Case Digest (G.R. No. 152244)
Facts:
- Jennifer R. Angeles, an Acting Immigration Officer, was charged with neglect of duty for allowing a passenger to depart using a passport that did not belong to her.
- On January 23, 1996, Myrna Arcilla Llaneta departed for New York, USA using a passport issued to Dessie S. Cadornigara.
- Llaneta was later refused entry in the USA and deported back to the Philippines because it was discovered that the passport she was using did not belong to her.
- The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) filed a complaint against Angeles for alleged neglect of duty in allowing Llaneta to depart using the passport.
- Angeles argued that the same charge based on the same facts and circumstances had already been dismissed by the Office of the City Prosecutor.
- The NBI report did not provide sufficient evidence of alterations on the passport that could have aroused Angeles' suspicion.
Issue:
- (Unlock)
Ruling:
- The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, finding Angeles no...(Unlock)
Ratio:
- Angeles was not denied due process as she was given the opportunity to file a counter-affidavit and participate in the investigation.
- The NBI failed to prove its claim that Angeles was in cahoots with Llaneta.
- The evidence on record was insufficient to sustain a finding against Angeles warranting administrative sanction.
- The NBI report did not constitute substantial evidence to support a finding of neglect...continue reading
Case Digest (G.R. No. 152244)
Facts:
This case involves a petition for review on certiorari filed by the Office of the Ombudsman and the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) against Jennifer R. Angeles. The case originated from a complaint filed by the NBI against Angeles, an Acting Immigration Officer, for alleged violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019. The complaint alleged that Angeles allowed a passenger to depart for New York using a passport that did not belong to her. The NBI claimed that the passport presented by the passenger was issued to another person and that Angeles should have detected the discrepancy.
The case went through several investigations and recommendations. The first investigation recommended the dismissal of the complaint for insufficiency of evidence. However, the Overall Deputy Ombudsman disagreed and had the findings reversed. Another investigation was conducted, and this time, the investigator recommended finding Angeles guilty of simple neglect of duty. The Ombudsman approved this recommendation and imposed a penalty of six months suspension on Angeles.
Angeles filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals (CA), which granted the petition and exonerated her of the charge. The CA held that Angeles was denied due process and that the NBI report did not constitute substantial evidence to support the finding of neglect of duty. The CA noted that the NBI report was not properly introduced as evidence, and no witness testified on or explained the report. The CA also found that the Overall Deputy Om...