Secretary of Justice v. Pacis
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: A complaint was filed by Mr. Jaime Bernal against Antoliano R. Pacis, then supply officer of the Department of Justice, alleging that Pacis acted as an intermediary for Assistant City Fiscal Angel P. Purisima in an attempt to extort P25,000.00 from Bernal in exchange for a favorable decision in Civil Case No. 83352. Procedural History: The Department of Justice sent a letter to Pacis requiring him to submit a written answer to the charge of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and/or dishonesty. Pacis denied the accusation. The Secretary of Justice assigned the case for investigation, and the investigator recommended that Pacis be found guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and be required to resign. The Department of Justice forwarded the report and recommendation to the Supreme Court. The Petition: The administrative complaint was filed against respondent Antoliano R. Pacis, alleging that he introduced himself to Mr. Jesus Bernal, operator of the Department of Justice canteen, as the person sent by Fiscal Angel Purisima to collect a sum of money being extorted from Mr. Bernal in connection with his pending case, and that he urged Mr. Bernal to expedite the payment.
Issue(s)
Whether there is sufficient evidence to hold respondent Antoliano R. Pacis liable for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service or dishonesty. Whether the testimonies of the complaining witnesses are credible enough to establish the guilt of the respondent.
Ruling
The administrative complaint against respondent Antoliano R. Pacis is DISMISSED.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court found no clear and convincing evidence that respondent Pacis introduced himself as the person sent by Fiscal Purisima to collect the extorted sum or that he urged the complainant to expedite the payment. The testimonies of Mr. and Mrs. Bernal were found to be inconsistent and lacked full faith and credit. The Court noted that it would be imprudent for a responsible supply officer to publicly admit to such an act in a crowded canteen. Furthermore, the Court observed that the complaining witnesses' allegations regarding the dates and the supposed intermediary were contradictory, suggesting a lack of veracity in their claims. The Court also considered that the National Bureau of Investigation, after its own investigation, was not in a position to recommend that Mr. Pacis be charged administratively, which casts doubt on the strength of the evidence against him. On Issue 2: The Court found the testimonies of the Bernal spouses to be lacking in credibility. Their accounts presented inconsistencies regarding the dates of the alleged encounters and the identity of the person who approached them. Specifically, Mr. Bernal's testimony about the dates of the alleged pick-up and the final instruction for payment contradicted other parts of his statement and his wife's testimony. The Court also found it improbable that Pacis, a supply officer, would be so indiscreet as to publicly discuss an extortion scheme in a crowded canteen. The Court also questioned the motive of the complaining witnesses, suggesting they might be implicating Pacis due to his townmate relationship with Fiscal Purisima, especially after Pacis declined to testify against Fiscal Purisima. The Court concluded that the evidence presented did not meet the required quantum of substantial evidence to prove the guilt of the respondent.
Main Doctrine
The Court dismissed the administrative complaint against Antoliano R. Pacis due to insufficient evidence. The testimonies of the complaining witnesses were found to be inconsistent and lacked credibility, particularly regarding the alleged attempt to extort money. The Court emphasized that in administrative cases, guilt must be proven by substantial evidence, which was not sufficiently established in this instance.