FACTS:
Complainant’s
case referred to above had been pending with the CA for more than two years. Complainant
filed an illegal dismissal case against PAGCOR before the Civil Service
Commission (CSC). The CSC ordered complainant’s reinstatement but a writ
of preliminary injunction and a temporary restraining order was issued by the
CA in favor of PAGCOR, thus complainant was not reinstated to his former job
pending adjudication of the case. Desiring an expeditious decision of his
case, complainant sought the assistance of respondent sometime in July 2004
after learning of the latter’s employment with the CA from her sister,
Magdalena David. During their first telephone conversation and thereafter
through a series of messages they exchanged via SMS, complainant informed
respondent of the particulars of his pending case. Allegedly, complainant
thought that respondent would be able to advise him on how to achieve an early
resolution of his case.
However,
a week after their first telephone conversation, respondent allegedly told
complainant that a favorable and speedy decision of his case was attainable but
the person who was to draft the decision was in return asking for One Million
Pesos (P1,000,000.00).
Complainant
expostulated that he did not have that kind of money since he had been jobless
for a long time, to which respondent replied, "Eh, ganoon talaga
ang lakaran dito, eh. Kung wala kang pera, pasensiya na." Complainant then tried to ask for a
reduction of the amount but respondent held firm asserting that
the price had been set, not by her but by the person who was going to make the
decision. Respondent even admonished complainant with the words "Wala
tayo sa palengke iho!" when the latter bargained for a lower
amount.
Complainant
then asked for time to determine whether or not to pay the money in exchange
for the decision. Instead, in August of 2004, he sought the assistance of Imbestigador. The
crew of the TV program accompanied him to PAOCCF-SPG where he lodged a
complaint against respondent for extortion. Thereafter, he communicated
with respondent again to verify if the latter was still asking for the money and
to set up a meeting with her. Upon learning that respondent’s offer of a
favorable decision in exchange for One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00) was
still standing, the plan for the entrapment operation was formulated by Imbestigador in
cooperation with the PAOCC.
On
24 September 2004, complainant and respondent met for the first time in person
at the 2nd Floor of Jollibee, Times Plaza Bldg., the place
where the entrapment operation was later conducted. Patricia Siringan
(Siringan), a researcher of Imbestigador, accompanied complainant
and posed as his sister-in-law. During the meeting, complainant clarified
from respondent that if he gave the amount of One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00),
he would get a favorable decision. This was confirmed by the latter together
with the assurance that it would take about a month for the decision to come
out. Respondent also explained that the amount of One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00)
guaranteed a favorable decision only in the CA but did not extend to the
Supreme Court should the case be appealed later.
When
respondent was asked where the money will go, she claimed that it will go to a
male researcher whose name she refused to divulge. The researcher was allegedly
a lawyer in the CA Fifth (5th) Division where complainant case was
pending. She also claimed that she will not get any part of the
money unless the researcher decides to give her some.
Complainant
tried once again to bargain for a lower amount during the meeting but
respondent asserted that the amount was fixed. She even explained that
this was their second transaction and the reason why the amount was closed at
One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00) was because on a previous occasion,
only Eight Hundred Thousand Pesos (P800,000.00) was paid by the client
despite the fact that the amount had been pegged at One Million Three Hundred
Thousand Pesos (P1,300,000.00). Complainant then proposed that he
pay a down payment of Seven Hundred Thousand Pesos (P700,000.00) while
the balance of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00) will be paid
once the decision had been released. However, respondent refused to
entertain the offer, she and the researcher having learned their lesson from
their previous experience for as then, the client no longer paid the balance of
Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) after the decision had come
out.
Complainant
brought along copies of the documents pertinent to his case during the first
meeting. After reading through them, respondent allegedly uttered, "Ah,
panalo ka." The parties set the next meeting date at lunchtime on
28 September 2004 and it was understood that the money would be handed over by
complainant to respondent then.
