CBD No.14-4232 Commissioners Report

7/23/2019 CBD No.14-4232 Commissioners Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/cbd-no14-4232-commissioners-report 1/8

f{nn*,E'*fq,

RePublic

of

the

nrri$1t1es

INTEGRATED

;^-

Oi

TUT

PHILIPPINES

C

ogYtsYfi

S'

o'U

o'n

*lKA

S CJA

L

I

t'lE

Pasig

CitY

ALFREDO

Y.

TO,

ComPlainant,

CBD

CASE

NO.

L4-4237

(ADM

CASE

NO'e7eB)

.VERSUS-

ATTY.

ERNESTO

DAVID

L'

DHLOS

SANTOS'

IlesPondent'

f,

=

= =

=

=

= ===='============='===========-*='=====

= =

=

=f

COMMTSSIONER,S

REPORT

onlsFebruary[ols,theSupremeCourt_officeoftheBarCon{idant

receivec

the

instant cornplaint

ugairrst

herein

Respondent seeking

for

the

investigation

and

disbarment

of

the

Respondent

for

violation

of

R,1e1'01'

Canonl,andRuleT.[s,CanonToftheLawyers,CodeofProfessionatr

RCSPONS'0 'O,,E

COMPLAINANT,S

CAUSE

OF

ACTION

Tlre

Complainant,s

main

allegation

was

that

the

Responclerrt

committed

unlawful,

dishonest

and

deceitful conduct

for

malicior:sly

,,framing

him

up

for

a

crime

he

did

not

commit

causing

him

tremendcus

damage

and

prejudice,

which

acts

show

Respond.ent,s

disregard

of

his

Oath

as

a

LawYer

ComplainantwasaCommissioneroftheProfessionalRegulatiotrs

commission

(PRC)

when

the

alleged

framing-up

transpired'

I{e

wils

charged

for

allegedly

soliciting

and

accepting

the

amount

of

Four

Hundrecl

Thirty

Thousand

Pesos

(PhP

430,000.00)

in

relation

to

a

Corrtract

of

Lease

executed

between

the

PRC

and

the

Responclent'

Consequently'

four

(4)

clifferent

I,formation

were

filed.

against

his

person

for

violation

of

section

3

(b)

of

RA

No.

gllg,section

T

(.1)

of

RA

No'

6713,

Article

210

of

the

Revised

1



penal

Code

and

Arti

cles

293

and,2940f

the

same

code'

all

on

the

basis

of

a

complaint

fired

by

the

NBl-Counter

Terrorism

Division

(NBI-crD)

and

the

Respondent.

The

complaint

was

based

on

the

Respondent's

affidavit

and

the

entrapment

video

which

allegedly

captured'

the

Complainant

accepting

brlbe

money

left

atop

his

desk

by

the

Respondent

himself'

The

complainantwasthereafterd.etainedandsuspendedfromoffice.

The

alleged

bribery

was

rooted

from

the

execution

of

a

contract

of

Lease

between

the

pRC

and

the

Respondent

concerning

a

building

(crLL

Building)

owned

by

the

latter

situated

in

141

Abanao

Extension'

Brgy

j'

Rizal

Monument,

Baguio

City,

leased

by

the

PRC's

Regional

Office'

The

said Contract

was

executed

on\ZNovembet1)lZ'

complainant

alleged

that

he

was

falsely

accused

of

having

a

hand

in

the

negotiations

and

approval

of

the

execution

of

the

said

contract'

He

had

allegedly

threatened

to

intervene

in

the

renewal

of

the

said

Contract

if

the

Respondent

will

not

give

in

to

his

demands

for

monthly

commissions

coming

from

the

monthly

rentals

which

the

Complainant

allegedly

has

the

power

to

hold

the

release

being

a

signatory

to

the

checks

He

had

allegedly

bragged.thathewillbethenextPRCChairpersonandthathestillhaseight

(B)

years

to

serve

once

the

current

Chairrnan

retires'

complainant

claimed

that

he

did

not

intervene

nol.

does

he

has

any

power

to

intervene

in

the

subiect

Contract

as

he

was

not

even

a

member

of

pr{.c_BAC(Bids

and

Awards

committee)

and

that

it

is

highly

inconceivable

that

he

would

extott

or

d.emand

payment/commission

after

the

Contract

of

Lease

was

already

concluded

and

long

implemented

in

July

2012

even

before

it

was signed

in

November

2012'

Lastly,

he

also

asserted

that

the

video

clip

of

the

entrapment

operation

on

5

Decemb

er

2072

proves

his

innocence

instead

of

his

guilt.

He

alleged

that

as

can

be

gleaned

from

the

video,

it

is

obvious

that

he

has

no

knowledge

about

the

renewal

which

theltespondentwastalkingabout.Helikewisehighlightedtheabsenceof

threat

or

intimidation

as

can

be

concluded

from

the

alleged

calm

clemeanor

he

exhibited

during

the

conversation.

