ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 51 -
IMPOSING THE PENALTY OF DISMISSAL FROM THE GOVERNMENT SERVICE ON
ASSISTANT CITY PROSECUTOR CONSTANCIO C. VELASCO OF THE OFFICE OF THE
CITY PROSECUTOR OF MANILA
This refers to the administrative case
filed by the Department of Justice (DOJ) against Assistant City
Prosecutor (ACP) Constancio C. Velasco, Office of the City Prosecutor,
Manila, docketed herein as O.P. Case No. 02-J-482 (Administrative Case
No. 01-0017-FS in the office a quo), for grave misconduct.
This case arose from a complaint filed by Ma. Lourdes S. Pe Benito,
private complainant, before the National Bureau of Investigation–Anti
Organized Crime Division (NBI-AOCD) against respondent Velasco for
allegedly demanding from her Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000) in
consideration of the filing of an Information in court for oral
defamation against spouses Eduardo and Clarissa Magbitang relative to a
criminal complaint pending preliminary investigation before the office
of respondent Velasco.
Records show that private complainant earlier filed before the Office
of the City Prosecutor of Manila a criminal complaint for oral
defamation against the spouses Eduardo and Clarissa Magbitang. It was
assigned to respondent ACP Velasco for preliminary investigation.
Sometime in September 2001, complainant went to the office of
respondent at the Manila City Hall to file her reply to the "Motion to
Dismiss" filed by the spouses Magbitang. During her conversation with
respondent, the latter wrote in a piece of paper the amount in figure
"P5,000" and showed it to her. Thinking that it was the amount of fine
to be imposed against the spouses Magbitang; complainant protested and
insisted for the imposition of the penalty of imprisonment. However,
respondent explained that the P5,000.00 is the amount that she was
supposed to give him in consideration for the filing of a criminal
Information in court for oral defamation against the spouses Magbitang.
Complainant agreed to give the respondent the amount of P5,000.00 on
November 8, 2001, the day when she was to receive her bonus.
On November 8, 2001, private complainant went to the NBI-AOCD and filed
her complaint against respondent for demanding the amount of P5,000.00
in consideration for the filing of an Information in court against the
spouses Magbitang. Acting on the complaint, the NBI immediately planned
an entrapment operation. The marked money was prepared and the
"pay-off" place was arranged at Chowking Restaurant, Quiapo, Manila.
Then, at around 12:30 p.m. of the same date, a team of agents from the
NBI-AOCD, headed by Senior Agent Primitivo Najera, were dispatched and
together with the private complainant, they proceeded to the "pay-off'
place. However, the said restaurant was under renovation. As a
consequence, the "pay-off" was transferred to nearby Ma Mon Luk
Restaurant, also in Quiapo, Manila. Thereat, private complainant handed
to respondent the envelope containing the marked money. Respondent
immediately counted the marked bills and when he was about to leave the
place, the NBI-AOCD operatives pounced on him and placed him under
arrest.
Thereafter, the case against Velasco for the offense of Direct Bribery
(Art. 210 of the Revised Penal Code) and/or Violation of Sec. 3 (b) of
R.A. 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act,
was elevated to the DOJ for inquest proceedings.
On December 18, 2001, DOJ filed a formal administrative charge against
respondent for grave misconduct, docketed as NPS Administrative Case
No. 01-0017-FS.
During the formal administrative investigation, private complainant
reaffirmed her complaint against respondent.
On March 11, 2002, respondent submitted his sworn answer/affidavit.
When complainant manifested that she was no longer filing any reply,
respondent moved that a formal administrative hearing be held. Thus,
the case was set for initial hearing of the prosecution's evidence on
March 18, 2002.
On March 18, 2002, upon agreement of the parties, in lieu of a formal
administrative hearing, the case was deemed submitted for resolution on
the basis of the pleading and evidence thus submitted.
The Secretary of Justice found respondent ACOP Velasco guilty of the
offense charged and recommended his dismissal from the government
service.
It is not disputed that respondent was the investigating prosecutor
assigned to conduct the preliminary investigation of the criminal
complaint for oral defamation filed by private complainant Pe Benito
against the spouses Magbitang. Similarly undisputed is the fact that
NBI operatives apprehended respondent in an entrapment operation while
receiving marked money from private complainant. Under the
circumstances, respondent had the burden of proof to satisfactorily
show that the amount he received was not for the purpose as alleged by
said complainant. Unfortunately, respondent failed to do so. His
explanation that the amount of P5,000.00 he received from complainant
represented payment for the cell phone unit that the latter had
purchased from him is too trite to be given credence.
Verily, the act of respondent in demanding and receiving money from
private complainant in the course of his official duty constitutes
bribery and corrupt practices as defined and penalized under the
Revised Penal Code and the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act,
respectively. Corollarily, the same act constitutes "grave offense",
under Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive
Order No. 292, which provides:
"Sec. 22. Administrative Offense with its corresponding
penalties are classified with grave, less grave and light, depending on
the gravity of its nature and effects of said acts on the government
service.
The following are grave offense
with corresponding penalties: . . .
(i) Receiving
for personal use of a fee, gift or other valuable thing in the course
of official duties or in connection therewith when such fee, gift and
other valuable thing is given by any person in the hope of expectation
or receiving a favor or better treatment that accounted to other
persons or committing acts punishable under the anti-graft laws.
1st
Offense-Dismissal"
The Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and
Employees (R.A. 6713) inter alia enunciates the state policy of
promoting a high standard of ethics and utmost responsibility in the
public service (Alawi v. Alauya, 268 SCRA 628). Thus, there is a need
to maintain the faith and confidence of the people in the government
and its agencies and instrumentalities (Estreller v. Manatad, 268 SCRA
608). The act complained of being a grave offense carries with it the
extreme penalty of dismissal from the government service for the first
offense (Marasigan v. Buena 284 SCRA 1).
WHEREFORE, premises considered and as recommended by the Department of
Justice, Assistant City Prosecutor Constancio C. Velasco of the City
Prosecution Office of Manila, is hereby ordered DISMISSED from the
government service with forfeiture of leave credits and retirement
benefits and disqualification for re-employment in the government
service.
Done in the City of Manila,
Philippines, this 25th day of November 2002.
|