am_p-16-3436_2016

EN BANC April 5, 2016 A.M. No. P-16-3436 [Formerly A.M. No. 13-12-261-RTC] REPORT ON THE THEFT OF COURT EXHIBIT BY ROBERTO R. CASTRO, UTILITY WORKER I, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 172, VALENZUELA CITY PER CURIAM: This resolves the report1 filed by Executive Judge Maria Nena J. Santos (Executive Judge Santos) of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Valenzuela City, Metro Manila with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), relative to the theft of court exhibit by Roberto R. Castro (Castro), a Utility Worker I at the RTC of Valenzuela City, Branch 172. Facts On February 4, 2013, Judge Nancy Rivas-Palmones (Judge Palmones), Presiding Judge of the RTC of Valenzuela City, Branch 172, sent a letter-complaint2 to Executive Judge Santos regarding the theft of court exhibit by Castro. Judge Palmones alleged that on August 31, 2011, the Internal Security of Valenzuela City Hall of Justice confiscated from Castro a caliber 9mm firearm with serial number BA009746 and a magazine therefor.

Upon inquiry, Castro failed to present any license or permit to carry the firearm. 3 Thereafter, Castro was subjected to inquest proceedings by the Valenzuela Police Station, which recommended that he be indicted for illegal possession of firearm under Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended by Republic Act No. 8294.4 Castro was eventually charged for illegal possession of firearm before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Valenzuela City, Branch 82.5 Judge Palmones further alleged that they later on discovered that the firearm that was confiscated from Castro is the exhibit in Criminal Case No. 210-V-98, entitled People of the Philippines v. Anthony De Gula Lopez, which was decided by the RTC of Valenzuela City, Branch 172, on August 10, 2012. Apparently, sometime in November 2012, a certain Maria Elizabeth De Gula Lopez requested for the release of the subject firearm in Criminal Case No. 210-V-98 considering that accused Anthony De Gula Lopez was already acquitted of the charge against him.

Osita De Guzman (De Guzman), Legal Researcher of Branch 172, searched for the said firearm, but to no avail. Eventually, De Guzman went to the Valenzuela Police Station where she discovered that the missing firearm in Criminal Case No. 210-V-98 is the same firearm that was confiscated from Castro.6 In a separate incident, Judge Palmones, on May 25, 2011, was informed by De Guzman that a cable wire used as evidence in a case was missing. The theft of the cable wire is the subject of a separate administrative case.

7 Acting on the letter-complaint, Executive Judge Santos set the case for an informal and preliminary inquiry on February 15, 2013.8 During the inquiry, Castro averred that the subject firearm was actually handed to him by Atty. Levi Dybongco-Banez, the Clerk of Court (COC) of Branch 172, during an inventory of exhibits, with instruction to put the gun back in the exhibit room. Instead of complying with the instruction, Castro claimed that he put the gun inside his black shoulder bag, which he kept on top of his office table.9 He explained that he kept the gun because a certain Oca, a former utility worker in the RTC of Valenzuela City, challenged him to a gun fight outside the City Hall; he thought that the gun would be useful should Oca try to hurt him. 10 Accordingly, Executive Judge Santos recommended that an appropriate administrative complaint be filed against Castro since the latter admitted that he took the subject firearm, which is an exhibit in Criminal Case No. 210-V-98.11 On July 24, 2013, the Court, upon recommendation of the OCA, placed Castro under preventive suspension and directed him to file his Comment within 10 days from notice.

12 In October 2013, Castro filed his "Salaysay"13 "Sinumpaang Salaysay,"14 Report and Recommendation of the OCA On November 21, 2014, the OCA issued its report, 15 which recommended that Castro be dismissed from the service with forfeiture of all benefits except accrued leave credits, if any, and with prejudice to re-employment in any government office. The OCA pointed out that Castro did not dispute the charge of illegal possession of firearm and theft of firearm from the exhibit room, although he gave reasons therefor.1âwphi1 The OCA opined that theft of court exhibit merits the penalty of dismissal from service. With regard to the issue on the illegal possession of firearm which is an exhibit in a criminal case pending before his court, Mr. Castro pleads no contest as he promptly admitted to his unlawful possession of a gun, although he gave reasons why he had to possess and carry it.

