Case Summary (G.R. No. 216574)
Factual Background
In April 2000 the PMC released P36,768,028.95 as Combat Clothing Allowance and Individual Equipment Allowance (CCIE) for enlisted personnel for CY 1999. The allowance per enlisted person was P14,719.05, paid through nineteen checks signed by Major Felicisimo C. Millado and BGen. Percival M. Subala and made payable to Major Millado. Commission on Audit (COA) records and a random sampling of liquidation payrolls indicated many named beneficiaries disowned signatures and denied receipt of the allowances; the payroll procedure used deviated from standard unit-assignment practice.
Investigation and Administrative Charges
Acting on COA records, FFIB-OMB-MOLEO initiated investigation and charged several officers, including respondent Miranda, with malversation through falsification of public documents, violation of COA rules, and violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019. The case was docketed OMB-P-A-06-00106-A. FFIB-OMB-MOLEO specifically found that Miranda lacked authority to approve the CCIE grant and that irregular disbursement and non-receipt by beneficiaries pointed to fraud.
Respondent’s Defense
Respondent Miranda maintained he approved the disbursement vouchers pursuant to authorization by BGen. Subala and in performance of ministerial duties after subordinate officers had certified the vouchers as in order and funds as available. Co-respondents likewise claimed ministerial compliance with required approvals.
Ombudsman Ruling
By Decision dated February 27, 2009, the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman (ODO-MOLEO) found Miranda, Cabatbat, Jandayan, Millado, and Yurong guilty of grave misconduct and dishonesty and ordered dismissal from service with forfeiture of benefits (except accrued leave) and perpetual disqualification from re-employment. The cases against Subala and Bontolo were dismissed. Motions for reconsideration were denied in a Joint Order dated November 25, 2011.
Court of Appeals Ruling
On petition, the Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the ODO-MOLEO decision as to Miranda, holding there was no substantial evidence of active participation in a conspiracy to defraud and that Miranda’s signature alone did not sustain liability where the documents bore subordinate officers’ certifications. The CA relied on Albert v. Gangan to permit reliance on such certifications, and it exonerated Miranda for lack of substantial evidence. A motion for reconsideration was denied.
Supreme Court Petition and Issues Presented
FFIB-OMB-MOLEO sought certiorari review via the Office of the Solicitor General, challenging the CA on two principal grounds: (1) that the CA erred in concluding that absence of direct evidence of conspiracy precludes administrative liability for grave misconduct and dishonesty; and (2) that the CA improperly applied Albert v. Gangan to exonerate Miranda. The petition framed two legal questions for resolution: whether the CA erred in its conspiracy analysis and whether reliance on Gangan was correct.
Standard of Review and Procedural Scope
The Supreme Court reiterated Rule 45’s limitation that petitions for review on certiorari raise only questions of law, but noted established exceptions that permit review of factual findings when necessary (e.g., findings based on speculation, misapprehension of facts, grave abuse of discretion, or when CA findings conflict with trial court). The Court considered that an exception applied and therefore reviewed factual findings in the record.
Legal Standard for Conspiracy
The Court summarized jurisprudence: conspiracy requires agreement between two or more persons to commit a felony and a corresponding overt act; it need not be shown exclusively by direct evidence and may be inferred from the conduct of accused before, during, and after the crime, provided the evidence shows a community of criminal design and intentional contribution to the illicit goal. Express and implied conspiracy modes were discussed, with implied conspiracy proven from coordinated acts indicating a common unlawful object.
Application: Existence of Conspiracy and the Entrustment of Funds
The Court found Miranda’s culpability not merely from signing vouchers but primarily from authorizing, via a document captioned “Funds Entrusted to Agent Officer/Teller,” that Maj. Jandayan receive the CCIE funds despite Jandayan lacking authority to receive or disburse them. The Court emphasized that Jandayan’s entry as recipient was introduced by Miranda late in the process, without documentary authority for Jandayan, and that funds entrusted to him were not accounted for and not received by beneficiaries. The Court held these acts constituted an overt contribution to the consummation of the fraud and supported an inference of conspiracy and joint criminal design.