On
the pre-arranged meeting date, five (5) PAOCTF agents, namely: Capt. Reynaldo
Maclang (Maclang) as team leader, SPO1 Renato Banay (Banay), PO1 Bernard
Villena (Villena), PO1 Danny Feliciano, and PO2 Edgar delos Reyes arrived
at around 11:30 in the morning at Jollibee. Nuez and Siringan arrived at
past noon and seated themselves at the table beside the one occupied by the two
(2) agents, Banay and Villena. Complainant had with him an unsealed long brown
envelope containing ten (10) bundles of marked money and paper money which was
to be given to respondent. The envelope did not actually contain the One
Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00) demanded by respondent, but instead
contained paper money in denominations of One Hundred Pesos (P100.00),
Five Hundred Pesos (P500.00) and One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00),
as well as newspaper cut-outs. There were also ten (10) authentic One
Hundred Peso (P100.00) bills which had been previously dusted with
ultra-violet powder by the PAOCTF. The three other PAOCTF agents were
seated a few tables away and there were also three (3) crew members from Imbestigador at
another table operating a mini DV camera that was secretly recording the whole
transaction.
Respondent
arrived at around 1:00 p.m. She appeared very nervous and suspicious
during the meeting. Ironically, she repeatedly said that complainant might
entrap her, precisely like those that were shown onImbestigador. She
thus refused to receive the money then and there. What she proposed was for
complainant and Siringan to travel with her in a taxi and drop her off at the
CA where she would receive the money.
More
irony ensued. Respondent actually said that she felt there were policemen
around and she was afraid that once she took hold of the envelope complainant
proffered, she would suddenly be arrested and handcuffed. At one point,
she even said, "Ayan o, tapos na silang kumain, bakit hindi pa
sila umaalis?," referring to Banay and Villena at the next table.
To allay respondent’s suspicion, the two agents stood up after a few minutes
and went near the staircase where they could still see what was going on.
Complainant,
respondent and Siringan negotiated for almost one hour. Complainant and
Siringan bargained for a lower price but respondent refused to accede. When respondent finally touched the unsealed envelope to look at the money
inside, the PAOCTF agents converged on her and invited her to the Western
Police District (WPD) Headquarters at United Nations Avenue for questioning.
On the way to the WPD on board the PAOCTF
vehicle, Banay asked respondent why she went to the restaurant. The latter
replied that she went there to get the One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00).
Respondent
was brought to the PNP Crime Laboratory at the WPD where she was tested and
found positive for ultra-violet powder that was previously dusted on the
money. She was later detained at the WPD Headquarters.
At
seven o’clock in the evening of 28 September 2004, respondent called Atty.
Lilia Mercedes Encarnacion Gepty (Atty. Gepty), her immediate superior in the
CA at the latter’s house. She tearfully confessed to Atty. Gepty that
"she asked for money for a case and was entrapped by police officers and
the media." Enraged at the news, Atty. Gepty asked why she had done
such a thing to which respondent replied, "Wala lang ma’am,
sinubukan ko lang baka makalusot." Respondent claimed that she
was ashamed of what she did and repented the same. She also asked for
Atty. Gepty’s forgiveness and help. The latter instead reminded respondent of
the instances when she and her co-employees at the CA were exhorted during
office meetings never to commit such offenses.
Atty.
Gepty rendered a verbal report of her conversation with their division’s
chairman, Justice Martin S. Villarama. She reduced the report into
writing and submitted the same to then PJ Cancio Garcia on 29 September 2004. She
also later testified as to the contents of her report to the Committee.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the
text messages are admissible in evidence?
DECISION:
Complainant
was able to prove by his testimony in conjunction with the text messages from
respondent duly presented before the Committee that the latter asked for One Million
Pesos (P1,000,000.00) in exchange for a favorable decision of the
former’s pending case with the CA. The text messages were properly
admitted by the Committee since the same are now covered by Section 1(k), Rule
2 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence which provides:
"Ephemeral electronic communication" refers to
telephone conversations, text messages . . . and other electronic forms of
communication the evidence of which is not recorded or retained."
Under
Section 2, Rule 11 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence, "Ephemeral
electronic communications shall be proven by the testimony of a person who was
a party to the same or who has personal knowledge thereof . . . ." In this
case, complainant who was the recipient of said messages and therefore had
personal knowledge thereof testified on their contents and import.
Respondent herself admitted that the cellphone number reflected in
complainant’s cellphone from which the messages originated was hers. Moreover,
any doubt respondent may have had as to the admissibility of the text messages
had been laid to rest when she and her counsel signed and attested to the
veracity of the text messages between her and complainant. It is also well
to remember that in administrative cases, technical rules of procedure and evidence
are not strictly applied. We have no doubt as to the probative value of
the text messages as evidence in determining the guilt or lack thereof of
respondent in this case.
No comments:
Post a Comment