respondent why she went to the restaurant. The latter replied that she went there to get the One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00).[56]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Respondent was brought to the PNP Crime Laboratory at the WPD where she was tested and found positive for ultra-violet powder that was previously dusted on the money.[57] She was later detained at the WPD Headquarters.
At seven oclock in the evening of 28 September 2004, respondent called Atty. Lilia Mercedes Encarnacion Gepty (Atty. Gepty), her immediate superior in the CA at the latter's house.[58] She tearfully confessed to Atty. Gepty that 'she asked for money for a case and was entrapped by police officers and the media.[59] Enraged at the news, Atty. Gepty asked why she had done such a thing to which respondent replied, 'Wala lang maam, sinubukan ko lang baka makalusot.[60] Respondent claimed that she was ashamed of what she did and repented the same. She also asked for Atty. Gepty's forgiveness and help. The latter instead reminded respondent of the instances when she and her co-employees at the CA were exhorted during office meetings never to commit such offenses.[61]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Atty. Gepty rendered a verbal report[62] of her conversation with their division's chairman, Justice Martin S. Villarama. She reduced the report into writing and submitted the same to then PJ Cancio Garcia on 29 September 2004.[63] She also later testified as to the contents of her report to the Committee.
During the hearing of this case, respondent maintained that what happened was a case of instigation and not an entrapment. She asserted that the offer of money in exchange for a favorable decision came not from her but from complainant. To support her contention, she presented witnesses who testified that it was complainant who allegedly offered money to anyone who could help him with his pending case. She likewise claimed that she never touched the money on 28 September 2004, rather it was Capt. Maclang who forcibly held her hands and
pressed it to the envelope containing the money. She thus asked that the administrative case against her be dismissed.
This Court is not persuaded by respondent's version. Based on the evidence on record, what happened was a clear case of entrapment, and not instigation as respondent would like to claim.
In entrapment, ways and means are resorted to for the purpose of ensnaring and capturing the law-breakers in the execution of their criminal plan. On the other hand, in instigation, the instigator practically induces the would-be defendant into the commission of the offense, and he himself becomes a co-principal.[64]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
In this case, complainant and the law enforcers resorted to entrapment precisely because respondent demanded the amount of One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00) from complainant in exchange for a favorable decision of the latter's pending case. Complainant's narration of the incidents which led to the entrapment operation are more in accord with the circumstances that actually transpired and are more credible than respondent's version.
Complainant was able to prove by his testimony in conjunction with the text messages from respondent duly presented before the Committee that the latter asked for One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00) in exchange for a favorable decision of the former's pending case with the CA. The text messages were properly admitted by the Committee since the same are now covered by Section 1(k), Rule 2 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence[65] which provides:
Ephemeral electronic communication refers to telephone conversations, text messages . . . and other electronic forms of communication the evidence of which is not recorded or retained.
Under Section 2, Rule 11 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence, 'Ephemeral electronic communications shall be proven by the testimony of a person who was a party to the same or who has personal knowledge thereof . . . . In this case, complainant who was the recipient of said messages and therefore had personal knowledge thereof testified on their contents and import. Respondent herself admitted that the cellphone number reflected in complainant's cellphone from which the messages originated was hers.[66] Moreover, any doubt respondent may have had as to the admissibility of the text messages had been laid to rest when she and her counsel signed and attested to the veracity of the text messages between her and complainant.[67] It is also well to remember that in administrative cases, technical rules of procedure and evidence are not strictly applied.[68] We have no doubt as to the probative value of the text messages as evidence in determining the guilt or lack thereof of respondent in this case.
Complainant's testimony as to the discussion between him and respondent on the latter's demand for One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00) was corroborated by the testimony of a disinterested witness, Siringan, the reporter of Imbestigador who was present when the parties met in person. Siringan was privy to the parties' actual conversation since she accompanied complainant on both meetings held on 24 and 28 of September 2004 at Jollibee.
Respondent's evidence was comprised by the testimony of her daughter and sister as well as an acquaintance who merely testified on how respondent and complainant first met. Respondent's
own testimony consisted of bare denials and self-serving claims that she did not remember either the statements she herself made or the contents of the messages she sent. Respondent had a very selective memory made apparent when clarificatory questions were propounded by the Committee.
When she was asked if she had sent the text messages contained in complainant's cellphone and which reflected her cellphone number, respondent admitted those that were not incriminating but claimed she did not remember those that clearly showed she was transacting with complainant. Thus, during the 17 November 2004 hearing, where respondent was questioned by Justice Salazar-Fernando, the following transpired:
Q: After reading those text messages, do you remember having made those text messages?
