Case Digest (G.R. No. 237522)
Facts:
National Bureau of Investigation v. Conrado M. Najera, G.R. No. 237522, June 30, 2020, First Division, Lopez, J., writing for the Court.The case arose from an April 17, 2007 raid at a disco and amusement center conducted by an NBI team composed of Conrado Najera (respondent), Frederick Liwag, Joel Respeto and Wilson Monton, who had posed as customers to verify a human-trafficking complaint. The raid resulted in the arrest of 27 employees and the temporary detention of the group at the NBI office; the arrested persons were later released. One of those apprehended, Francis Quilala, filed an administrative complaint within the NBI alleging that the establishment was not engaged in prostitution, that Najera ransacked the premises and confiscated items, and that Najera attempted to extort P500,000.00 for the employees' freedom.
The NBI’s internal investigation concluded the raid was unauthorized and that the agents failed to coordinate with the Anti-Human Trafficking Division and the Violence Against Women and Children Division, and the raiding team was charged with grave misconduct before the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB-C-A-07-0502-J). Chief Head Agent Regner Peneza, alleged by the agents to have authorized the operation, did not testify at the administrative investigation.
On December 29, 2015, the Ombudsman found Najera guilty of grave misconduct and imposed dismissal (or a fine equivalent to one year’s salary if dismissal could not be enforced), while dismissing charges against the other agents. Najera sought reconsideration and, when unsuccessful, filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing that the Ombudsman rested on bare allegations of extortion and lack of supervisory authority.
On May 24, 2017, the CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 144884 partially granted Najera’s appeal, finding that extortion and robbery allegations were unsubstantiated and that there was evidence suggesting Chief Peneza had acquiesced or given a go-signal; however, the CA affirmed that Najera failed to coordinate the raid with the relevant agencies and downgraded the offense to simple misconduct, imposing a three-month suspension (o...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- May the Supreme Court revisit conflicting factual findings of the Office of the Ombudsman and the Court of Appeals in a Rule 45 petition on certiorari?
- Is there substantial evidence to sustain the Ombudsman’s finding that Najera committed grave misconduct by (a) extorting money during the raid; (b) acting without the authorization of his supervisor; and (c) failing to coordinate with the Anti-Human Trafficking Division and the Violence Against Women and Children Division?
- If the finding of grave misconduct is unsupported, what is th...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)