G.R. No. 116437 - People vs. Andan y Herdez

Case Summary (G.R. No. 116437)

Procedural and Factual Background

Marites filed a complaint-affidavit on September 5, 2002 alleging that during her marriage to Modesto, Modesto contracted a second marriage with petitioner on February 3, 1997. A criminal case for Bigamy was filed before the RTC of Lucena City; petitioner and Modesto pleaded guilty and were convicted. The RTC decision became final and executory on October 8, 2002. Petitioner filed counter-affidavits asserting lack of knowledge of Modesto’s prior marriage until April 1996, that she married because of pregnancy and uncertainty about her child, and that subsequent civil proceedings declared her marriage to Modesto void. The administrative case was initiated by a Formal Charge (filed July 1, 2003).

Administrative Findings and Penalties Imposed

On June 19, 2014, CSC-NCR found petitioner guilty of the administrative offense “Conviction of a Crime Involving Moral Turpitude” and imposed dismissal from service with accessory penalties: cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, perpetual disqualification from holding public office, and bar from taking civil service examinations. The CSC-NCR relied on established jurisprudence that Bigamy is a crime involving moral turpitude and noted petitioner’s conviction pursuant to her guilty plea and the trial court’s decision.

Review by CSC Proper and Court of Appeals

The CSC Proper, in its January 5, 2015 Decision, affirmed CSC-NCR’s dismissal and related penalties, reiterating that Conviction of a Crime Involving Moral Turpitude is punishable by dismissal upon first commission and that dismissal is an indivisible penalty not susceptible to mitigation under the Rules. The CSC Proper denied reconsideration (September 28, 2015). The Court of Appeals, in an August 10, 2017 Decision (denial of reconsideration with resolution dated May 9, 2018), likewise affirmed the CSC rulings, holding that mitigating circumstances presented by petitioner could not be appreciated given the grave character of the offense.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

The petition contended that the CA erred by not considering mitigating circumstances (length of service, first-time offense, and outstanding performance) and thus failing to impose a lesser penalty such as suspension. Petitioner also asserted lack of criminal intent and victimhood, and alleged violation of her right to speedy disposition of administrative cases due to protracted proceedings in the CSC. The CSC (through the Office of the Solicitor General) argued that dismissal is an indivisible penalty under the applicable rules; mitigating circumstances were inapplicable to serious offenses like Conviction of a Crime Involving Moral Turpitude, and petitioner had knowledge of Modesto’s prior marriage and did not raise good faith in the criminal case.

Applicable Law and Constitutional Basis

Applicable constitutional framework: the 1987 Philippine Constitution (decision date is in 2022, hence the 1987 Constitution governs). Applicable administrative rules: CSC Resolution No. 991936 (Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, URACCS, 1999) — in particular Section 52, Rule IV (classifying Conviction of a Crime Involving Moral Turpitude as a grave offense punishable by dismissal upon first commission) and Section 53, Rule IV (permitting appreciation of mitigating, aggravating, and alternative circumstances in determining penalties, subject to invocation by the parties or consideration by the Commission in the interest of substantial justice). The URACCS were subsequently amended by CSC Resolution No. 1101502 (2011) and CSC Resolution No. 1701077 (2017), but the URACCS applied because the administrative case began in 2003.

Legal Standards on Mitigation and Precedent

Section 53 of the URACCS permits consideration of mitigating or aggravating circumstances in determining penalties, but those circumstances must be pleaded or may be taken up by the Commission in the interest of substantial justice. Jurisprudence cited in the decision (Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas v. Bool and Duque III v. Veloso) clarifies that mitigating, aggravating, or alternative circumstances may be considered even when the prescribed penalty is an “indivisible” penalty such as dismissal — but only where clear proof under established standards justifies application of a mitigated, aggravated, or alternate penalty. Length of service can be a mitigating or alternative circumstance depending on facts; it is not automatically mitigating and cannot outweigh the gravity of a serious offense.

Supreme Court’s Analysis of Mitigating Circumstances

The Court accepted that mitigating circumstances may in principle be appreciated even for indivisible penalties, consistent with prior jurisprudence. The controlling question was whether petitioner’s proffered mitigating circumstances — length of service (about 20 years), status as first offender, and outstanding performance — were legally and factually sufficient to justify mitigation. The Court ruled they were not. The URACCS expressly classifies Conviction of a Crime Involving Moral Turpitude as a grave offense punishable with dismissal upon first commission; consequently, “first offense” cannot serve t

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 116437)

Case Caption and Decision Source

G.R. No. 239995, decided June 15, 2022 by the Supreme Court, First Division.
Petition for Review on Certiorari from the Court of Appeals Decision dated August 10, 2017 and Resolution dated May 9, 2018 in CA-G.R. SP No. 142681.
Case originated from Civil Service Commission (CSC), Central Office Decisions: Decision No. 150001 dated January 5, 2015 and Resolution No. 1501179 dated September 28, 2015, which affirmed CSC National Capital Region (CSC-NCR) Decision No. 140195 dated June 19, 2014.
Supreme Court decision penned by Justice Hernando; concurrence by Chief Justice Gesmundo (Chairperson), Justices Zalameda, Rosario, and Marquez.

