A.M. No. CA-02-15-P - Re: AC No. 04-AM-2002

Case Summary (A.M. No. CA-02-15-P)

Parties and Setting; Events Leading to the Complaint

The complaint was filed by complainant through a January 9, 2002 complaint-affidavit, submitted on February 5, 2002. In the period relevant to the loss, Atty. Amelia Alado, also staff of Justice Buzon, took a leave of absence for six months starting November 2001. Atty. Alado authorized complainant to receive her salary and other benefits during the absence. Complainant accordingly received Atty. Alado’s amounts and also held her own money.

As of December 20, 2001, complainant had in her custody P10,150.00 representing Atty. Alado’s salary and benefits, placed in a brown envelope, and P5,500.00 belonging to complainant, placed in a white envelope. Complainant inserted both envelopes into her logbook, placed the logbook inside the locked drawer of her desk at the mezzanine, and testified that the drawer could be opened by any key that fit, including keys previously borrowed from other officemates and even improvised tools such as a paper clip or a bread knife lying around the office.

Before storing the money, complainant counted the amounts around 10:00 a.m. of December 20, 2001 within view of those in the mezzanine office, including respondent. After counting, complainant filled deposit slips for Atty. Alado and for herself, inserted the envelopes and deposit slips into the logbook, and locked the drawer. Complainant further narrated that respondent, on the same day, made several phone calls seeking loans and asked Atty. Joy Reyala if she could borrow money. Complainant also stated that after complainant left the office ahead of respondent and Atty. Reyala (who later returned from a trip to another building), both went to a party in Pasay that night.

The Alleged Theft; Discovery of the Missing Envelope

On the morning of December 21, 2001 at around 11:00 a.m., respondent advised officemates to prepare to leave for a lunch hosted by Justice Buzon at the Holiday Inn. Complainant stepped out, went to the comfort room, and then returned to the mezzanine where she saw respondent alone. On December 21, 2001, the staff returned from lunch around 2:30 p.m., and gift exchange occurred until about 4:30 p.m. At 5:30 p.m., complainant and Atty. Clara Javier left for the 6:00 p.m. mass at Ermita Church, leaving gifts and other personal items with the guard. After mass, complainant and Atty. Javier returned to pick up the items. Complainant recalled that Atty. Javier had agreed to deposit Atty. Alado’s money on December 26, and the two went up to retrieve the money from complainant’s drawer.

When complainant opened the drawer, she discovered that the brown envelope containing Atty. Alado’s money was missing. She and Atty. Javier searched for it until 10:00 p.m. but failed to find it. Respondent reportedly reported only on January 7, 2002 after the holidays, after which complainant confronted her with the accusation that she stole the money. Respondent’s reply was described by complainant as including a remark in Filipino expressing that complainant should not blame her due to respondent’s own lack of money. Complainant thus filed the administrative complaint.

Administrative Complaint, Investigation, and Respondent’s Denials

Complainant’s complaint-affidavit alleged, among others, that it was the office practice to keep money and valuable items in drawers and there had been no prior loss until respondent’s assignment; that complainant had previously lost money inside her drawer after respondent became her officemate; that respondent was perceived to be in need of money; and that respondent had opportunities to access the drawer since others were not always around. The complaint also cited respondent’s calls and request to borrow from friends, as well as an evening incident involving Atty. Reyala. Complainant asserted that on the day of the loss respondent was left alone after office hours, making her the only person with the opportunity to take the money.

The CA, by order dated February 12, 2002, designated Atty. Elisa B. Pilar-Longalong to conduct an investigation and submit a report and recommendation within thirty days from termination. On February 15, 2002, Atty. Longalong required respondent to explain in writing under oath why she should not be held liable for misconduct for the loss of P16,150 from complainant’s table drawer, and advised respondent that she could opt for a formal investigation and be assisted by counsel.

Respondent filed a counter-affidavit on February 18, 2002, denying the charge. She explained that on December 20, 2001, she did not continue her request for loans because she received a letter addressed to her from her husband’s sister in the United States, a custom associated with semiannual money remittances. Respondent thereafter sought an extension of time to file further affidavits and evidence, and manifested her desire for a formal investigation. The CA granted the request.

An investigation followed. In a related move, the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) subjected respondent to a polygraph examination. Complainant was also scheduled to undergo polygraph testing but did not appear on the rescheduled date. Polygraph Report No. 2002-111 later stated that respondent’s answers revealed no specific reactions indicative of deception to pertinent questions regarding knowledge of, participation in, or benefit from the taking of the money and regarding whether she had actual part or participation in the theft.

Report and Recommendation; Initial Legal Framing by the Investigating Process

In an October 2, 2002 Report to CA Presiding Justice Cancio C. Garcia, Atty. Longalong recommended that respondent be held liable, based mainly on circumstantial circumstances. The report acknowledged that no eyewitness was presented for the actual taking. Still, it reasoned that the combined circumstances supported the inference that respondent took the money, including: respondent’s borrowing efforts on December 20, 2001 which did not succeed; respondent’s need of money; the opportunity created by being left alone in the late afternoon of December 20, 2001 and being seen alone in the mezzanine between 11:00 a.m. and 12:00 noon of December 21, 2001; and respondent’s failure to deny the accusation when confronted.

However, the investigating officer concluded that respondent could not be held liable for grave misconduct because the alleged act was not committed in the exercise of official functions. Relying on administrative concepts requiring a direct relation between misconduct and official duty, the report instead treated the conduct as conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, and proposed a penalty within the range for the first offense under Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 19, S. 1999, while considering respondent’s first offense and about 23 years of service. Presiding Justice Garcia, through a letter dated October 22, 2002, expressed full accord and adopted the report and recommendation.

