G.R. No. 203217 - Diaz vs. Office of the Ombudsman

On June 27, 2005, the General Investigation Bureau A (GIB-A) of the Office of the Ombudsman filed a complaint against several personnel of the Veterinary Inspection Board (VIB) of the City of Manila.
The complaint charged violations of Section 3(e) and (i) of Republic Act No. 3019, Article 220 of the Revised Penal Code for Illegal Use of Public Funds or Property, and grave misconduct, dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service under the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (URACCS).
Among those charged were petitioner JOSE L. DIAZ, the City Government Division Head III of the VIB, and RODRIGO R. REYES, Mechanic III.

On November 18, 1998, petitioner allegedly received from the Public Recreation Bureau a “one (1) unit Jeep Yellow, CJ-81 Engine No. 406Y18.”
On December 29, 1998, a Work Order was issued for the replacement of the Jeep’s engine; engine no. 406Y18 was replaced by engine no. 13T-4990303, leading to the decommissioning of engine no. 406Y18.
The Inventory and Inspection Report of Unserviceable Property dated August 31, 1999, signed by petitioner, declared the Toyota Land Cruiser with plate no. SCB-995 as “unserviceable.”
On July 9, 2001, a letter approved by petitioner authorized the withdrawal of the said Toyota Land Cruiser for disposal, although subsequent records would later indicate further irregularities in its use.

The “Gasoline Fuel Supplies Ledger Card Withdrawals” revealed that, for a period spanning from January 1999 to December 2001, 4,555 liters of gasoline were withdrawn for the vehicle with plate no. SCB-995, and from May 2001 to December 2003, 6,500 liters were withdrawn for the vehicle with engine no. 406Y18—a total of 11,055 liters.
The ledger cards, which identified both petitioner and Reyes as responsible for gasoline withdrawals between February 1999 and March 2003, also showed withdrawals made for a vehicle with plate no. PPR-691, a vehicle petitioner later admitted was his personal property.
The GIB-A contended that despite engine no. 406Y18 being decommissioned in December 1998 and the vehicle with plate no. SCB-995 declared unserviceable as of August 31, 1999, petitioner nonetheless caused the gasoline withdrawal request and misused government fuel.

In his Counter-Affidavit, petitioner denied malicious intent and maintained that the vehicle with engine no. 406Y18 (bearing plate no. SCB-995) continued to serve VIB needs from 1999 until December 2003, owing to the replacement of its engine with one purchased on December 1, 1998.
He contended that the vehicle was only finally declared unserviceable in December 2003 and physically withdrawn from the premises on August 18, 2004 after being auctioned.
Petitioner also denied any knowledge or involvement in gasoline withdrawals for his personal vehicle (plate no. PPR-691), insisting his signature was not on the relevant ledger card.

The Office of the Ombudsman rendered a Joint Decision on June 26, 2007, finding petitioner and Reyes guilty of dishonesty under Section 52(A)(1), Rule IV of the URACCS, and imposed the penalty of dismissal from service along with accessory penalties such as cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, and perpetual disqualification from government re-employment.
Petitioner and Reyes filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied on June 25, 2008, and subsequently, a petition for review was filed before the Court of Appeals (CA).
On September 15, 2011, the CA denied the petition for review, affirming the Ombudsman's decision.
The CA held that the findings of the Ombudsman were supported by substantial evidence, particularly the entries in the ledger cards, and rejected the claims that the documents were untrustworthy or that due process was violated.

Whether the findings of the Office of the Ombudsman, as upheld by the CA, were supported by substantial evidence given the records on gasoline withdrawals and the Inventory Report.
Whether the public records (the Supplies Ledger Cards) should be given presumptive merit as prima facie evidence.

Whether the ledger cards, although allegedly prepared with ill motives and not bearing petitioner’s signature on one entry, are reliable and admissible as evidence.
Whether the discrepancies raised by petitioner regarding the status of vehicles (unserviceable or in use) affect the credibility of these records.

Whether petitioner was denied due process given that he was allowed to file counter-affidavits and present supporting documents.
Whether his claim of a first offense and long government service should mitigate the penalty of dismissal in light of the gravity of the offense.

Whether the Supreme Court, in its review under Rule 45, should reweigh the evidence or limit its inquiry strictly to questions of law.