Office of the Ombudsman vs. Coronel

In administrative disciplinary proceedings, a finding of guilt must be supported by substantial evidence, and an unauthenticated photocopy of a document, absent proof of due execution and authenticity, is inadmissible and devoid of probative value, rendering it insufficient to sustain a charge of dishonesty.

Carmencita D. Coronel served as Officer-in-Charge of the Linamon Water District in Lanao del Norte. Following a luncheon meeting she hosted on October 14, 1998 for water district officials and Local Water Utilities Administration advisors, she claimed reimbursement of P1,213.00 based on Cash Invoice No. 0736. The newly appointed General Manager subsequently charged her with dishonesty before the Office of the Ombudsman, alleging she falsified the receipt by altering the amount from P213.00 to P1,213.00.

• Carmencita D. Coronel was a Senior Accounting Processor B (Salary Grade 10) of the Linamon Water District, designated as Officer-in-Charge effective October 1, 1997.
• On October 14, 1998, she convened a meeting of water district officers and LWUA advisors at Marvilla's Store in Barangay Bunu-un, Iligan City, attended by approximately ten persons.
• As host, Coronel paid P1,213.00 for the lunch, evidenced by Cash Invoice No. 0736 dated October 14, 1998.
• On November 13, 1998, she filed Voucher No. 98-11-23 for reimbursement of the P1,213.00 expense, which was approved and paid on the same day.
• Pedro C. Sausal, Jr., appointed General Manager on November 17, 1998, filed a sworn complaint for dishonesty against Coronel in February 1999, alleging she falsified the cash invoice by making it appear as P1,213.00 when the actual amount was only P213.00, based on a photocopy of the original duplicate of the receipt.
• On November 27, 2000, Graft Investigation Officer I Grace H. Morales rendered a decision finding Coronel guilty of dishonesty and ordering her dismissal with forfeiture of benefits.
• On January 10, 2001, the Ombudsman directed the implementation of the dismissal order.
• Coronel filed a Motion for Reconsideration on February 2, 2001, submitting affidavits from restaurant owner Mariano Marzo, Jr., water district officials Cedric Laguerta and Romeo Angeles, LWUA representatives Bede Gata and Rhodora Gumban, and a certification from the Punong Barangay of Buru-un regarding the reasonableness of the price.
• On March 7, 2001, GIO Morales granted the Motion for Reconsideration and exonerated Coronel.
• On March 23, 2001, Ombudsman Aniano Desierto issued an Order of Disapproval with the marginal notation "The original decision stands."
• Coronel initially filed a Rule 65 petition before the Supreme Court, which referred the case to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43 in April 2003.
• On August 28, 2003, the Court of Appeals nullified the Disapproval Order and reinstated the March 7, 2001 Order of exoneration.
• The Court of Appeals denied the Motion for Reconsideration on June 28, 2004.

• The Court of Appeals erred in holding that respondent was not guilty of falsifying the amount written in the receipt, arguing that the evidence supported a finding of dishonesty.
• The Court of Appeals erred in holding that it was grave injustice for the Ombudsman not to have considered the evidence presented in the Motion for Reconsideration.
• The Court of Appeals erred in holding that respondent was denied due process.
• The Court of Appeals erred in holding that it was grave injustice for the Ombudsman not to give any justification in disapproving the Order of Dismissal by the Graft Investigation Officer.
• The marginal notation "The original decision stands" was a valid resolution adopting the factual and legal conclusions of the original decision, consistent with the doctrine in Olivarez v. Sandiganbayan.
• The affidavits submitted by respondent did not constitute newly discovered evidence under Section 8 of Rule III of the Ombudsman's Rules of Procedure, as they were available and could have been produced earlier with reasonable diligence; they were merely "forgotten evidence."
• The original decision finding guilt was supported by substantial evidence.

• The Ombudsman's marginal notation violated her right to due process because it failed to state the factual and legal basis for the disapproval.
• The affidavits and certification submitted with the Motion for Reconsideration constituted newly discovered evidence that would materially affect the decision.
• Rules of procedure must not be strictly applied to frustrate substantial justice, citing Samala v. Court of Appeals.
• She was innocent of the charge of dishonesty, and the evidence presented by the complainant was insufficient to prove guilt.

• Procedural Issues:
  • Whether the Ombudsman's Disapproval Order expressed merely as a marginal notation ("The original decision stands") was a valid decision or order consistent with due process requirements.
  • Whether the investigating officer committed an error in admitting respondent's "new" evidence submitted through the Motion for Reconsideration.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether respondent Carmencita D. Coronel was guilty of dishonesty based on the evidence presented.

