Case Digest (A.M. No. CA-02-15-P)
Facts:
Josejina Fria v. Gemiliana De Los Angeles, A.M. No. CA-02-15-P; AC No. 04-AM-2002, June 03, 2004, the Supreme Court En Banc, Carpio Morales, J., writing for the Court.Complainant Josejina Fria, a stenographer of the Court of Appeals (CA), filed a complaint-affidavit (dated January 9, 2002 and filed February 5, 2002) charging her co‑stenographer and officemate Gemiliana De los Angeles with theft and administrative grave misconduct arising from the disappearance of money kept in the drawer of complainant’s desk while both were assigned to the staff of CA Associate Justice Marina Buzon.
The factual background is that Atty. Amelia Alado, also a member of the same staff, took a six‑month leave beginning November 2001 and authorized complainant to receive her salary and benefits. On December 20, 2001, complainant had in her custody P10,150 (Atty. Alado’s funds, in a brown envelope) and P5,500 (her own funds, in a white envelope); she placed both envelopes with deposit slips inside her logbook, locked the logbook in her desk drawer and left the office later that evening. The drawer, however, could be opened by any key that fit, a paperclip, or a bread knife — a point established by complainant’s own testimony.
Complainant testified that she counted the monies in the presence of officemates, including respondent, and filled out deposit slips before securing the envelopes in the drawer. On December 20 respondent was observed making repeated phone calls seeking loans and later asked an officemate, Atty. Joy Reyala, about borrowing money; that evening respondent and Atty. Reyala left for a party. On December 21 respondent was seen alone in the mezzanine before lunch. After a holiday lunch and evening mass on December 21, complainant discovered that the brown envelope containing Atty. Alado’s money was missing and was unable, despite search, to recover it.
Complainant alleged circumstances pointing to respondent: respondent’s urgent need for money, her having been left alone in the office at critical times, her unsuccessful efforts to borrow money the night before, and her failure to deny the accusation when confronted on January 7, 2002. The CA Presiding Justice designated Atty. Elisa B. Pilar‑Longalong to investigate; respondent was given opportunity to explain, denied the charge, requested a formal investigation and presented evidence.
An NBI polygraph administered to respondent yielded results indicating no reactions indicative of deception on questions whether she stole or benefited from the missing money; complainant did not sit for the polygraph when rescheduled. In an October 2, 2002 Report, Atty. Longalong found circumstantial evidence pointing to respondent and recommended administrative liability for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service (not grave misconduct, because the act was not in the exercise of official functions), with suspension under CSC Memorandum Circular No. 19, s. 1999; Presiding Justice Cancio C. Garcia adopted the report and forwarded the case to the Supreme Court pursuant to O...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the complainant able to prove by substantial evidence that respondent stole the money from complainant’s drawer?
- If respondent were proven culpable, could the act constitute grave misconduct or only conduct prejudicial to the best interes...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)