He asks forgiveness and another chance. However, he has given statements implying that he might go back to his old, illegal activities if he would be dismissed from the service. This is not a good sign of a truly repentant person.

16 Ruling of the Court The findings and recommendations of the OCA are well-taken. Castro, during the informal investigations conducted by Executive Judge Santos, admitted that he took the 9mm caliber firearm, which was an exhibit in a criminal case, from the former COC of Branch 172 and, instead of placing it inside the exhibit room as instructed, placed it inside his bag.17 This is an admission of theft of court exhibit for which Castro should be held administratively liable. It is immaterial that Castro did not bring the gun outside of the Valenzuela City Hall of Justice; the theft of the 9mm caliber firearm was already consummated when he placed it inside his bag.

Castro's subsequent claim in his "salaysay"18 Castro's misconduct in the performance of his official duties, consisting of dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, are grounds for dismissal under the Civil Service Law.19 In In the Matter of the Loss of One (1) Tamaya Transit, An Exhibit in Criminal Case No. 193,2021 Accordingly, the Court found him guilty of dishonesty and grave misconduct and directed his dismissal from the service with forfeiture of his retirement benefits and pay and with prejudice to reinstatement to any branch of the government. In Re: Jovelita Olivas and Antonio Cuyco,22 In view of the prevailing jurisprudence and the foregoing facts, the Court agrees with the recommendation of the OCA that Castro should be dismissed from service. "This Court has emphasized time and time again that the conduct and behavior of every one connected with an office charged with the dispensation of justice, from the presiding judge to the sheriff and to the lowliest clerk should be circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility."23 In performing their duties and responsibilities, court personnel serve as sentinels ofjustice and any act of impropriety on their part immeasurably affects the honor and dignity of the Judiciary and the peoples' confidence in it.24

WHEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing disquisitions, the Court finds Roberto R. Castro GUILTY of dishonesty and grave misconduct and is hereby DISMISSED from the service with forfeiture of all benefits excluding leave credits, if any, and with prejudice to re-employment in any branch or agency of the government, including government-owned and controlled corporations. SO ORDERED. MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO Chief Justice ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Associate Justice ARTURO D. BRION Associate Justice DIOSDADO M. PERALTA Associate Justice LUCAS P. BERSAMIN Associate Justice MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO Associate Justice JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ Associate Justice JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA Associate Justice BIENVENIDO L. REYES Associate Justice (On leave) ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE Associate Justice MARVIC M.V.F. LEONEN Associate Justice FRANCIS H. JARDELEZA Associate Justice ALFREDO BENJAMIN S. CAGUIOA Associate Justice Footnotes On Leave. 1 Rollo(A.M. No. P-16-3436), pp. 2-5. 2 Id. at 10-11. 3 Id. at 13. 4 Id. 5 Id. at 10. 6 Id. at 3. 7 A.M. No. 13-5-78-RTC. 8 Rollo(A.M. No. P-16-3436), p. 2. 9 Id. at 3. 10 Id. at 3-4. 11 Id. at 5. 12 Rollo(A.M. No. 13-5-78-RTC), id. at 19. 13 Id. at 22-24. 14 Id. at 75-77. 15 Id. at 83-86. 16 Id. 17 Rollo(A.M. No. P-16-3436), pp. 65-67. 18 Rollo(A.M. No. 13-5-78-RTC), p. 73. 19 Rule XIV, Sec. 23(c), on grave offenses of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292. 20 200 Phil. 82 (1982). 21 Id. at 90. 22 431 Phil. 379 (2002). 23 Ferrer v. Gapasin, Sr., A.M. No. P-92-736, November 16, 1993, 227 SCRA 764, 769. 24 See THE CODE OF CONDUCT FOR COURT PERSONNEL.