Principe/Apolinario vs. Flores/ GR 152780

Ligaya M. Apolinario, Petitioner, vs. Desiree B. Flores, Respondent

G. R. No. 152780, 22 January 2007

Facts:

On September 24, 1999, the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon (Deputy Ombudsman) received a sworn letter-complaint and affidavit from respondent Desiree Flores against Ligaya Apolinario for falsifying the latter’s Daily Time Record (DTR). The Deputy Ombudsman docketed docketed the complaint for falsification of public document, however, it was dismissed because the investigation report conducted by the National Food Authority (NFA) fact finding committee was still under evaluation. Subsequently, it was re-docketed for falsification and dishonesty in response with the NFA fact finding committee, and considered it as case closed. The petitioner was found guilty by the Civil Service Commission (CSC) of simple misconduct and ordered suspension for six months, in addition, Apolinario was also transferred to Baguio City Office. During her transfer, Apolinario was also complaint for dishonesty before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Lingayen, Pangasinan which leads to the Deputy Ombudsman to docket a new complaint for dishonesty and found guilty and once again suspended for six months.

The petitioner prayed for the dismissal of the new docket case in the Deputy Ombudsman on the ground that her constitutional protection against double jeopardy had been violated. The Ombudsman denied the motion, thus, the petition was appealed on the Court of Appeals (CA). 

The CA denied the motion and affirmed the Office of the Ombudsman decision, hence, the petitioner filed a review of the certiorari in the Supreme Court. 

Issues:

1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the decision of the Ombudsman considering that the “same” complaint had been previously dismissed;

Rulings:

The petition has no merit.

Petitioner argues that the “same” complaint, having been dismissed by the Ombudsman, is now res judicata and thus, bars the Ombudsman from hearing the complaint for dishonesty. The SC notes that, for falsifying the petitioner’s DTR, respondent filed two complaints against the petitioner; first was a criminal complaint of estafa thru falsification of public document and second was an administrative complaint of dishonesty. In Tecson vs. Sadiganbayan, the SC ruled that: a public officer may be held civilly, criminally and liable for a wrongful doing. Thus, the dismissal of the criminal complaint did not necessarily foreclose the continuation of the administrative action or carry with it relief from administrative liability. The Office of the Ombudsman did not err when it proceeded with the determination of petitioner’s administrative liability despite the dismissal of the criminal complaint. The CA correctly ruled that res judicata did not set in because there was no identity of causes of action. Moreover, the decision of the Ombudsman cannot be considered valid and final judgment. On the criminal complaint, the Ombudsman only had the power to investigate and file the appropriate case before the Sandiganbayan.

The SC ruled that there is no violation of double jeopardy. Double jeopardy attaches only: (1) upon a valid indictment; (2) before a competent court; (3) after arraignment; (4) when a valid plea has been entered; and (5) when the defendant was acquitted or convicted or the case was dismissed or otherwise terminated without the express consent of the accused. None of these applies to the present case. Hence, double jeopardy will not lie.  

Case digest by: Audey G. Principe, JD-1