Case Digest (G.R. No. 213500)
Facts:
Office of the Ombudsman and the Fact-Finding Investigation Bureau (FFIB), Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military and Other Law Enforcement Offices (MOLEO), Petitioners, vs. PS/Supt. Rainier A. Espina, Respondent, G.R. No. 213500, September 12, 2018, Special First Division, Per Curiam.The case arises from administrative charges relating to alleged "ghost deliveries" of tires, supplies, and repair works to the Philippine National Police (PNP). The Ombudsman, through an Investigating Panel and its Joint Resolution dated December 19, 2012 (OMB-P-A-12-0532-G), found irregularities in Inspection Report Forms (IRFs) and pursued administrative proceedings against respondent PS/Supt. Rainier A. Espina, who served as Acting Chief and Head of the PNP Management Division. The factual core was that Espina signed IRFs bearing the notation "NOTED" despite there being no actual deliveries or performance of contracted repair works.
The Supreme Court previously issued a Decision on March 15, 2017 (Office of the Ombudsman v. Espina, G.R. No. 213500, 820 SCRA 541) finding Espina guilty of Gross Neglect of Duty and dismissing him from the service with accessory penalties. Espina filed a Motion for Reconsideration dated May 10, 2017, largely confined to a plea for reduction of the penalty by invoking mitigating circumstances: (a) first offense; (b) length of service; and (c) awards/commendations. He also argued that his signature merely indicated cognizance of the IRFs and that he had no duty to physically re-inspect deliveries under SOP No. XX4 dated November 17, 1993.
By Resolution promulgated September 12, 2018, the Special First Division (Per Curiam) resolved the Motion for Reconsideration. The Court concluded that while Espina had been properly found culpable because his "NOTED" signature signified confirmation of receipt/performance, mitigating circumstances warranted reduction of the penalty. The Court modified its March 15, 2017 Decision by reducing the penalty of dismissal to one (1) year suspension without pay (to be reckoned from implementation of the Ombudsman Joint Resolution), credited the period of preventive suspension, reinstated Espina to his former rank without loss of seniority but denied back salaries, and ordered the modified penalty to be refle...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Should the Court grant respondent Espina’s Motion for Reconsideration and modify the penalty imposed in its March 15, 2017 Decision?
- If the penalty is reduced, is the period of preventive suspension creditable and is respondent entitled to reinstatement w...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)