ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 46 -
IMPOSING THE PENALTY OF DISMISSAL FROM THE SERVICE OF JOSE B. DAGUMAN,
ASSISTANT CITY PROSECUTOR, PROSECUTION OFFICE, CITY OF MANILA
This refers to the administrative complaint
filed by then Department of Justice (DOJ) Secretary. Serafin R. Cuevas
against respondent Jose B. Daguman, Assistant City Prosecutor,
Prosecution Office of the City of Manila, for grave misconduct,
dishonesty, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and
conduct unbecoming a public officer.
The facts of the case, as found by the DOJ in its letter of October 1,
2001, are as follows:
"On April 30, 1999, complainant Estrella R. Garame went to the office
of the respondent to inquire and seek assistance on behalf of her
husband Russ L. Garame who was presented for inquest before him on
April 29, 1999. Belen Perez and Pompia Ramos accompanied her inside the
office. Respondent informed the complainant that the bail recommended
for her husband's provisional release is P100,000.00. Informing him
that she did not have that amount, respondent talked to Pompia Ramos, a
province mate, who in turn informed the complainant that the respondent
was asking for P6,000.00. Respondent told the complainant that the
amount was for the police officers. Thereafter, he will prepare the
release papers. Since the complainant did not have that amount,
respondent asked her to give at least half the amount. Complainant was
able to borrow from Belen Perez the amount of P3,000.00 consisting of
small denominations, which she gave to the respondent. Pompia Ramos
witnessed the respondent receive the amount. Thereafter, he instructed
the complainant to find the means to produce the balance of in order
that her husband will be released on Monday, May 3, 1999.
On May 1, 1999, complainant was informed by her neighbor Saldo dela
Torre that the respondent was looking for her at her house. Not being
able to talk to the complainant, respondent gave her a call in the
evening inquiring if she already had the money to which she replied in
the negative. The following day, respondent returned to her
[complainant's] house located at Nepomuceno St., Quiapo, Manila, to
inquire about the balance. Complainant was able to see the respondent
at his house on May 4, 1999, when she asked to be furnished with copies
of the inquest documents considering that Franco Galo, her uncle who
was going to lend the money was asking for it. Complainant met her
uncle on May 5, 1999. Upon asking the documents, her uncle said that
her husband is under detention and he needs to submit his answer to the
complaint against him. They went to Malacañang to see a certain
Jude P. Fajardo. The latter prepared a letter addressed to Atty. Samuel
Ong of the National Bureau of Investigation. Complainant was able to
talk to Atty. Ong who in turn referred her to NBI agent Antonio Suarez.
She relayed to him that respondent demanded from her the amount of
P6,000.00 but was only able to give half the amount, and that she was
still demanding for the balance. Upon the instruction of agent Suarez,
complainant made a call to the responded at around noon informing him
that she only had P2,000.00. Inquiring whether her husband could be
released, respondent directed her to proceed to his office where they
can discuss the matter. Later in the afternoon, agent Suarez produced
the P2,000.00 placed in an envelope. NBI agent Julma Dizon-Dapilos, who
is to be complainant's companion posing as her aunt, instructed her to
hand over the money to the respondent only when he makes the demand.
Around 4:00 P.M., complainant arrived at the respondent's office. She
introduced agent Dizon-Dapilos to the respondent, who immediately
inquired about the money. Responding that she was only able to produce
P2,000.00, respondent instructed her to place the money inside the
drawer. As directed, complainant removed the money from the envelope,
folded it and placed it inside the table drawer which was opened by the
respondent. Agent Dizon-Dapilos inquired if the complainant's husband
could be released. The latter answered that it was already late in the
afternoon and that they should return at around noon the following day.
She again inquired if it was possible to release complainant's husband
in the morning. The respondent replied in the negative since he was
busy but he will try his best. At that instance, complainant stepped
out of the room and apprised agent Suarez about what transpired inside
the room. In the meantime, agent Dizon-Dapilos announced to the
respondent that he is being placed under arrest. He was read his
constitutional rights. While complainant was waiting inside an NBI
vehicle, she saw the respondent being escorted by the NBI agents. They
all proceeded to the NBI office.
xxx
xxx
xxx
The defense raised by respondent Daguman consists mainly of denials and
explanations concerning the commission of the offense. Respondent, in
seeking his exoneration, avers that the reason, why the present case
was filed against him is because of the fact that complainant was
embarrassed and humiliated when he shouted at her inside his office on
April 30, 1999 that her husband is a snatcher. He explains that the
reason why the inquest records remained in his office is because his
secretary failed to turn them over to the docket section on May 3,
1999, in view of the latter's absence.