Factual Antecedents

Petitioner Rosa C. Gonzalbo-Macatangay held the position of Secretary in the Passport Division of the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA).
On September 5, 2002, Marites L. Calivara filed a complaint-affidavit before the CSC alleging that while Marites was married to Modesto Macatangay, Jr. (Modesto), Modesto contracted a second marriage with petitioner on February 3, 1997.
Marites filed a criminal case for Bigamy before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Lucena City; upon arraignment petitioner and Modesto pleaded guilty and were convicted of Bigamy; the RTC decision became final and executory on October 8, 2002.
In her counter-affidavit, petitioner alleged: (a) Modesto introduced the idea of marriage when she became pregnant with his child; (b) she had no knowledge of Modesto’s prior existing marriage when she agreed to marry him; (c) she learned of Modesto’s prior marriage with Marites sometime in April 1996; (d) she became uncertain about her child, which drove her to marry Modesto on February 3, 1997; a lawyer friend later advised her that her marriage to Modesto was illegal; (e) on September 27, 1999 the RTC, Makati City rendered a decision in a civil case declaring petitioner and Modesto’s marriage void; and (f) on August 16, 1999 Modesto filed before the RTC, Labo, Camarines Norte a petition for declaration of nullity of his marriage with Marites.
Petitioner also stated that on July 29, 2004 the RTC, Labo, Camarines Norte rendered a decision declaring Marites and Modesto’s marriage null and void; on September 4, 2004 petitioner and Modesto contracted marriage in Tokyo, Japan.
Petitioner contended that the complaint suffers from multiplicity of suits and is barred by res judicata.

Administrative Charge and Formal Charge

CSC-NCR, through a Formal Charge (filed July 1, 2003 as per source), indicted petitioner for the administrative offense of Conviction of a Crime Involving Moral Turpitude, based on her conviction for Bigamy in the RTC criminal case.
The administrative case proceeded under the applicable rules in effect at initiation (Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, CSC Resolution No. 991936, 1999).

Ruling of the CSC-NCR (June 19, 2014)

CSC-NCR found petitioner guilty of the administrative offense of Conviction of a Crime Involving Moral Turpitude.
CSC-NCR imposed the penalty of dismissal from service with the accessory penalties.
CSC-NCR’s reasoning included that Bigamy involves moral turpitude and that petitioner’s conviction pursuant to her plea of guilt and the trial court’s decision gave rise to administrative liability.
CSC-NCR dispositive portion (as set out in the source): “WHEREFORE, Rosa C. Gonzalbo is hereby found GUILTY of the administrative offense of Conviction of a Crime Involving Moral Turpitude, and is meted the penalty of DISMISSAL from the service. The accessory penalties of cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, perpetual disqualification from holding public office and bar from taking civil service examinations are likewise imposed.”

Ruling of the CSC Proper (January 5, 2015; Reconsideration Denied September 28, 2015)

The CSC Proper (Decision No. 150001 dated January 5, 2015) affirmed the CSC-NCR decision.
The CSC Proper held that petitioner’s invocation of length of service (20 years) and outstanding performance is unavailing because Conviction of a Crime Involving Moral Turpitude is punishable with dismissal from service, an indivisible penalty not susceptible to mitigation.
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied by CSC Proper in Resolution No. 1501179 dated September 28, 2015.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals (August 10, 2017; Reconsideration Denied May 9, 2018)

The Court of Appeals affirmed the CSC rulings in CA-G.R. SP No. 142681 (Decision dated August 10, 2017; Resolution dated May 9, 2018 denied reconsideration).
CA observed that the Rules Implementing the Administrative Code of 1987 and the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in Civil Service permit consideration of mitigating, aggravating, or alternative circumstances in imposing penalties.
CA held that mitigating circumstances raised by petitioner could not be considered because the offense is a grave offense where the imposable penalty upon first commission is dismissal from service.
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration before the CA was denied in the May 9, 2018 Resolution.

Petition to the Supreme Court: Issues Raised by Petitioner

Petitioner challenged the CA’s refusal to consider mitigating circumstances in deciding penalty.
Petitioner argued that, although dismissal is an indivisible penalty, mitigating circumstances should have been considered, and suspension might have been the appropriate penalty instead.
Petitioner cited Supreme Court cases where lighter penalties were imposed on government employees, invoking first offense and length of service as mitigating factors.
Petitioner maintained she lacked criminal intent, was a victim herself, married for the welfare of her child, and had an outstanding employment record.
Petitioner alleged violation of her right to speedy disposition, asserting the administrative case was pending in the CSC for more than a decade.

CSC (Office of the Solicitor General) Response and Position

CSC in its Comment argued it did not err in refusing to apply mitigating circumstances because dismissal as a penalty is indivisible and