(Respondent)
A: Only some of these, your honors.
Justice Salazar-Fernando: Which one?
A: Sabi ko po magpunta na lang sila sa office. Yung nasa bandang unahan po, your Honors.
Q: What else?
A: Tapos yung sabi ko pong pagpunta niya magdala siya ng I.D. or isama niya sa kanya si Len David.
Q: Okay, You remember having texted Zaldy Nuez on September 23, 2004 at 1309 which was around 1:09 in the afternoon and you said 'di me pwede punta na lang kayo dito sa office Thursday 4:45 p.m. Room 107 Centennial Building.
A: Yes, your Honors.
Q: And on September 23, 2004 at 1731 which was around 5:31 in the afternoon you again texted Zaldy Nuez and you said 'Sige bukas nang tanghali sa Times Plaza, Taft Avenue, corner U.N. Avenue. Magdala ka ng I.D. para makilala kita o isama mo si Len David.
A: Opo, your Honors.
Q: How about on September 23 at 5:05 in the afternoon when you said 'Di pwede kelan mo gusto fixed price na iyon.
A: I dont remember that, your Honors.
Q: Again on September 23 at 5:14 p.m. you said 'Alam mo di ko iyon price and nagbigay noon yung gagawa. Wala ako doon. You dont also remember this?
A: Yes, your Honors.
Q: September 27 at 1:42 p.m. 'Oo naman ayusin nyo yung hindi halatang pera. You also dont remember that?
A: Yes Your Honors.
Q: September 27 at 1:30 in the afternoon, 'Di na pwede sabi sa akin. Pinakaiusapan ko na nga ulit iyon. You dont remember that?
A: No, your Honors.[69]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Respondent would like this Court to believe that she never had any intention of committing a crime, that the offer of a million pesos for a favorable decision came from complainant and that it was complainant and the law enforcers who instigated the whole incident.
Respondent thus stated that she met with complainant only to tell the latter to stop calling and texting her, not to get the One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00) as pre-arranged.
This claim of respondent is preposterous to say the least. Had the offer of a million pesos really come from complainant and had she really intended to stop the latter from corrupting her, she could have simply refused to answer the latter's messages and calls. This she did not do. She answered those calls and messages though she later claimed she did not remember having sent the same messages to complainant. She could also have reported the matter to the CA Presiding Justice, an action which respondent admitted during the hearing was the proper thing to do under the circumstances.[70] But this course of action she did not resort to either, allegedly because she never expected things to end this way.[71]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
While claiming that she was not interested in complainant's offer of a million pesos, she met with him not only once but twice, ostensibly, to tell the latter to stop pestering her. If respondent felt that telling complainant to stop pestering her would be more effective if she did it in person, the same would have been accomplished with a single meeting. There was no reason for her to meet with complainant again on 28 September 2004 unless there was really an understanding between them that the One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00) will be handed over to her then. Respondent even claimed that she became afraid of complainant when she learned that the latter had been dismissed by PAGCOR for using illegal drugs.[72] This notwithstanding, she still met with him on 28 September 2004.
Anent complainant's narration of respondent's refusal to reduce the amount of One Million Pesos (P1,000.000.00) based on the lesson learned from a previous transaction, while admitting that she actually said the same, respondent wants this Court to believe that she said it merely to have something to talk about.[73] If indeed, respondent had no intention of committing any wrongdoing, it escapes the Court why she had to make up stories merely to test if complainant
could make good on his alleged boast that he could come up with a million pesos. It is not in accord with ordinary human experience for an honest government employee to make up stories that would make party-litigants believe that court decisions may be bought and sold. Time and again this Court has declared, thus:
Everyone in the judiciary bears a heavy burden of responsibility for the proper discharge of his duty and it behooves everyone to steer clear of any situations in which the slightest suspicion might be cast on his conduct. Any misbehavior on his part, whether true or only perceived, is likely to reflect adversely on the administration of justice.[74]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Respondent having worked for the government for twenty four (24) years, nineteen (19) of which have been in the CA,[75] should have known very well that court employees are held to the strictest standards of honesty and integrity. Their conduct should at all times be above suspicion. As held by this Court in a number of cases, 'The conduct or behavior of all officials of an agency involved in the administration of justice, from the Presiding Judge to the most junior clerk, should be circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility.[76] Their conduct must, at all times be characterized by among others, strict propriety and decorum in order to earn and maintain the respect of the public for the judiciary.[77]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Respondent's actuations from the time she started communicating with complainant in July 2004 until the entrapment operation on 28 September 2004 show a lack of the moral fiber demanded from court employees. Respondent's avowals of innocence notwithstanding, the evidence clearly show that she solicited the amount of One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00) from complainant in exchange for a favorable decision. The testimony of Atty. Gepty, the recipient of respondent's confession immediately after the entrapment operation, unmistakably supports the finding that respondent did voluntarily engage herself in the activity she is being accused of.
