G.R. No. 226454 - Ramos vs. People

On October 31, 1965, Murillo Omadto filed a letter-complaint with the Office of the Solicitor General.
The complaint denounced Francisco G. Evangelista, Special Deputy Clerk of Court, CFI, Pasig, Rizal, alleging that he issued a court clearance to a person named See Tun.
The clearance enabled See Tun to depart for Hongkong on July 12, 1965, despite being convicted of murder in Criminal Case No. 8749.

The certificate stated that, according to available records, no criminal case was filed or pending against See Tun.
It included specific details such as the applicant’s address (1822 Int. 23, Diwata Street, Manila), and additional notations like ACR No. A-206133 (issued at Cebu City on January 13, 1951).
The certificate was signed by Evangelista and bore the official marks and typeface suggesting it was produced using his typewriter.

Evangelista contended that the clearance was issued to a person named See Tun who had no known alias, contrasting him with the convicted See Tun who was also known as Antonio Go or Antonio Reyes.
He argued that the addresses of the two individuals were different (1822 Int. 23, Diwata Street, Manila, vs. 1042-A Mabini Street, Caloocan City).
Evangelista claimed he required the submission of two affidavits with a photograph from See Tun to verify his identity.
He maintained that the additional data (ACR details) were not in the original certificate at the time of signing and were sometimes omitted if convinced of an applicant’s clean record.
He also emphasized that during his 19 years of government service, he had not been involved in any irregularity.

The complaint was referred to the Secretary of Justice and then to the Clerk of Court for investigation, leading to several postponements primarily due to issues on the criminal aspect of the case.
Testimonies from various government officials and representatives of travel services (including Luis Ruiz and Silvestre Madolara y Cesar) established the standard operating procedures typically followed in issuing court clearances.
Evidence emerged showing that two Chinese persons named See Tun existed in the records, one with ACR No. 206133 and another with ACR No. 110240.
The evidence indicated that the clearance in question was issued to See Tun (ACR No. 206133) who was indeed the convicted murderer, despite Evangelista’s claim of non-involvement with the criminal element.
The NBI Report, supported by documentary and testimonial evidence, confirmed that Evangelista acted with knowledge and malice in issuing a clearance that contravened the required procedures.

Multiple postponements of the hearing occurred due to deferments requested by the parties and a pending criminal investigation by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI).
On February 18, 1970, Murillo Omadto testified after verifying with the Bureau of Immigration that the clearance issued by Evangelista corresponded to the convicted See Tun.
Subsequent testimony and documentary evidence, including affidavits and records, indicated discrepancies in the verification process conducted by Evangelista.
Despite earlier recommendations by Fiscal Aquino and Clerk of Court Salaysay to drop the charge due to insufficient evidence, the NBI investigation contradicted these findings by conclusively demonstrating respondent’s culpability.

It was noted that this was not the first instance of administrative irregularity for Evangelista.
He had a history of previous administrative cases involving gross negligence and dishonesty.
In one case, he was found guilty by the Commissioner of Civil Service and suspended for six months without pay; in another, he settled the matter with the complainant.

Whether Francisco G. Evangelista issued a court clearance in violation of standard operating procedures, thereby facilitating the departure of an individual convicted of murder.

Did the respondent adhere to the established protocols, such as requiring personal appearance and proper verification of the applicant’s identity?
Was the issuance of the clearance affected by negligence or malice on his part?

The authenticity and sufficiency of the evidence regarding the identification of See Tun

Whether the presence of specific notations, such as the ACR number, date, and place of issue, in the clearance constitutes evidence that the document was improperly or maliciously amended.
The credibility of the respondent’s claim that he sometimes omitted such details when convinced of an applicant’s clean record.

The significance of the procedural lapses and prior irregularities in establishing respondent’s habitual misconduct

Whether the respondent’s repeated administrative offenses and previous settlements mitigate or aggravate his present misconduct.
The extent to which his actions impair public trust and the integrity of the judicial process.

The legal implications of issuing a court clearance to a convicted criminal with respect to violations of criminal statutes

The applicability of Article 187 of the Revised Penal Code regarding aiding an offender in evading the service of his sentence.
The relevance of Article 171(4) concerning the falsification of public documents.