National Bureau of Investigation vs. Najera

Grave misconduct requires substantial evidence of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of rules; absent those circumstances, an NBI agent’s failure to coordinate a raid with the Anti-Human Trafficking Division and the Violence Against Women and Children Division is only simple misconduct.

Conrado M. Najera was a member of an NBI team, and Francis Quilala was the cashier of the disco and amusement center involved in the NBI operation. The NBI is the government agency tasked under Republic Act No. 9208 and Republic Act No. 9262 and their implementing rules to coordinate with the Inter-Agency Council Against Trafficking and the Inter-Agency Council on Violence against Women and their Children in the detection and investigation of suspected traffickers and perpetrators.

On April 17, 2007, at around 2:00 a.m., agents from the NBI composed of Conrado Najera, Frederick Liwag, Joel Respeto, and Wilson Monton posed as customers in a disco and amusement center to verify a complaint for human trafficking. The team were allegedly provided with two lady entertainers who offered sexual pleasures for a fee. Afterwards, Conrado announced a raid and apprehended 27 employees including the cashier Francis Quilala. The arrested persons were detained at the NBI Office at Tail Avenue, Manila but were later released.

Thereafter, Francis filed an administrative complaint against the raiding team before the NBI and claimed that the center is not involved in prostitution. According to Francis, Conrado ransacked the premises and instructed the other agents to confiscate cigarettes, mobile phones and money from the cash register. Francis further claimed that Conrado attempted to extort P500,000.00 in exchange for the employees’ freedom.

Conrado and his team countered that they secured proper authority from their supervisor Chief Head Agent Regner Peneza (Chief Peneza) to raid the establishment, which was operating without a permit from the local government. They also claimed that Francis fabricated the accusations so he may gain leverage over the charges that they intended to file against him, and they denied the extortion incident. At the investigation, Chief Peneza did not appear and chose not to testify.

Later, the NBI found that the raid was unauthorized and that the agents failed to coordinate the operation with the Anti-Human Trafficking Division and the Violence Against Women and Children Division. The NBI then charged the raiding team with grave misconduct before the Office of the Ombudsman docketed as OMB-C-A-07-0502-J.

The Ombudsman found that Chief Peneza did not authorize Conrado to conduct a raid while the other members merely obeyed the supposed lawful order. The CA found that the supposed robbery and extortion were unsubstantiated and gave credence to the claim that Conrado communicated the operation with Chief Peneza, noting that Chief Peneza did not participate in the investigation; it nevertheless affirmed that Conrado performed the raid without coordinating it with the other concerned agencies.

• Respect for Ombudsman Factual Findings: Petitioner maintained that the Ombudsman’s findings of fact must be respected.
• Substantial Evidence of Extortion: Petitioner maintained that there is substantial evidence to support that Conrado extorted money.
• Lack of Authority and Prior Coordination: Petitioner maintained that there is substantial evidence that Conrado acted without authority from his supervisor and prior coordination with relevant agencies.

• Bare Allegations: Respondent argued that the Ombudsman merely affirmed the NBI’s bare allegations on the supposed extortion and lack of authority from his supervisor.
• Authority from Supervisor: Respondent and his team countered that they secured proper authority from their supervisor Chief Head Agent Regner Peneza to raid the establishment, which was operating without a permit from the local government.
• Fabricated Accusations: Respondent and his team countered that Francis fabricated the accusations so he may gain leverage over the charges that they intended to file against him.
• Denial of Extortion: Respondent and his team denied the extortion incident.

• Factual Review: Whether the SC may entertain the factual issue of whether substantial evidence exists to prove grave misconduct despite the general rule that a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is limited to questions of law.
• Grave Misconduct — Extortion: Whether there is substantial evidence to hold Conrado liable for grave misconduct based on the alleged extortion of P500,000.00.
• Grave Misconduct — Lack of Authority: Whether there is substantial evidence to hold Conrado liable for grave misconduct based on the claim that he conducted the raid without authority from his supervisor.
• Grave Misconduct — Lack of Coordination: Whether Conrado’s failure to coordinate the raid with the Anti-Human Trafficking Division and the Violence Against Women and Children Division constitutes grave misconduct or simple misconduct.
• Penalty for Simple Misconduct: Whether the CA properly imposed the medium penalty of three months suspension for simple misconduct under the URACCS.