The Supreme Court’s Assessment of Evidence and Opportunity

In the Supreme Court’s review, the Court reiterated that in administrative proceedings, complainant bears the burden of proving the allegations by substantial evidence. It invoked Rule 133, Section 5 of the Revised Rules on Evidence, which defined substantial evidence as that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. The Court also applied Rule 133, Section 4, on when circumstantial evidence suffices, requiring: more than one circumstance; proof of the facts from which inferences are derived; and a combination of circumstances that proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt in the sense of an unbroken chain leading to a fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused to the exclusion of others.

The Court identified that complainant’s established circumstances were limited to: first, that prior to the incident respondent was in dire need of money; and second, that respondent was left alone in the office in the late afternoon of December 20, 2001, and was seen alone in the mezzanine between 11:00 a.m. and 12:00 noon of December 21, 2001. The Court stressed that, for the third requisite, circumstantial evidence must form an unbroken chain that excludes other possible perpetrators, especially when the situation potentially involves multiple access points.

The Court found that complainant’s circumstantial case did not completely discount t

Case Syllabus (A.M. No. CA-02-15-P)

The Court of Appeals stenographer Josejina Fria charged her co-stenographer, Gemiliana de los Angeles, with grave misconduct arising from the loss of money kept in the complainant’s table drawer.
The charge came before the Supreme Court through the Court of Appeals administrative process on A.M. No. CA-02-15-P, following orders directing investigation and requiring respondent’s sworn explanation.

Parties and Procedural Posture

Complainant Josejina Fria filed the complaint-affidavit on January 9, 2002, with filing dated February 5, 2002, against respondent Gemiliana de los Angeles.
By Order of February 12, 2002, then CA Presiding Justice Ma. Alicia Austria Martinez designated Atty. Elisa B. Pilar-Longalong to investigate and to submit a report and recommendation within 30 days after termination.
On February 15, 2002, Atty. Longalong issued a memorandum requiring respondent, within three days, to explain in writing under oath why she should not be held liable for misconduct connected with the loss of P16,150 from complainant’s table drawer.
Respondent filed a counter-affidavit on February 18, 2002, denying the charge and seeking a formal investigation.
Respondent filed a motion on February 17, 2002 for an extension of time to file additional affidavits and documentary evidence, which the proceedings granted through an order dated February 19, 2002.
The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) subjected respondent to a polygraph examination, and the polygraph report indicated no deceptive responses to the pertinent questions.
On October 2, 2002, Atty. Longalong issued a report and recommendation which the CA Presiding Justice Cancio C. Garcia adopted in a letter dated October 22, 2002.
The Supreme Court resolved the administrative case by weighing substantial evidence and the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence.

Key Factual Allegations

The complainant and respondent were both assigned in 2001 to the staff of CA Associate Justice Marina Buzon.
Atty. Amelia Alado, also staff of Justice Buzon, took a leave of absence for six months starting November 2001, and authorized complainant to receive her salary and benefits during the absence.
As of December 20, 2001, complainant had in her custody P10,150.00 belonging to Atty. Alado and P5,500.00 belonging to herself, which she placed in separate envelopes and then kept in a locked drawer in her table.
Complainant placed both envelopes in a logbook and locked the logbook inside her drawer, while the drawer could be opened by any key that fit.
Complainant testified that she had previously borrowed a key from Gertrude Remolacio to open the drawer, and she also stated that a paper clip or bread knife could be used to open it.
On December 20, 2001, complainant counted the money in the presence of office personnel including respondent, and she completed the deposit slips and storage steps afterward.
Respondent made several phone calls to friends and asked Atty. Joy Reyala if she could borrow money, receiving the reply “Tingnan natin.”
On December 20, 2001 around 5:30 p.m., complainant left the office ahead of respondent and Atty. Reyala, who were to attend a party that night.
Atty. Reyala left the mezzanine area and returned about an hour later; the two then proceeded to the party, while respondent later asked Atty. Reyala about second-hand cellular phones she planned to buy.
On December 21, 2001, respondent advised officemates to get ready for a lunch hosted by Justice Buzon, and complainant went to the comfort room and returned to find respondent alone.
Office festivities and exchanges of gifts continued through the afternoon, and later complainant attended the 6:00 p.m. mass leaving gifts and personal items with the guard.
After mass, complainant and Atty. Clara Javier returned to the office to retrieve things and to get the money from complainant’s drawer for deposit on December 26.
Upon opening the drawer, complainant discovered that the brown envelope containing Atty. Alado’s money was missing, and despite searching until 10:00 p.m., the envelope was not found.
Complainant asserted that respondent first reported only on January 7, 2002, after the holidays, at which time complainant accused respondent of stealing.
Respondent’s replies included statements in Filipino suggesting that she had no money and that the Christmas period was not favorable to her finances, which prompted the filing of the administrative complaint.
Complainant also asserted that respondent had recurring difficulties settling obligations and that other prior money losses had occurred after respondent became complainant’s officemate.

Evidence and Investigative Measures

The case relied heavily on circumstantial evidence, with complainant not presenting an eyewitness to the actual taking.
Complainant attempted to establish opportunity and motive through respondent’s financial situation and her being left alone in the mezzanine at specific times.
Respondent denied the accusation and explained that on December 20, 2001 she received a letter from her husband’s sister in the USA addressed to her, allegedly customary twice a year, mostly on Christmas.
Respondent sought a formal investigation, and the administrative inquiry proceeded under the CA’s orders and directives.
The NBI polygraph examination was conducted with respondent, while complainant failed to appear for the rescheduled polygraph test despite rescheduling upon request.
The Polygraph Report No. 2002-111 stated