Case Digest (G.R. No. 140079)
Facts:
Augusto R. Samalio v. Court of Appeals, Civil Service Commission, Department of Justice and Bureau of Immigration, G.R. No. 140079, March 31, 2005, the Supreme Court En Banc, Corona, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Augusto R. Samalio was an Intelligence Officer of the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation (BID). On February 2, 1993, passenger Weng Sai Qin arrived at NAIA; immigration personnel suspected her Uruguayan passport was forged and she was brought to petitioner. According to the complaint, petitioner took US$500 from Weng and returned her passport, which later lacked an arrival stamp. The City Prosecutor of Pasay issued Resolution No. 0-93-0224 (Feb. 4, 1993) recommending prosecution for robbery and violation of the Immigration Law.
Relying on that resolution, BID Commissioner Zafiro L. Respicio issued Personnel Order No. 93-179-93 instituting administrative charges against petitioner for dishonesty, oppression, misconduct, and related violations, and placed him on 90-day preventive suspension. Petitioner filed an answer, elected formal investigation, and submitted affidavits of defense witnesses. Proceedings before the BID Board of Discipline were repeatedly postponed; the Special Prosecutor at one point filed no objection to a motion to dismiss but the Board nevertheless continued the case and reassigned it after reorganization. On July 25, 1996, Acting Commissioner Ramon J. Liwag found petitioner guilty and ordered his dismissal. Justice Secretary Teofisto T. Guingona, Jr. confirmed that penalty in his 1st Indorsement dated August 30, 1996; a motion for reconsideration to the Secretary was denied on June 2, 1997.
Petitioner appealed to the Civil Service Commission (CSC). In CSC Resolution No. 974501 (Nov. 26, 1997) the CSC dismissed the appeal for lack of merit and affirmed the BID and DOJ determinations; a subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied in CSC Resolution No. 981925.
Parallel to the administrative case, the Sandiganbayan tried Criminal Case No. 18679 and, on June 13, 1994, convicted petitioner of robbery (Articles 293 and 294(5), RPC) and sentenced him to an indeterminate term; petitioner did not appeal and was granted probation for two years by Sandiganbayan order dated December 12, 1994. Petitioner then filed a petition for review in the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 48723), which, in a decision dated May 24, 1999 (Special Fourth Division), dismissed the petition and later denied reconsideration in a September 1, 1999 resolution.
Petitioner invoked Rule 45 and sought review from the Court by filing the present petition for review on certiorari. He contended he was deprived of due process in the administrative proceedings, that the CA and CSC erred in ap...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was petitioner deprived of procedural due process in the administrative proceedings against him?
- Did the CSC and the Secretary of Justice err in applying Section 47, Rule 130 (former testimony) of the Rules of Court to take cognizance of Weng Sai Qin’s testimony in the Sandiganbayan case?
- Did the grant of probation in the Sandiganbayan criminal case suspend or otherwise nullify the administrative...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)