• Factual Review: Yes. The SC may entertain the factual issue because the factual findings of the CA and the Ombudsman are contradictory; the Ombudsman found grave misconduct while the CA found simple misconduct.
• Grave Misconduct — Extortion: No. There is no substantial evidence to establish extortion; the NBI relied only on Francis’ unsubstantiated narration, which the CA properly considered self-serving and a convenient afterthought.
• Grave Misconduct — Lack of Authority: No. There is no substantial evidence that Conrado acted without authority from Chief Peneza; the NBI failed to present Chief Peneza, a material witness, or obtain any certification or affidavit from him on the alleged lack of approval.
• Grave Misconduct — Lack of Coordination: No, as grave misconduct. Conrado failed to coordinate with the Anti-Human Trafficking Division and the Violence Against Women and Children Division, violating the IRRs of RA 9208 and RA 9262, but the records lack evidence of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of rules.
• Penalty for Simple Misconduct: Yes. Simple misconduct is a less grave offense under the URACCS with the penalty of suspension for one month and one day to six months; absent mitigating or aggravating circumstances, the medium penalty of three months suspension was proper.

• Factual Review: Rule 45 generally confines the SC to questions of law, and it is not the SC’s task to reweigh the proofs presented below. The rule admits an exception when the factual findings of the CA and the Ombudsman are contradictory. Here, the Ombudsman concluded that Conrado was guilty of grave misconduct while the CA ruled that he was liable only for simple misconduct. Because these findings conflicted, the SC entertained the factual issue and examined whether substantial evidence existed to prove grave violation in the conduct of the raid operation.

• Grave Misconduct — Extortion: In administrative proceedings, the quantum of proof necessary for a finding of guilt is substantial evidence, or such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The burden to establish the charges rests on the complainant; if the complainant fails to show the facts satisfactorily, the case should be dismissed, and the respondent is not obliged to prove his exception or defense. The SC found no substantial evidence of extortion. The NBI had to prove that Conrado attempted to solicit money from Francis, but it failed to present competent evidence and relied only on Francis’ unsubstantiated narrations. The SC noted that an allegation of bribery is easy to concoct but difficult to prove, so the complainant must present a panoply of evidence in support of the accusation. Although administrative bodies are not strictly controlled by the rules of evidence, the evidence presented must at least have a modicum of admissibility to be given probative value. Francis’ lone testimony was insufficient; the CA properly considered it self-serving and a convenient afterthought from a person caught red-handed committing a crime. Thus, no grave misconduct based on extortion.

• Grave Misconduct — Lack of Authority: The NBI also failed to submit substantial evidence that Conrado performed the raid without authority from his superior. Chief Peneza was a key person who could shed light on the issue, but he decided to disassociate himself from the investigation for unexplained reasons. The NBI did not exert any effort to obtain from Chief Peneza a certification or affidavit on his supposed lack of approval. The CA properly took against the NBI the failure to present a material witness. The CA reasoned that Chief Peneza either categorically gave his go-signal to Conrado or acquiesced in his plan; otherwise, he would have been the first to castigate Conrado for the oversight. Thus, no substantial evidence of lack of authority.

• Grave Misconduct — Lack of Coordination: Conrado was not completely absolved. It was undisputed that he did not inform the Anti-Human Trafficking Division about the raid. This infringed the IRR of RA 9208, which provides the responsibility of the NBI to coordinate closely with all members of the Inter-Agency Council Against Trafficking for the effective detection and investigation of suspected traffickers and, when necessary, to share intelligence information with Council member agencies. He also transgressed the IRR of RA 9262, which specifies the NBI’s duty to closely coordinate with all members of the Inter-Agency Council on Violence against Women and their Children for the effective detection and investigation of suspected perpetrators. However, the records were bereft of evidence showing corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of the rules to hold him liable for grave misconduct. As such, he was liable for simple misconduct, defined as a transgression of some established rule of action or an unacceptable behavior that transgresses the established rules of conduct for public officers or any act deviating from the procedure laid down by the rules that warrants disciplinary action.

• Penalty for Simple Misconduct: The violation transpired in 2007 when the URACCS was still effective. The URACCS classified simple misconduct as a less grave offense with the corresponding penalty of suspension for one month and one day to six months for the first offense. Absent any mitigating or aggravating circumstance, the CA properly imposed the medium penalty of three months suspension.