Miranda’s Silence and Evidentiary Considerations
The Court noted Miranda failed to produce any authorization for Jandayan to receive/disburse the funds and did not directly rebut the core accusations, observing that such silence can be construed as implied admission. The Court cited precedent recognizing that individual acts which, when taken together, demonstrate a common criminal goal justify finding conspiracy.
Inapplicability of Albert v. Gangan in This Case
The Court determined that Gangan’s principle permitting head-of-office reliance on subordinate certifications was not decisive here because Miranda’s liability derived from his unilateral act of designating an unauthorized agent to receive and disburse funds—an act not contemplated or authorized in the documents reviewed by subordinates. The liability turned on the substantive misconduct of entrusting funds to an unauthorized person rather than mere reliance on subordinate certifications.
Legal Standards for Grave Misconduct and Serious Dishonesty
The Court restated administrative law principles: misconduct means wrongful or unlawful conduct connect
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 216574)
Case Caption and Nature of the Petition
- Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court seeking reversal and setting aside of Court of Appeals issuances in CA-G.R. SP No. 127459 (Renato P. Miranda v. Office of the Ombudsman‑Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military and Other Law Enforcement Offices and Fact‑Finding Investigation Bureau (FFIB‑OMB‑MOLEO)).
- Specific assailed CA issuances:
- Decision dated July 30, 2014 which reversed and set aside respondent’s dismissal from service as decreed by the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman‑MOLEO in OMB‑P‑A‑06‑0106‑A.
- Resolution dated January 13, 2015 which denied FFIB‑OMB‑MOLEO’s motion for reconsideration.
- Petition filed by Fact‑Finding Investigation Bureau (FFIB) – Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military and Other Law Enforcement Offices (petitioner), represented by the Office of the Solicitor General at the Supreme Court stage.
- Relief sought: exercise of Supreme Court’s discretionary appellate jurisdiction to reverse CA decision and reinstate Ombudsman rulings.
Factual Antecedents
- In April 2000 the Philippine Marine Corps (PMC) earmarked and released P36,768,028.95 as Combat Clothing Allowance and Individual Equipment Allowance (CCIE) for enlisted personnel for calendar year 1999.
- Alleged per‑person entitlements: P8,381.25 as Combat Clothing Allowance and P6,337.80 as Individual Equipment Allowance, totaling P14,719.05 per enlisted employee.
- Disbursement mechanism: the total funds were released through nineteen (19) checks in various amounts, payable to Deputized Disbursing Officer Major Felicisimo C. Millado; the checks were signed by PMC Commanding Officer and Deputized Disbursing Officer Major Millado and PMC Commandant BGen. Percival M. Subala.
- Commission on Audit (COA) forwarded records that prompted FFIB‑OMB‑MOLEO’s investigation into the subject disbursements.
- FFIB‑OMB‑MOLEO charged respondents (including MGen. Renato P. Miranda and several PMC officers) with malversation of public funds through falsification of public documents, violation of COA rules and regulations, and violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019 (Anti‑Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). Case docketed OMB‑P‑A‑06‑00106‑A.
Allegations and Findings in the FFIB Affidavit‑Complaint
- Affidavit‑Complaint dated January 13, 2006 alleged:
- COA, via “random sampling” of liquidation payrolls, discovered some PMC personnel did not receive the P14,719.05 CCIE allowance purportedly intended for them.
- Some personnel disowned signatures on payrolls and denied authorizing any representative to receive allowances on their behalf.
- Payrolls were prepared following a new “payrolls system based on rank” which routed payrolls to marine personnel in different locations nationwide — deviating from standard payroll preparation by unit assignment.