• Procedural:
  • The marginal notation "The original decision stands" was a valid resolution that adopted the factual and legal conclusions of the original November 27, 2000 Decision; citing Olivarez v. Sandiganbayan and Cruz v. People, the Court held that Ombudsman's disapproval orders written as marginal notations are valid even without specifically spelling out their factual and evidentiary basis, provided they refer to the original decision.
  • The respondent was not denied due process, as the essence of due process in administrative proceedings lies in the opportunity to explain one's side or seek reconsideration, which was afforded to her.
  • However, the evidence submitted by respondent in her Motion for Reconsideration did not qualify as "newly discovered evidence" under Section 8 of Rule III of the Ombudsman's Rules of Procedure and Rule 37, Section 1(b) of the Rules of Court. The affidavits were "forgotten evidence" that existed prior to or during the investigation, were known to or obtainable by respondent, and could have been presented earlier with reasonable diligence; their belated presentation would result in piecemeal presentation of evidence and delay proceedings.
• Substantive:
  • Respondent is not guilty of dishonesty. The quantum of proof in administrative disciplinary cases is substantial evidence—such relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.
  • The evidence presented by the complainant consisted only of the original Official Receipt No. 0736 for P1,213.00 and an unauthenticated photocopy of the original duplicate showing P213.00. The complainant failed to prove by substantial evidence that it was respondent's receipt that was falsified, or that the photocopy of the original duplicate reflected the true amount.
  • The unauthenticated photocopy, absent any proof of due execution and authenticity, is inadmissible and without probative value. While administrative agencies follow liberal procedures, some proof of authenticity is required for documentary evidence.
  • Given the flimsy charge and paucity of evidence, respondent's guilt was not proven by substantial evidence, warranting her exoneration.

• Substantial Evidence — Defined as such relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion; the standard of proof required in administrative disciplinary cases, which was not met in this case due to the reliance on an unauthenticated photocopy.
• Newly Discovered Evidence — Refers to evidence that already exists prior to or during trial but whose existence is not known to the offering litigant, or though known could not have been secured and presented despite reasonable diligence; excludes evidence that was merely forgotten or overlooked.
• Forgotten Evidence — Evidence already in existence or available before or during trial, known to and obtainable by the party offering it, that could have been presented in a seasonable manner but was not due to sheer oversight or forgetfulness; presentation is disallowed to prevent piecemeal presentation of evidence and undue delay.
• Authentication of Documents — While administrative agencies adhere to a liberal view of proceedings, proof of authenticity or reliability is required for the admission of documents; unauthenticated photocopies are inadmissible and lack probative value.
• Validity of Marginal Notations by the Ombudsman — An Ombudsman's disapproval order written as a marginal notation adopting the findings of fact and law of the original decision is valid and satisfies the constitutional requirement that decisions state the facts and law on which they are based, as the notation refers back to the original decision.

• "In administrative cases, a finding of guilt must be supported by substantial evidence."
• "In the present case, an unauthenticated photocopy of an alleged receipt does not constitute substantial evidence to show that respondent is guilty of dishonesty."
• "Absent any authentication, the photocopy is inadmissible in evidence; at the very least, it has no probative value."
• "Newly discovered evidence refers to that which already exists prior to or during a trial, but whose existence is not known to the offering litigant; or, though known, could not have been secured and presented during the trial despite reasonable diligence."
• "Forgotten evidence refers to evidence already in existence or available before or during a trial; known to and obtainable by the party offering it; and could have been presented and offered in a seasonable manner, were it not for the sheer oversight or forgetfulness of the party or the counsel."
• "Presentation of forgotten evidence is disallowed, because it results in a piecemeal presentation of evidence, a procedure that is not in accord with orderly justice and serves only to delay the proceedings."

• Olivarez v. Sandiganbayan — Established that an Ombudsman's disapproval order written as a marginal notation is valid provided it refers to the original decision, adopting its factual and legal conclusions.
• Cruz v. People — First established the doctrine validating marginal notations by the Ombudsman.
• Fabian v. Desierto — Held that appeals from the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases should be taken to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43.
• Eballa v. Paas — Cited by the Court of Appeals regarding the constitutional requirement that decisions state facts and law; distinguished from the present case involving Ombudsman marginal notations.
• Samala v. Court of Appeals — Cited by respondent regarding liberal application of procedural rules; distinguished as rules must still be followed to prevent piecemeal presentation.
• Tumang v. Court of Appeals — Defined newly discovered evidence and distinguished it from forgotten evidence.
• Cansino v. Court of Appeals — Held that presentation of forgotten evidence results in piecemeal presentation not in accord with orderly justice.
• Tapiador v. Office of the Ombudsman — Applied the substantial evidence standard in administrative cases.
• Velasquez v. Hernandez — Defined substantial evidence as relevant evidence acceptable to a reasonable mind.
• PLDT Co. Inc. v. Tiamson — Reiterated the requirement for authentication of documents even in administrative proceedings.

• Rule 45 of the Rules of Court — Governs petitions for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court.
• Rule 43 of the Rules of Court — Governs appeals from quasi-judicial agencies including the Office of the Ombudsman to the Court of Appeals.
• Rule 37, Section 1(b) of the Rules of Court — Defines newly discovered evidence as evidence existing prior to or during trial, unknown or unobtainable despite reasonable diligence.
• Rule 132, Section 20 of the Rules of Court — Governs the authentication of private documents.
• Section 22(a) in relation to Section 9 of Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of the Administrative Code of 1987 — Prescribes the penalty of dismissal for dishonesty.
• Section 8 of Rule III of the Office of the Ombudsman's Rules of Procedure (Administrative Order No. 07) — Allows motions for reconsideration based on newly discovered evidence that would materially affect the order or decision.

• Ynares-Santiago, Austria-Martinez, Callejo, Sr., and Chico-Nazario, JJ. — Joined in the unanimous decision without issuing separate concurring opinions.