A.M. No. P-09-2705, P-09-2737

Complainant Edmar D. Garciso filed a complaint-affidavit on September 4, 2008, alleging that Arvin A. Oca, a process server with the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Branch 1 in Cebu City, extorted him.
The complaint centered on an alleged extortion scheme wherein Oca claimed he could influence the issuance or withdrawal of a search warrant pertaining to a violation of R.A. 9165, thereby saving Garciso from arrest.

On August 31, 2008, Garciso received a text message from Oca requesting an urgent meeting to discuss a “pressing concern.”
The meeting was held at the parking area of Gaisano Tabunok Mall where Oca alleged that there was a pending application for a search warrant against Garciso, filed by PDEA 7 and pending before Judge Belarmino of RTC Cebu City.
Oca assured Garciso that he could cause the withdrawal or denial of the warrant if paid P150,000.00, leveraging supposed connections within the court and with a PDEA officer.

Oca repeatedly pressured Garciso through subsequent text messages, heightening the complainant's anxiety and fear of impending arrest.
On September 3, 2008, at San Carlos Heights in Quiot, Pardo, Cebu City, Garciso met Oca again where Oca presented a four-page document entitled “Application for Search Warrant,” which reinforced Garciso’s belief in the existence of such a warrant.
On September 4, 2008, during an entrapment operation carried out near the Provincial Capitol Building and timed at approximately 2:45 p.m., Oca was arrested while accepting marked money laced with fluorescent powder from Garciso.
Evidence gathered included marked bills, a Nokia mobile phone with text message transcripts between the parties, and a forensic validation (via fluorescent powder detection) confirming Oca’s handling of the marked money.
Certifications obtained from Judge Enriquitta Belarmino and PDEA 7 confirmed that no such search warrant had been issued or was pending, thereby highlighting the fraudulent nature of Oca’s representations.

The Office of the Ombudsman (Visayas) referred the matter to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) due to Oca’s status as a trial court employee under the supervisory authority of the Supreme Court.
The case was docketed under two separate administrative matters (OCA I.P.I. No. 08-2955-P and OCA I.P.I. No. 08-2998-P) which were later consolidated, given the identical factual background.
The respondent, in his comments filed on March 16, 2009, and May 20, 2009, denied the extortion allegations and claimed that Garciso had orchestrated the entrapment. He asserted inconsistencies in the timeline of meetings and presented alternate versions of the events, including claims of being involved in unrelated tasks such as procuring certified copies of birth certificates.
Executive Judge Meinrado P. Paredes of RTC conducted a thorough investigation and submitted his report and recommendation on May 14, 2010, ultimately finding that Oca’s actions amounted to gross misconduct and extortion.

Based on the investigation, it was found beyond reasonable doubt that Oca exploited his position as a court employee to mislead Garciso via false representations—suggesting he had influence over judicial and law enforcement personnel—for personal gain.
The investigation underscored that even though the accompanying criminal case (Criminal Case No. CBU-84275) faced provisional dismissal due to lack of prosecutorial interest (stemming from the complainant’s loss of interest), this did not negate the existence of administrative liability.
Consequently, the recommendation was made for Oca’s dismissal from service with forfeiture of all benefits he might otherwise receive.

Whether the actions of respondent Oca, based on his misrepresentations and insistence on receiving P150,000.00 in exchange for allegedly preventing the execution of a non-existent search warrant, constitute extortion under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code.
Whether Oca’s conduct, by exploiting his position as a court employee to mislead Garciso and induce fear sufficient to extract money, amounts to grave misconduct subject to administrative sanctions.
Whether the dismissal of the related criminal case (Criminal Case No. CBU-84275) undermines or affects the administrative proceedings against Oca, given the different standards of proof in criminal versus administrative matters.
Whether the evidence presented, including testimonial affirmations and forensic validations, is sufficient to uphold the administrative finding of grave misconduct against the respondent.