Hagad: Judicial precedents

Monday, February 13, 2012

WHAT did the Supreme Court have to say about offenses committed by government officers or employees similar to the one charged by Article 2 of the present Impeachment Complaint? Ms. Cristina Mendez who contributed to the Philippine Star last week gave us two very significant decisions.

The first was a complaint against Ms. Delsa M. Flores, a court interpreter in the Regional Trial Court. She was charged with, among others, excluding from her SALN the information that she had a business interest in a market stall. In Administrative Matter No. P-97-1247, rendered by the Supreme Court on May 17, 1997 Ms. Flores was stripped of her job as court interpreter, the Justices ruling that: “We have repeatedly held that although every office in the government service is a public trust, no position exacts a greater demand for moral righteousness and uprightness from an individual than the judiciary. Personnel in the judiciary should conduct themselves in such a manner as to be beyond reproach and suspicion . . . They are strictly mandated to maintain good moral character at all times and to observe irreproachable behavior so as not to outrage public decency.”

Have something to report? Tell us in text, photos or videos.

In another case, an officer by the name of Nieto Racho was charged in the Office of the Ombudsman with failing to include in his SALN certain bank accounts the sum total of which were not commensurate with his income as a government official. After investigating the veracity of the complaint the Ombudsman confirmed that Mr. Racho did exclude from his SALN bank accounts money in banks amounting to more than P5 million. It therefore proceeded to charge him with “falsification of public document”.

Elevating his case to the Court of Appeals Mr. Nieto Racho managed to convince this body to reverse the Ombudsman’s findings. Questioning the reversal of its ruling, the Ombudsman raised the matter via an appeal to the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 185685 which, on January 31, 2011 reversed the CA’s decision and found Nieto Racho guilty of falsifying his SALN. I shall quote extensively from the ruling of the Court:

“Dishonesty begins when an individual intentionally makes a false statement in any material fact, or practicing or attempting to practice any deception or fraud in order to secure his examination, registration, appointment or promotion. It is understood to imply the disposition to lie, cheat, deceive or defraud; untrustworthiness, lack of integrity, lack of honesty, probity or integrity in principle; lack of fairness and straightforwardness; disposition to defraud, deceive or betray.

When the accumulated wealth becomes manifestly disproportionate to the employee’s income and the public officer/employee fails to properly account or explain his other sources of income he become susceptible to dishonesty.

The Court has consistently reminded our public servants that public service demands utmost integrity and discipline. A public servant must display at all times the highest sense of honesty and integrity, for no less than the Constitution mandates the principle that a public office is a public trust; and all public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people and to serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency.”