Case Summary (G.R. No. 237522)
Antecedent Facts
On April 17, 2007, agents from the NBI, including Conrado Najera, conducted a raid at an entertainment venue in response to a complaint of human trafficking. The operation resulted in the arrest of 27 individuals, including a cashier named Francis Quilala. Following the raid, complaints surfaced alleging unauthorized conduct, including extortion by Najera and unsubstantiated assertions about the establishment's involvement in prostitution. In defense, Najera and his team claimed authorization from their supervisor, Chief Head Agent Regner Peneza, which was later disputed.
Findings by the Ombudsman
Subsequent administrative proceedings led to investigations revealing that the raid lacked proper authorization and coordination with critical divisions within the NBI. On December 29, 2015, the Ombudsman found Najera guilty of grave misconduct and recommended his dismissal from service, while dismissing charges against his colleagues, who were deemed to have merely followed orders.
Appeal to the Court of Appeals
Conrado Najera sought reconsideration of the Ombudsman’s ruling. His appeal was part of CA-G.R. SP No. 144884, where he contested the findings of extortion and the claim of lacking supervisory authority. On May 24, 2017, the Court of Appeals partially granted Najera's appeal, downgrading his misconduct to simple misconduct and imposing a three-month suspension, citing insufficient evidence for the allegations of robbery and extortion.
Jurisdictional and Evidentiary Considerations
The NBI's petition for review raised issues concerning the appreciation of evidence, emphasizing that the findings of the Ombudsman and the Court of Appeals were contradictory. The Supreme Court underscored its limited jurisdiction in reviewing factual determinations on petitions. However, where lower tribunal findings conflict, it may examine the evidence presented.
Evaluation of Evidence
The Supreme Court found no substantial evidence to support the charge of grave misconduct against Najera. It assessed the quality of the evidence provided by the NBI, concluding that allegations of extortion were inadequately substantiated and relied mainly on the uncorroborated testimony of a single witness. Furthermore, the NBI failed to present crucial evidence from Chief Peneza, which could have clarified Najera's authority to conduct the operation.
Conclusion on Misconduct Classification
The Supreme Court recognized that while Najera did violate certain procedural protocols by failing to coordinate with the Anti-Human Trafficking Division and its regulations, these infra
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 237522)
Case Overview
- The case involves a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
- The administrative liability arising from an improper raid operation is the primary issue.
- The petition was filed by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) against Conrado M. Najera.
- The Court of Appeals (CA) decision dated May 24, 2017, modified the findings of the Office of the Ombudsman.
Antecedents
- On April 17, 2007, around 2:00 a.m., NBI agents, including Conrado Najera, conducted a raid at a disco and amusement center in response to a human trafficking complaint.
- They posed as customers and were allegedly offered sexual services.
- Following the raid, 27 employees, including cashier Francis Quilala, were apprehended and subsequently detained at the NBI office before being released.
- Francis Quilala filed an administrative complaint against the raiding team, asserting that the establishment was not involved in prostitution.
- He accused Conrado of confiscating personal items and attempting to extort ₱500,000.
- Conrado and his team claimed they had proper authority from their supervisor, Chief Head Agent Regner Peneza, to proceed with the raid.
- They suggested that Francis fabricated allegations to counter the charges against him.
- During the investigation, Chief Peneza did not testify.
- The NBI later concluded that the raid was unauthorized and charged the agents with grave misconduct before the Office of the Ombudsman.
Ombudsman Findings
- On December 29, 2015, the Ombudsman found Conrado guilty of grave misconduct but dismissed the case against his team members.
- It