Case Summary (G.R. No. 239995)
Factual Background and Criminal Conviction
Marites L. Calivara filed a complaint alleging that petitioner contracted a second marriage with Modesto Macatangay Jr. despite Modesto’s existing marriage with Marites. Petitioner and Modesto were arraigned and pleaded guilty to the charge of Bigamy before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Lucena City. The RTC’s decision convicting them became final and executory on October 8, 2002. Petitioner argued that she only learned later of Modesto's existing marriage and asserted a lack of criminal intent, further noting that the petitioner's subsequent marriage to Modesto was declared void by another RTC decision.
Administrative Proceedings Before the CSC
The CSC National Capital Region (CSC-NCR) indicted petitioner for the administrative offense of Conviction of a Crime Involving Moral Turpitude based on her criminal conviction for Bigamy. In its June 19, 2014 Decision, the CSC-NCR found petitioner guilty and imposed the penalty of dismissal from service, along with accessory penalties such as cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, perpetual disqualification from public office, and a bar from taking civil service examinations. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was elevated to the CSC Proper.
Decision of the CSC Proper
In its January 5, 2015 Decision, the CSC Proper affirmed the dismissal penalty. It held that the administrative offense of Conviction of a Crime Involving Moral Turpitude is punishable by dismissal from service upon first commission, which is an indivisible penalty not susceptible to mitigation. The CSC Proper denied her subsequent motion for reconsideration in a September 28, 2015 Resolution.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
Petitioner filed a petition for review before the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the CSC’s decision on August 10, 2017. The CA acknowledged that mitigating, aggravating, or alternative circumstances may be considered under the Rules Implementing the Administrative Code of 1987 and the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in Civil Service. However, it ruled that such mitigating circumstances could not be considered in this case since Bigamy is a grave offense warranting dismissal upon first offense. The CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration on May 9, 2018.
Contentions of the Petitioner
Petitioner argued before the Supreme Court that the CA erred in disregarding mitigating circumstances such as her length of service, first offense status, and outstanding performance, which she claimed should have reduced the penalty to suspension instead of dismissal. She also asserted that she had no criminal intent, claimed victimization, and contended that her right to a speedy disposition of administrative cases was violated due to the prolonged pendency of more than a decade.
Arguments of the Civil Service Commission
The CSC, through the Office of the Solicitor General, maintained that the penalty of dismissal is indivisible and mandatory for the administrative offense charged. It asserted that mitigating circumstances such as length of service and first offense cannot be considered for grave offenses like petitioner's. The CSC also emphasized that petitioner had knowledge of Modesto’s existing marriage and that there was no factual or legal basis for considering good faith or lack of criminal intent as defenses. The CSC argued that petitioner’s plea for leniency is unavailing given the clear conviction for the crime.
Issue Presented
Whether the imposition of the penalty of dismissal from service on petitioner is proper under the circumstances.
Supreme Court’s Ruling and Legal Analysis
The Supreme Court affirmed the CA and CSC decisions, ruling that the dismissal penalty was proper. The Court emphasized the following key points:
- The petitioner admitted guilt to the administrative offense of Conviction of a Crime Involving Moral Turpitude, and the crime of Bigamy, for which she was convicted, is incontrovertibly a crime involving moral turpitude.
- Under the URACCS, Bigamy and crimes involving moral turpitude are grave offenses punishable by dismissal from service upon first offense, which is an indivisible penalty.
- While mitigating, aggravating, or alternative circumstances may be considered in imposing penalties under Section 53 of URACCS, such circumstances must be properly pleaded and justified to merit mitigation.
- The Court referenced prior jurisprudence (Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas v. Bool) confirming that mitigating circumstances may be considered even in cases involving indivisible penalties; however, the circumstances invoked must be
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 239995)
Background and Parties Involved
- Petitioner Rosa C. Gonzalbo-Macatangay was a Secretary in the Passport Division of the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA).
- Respondent is the Civil Service Commission (CSC), including its National Capital Region Office (CSC-NCR) and the CSC Proper.
- The case involved a petition for review on certiorari assailing the decisions from the Court of Appeals (CA) and the CSC regarding petitioner’s dismissal from service.
Factual Antecedents
- In 2002, Marites L. Calivara filed a complaint before the CSC alleging that petitioner contracted a second marriage with Modesto Macatangay, Jr., who was still married to Marites.
- A criminal case for Bigamy was filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Lucena City.
- Petitioner and Modesto pleaded guilty and were convicted for Bigamy, a crime involving moral turpitude.
- The RTC Decision became final and executory on October 8, 2002.
- Petitioner claimed she was unaware of Modesto’s prior marriage at the time of their wedding and that she married due to pregnancy-related circumstances.
- Subsequent legal actions included a declaration of the nullity of petitioner’s marriage to Modesto and a later declaration nullifying Modesto’s marriage to Marites.
- Petitioner later married Modesto in Tokyo, Japan, in 2004.
- Petitioner argued the complaint violated the prohibition against multiplicity of suits and res judicata.
Proceedings and Rulings at the Civil Service Commission
- CSC-NCR found petitioner guilty of Conviction of a Crime Involving Moral Turpitude and meted the penalty of dismissal from service along with accessory penalties, including cancellation of eligibility and forfeiture of retirement benefits.
- The CSC Proper affirmed the CSC-NCR’s ruling, emphasizing that dismissal is an indivisible penalty for this administrative offense and cannot be mitigated despite petitioner’s length of service or performance.
- Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the CSC Proper.
Review by the Court of Appeals
- The CA affirmed the CSC’s decision.
- The appellate court recognized that while mitigating, aggravating, or alternative circumstances may typically be considered in penalty imposition, such circumstances cannot be applied to lessen penalties for grave offenses with indivisible penalties like dismissal.
- Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration before the CA was denied.
Subject of the Petition for Review on Certiorari
- Petitioner challenged the CA’s refusal to consider mitigating circumstances.
- She argued that mitigating circumstances such as her lengthy service, first offense, and status as an outstanding employee warranted reconsideration of her penalty to a suspension instead of dismissal.
- She claimed lack of criminal intent, framing herself as a victim believing that her actions were motivated solely by the welfare of her child.
- Petitioner alleged violation of her right to speedy disposition due to