- Intended beneficiaries testified they had long been receiving a P200 clothing allowance but did not receive the larger CCIE amounts.
- FFIB‑OMB‑MOLEO found that MGen. Renato Miranda did not have authority to approve the CCIE grant and that such authority belonged to the PMC Commandant pursuant to Section 168, Volume 1 of the Government Accounting and Auditing Manual (GAAM).
Respondent’s (Miranda’s) Defense and Co‑Respondents’ Defenses
- Miranda’s principal defenses:
- He was authorized by BGen. Subala to approve the corresponding disbursement vouchers.
- When conditions and requirements for approval were present, he had no discretion but to approve the disbursement vouchers (ministerial act).
- He relied on certifications and processing by subordinate officers who had certified that disbursements were in order and funds were available.
- Other respondent officers similarly maintained they signed checks and performed actions as part of their ministerial duties given compliance with formal requirements.
- Respondent emphasized absence of evidence of corruption, intent to violate law, or disposition to lie/defraud; contended that documentary records did not show on their face any irregularity warranting doubt prior to signing; asserted no personal appropriation and non‑involvement in distribution or safekeeping of funds.
- Respondent presented evidence (via Lt. Col. Dammang) purporting payments to suppliers for uniforms and equipment to show CCIE funds were used for their intended purpose.
Ruling of the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman‑MOLEO (ODO‑MOLEO)
- Decision dated February 27, 2009 found five respondents, including MGen. Renato P. Miranda, guilty of grave misconduct and dishonesty.
- Penalties imposed on those found guilty:
- Dismissal from service effective immediately.
- Forfeiture of all benefits except accrued leave credits, and perpetual disqualification from re‑employment in any branch or service of government (including GOCCs).
- For Maj. Adelo B. Jandayan (already retired), forfeiture of retirement benefits except accrued leave credits and proscription from government reemployment.
- Cases against BGen. Percival M. Subala and Carolyn L. Bontolo were dismissed.
- Joint Order dated November 25, 2011 denied motions for reconsideration of Miranda, Capt. Millado, and Lt. Col. Cabatbat.
Proceedings and Decision of the Court of Appeals
- On petition for review, respondent challenged ODO‑MOLEO’s finding of grave misconduct and dishonesty and the attendant dismissal.
- Court of Appeals Decision dated July 30, 2014:
- Reversed and set aside the ODO‑MOLEO Decision and Joint Order with respect to Renato P. Miranda.
- Exonerated Miranda from administrative charges for lack of substantial evidence.
- Court of Appeals rationale included that no substantial evidence showed Miranda’s active participation in an alleged conspiracy; documents showed Miranda approved funds upon subordinate certification; mere signing did not render him liable for grave misconduct or dishonesty — citing Albert v. Gangan (406 Phil. 231, 2001).
- FFIB‑OMB‑MOLEO’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA Resolution dated January 13, 2015.
The Present Petition to the Supreme Court and Issues Raised
FFIB‑OMB‑MOLEO (through the OSG) filed a Rule 45 petition to reverse the CA decision, arguing:
- CA erred in ruling that absence of direct evidence of conspiracy precluded administrative liability for grave misconduct and dishonesty.
- CA improperly relied on Albert v. Gangan to justify exoneration, arguing Miranda had responsibilities incompatible with reliance on subordinate certifications, and that Miranda actively participated in a conspiracy to defraud the government.
Petitioner’s specific allegations of Miranda’s indispensable acts:
- Through a document captioned “Funds Entrusted to Agent Officer/Teller,” Miranda authorized Maj. Jandayan to receive P36,768,028.95 CCIE funds even though Maj. Jandayan was not the duly authorized disbursing officer.
- Payroll copies filed by respondent showed beneficiaries received checks rather than in‑kind supplies; however, 145 supposed beneficiaries attested they did not receive these funds in full or in part.
Petitioner rejected Miranda’s reliance on Arias and Gangan, arguing Mir