Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=49843:gr-169534-2007&amp;catid=1494&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 14:52:53+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 169534 - Brigido B. Paredes v. The Hon Court of Appeals, et al.
BRIGIDO B. PAREDES, Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, and BERNARDINO TELOREN, Respondents.
For resolution is a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court filed by petitioner Brigido B. Paredes, seeking the reversal of the Decision1 dated 15 October 2004 and Resolution2 dated 20 July 2005 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 71928, which dismissed the Petition for Certiorari filed by petitioner and denied reconsideration thereon. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Orders dated 10 April 20023 and 11 June 20024 in Criminal Cases Nos. 99-525 to 99-531 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 52 of Talibon, Bohol, denying petitioner's Motion to Dismiss.
Petitioner is the Municipal Treasurer of Ubay, Bohol. Private respondent Bernardino Teloren is a businessman engaged in the business of selling construction materials under the trade name Lava Marketing and Construction Supply. He regularly transacted business with the Municipality of Ubay, Bohol.
The checks appeared to have been encashed by private respondent as borne by his signatures appearing at the back thereof. However, private respondent refuted the genuineness of his signatures, disclaimed his encashment of the checks, and alleged that the Municipality of Ubay has yet to pay him. Instead, he averred that his signatures on the checks were forged by petitioner who as Municipal Treasurer had custody of the same.
Hence, on 21 August 1997, a criminal as well as an administrative complaint6 was filed against petitioner before the Office of the Ombudsman (Visayas), docketed as OMB-VIS-CRIM-97-0697 and OMB-VIS-ADM-97-0536, respectively. It was alleged that the checks which were issued to private respondent as payment by the Municipality of Ubay were never received by him. Rather, they were encashed by petitioner through falsification, to the former's damage and detriment.
In his Answer,7 petitioner denied the allegations, and by way of an affirmative defense, alleged that the subject checks were already in the hands of private respondent as shown by the disbursement vouchers which covered the issuances of the checks. According to petitioner, such documents bear private respondent's signatures evincing his acknowledgment and acceptance of the payments corresponding to each of the subject checks.
Subsequently, the Office of the Ombudsman (Visayas) through Graft Investigation Officer I Alvin Butch E. CaÃ±ares filed seven separate informations9 for Estafa through Falsification of a Commercial Document (under Article 31510 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Article 17111 of the same Code) against petitioner with the RTC, where they were docketed as Crim. Cases Nos. 99-525 to 99-531.
Hence, petitioner filed before the Court of Appeals a Petition for Review, under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, to assail the Ombudsman's ruling in OMB-VIS-ADM-97-0536. This was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 59124.
Subsequently, on 5 November 2001, petitioner filed with the RTC a Motion to Dismiss22 Criminal Cases Nos. 99-525 to 99-531. He grounded his Motion on the dismissal by the Court of Appeals of OMB-VIS-ADM-97-0536, the administrative case filed against him. He averred that if private respondent failed to adduce substantial evidence to hold him administratively liable, with greater reason will private respondent and the prosecution fail to prove beyond reasonable doubt his guilt in the criminal cases. Under the circumstances, petitioner claimed that the prosecution cannot therefore approximate the quantum of evidence needed to convict him in Criminal Cases Nos. 99-525 to 99-531.
The Ombudsman Prosecutor, invoking the Supreme Court rulings in Tan v. Comelec, 237 SCRA 353 and in Paredes, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, 252 SCRA 641, argued that the investigation then being conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman (Visayas) on the criminal case for Malversation thru Falsification of Public Documents, on the one hand, and its administrative adjudication [of] the administrative charge for Dishonesty were entirely independent proceedings; the results in one could not conclude the other and therefore the dismissal of the administrative case does not necessarily foreclose the matter of possible liability, if warranted, of the accused in the criminal case.
Petitioner thereafter sought recourse before the Court of Appeals via a Petition for Certiorari, under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 71928, to annul the 10 April 2002 and the 11 June 2002 Orders of the RTC in Criminal Cases Nos. 99-525 to 99-531.
Petitioner moved for the reconsideration of the Decision, but it was denied for lack of merit by the appellate court in a Resolution dated 20 July 2005.
Hence, the present Petition where petitioner imputes grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Court of Appeals in issuing the questioned Decision of 15 October 2004 and the Resolution of 20 July 2005 in CA-G.R. SP No. 71928.
Petitioner rehashes before this Court the argument that he buttressed before the court a quo and the appellate court.
The kernel of his contention is that the continuation of the criminal proceedings against him in Criminal Cases Nos. 99-525 to 99-531 is an exercise in futility; hence, these cases must be dismissed. He argues that as his liability in the administrative case against him was not established by substantial evidence, so will his criminal case necessarily fall, demanding as it does, a heavier quantum of proof, i.e., proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Clearly, the instant Petition must fail.
Verily, the fact that the required quantum of proof33 was not adduced to hold petitioner administratively liable for falsification, forgery, malversation, grave dishonesty, and conduct unbecoming of a public officer in OMB-VIS-ADM-97-0536 does not ipso facto mean that Criminal Cases Nos. 99-525 to 99-531 filed against petitioner for Estafa through Falsification of a Commercial Document before the RTC should be dismissed. The failure to adduce substantial evidence against petitioner in the former is not a ground for the dismissal of the latter. These two cases are separate and distinct; hence, independent from each other.
