G.R. No. 149102 - Office of the Ombudsman vs. Alano

On June 8, 2009, at approximately 8:00 a.m., while inside the Court of Appeals (CA) guardhouse in Manila, respondent Enrique E. Manabat, Jr.—a Security Guard I—accidentally discharged his service pistol (a 9mm FEG Hungary).
The discharge occurred during the process of unloading the firearm for turnover to SG1 Miguel Tamba, the guard on duty for the succeeding shift.
Immediately after the incident, an Investigation Report dated June 15, 2009, prepared by Mr. Reynaldo V. Dianco, Chief of the CA Security Services Unit, documented the accidental firing and recommended the respondent’s dismissal for gross neglect of duty.

On June 22, 2009, the CA Clerk of Court, Atty. Teresita R. Marigomen, initiated formal administrative proceedings by filing a charge against the respondent for gross neglect of duty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
The respondent was required to file a written answer under oath within five (5) days of receiving the charge.
In his verified answer, the respondent maintained that the firing was accidental, devoid of any bad faith, and did not result in injury.

The respondent explained that, while unloading his service pistol, he removed the magazine and was in the process of checking the chamber when the pistol unexpectedly discharged.
He contended that he followed standard safety procedures by pointing the muzzle toward the ground and immediately reported the incident to the CA Clerk of Court.
To support his claim that the discharge was accidental, he stated that:

The pistol might have been defective, referencing similar malfunctions by 9mm FEG Hungary pistols during a recent firing course at Camp Crame.
His explanation was corroborated by the affidavit of SG1 Tamba, who attested to the proper handling of the firearm.

Counterevidence was presented by former SG1 Marcialito Villaflor and SG1 Romeo Pimentel, who testified that the same service pistol had been issued earlier without any reported malfunction.

After reviewing the evidence, the CA Clerk of Court found the respondent not guilty of gross neglect of duty or conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, but did determine that he was liable for simple neglect of duty.
The recommended penalty was suspension without pay for one (1) month and one (1) day, accompanied by a stern warning that future repetitions of the offense would attract harsher disciplinary measures.
The respondent’s past disciplinary record, which included:

was noted alongside his otherwise satisfactory performance ratings for the periods immediately preceding the incident.

In an indorsement dated March 24, 2010, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) requested further comment from the respondent regarding the charges.
The respondent reiterated that the incident was accidental, stressed his compliance with standard firearm handling procedures, and argued against the imposition of a heavy penalty.
The OCA, while acknowledging the accidental nature of the event, upheld the finding of simple neglect of duty due to the respondent’s failure to adhere to a necessary precaution—visually checking the chamber after removing the magazine.
The OCA also clarified that there were insufficient grounds to hold the respondent liable for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, given that the incident had not adversely impacted the integrity of the judiciary.

Whether the accidental discharge of the service pistol was attributable to mechanical failure (a defective firearm) or to negligence on the part of the operator (respondent’s failure to follow all necessary safety precautions).

Whether the respondent’s act constitutes gross neglect of duty—which implies willful or flagrant disregard for safety—or simply reflects simple neglect of duty, characterized by carelessness or failure to observe basic precautions.

Whether the evidence justified a dismissal from service or supported a lesser penalty, considering the respondent’s prior disciplinary record, overall performance ratings, and the nature of the negligence.
Whether the incident meets the threshold for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service in addition to the offense of neglect of duty.