Respondent's solicitation of money from complainant in exchange for a favorable decision violates Canon I of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel which took effect on 1 June 2004 pursuant to A.M. No. 03-06-13-SC. Sections 1 and 2, Canon I of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel expressly provide:
SECTION 1. Court personnel shall not use their official position to secure unwarranted benefits, privileges or exemption for themselves or for others.
SECTION 2. Court personnel shall not solicit or accept any gift, favor or benefit based on any explicit or implicit understanding that such gift, favor or benefit shall influence their official actions. (Underscoring supplied)
It is noteworthy that the penultimate paragraph of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel specifically provides:
SECTION 1. All provisions of the law, Civil Service rules, and issuances of the Supreme Court governing the conduct of public officers and employees applicable to the judiciary are deemed incorporated into this Code.
By soliciting the amount of One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00) from complainant, respondent committed an act of impropriety which immeasurably affects the honor and dignity of the judiciary and the people's confidence in it.
In the recent case of Aspiras vs. Abalos,[78] complainant charged respondent, an employee of the Records Section, Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), Supreme Court for allegedly deceiving him into giving her money in the total amount of Fifty Two Thousand Pesos (P52,000.00) in exchange for his acquittal in a murder case on appeal before the Supreme Court. It turned out that respondent's representation was false because complainant was subsequently convicted of murder and sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua by the Supreme Court.[79]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
The Supreme Court en banc found Esmeralda Abalos guilty of serious misconduct and ordered her dismissal from the service. This Court aptly held thus:
In Mirano vs. Saavedra,[80] this Court emphatically declared that a public servant must exhibit at all times the highest sense of honesty and integrity. The administration of justice is a sacred task, and by the very nature of their duties and responsibilities, all those involved in it must faithfully adhere to, hold inviolate, and invigorate the principle that public office is a public trust, solemnly enshrined in the Constitution.[81]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Likewise, in the grave misconduct case against Datu Alykhan T. Amilbangsa of the Sharia Circuit Court, Bengo, Tawi-Tawi,[82] this Court stated:
No position demands greater moral righteousness and uprightness from the occupant than the judicial office. Those connected with the dispensation of justice bear a heavy burden of responsibility. Court employees in particular, must be individuals of competence, honesty and probity charged as they are with safeguarding the integrity of the court . . . . The High Court has consistently held that persons involved in the administration of justice ought to live up to the strictest standards of honesty and integrity in the public service. He should refrain from financial dealings which would interfere with the efficient performance of his duties.[83] The conduct required of court personnel must always be beyond reproach.[84]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
The following pronouncement of this Court in the case of Yrastorza, Sr. vs. Latiza, Court Aide, RTC Branch 14 Cebu City [85] is also worth remembering:
Court employees bear the burden of observing exacting standards of ethics and morality. This is the price one pays for the honor of working in the judiciary. Those who are part of the machinery dispensing justice from the lowliest clerk to the presiding judge must conduct themselves with utmost decorum and propriety to maintain the public's faith and respect for the judiciary. Improper behavior exhibits not only a paucity of professionalism at the workplace but also a
great disrespect to the court itself. Such demeanor is a failure of circumspection demanded of every public official and employee.[86]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
In view of the facts narrated above and taking into account the applicable laws and jurisprudence, the Committee in their Report[87] recommended that respondent be dismissed from government service for GRAVE MISCONDUCT and violation of Sections 1 and 2, Canon 1 of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel.[88]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Finding the Committee's recommendation to be supported by more than substantial evidence and in accord with the applicable laws and jurisprudence, the recommendation is well taken.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondent Elvira Cruz-Apao is found GUILTY of GRAVE MISCONDUCT and violation of SECTIONS 1 and 2 of the CODE OF CONDUCT FOR COURT PERSONNEL and is accordingly DISMISSED from government service, with prejudice to re-employment in any branch, instrumentality or agency of the government, including government-owned and controlled corporations. Her retirement and all benefits except accrued leave credits are hereby FORFEITED.
