A.M. No. SB-17-24-P - Security and Sheriff Division vs. Cruz

On December 5, 2014, Sandiganbayan Presiding Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang received a Sworn Information Report filed by Sandiganbayan security officers against respondent Ronald Allan Gole R. Cruz, a Security Guard I of the Sandiganbayan.
The report alleged that respondent Cruz solicited money from Atty. Stephen David, counsel for accused Janet Lim Napoles in a PDAF (Priority Development Assistance Fund) case pending before the Sandiganbayan.
Based on the report, Justice Cabotaje-Tang requested a preventive suspension of respondent Cruz pending investigation, which was granted by the Court.

Sometime during the last week of November 2014, respondent Cruz allegedly convinced TVS cameraman Dave Gonzales to deliver a white solicitation envelope to Atty. Stephen David.
Gonzales stated that he delivered the envelope out of “pakikisama” (a sense of camaraderie) without knowing its intended purpose.
It was purported by the respondent that the money solicited was meant to fund the Christmas party for the Sandiganbayan’s security personnel.
Atty. David, on December 1, 2014, informed security guards at the back door that he would return the envelope the following day, and provided clarification that it was a “pamasko” (Christmas gift) for the security personnel.
On December 2, 2014, as Atty. David passed by the same entrance, he mentioned to SG III Armando Astor that he had given the money to respondent Cruz, which was corroborated by other security personnel.

The matter was subsequently investigated by Sandiganbayan officers, including Security Officers Darwin Trinidad and Rodelio Lalongisip.
Findings revealed that:

Several security personnel discovered that respondent Cruz received money from Atty. David inside a comfort room shortly after a hearing for the PDAF case.
Some witnesses testified that respondent Cruz admitted having received money—initially claimed as P10,000—from Atty. David.
Acting Chief Judicial Staff Officer (ACJSO) Albert de la Cruz testified that the respondent privately claimed he would sponsor the catering for the office Christmas party using the money received.

During his Salaysay (statement), respondent Cruz denied soliciting or receiving any money from Atty. David, asserting that the complaint was concocted by individuals with personal grievances against him.
The investigating officer recommended that a formal charge be filed against respondent Cruz for improper solicitation and/or grave misconduct under the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RRACCS).

The OCA evaluated the fact-finding investigation report and found it well-supported by evidence despite the absence of direct evidence linking respondent Cruz with the solicitation.
Testimonies from numerous security personnel pointed to respondent Cruz as having solicited money from Atty. David.
The OCA concluded that respondent Cruz’s denial could not overcome the consistent testimonies and established a prima facie case for improper solicitation.
Based on RRACCS, improper solicitation is deemed a grave offense warranting dismissal and other disqualifications from employment in government service.

Whether the evidence presented in the fact-finding investigation is sufficient to establish that respondent Cruz solicited money from Atty. Stephen David.

Assessment of witness testimonies versus the respondent’s general denial constitutes a central issue.
Whether circumstantial evidence and the sequence of events satisfy the substantial evidence requirement in administrative proceedings.

The applicability of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RRACCS) and the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees in imposing severe disciplinary actions.

Determining if improper solicitation, even based on circumstantial evidence, qualifies as grave misconduct worthy of dismissal.
The issue of whether respondent Cruz’s defense of general denial holds any weight against the testimony of multiple witnesses.

The responsibilities of court personnel to uphold the integrity and public trust of the judiciary.

Whether the conduct of the respondent, if proven, undermines the ethical standards expected within the judicial system.
The consequent impact of any impropriety on public confidence in the judicial process.