Sec. 2. Proof beyond reasonable doubt. - In a criminal case, the accused is entitled to an acquittal, unless his guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of proof as, excluding possibility of error, produces absolute certainty. Moral certainty only is required, or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind.
Thus, considering the difference in the quantum of evidence, as well as the procedure followed and the sanctions imposed in criminal and administrative proceedings, the findings and conclusions in one should not necessarily be binding on the other.36 Notably, the evidence presented in the administrative case may not necessarily be the same evidence to be presented in the criminal cases. The prosecution is certainly not precluded from adducing additional evidence to discharge the burden of proof required in the criminal cases. Significantly, the prosecution had manifested that it would present testimonial evidence which was not presented in the administrative case.
As it is, the dismissal of the administrative case against petitioner cannot be implored as basis for the dismissal of the criminal complaints filed against him.
As we have held in Tan v. Comelec, the dismissal of an administrative case does not necessarily bar the filing of a criminal prosecution for the same or similar acts which were the subject of the administrative complaint.
2. By service of the sentence.
3. By amnesty, which completely extinguishes the penalty and all its effects.
5. By prescription of the crime.
6. By prescription of the penalty.
7. By the marriage of the offended woman, as provided in article 344 of this Code.
Evidently, the right of the prosecution to present evidence as it finds necessary and relevant to prove petitioner's guilt beyond reasonable doubt in Criminal Cases Nos. 99-525 to 99-531 must be respected. The aforesaid cases must be allowed to proceed notwithstanding the dismissal of the administrative case filed against the petitioner in OMB-VIS-ADM-97-0536.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The Regional Trial Court, Branch 52 of Talibon, Bohol, is ORDERED to proceed with dispatch in resolving Criminal Cases Nos. 99-525 to 99-531. Costs against petitioner.
* No part. Associate Justice Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura was Solicitor General when respondent People of the Philippines filed its Manifestation and Motion to Adopt Comment as Memorandum before this Court.
1 Penned by former Associate Justice Elvi John S. Asuncion with Associate Justices Isaias P. Dican and Ramon M. Bato, Jr., concurring; rollo, pp. 207-211.
2 Penned by Associate Justice Ramon M. Bato, Jr. with Associate Justices Isaias P. Dican and Vicente L. Yap, concurring; id. at 226.
3 Penned by Presiding Judge Irma Zita V. Masamayor; id. at 143-144.
8 Rollo, pp. 62-65; penned by Graft Investigation Officer I Alvin Butch E. CaÃ±ares with the recommending approval of Graft Investigation Officer III Virginia Palanca-Santiago and Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas Arturo C. Mojica.
10 Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code punishes the act of swindling or estafa.
8. Intercalating any instrument or note relative to the issuance thereof in a protocol, registry, or official book.
The same penalty shall be imposed upon any ecclesiastical minister who shall commit any of the offenses enumerated in the preceding paragraphs of this article, with respect to any record or document of such character that its falsification may affect the civil status of persons.
15 Penned by Associate Justice Rodrigo V. Cosico with Associate Justices Eubolo G. Verzola and Eliezer R. delos Santos, concurring; id. at 71-77.
21 Id. at 106; 298.
29 People v. Judge Toledano, 387 Phil. 957, 964 (2000).
30 Tan v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 112093, 4 October 1994, 237 SCRA 353, 359, citing Office of the Court Administrator v. Enriquez, A.M. No. P-89-290, 29 January 1993, 218 SCRA 1, 10.
31 Paredes, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, 322 Phil. 709, 730 (1996).
Administrative cases are, as a rule, independent from criminal proceedings. The dismissal of a criminal case on the ground of insufficiency of evidence or the acquittal of an accused who is also a respondent in an administrative case does not necessarily foreclose the administrative proceeding nor carry with it relief from administrative liability. This is because unlike in criminal cases which require proof beyond reasonable doubt, the quantum of proof required in administrative proceedings is substantial evidence, defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.
34 Carlos v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 105293, 7 December 1993, 228 SCRA 262, 266.
35 Lumiqued v. Exevea, 346 Phil. 807, 829 (1997); Office of the Court Administrator v. Sumilang, 338 Phil. 28, 38 (1997); Mariano v. Roxas, 434 Phil. 742, 749 (2002).
36 De la Cruz v. Department of Education, Culture and Sports-Cordillera Administrative Region, 464 Phil. 1033, 1050 (2004), citing Ocampo v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 114683, 18 January 2000, 322 SCRA 17, 22.
37 Paredes, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, supra note 31.
39 Falsification by public officer, employee, notary or ecclesiastic minister.
In Larin v. Executive Secretary [G.R. NO. 112745, 16 October 1997, 280 SCRA 713, 728], we held that where the very basis of the administrative case against petitioner is his conviction in the criminal action which was later on set aside by this Court upon a clear and categorical finding that the acts for which he was administratively held liable are not unlawful and irregular, the acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case necessarily entails the dismissal of the administrative action against him, because in such a case, there is no more basis nor justifiable reason to maintain the administrative suit.
43 Hipolito v. Mergas, A.M. No. P-90-412, 11 March 1991, 195 SCRA 6, 10; Office of the Court Administrator v. Anquilo, Jr., Adm. Matter No. P-92-701, 8 November 1993, 227 SCRA 492, 495.
44 De la Cruz v. Department of Education, Culture and Sports-Cordillera Administrative Region, Supra note 36 at 1049.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.