G.R. No. 203080 - Bondoc vs. Mantala

On December 25, 2018, within the premises of the Supreme Court, a firearm was allegedly discharged, causing damage to Court property.
The incident involved the illegal discharge of a .22 caliber firearm that resulted in multiple bullet holes on a damaged computer desktop monitor (Property Number JDF-2010-1673-29A) belonging to Mr. Dale Derick O. Josue.
The trajectory of the bullet indicated that the firearm was fired intentionally from inside the maintenance office.

Engr. Antonio Bayot, Jr., a supervising judicial staff officer from the Maintenance Division of the Office of Administrative Services (OAS), was the first to report the incident by calling the Security Office.
Overall Shift-In-Charge Gil F. Pastorfide led the security team to the scene, where they confirmed the presence of fired bullet holes on the damaged monitor and observed that the bullet had traversed through a wooden partition wall dividing the workstation and locker area.
The investigation was initiated based on an Incident Report from the Security Division, OAS, and further prompted by a Memorandum-Letter dated August 5, 2019, from Deputy Clerk of Court and Chief Administrative Officer Atty. Maria Carina M. Cunanan.

Maintenance personnel summoned for questioning included Engr. Antonio Bayot, Jr., Nestor L. Cuaderes, Joseph D. Goloso, Teotimo E. Racho, Jr., Nicomedes V. Natanauan, Jr., Paulino M. Giducos, Jr., and respondent Gerardo H. Alumbro.
Testimonies revealed:

Confirmation that three maintenance employees (Giducos, Natanauan, and Racho) personally own firearms and had applied for a License to Own and Possess Firearms (LTOPF) during a PNP caravan in the Court compound.
Unconfirmed information that implicated Alumbro as being responsible for the illegal discharge.

Contradictory information was given by different witnesses regarding duty schedules and presence in the premises:

Engr. Bayot testified that he overheard maintenance staff implicating Alumbro.
Giducos related that a colleague, Ms. Annabelle M. Desamero, saw Alumbro within the premises on days he was not scheduled to work.
Alumbro initially denied involvement, stating that he was off-duty after his shift and did not own a firearm, even though he confirmed his official duty as the electrician on December 25, 2018.

On February 14, 2019, during a clarification session, Alumbro changed his earlier statement and voluntarily confessed to the following:

He admitted to being the person who brought a firearm into the Supreme Court premises.
He confessed to firing the weapon indiscriminately inside the Maintenance Division’s office, thereby causing damage to Court property.
He acknowledged that he was the on-duty electrician at the time of the incident.
His confession included details such as the time of the incident (morning, before noon), the type of firearm used (.22 caliber), and that the bullet was fired at the wall.

Alumbro explained his initial false statement by stating that he did not want innocent employees to become implicated in the event.
Additional details from his testimony included:

Admission of buying the firearm from someone (“pinabenta kasi sa akin ‘yun”) with the intention of earning extra money.
A detailed acknowledgment of the number of times the firearm was discharged and the subsequent damage caused.

Based on the investigation and Alumbro’s confession, Atty. Cunanan, on behalf of the administrative body, evaluated the evidence as establishing his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Atty. Cunanan recommended that Alumbro be found guilty of grave misconduct, which entailed:

Dismissal from service.
Forfeiture of retirement benefits, except for any earned leave credits.
Prejudicial disqualification from future reemployment in any government branch or instrumentality.

A directive was also issued for the security personnel to strictly implement the established Security Guidelines to prevent any similar future incidents.

Whether his actions resulted in damage to Court property and violated established security protocols within the judicial institution.

Whether Alumbro’s conduct, as an employee of the Supreme Court, breached the ethical standards and conduct outlined under Republic Act No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees).
Whether the misconduct committed falls under the classification of grave misconduct warranting the most severe administrative penalty.

Whether the conflicting part of Alumbro’s statements, including his initial denial and subsequent confession, affect the evidentiary value in determining his culpability.
How the testimonies of the maintenance personnel and the information gathered by the investigative body establish a conclusive chain of events linking Alumbro to the offense.