The Supreme Court denied the petition of PSSUPT Amador Hernandez and affirmed the rulings of the Court of Appeals finding him guilty of grave misconduct. He was ordered dismissed from the service, with his retirement and other benefits forfeited except accrued leave credits, and perpetually disqualified from reemployment in any government agency or instrumentality.
The Case
On October 3, 2011, aviation security personnel at the Diosdado Macapagal International Airport found Philippine currency in excess of PHP 10,000.00 inside Mary Anne Delgado's (Delgado) luggage. Aviation security personnel escorted Delgado to the airport security station chief's office, where Eulogio Lovello Fabro (Fabro) and PSSUPT Hernandez spoke to her about her violation of a banking circular limiting the amount of Philippine currency that may be taken outside of the country.
According to Delgado, Fabro and PSSUPT Hernandez threatened to bring her to customs authorities, which would delay her flight boarding and result in the confiscation of her money. When she asked what she could do, the latter replied, "Kung ano-maluwag sa iyo." This statement caused Delgado to offer PHP 1,000.00 for her release, which the two laughed at. After some negotiation, the parties agreed that Delgado would pay PHP 5,000.00 for the authorities to release her. PSSUPT Hernandez then made copies of her passport and made her sign the copies' dorsal side in blank.
Delgado later filed an administrative complaint with the National Police Commission, alleging that PSSUPT Hernandez committed grave misconduct for extorting money from her. In his defense, PSSUPT Hernandez asserted that Delgado was brought to the security office for carrying Philippine currency in excess of amounts allowed by prevailing laws. He said that out of humanitarian considerations, he agreed to release Delgado with a warning and after she signed a waiver. He argued that his supposed receipt of PHP 5,000.00 is inconsistent with human nature, as he could have kept the entire amount that Delgado was carrying in excess of legal limits.
The National Police Commission found PSSUPT Hernandez guilty of grave misconduct and dismissed him from public service. He appealed to the Office of the President, which denied the appeal and affirmed the penalty. He then filed a Petition for Review with the Court of Appeals, which denied the petition and affirmed the findings. His motion for reconsideration was denied.
The Issue
PSSUPT Hernandez, in his Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, maintained that the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in affirming his dismissal from public service for grave misconduct.
The Ruling
The Court found that there clearly exists a sufficient and substantial totality of evidence that petitioner should be held liable for grave misconduct, as found by both administrative tribunals and affirmed by the appellate court. The Court found no reason to overturn these findings and no reason to modify the penalty.
The dispositive portion reads: "ACCORDINGLY, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED. The May 30, 2024 Decision and September 17, 2024 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 180015 are AFFIRMED. Petitioner PSSUPT Amador Hernandez is hereby found GUILTY of grave misconduct. He is DISMISSED from the service. His retirement and other benefits, except accrued leave credits, are FORFEITED. He is PERPETUALLY DISQUALIFIED from reemployment in any government agency or instrumentality, including any government-owned or -controlled corporation or government financial institution."
By the Numbers
- October 3, 2011 – date the currency was found in Delgado's luggage
- PHP 10,000.00 – currency limit exceeded in Delgado's luggage
- PHP 1,000.00 – amount Delgado first offered for her release
- PHP 5,000.00 – amount agreed upon for her release
- May 30, 2024 – Court of Appeals Decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 180015
- September 17, 2024 – Court of Appeals Resolution
- G.R. No. 276258 – the case docket number
The Court's Reasoning
The Court explained that in an administrative proceeding, the evidentiary bar is not proof beyond reasonable doubt but the lowest standard of substantial evidence, that is, such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind will accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Administrative liability attaches so long as there is some evidence adequate to support the conclusion that acts constitutive of the administrative offense have been performed.
The Court held that public office is a public trust, and any violation of this trust through grave misconduct is punishable by dismissal from service. The circumstances surrounding the officer's grave misconduct cannot be mitigated by claims that such misconduct was the erring officer's first, or that the same officer possessed a long track record of good service. The Court cited that grave misconduct is not a question of frequency but of gravity or weight.
The Court found that petitioner's circumstances cannot mitigate his liability. Not only did he deny extorting money despite sufficient and substantial testimonial evidence to the contrary, he attempted to conceal his wrongdoing by executing a sham waiver. He also insisted on his innocence by claiming that if he had truly desired to take respondent's money, he would have taken more of it. The Court found this reasoning absurd, stating it belies a serious defect of character and a lack of fitness for public service, and that the penalty of dismissal was more than warranted.
Source: Supreme Court decision in G.R. No. 276258, penned by Senior Associate Justice Leonen.
This report summarizes a public Supreme Court decision and is not legal advice.