Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=45954:am-p-91-621&amp;catid=1459&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 15:10:34+00:00

Document:
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. VIRGILIO G. CAÃ‘ETE, Stenographic Reporter, Branch 24, Regional Trial Court, Ipil, Zamboanga del Sur, Respondent.
WHEREFORE, accused Virgilio G. CaÃ±ete is hereby ACQUITTED of the crime of Qualified Theft defined and penalized under Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code. The cash bond filed by the accused for his temporary liberty is hereby ordered cancelled.
It appears however, that Judge Villegas was not able to comply with the foregoing order.
In other words, where the crime committed is not essentially connected with the performance of the official duties, the officer may not be proceeded administratively based thereon until after a final judgment of conviction shall have been rendered by the court of justice.
WHEREFORE, accused Virgilio C. CaÃ±ete is hereby ACQUITTED of the crime of Qualified Theft defined and penalized under Article 310 of the Revised Personal Code. The cash bond filed by the accused for his temporary liberty is hereby ordered cancelled.
In view of this development, the undersigned so holds that there being a finding of a court of justice, acquitting and upholding the presumption of innocence of respondent/accused Virgilio G. CaÃ±ete, after a long, extensive and exhaustive adversarial proceedings, the respondent must likewise be exonerated in the present Administrative Case filed against him.
The Court finds that the administrative charge against respondent should be dismissed.
In this case, the charge is premised on the alleged unlawful taking of the 9mm. Colt Commander pistol, which was part of the evidence in Criminal Case No. 2221. The question therefore is whether or not there is substantial evidence to support the conclusion that respondent took the firearm.
The Court, after going over the evidence on record, fails to find any direct, much less substantial, evidence of respondent's culpability for the loss of the firearm. Records reveal that suspicion fell on respondent as the culprit because of the affidavits executed by the former co-workers of respondent in the MCTC. Their affidavits described several incidents and utterances made by respondent, such as: that respondent was seen on August 22, 1990, with a gun tucked in his waist;27 that on the morning of August 25, 1990, respondent was seen with a "bulging" brown envelope tucked under his armpit, with the handle of the gun protruding on a torn part of the envelope;28 that only COC Carriedo and respondent has access to the locker where the gun was kept;29 that in the early part of August 1990, respondent was overheard talking to a soldier about the particular firearm;30 respondent asked for his co-workers' help in the recovery of the firearm.31 These, however, do not constitute substantial evidence that a reasonable mind would accept as sufficient to conclude that respondent took the firearm.
The circumstances proven by these affidavits do not completely rule out the possibility that other than respondent, another person could have taken the gun. As stated by COC Carriedo, aside from respondent, the other court employees also report for work on Saturdays; sometimes, her co-workers would get from her the key to the main office door and the judge's chambers; MTC Aide Vicente Bernardo also kept a set of keys to the main office door and the judge's chambers.32 Thus, the possibility that another person having access to the locker could have gotten the firearm could not be discounted.
As for the testimonies of the other prosecution witnesses, Thelma Ridad and Jose P. Mariveles, who allegedly saw accused CaÃ±ete possessing, holding and carrying away the 9 mm pistol, the court finds the same to be of little value. Witness Thelma Ridad testified that on August 22, 1990 she saw accused CaÃ±ete enter the Municipal Building with a gun tucked in his waist and that several employees from the Municipal Treasurer's Office, CDIO and Assessor's Office gathered around him as he pulled out the gun from his waist and showed it to them. The witness was able to clearly and distinctively describe the 9mm pistol as she described its length, size and color in detail. It must be noted, however, that in her affidavit dated November 5, 1990, which by the way is not signed, she did not describe the gun, she simply stated that she took a mental note of the description of the gun. The court finds it surprising, therefore, for the witness not to be able to describe the gun in her affidavit executed in 1990 and yet to clearly and distinctly describe the same gun in detail in her testimony before the court some three (3) years (1993) after her affidavit. It gives the court the impression that the testimony was prepared or even fabricated, as, in fact, the witness admitted that she conferred with Carriedo, the other prosecution witness, before she gave her testimony. More so, it would be so ridiculous for someone who had just stolen the pistol to brandish and exhibit it to so many people. It would have been very foolish for the accused to have displayed the said pistol.
The Court finds the same observations of the Sandiganbayan applicable in the present case. Also, respondent's actuations and utterances after the discovery of the loss cannot be construed as on indicia of his guilt. According to the employees, respondent appeared to be distressed over the loss and even offered to replace the firearm.34 It must be noted, however, that respondent did not categorically admit to his co-workers that he took the firearm. At best, what respondent exhibited was a sense of guilt because he also had access to the cabinet and it is not far-fetched that he will be blamed for the loss.
If anybody is to be held responsible for the loss of the firearm, it should have been the clerk of court, as it is her duty to safely keep all records, papers, files, exhibits and public property committed to her charge.35 In fact, in the Court's Resolution in Adm. Matter No. MTJ-96-1111 (Formerly OCA-IPI No. 96-155-MTJ),36 COC Carriedo has already been suspended from office for one month for her infidelity in the custody of court exhibits. In said case, Judge Rabosa was able to take possession and register in his name a .45 caliber pistol, which was part of the exhibits in a criminal case then pending before his sala.
Hence, there being a dearth of substantial evidence in this case, the administrative complaint against respondent should be dismissed.
WHEREFORE, the administrative complaint against respondent Virgilio CaÃ±ete is DISMISSED for insufficiency of evidence.
Branch Clerk of Court Fely C. Carriedo of the First Municipal Trial Court of Ipil, Zamboanga del Sur, is hereby ORDERED to show cause within ten (10) days from notice hereof why she should not be disciplinarily dealt with for the loss of the Colt Commander 9 mm. Let this particular matter be docketed as another administrative matter and assigned to a justice of the Court by raffle.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., Azcuna, Chico-Nazario, and Garcia, JJ., concur.
4 Id., First Indorsement dated November 9, 1990, p. 49.
5 Id., Second Indorsement dated November 14, 1990, p. 48.
13 Id., pp. 21 and 23.
18 Id., pp. 222-223, Sandiganbayan Decision dated September 15, 2000, in Criminal Case No. 18763, entitled People of the Philippines v. Virgilio G. CaÃ±ete.
21 Executive Judge Franklyn A. Villegas was dismissed from the service per Supreme Court Decision in A.M. No. RTJ-03-1812 dated November 19, 2003.
24 Mollaneda v. Umacob, G.R. No. 140128, June 6, 2001, 358 SCRA 537, 551.
25 Padua v. Paz, A.M. No. P-00-1445, April 30, 2003, 402 SCRA 21, 30.
26 Litonjua v. Enriquez, A.M. No. CAJ-04-41, September 22, 2004.
29 Id., pp. 21 and 23.
34 Id., pp. 121-122, 125, 128 and 131.
35 Section 7, Rule 136 of the Rules of Court; Section A, Chapter II of the Manual for Clerks of Court.
36 CaÃ±ete v. Rabosa, September 5, 1997.

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