• Substantial Evidence in Administrative Proceedings — The quantum of proof is substantial evidence, or such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The burden rests on the complainant; if the complainant fails to show the facts satisfactorily, the case is dismissed, and the respondent need not prove his defense. The SC applied this to reject the extortion and lack-of-authority charges because the NBI relied on unsubstantiated narration and failed to present Chief Peneza.
• Grave Misconduct vs. Simple Misconduct — Grave misconduct requires evidence of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of rules. Simple misconduct is a transgression of some established rule of action or unacceptable behavior that transgresses established rules of conduct for public officers or any act deviating from the procedure laid down by the rules that warrants disciplinary action. The SC applied this to hold that the uncoordinated raid, without the qualifying circumstances, was only simple misconduct.
• Allegation of Bribery — An allegation of bribery is easy to concoct but difficult to prove; the complainant must present a panoply of evidence in support of the accusation. The SC applied this to reject the extortion charge based solely on Francis’ lone testimony.
• Failure to Present a Material Witness — When a key witness who could shed light on a disputed fact is not presented, the failure may be taken against the party who should have presented him. The SC applied this against the NBI because it did not present Chief Peneza or obtain a certification or affidavit from him on the alleged lack of approval.
• Coordination Duties of the NBI under RA 9208 and RA 9262 — The IRRs of RA 9208 and RA 9262 require the NBI to coordinate closely with the Inter-Agency Council Against Trafficking and the Inter-Agency Council on Violence against Women and their Children in the detection and investigation of suspected traffickers and perpetrators. The SC applied this to find Conrado liable for simple misconduct for failing to inform the Anti-Human Trafficking Division about the raid.

• “The quantum of proof in administrative proceedings necessary for a finding of guilt is substantial evidence or such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” — This defines the standard the SC used to test the administrative charges against Conrado.
• “It is settled that an allegation of bribery is easy to concoct but difficult to prove. Hence, it is always demanded from the complainant to present a panoply of evidence in support of the accusation.” — This explains why Francis’ lone testimony could not sustain the extortion charge.
• “The records, however, are bereft of evidence showing corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of the rules, to hold Conrado liable for grave misconduct.” — This is the decisive basis for downgrading the offense from grave to simple misconduct.
• “As such, Conrado should be liable for simple misconduct which is defined as a transgression of some established rule of action or an unacceptable behavior that transgresses the established rules of conduct for public officers or any act deviating from the procedure laid down by the rules that warrants disciplinary action.” — This states the definition and conclusion on Conrado’s administrative liability.

• Office of the Ombudsman vs. Manalaslas, 791 Phil. 557 (2016) — Cited for the substantial evidence standard in administrative proceedings.
• Tan vs. Usman, A.M. No. RTJ-14-2390, August 13, 2014, 723 SCRA 623 — Cited for the rule that an allegation of bribery is easy to concoct but difficult to prove.
• Uichico vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 339 Phil. 242 (1997) — Cited for the requirement that evidence in administrative bodies must have a modicum of admissibility.
• OCA vs. Larida, Jr., 729 Phil. 21 (2014) — Cited for the insufficiency of lone testimony to sustain an administrative charge.
• Santos vs. Tanciongco, A.M. No. MTJ-06-1631, September 30, 2008, 567 SCRA 134 — Cited for the rule that the burden to establish the charges rests on the complainant.
• Bruselas, Jr. vs. Mallari, A.C. No. 9683, February 21, 2017 — Cited for the rule that the respondent is not obliged to prove his exception or defense.
• Office of the Ombudsman vs. De Villa, 760 Phil. 937 (2015) — Cited for the exception to the rule against factual review when the findings of the CA and the Ombudsman conflict.
• Re: Complaint of Leonardo A. Velasco against Associate Justices Francisco H. Villaruz, Jr., Alex L. Quiroz, and Samuel R. Martires, 701 Phil. 455 (2013) — Cited for the rule that grave misconduct requires corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of rules.

• Rule 45, Rules of Court — Governs the petition for review on certiorari; generally limited to questions of law, but the SC entertained the factual issue because the findings of the Ombudsman and the CA were contradictory.
• Republic Act No. 9208, Sec. 18(g) — The Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003; its IRR requires the NBI to coordinate closely with all members of the Inter-Agency Council Against Trafficking for the effective detection and investigation of suspected traffickers and, when necessary, to share intelligence information with Council member agencies. Applied because Conrado did not inform the Anti-Human Trafficking Division about the raid.
• Republic Act No. 9262, Sec. 61(k) — The Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004; its IRR requires the NBI to closely coordinate with all members of the Inter-Agency Council on Violence against Women and their Children for the effective detection and investigation of suspected perpetrators. Applied because Conrado transgressed this coordination duty.
• Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (URACCS), Rule IV, Sec. 52(B) — Classifies simple misconduct as a less grave offense with the penalty of suspension for one month and one day to six months for the first offense. Applied to determine the proper penalty.
• URACCS, Sec. 54 — Provides for the medium penalty absent mitigating or aggravating circumstances. Applied to justify the three-month suspension.