A.M. No. P-05-2069 - De Guzman vs. Apolonio

On 25 July 2003, P/Capt. Romeo M. de Guzman, Chief of Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG) of Santiago City, Isabela, filed a Complaint against Maripi A. Apolonio, a Court Stenographer of MTCC-Branch 2, Santiago City.
The Complaint originally charged Maripi with a violation of Republic Act No. 3019 (the “Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act”) based on allegations arising from an entrapment operation.

The Criminal Complaint alleged that on or about 11:00 a.m. on 17 July 2003, within Santiago City, Maripi—a public official—wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously demanded a cash amount originally alleged to be One Hundred Twenty Thousand Pesos (Php 120,000.00) which was reduced to Sixty Thousand Pesos (Php 60,000.00) and that she directly received this money from Esperanza Samonte-Salanga.
The alleged transaction involved four pieces of genuine marked money (bearing serial numbers LN927865, CW459149, GZ675765, and DJ082560) during an operation orchestrated by the CIDG, which ultimately led to Maripi’s apprehension.
The charge was later downgraded by the First Assistant City Prosecutor from a violation of R.A. 3019 to estafa due to insufficient evidence supporting the original complaint.

In her Comment submitted on 17 October 2003, Maripi strongly denied the extortion charge, claiming that the money, which she received from her niece Esperanza, was intended for the payment of the premium for a surety bond needed for Jomel Samonte’s bail. Jomel, Esperanza’s brother, had been detained by the Philippine National Police (PNP) on drug charges.
Maripi explained that the arrangement was made after her sister-in-law, Lucia Samonte, sought her advice on securing Jomel’s release. Following inquiries at the PNP and the Office of the City Prosecutor regarding bail, Maripi recommended that Lucia raise funds to cover the surety bond premium.
The confusion arose when Esperanza, unaware of the true purpose of the funds, misinterpreted the intent and reported the incident to the CIDG, precipitating the entrapment operation.

An unsigned letter dated 20 July 2003 from a “Concerned Citizen of Santiago City” containing a newspaper account of the entrapment operation.
An unverified letter-complaint dated 21 July 2003 by Jun Samonte and other concerned citizens, expressing apprehension about a potential whitewash due to Maripi’s alleged connections with prosecutors and the presiding judge in her criminal case.
A letter dated 31 July 2003 from Jun Samonte raising allegations against the Office of the City Prosecutor regarding a pay-off and expressing doubts that Maripi would face criminal charges due to possible prosecutorial involvement.

Prior disciplinary records were also noted, such as a previous case (Judge Albano-Madrid v. Maripi Apolonio) in which she was found guilty of gambling during office hours, resulting in a suspension with a stern warning.
Additional pending administrative cases against Maripi further contextualized her pattern of misconduct.

In its report dated 29 July 2005, the OCA found strong and incontrovertible evidence that Maripi was actively involved in assisting the release of her nephew, an act which they deemed highly irregular and a breach of her official duties.
The OCA observed that her personal inquiries with the PNP and the City Prosecutor’s Office, and her involvement in arranging a surety bond during office hours, compromised the integrity of the judiciary.
On these grounds, the OCA recommended placing Maripi under preventive suspension pending the resolution of her criminal case, and suggested that the ongoing administrative proceedings be held in abeyance until that outcome.

The preventive suspension was justified under Section 19, Rule II of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, which empowers the proper disciplining authority to suspend an officer or employee pending investigation, particularly in cases involving grave misconduct or dishonesty.
The provision aims to prevent the possibility of undue influence or tampering with evidence and ensure that the integrity of the investigation is preserved.
The Supreme Court, as the exclusive disciplinary authority over lower court judges and court personnel, exercised this power in the instant case.

Whether the preventive suspension of Maripi A. Apolonio is warranted given the allegations of grave misconduct and dishonesty.

Does the evidence alleged in the Complaint, and subsequently detailed in the OCA report, establish a sufficient basis for preventive suspension?
How do Maripi’s explanations and the context provided affect the merits of the preventive suspension?

The appropriate administrative course of action in light of the simultaneous criminal and administrative proceedings.

Should the administrative proceedings be held in abeyance pending the outcome of the criminal case?
Does holding the administrative case in abeyance serve the interests of justice and preserve the integrity of the judicial system?

The application of Section 19, Rule II of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.

Whether the circumstances of the case fall within the ambit of “grave misconduct” or “dishonesty” as contemplated by the provision.
How should the preventive suspension be implemented to prevent interference with the investigation and potential tampering of evidence?