In support of his defense, respondent submitted the following pieces of
documents: Exhibit '1', a sketch showing the interior of respondent's
room at the City Prosecution Office of Manila; Exhibit '2', sworn
statement of Roger Roxas dated June 21, 1999; Exhibit '3', sworn
statement of Asst. City Prosecutor Exequiel Y. Sison, Jr., dated June
18, 1999; and Exhibit '4', sworn statement of respondent dated June 21,
1999.
Formal charges of grave misconduct, dishonesty, conduct prejudicial to
the best interest of the service and conduct unbecoming of a public
officer were filed against herein respondent by the Secretary of
Justice and docketed as NPS Administrative Case No. 99-0022-FS. After
the conduct of the formal investigation, respondent Daguman was found
guilty of the charges and the penalty of dismissal from service was
recommended to be imposed upon him."
There is no iota of doubt that on the basis of the evidence, both
testimonial and documentary presented by the complainant, respondent
Jose B. Daguman is guilty of the acts complained of. Based on the
foregoing facts, there is substantial evidence indubitably showing that
respondent committed acts of grave misconduct, dishonesty and conduct
prejudicial to the best interest of the service when he demanded from
Estrella R. Garame the amount of P6,000.00 on April 30, 1999 and
actually received P3,000.00 as partial payment for the release of her
husband Russ L. Garame who was brought before him for inquest
investigation on April 29, 1999.
There is no reason to doubt the NBI agents' testimony which is fully
supported by documentary evidence showing that respondent was indeed
arrested during an entrapment operation on May 5, 1999 while in the act
of receiving the balance of P2,000.00 marked money from the
complainant. Noteworthy to mention at this point is the fact that not
only do the NBI Agents enjoy in their favor the presumption of
regularity in the performance of their duties when they conducted the
entrapment operation, their testimonies, more particularly those of
Agents Suarez and Dizon-Dapilos, remained uncontroverted. Neither has
the respondent sufficiently explained why the inquest records of Russ
L. Garame remained in his possession until May 5, 1999 when it was
recovered by the NBI Agents inside his table drawer. Under the normal
procedure, the inquest record should have been turned over to the
docket section of the City Prosecution Office of Manila on May 3, 1999
for assignment of an I.S. Number immediately the following working day.
Nor did he bother to present his secretary Pedrito Hebron to at least
corroborate his explanation.
As against the respondent's bare denials, the sworn affidavits of
complainant, her witnesses and the documentary proofs attached to the
records are more convincing and nearer to the truth. They have no
motive for fabricating the charges against the respondent except to
bring justice. Credence should also be given to the testimonies of the
NBI agents coming as it does from an unpolluted source. These agents
had no reason to testify falsely against the respondent prosecutor. In
fact, they had caught respondent in flagrante delicto.
For another, the claim of respondent that there was ill-will on the
part of the complainants is hardly plausible. It is highly improbable
for complainant to embark on a malicious prosecution just to retaliate
and take revenge on the respondent, knowing fully well that the fate of
her husband lies in the hands of the latter. It is more in accord with
reason and logic to presuppose that there was some sort of a demand
made by the respondent in exchange for certain favorable considerations
like working for the release of complainant's husband from jail.
From the foregoing, the conclusion is inescapable that respondent can
easily be influenced by monetary considerations. This act of the
respondent of demanding and receiving money from the wife of the
accused constitutes serious misconduct in office. It is this kind of
gross and flaunting misconduct, no matter how nominal the amount
involved, on the part of those who are charged with the responsibility
of administering the law will surely erode the people's respect for law
and lose faith and trust in the prosecution service which is expected
to render fair and equal justice to all.
ACCORDINGLY, premises considered, and as recommended by the Department
of Justice, respondent Assistant City Prosecutor JOSE B. DAGUMAN is
hereby DISMISSED from the service with forfeiture of all leave credits
and retirement benefits and with prejudice to re-employment in any
branch of government, including government-owned and controlled
corporations.
Done in the City of Manila,
Philippines, this 25th day of November 2002.
|