He

also

emphasized

that

there

was

no

acceptance

of

the

bribe

money

as

it

was

only

left

atop

his

desk

and

nothing

more

was

done

with

it.

In

fact,

he

was

tested negative for

fluorescent

powcler

which

wele

dusted

on

the

money

bills

placecl

on

his

desk.

,\



Addition

ally,the

Complainant

accused

the

Respondent

of

concocting

facts

stated

in

his

swoln

affidavit-complaint

particularly

par'

8

of

the

Supplemental

Sworn

Affidavit

wherein

the

Respondent

stated

that

the

Complainant

demanded

that

the

money

be

placed

on

his

table'

This'

he

said

does

not

match

with

what

actually transpired

as

can be

derived from

the

entrapment

footage.

Another

Iie,

according

to

the

Complainant''is

that

when

the

Respondent

stated

that

he

promised

that

he

will

surely

attend

to

the

renewal

of

the

Conffact

which

was

also

negated

by

the

video'

The

Complainant

alleged

that

from

the

foregoing'

the

Respondent

violated

Rule

1.01

of

Canon

1

and

Rule

7

'03

of

Canon

7

of

the

Lawyers'

Code

of

Professional

Responsibility'

IntheMandatoryConferenceon:gAugust2014,onllthe

Complainant,

assisted

by

his

counsel,

Attys.

Kristine

R'

Ferrer

and

Julie

Arur

G.

Silva

appeared

hence,

it proceeded

ex-parte'

Thereafter'

the

parties

filed

their

respective

Verified

Position

Papers'

The

Complainant

submitted

the

following

pieces

of

Documentary

Evidence attached to his

Mandatory

conference

Brief:

1.)

Complaint-Affidavit

of

Respondent

dated

3

December

2072;

2.)

Supplemental

Sworn

statement

of

Respondent

dated

5

December

2012;

3.)CopyoftheVideotakenduringtheentrapnrentoperailon

conducted

by

the

NBI

and

the

Respondent

on

5

December

20'L2;

4.)

Lease

Contract

between

the

PRC

and

the

Respondent

dated

12

November

2012;

5.)

PRC

Office

Order

No.

88

dated

8

March2012;

6 )Letter

Request

of

RD

Sison;

7.)

Letter

Reply

of

the

Department

of

Environment

and

Natural

Resources

(DENR);

B.)

Letter

of

RD

Sison

dated

16

April

2012;

9.)

Cost-Benefit

Analysis

of

RD

Sison;

10.)

Letter

of

Intent

of

Chairperson

Mananzala;

11.)

Results

of

Flourescent

Powder

Test

of

the Complainant;

12.)

Travel

Order

No.

2012-353

datedzT

JuIy

2012;

13.)

PRC

Office

Order

No.

2012098;

k,

\

\



14.)

warrant

of

Arrest

against

the

Respondent

for

Qualified

Theft

issued,

7

Decemb

er

2012'

THE

RESPONDENT'S

DEFENSE

Atty.

Delos

Santos,

in

his

defense,

presented

a

transcript

of

the

conversation

captured

in

the

entrapment

video

which'

according

to

him'

will

readily

reveal

the

Complainant's

demeanor

wherein

the

latter

acteel

normally,

as

ordinary

and

customary

without

any

trace

of

surprise

or

astonishment

when

he

placed

the

pile

of

money

o11

top

of

the

Complainant's table

and

within

his

unobstructed

view'

This'

he

claimecf

is

a

foolproof

evidence

of

the

complainant's

knowledge

from

the

beginling

that

he

was

to

receive

money

from

him'

A

normal

person

reacting

under

normal

circumstances,

especially

a

government

official'

would

have

had

reacted

or

inquired

when

a

pile

of

money

is

suddenly

placed

on

top

of

his

table.

This,

the

Complainant

notably

did

not

do'

Instead'

their

conversation

wentonnormallyandinf.act,whenhewasabouttoleavethe

Complainant,s

office,

the

latter

even

uttered

,,

thank

you

pare,,

Respondent

alieged

as

weli

that

in

anoiher

occasion

w-hich

lvas

also

capturecl

on

video,

he

was

forced

to

leave

another

bribe

money

amounting

to

Forty

Two

Thousand

Eight

Hundred

Pesos

(PhP

42'800'00)

to

the

Complainant's

staff

Gloria

Asinas'

on

4

Decembet

2012'

Moreover,

the

Respondent

countered

Complainant,s

claim

that

he

had

no

hand

in

the

approval

of

the

Contract

of

Lease

neither

did

he

had

anypowertostopit.Thisclaim,pertheRespondent,wascontravenedby

theComplainant,sownstatementsinhisCounter-Affidavitsubmitted

before

the

office

of

the

ombudsman

wherein

he

admitted

to

have

had

visited

the

CTLL

Building

in

his

capacity

as

Commissioner-in-Charge

of

Physicai

In-frasl,ructure

and

Development

of

the

PRC'

a

position

which

inevitably

empowered

him

to

intervene

in

the

approval

of

the

subject

contract.

Respondent

also

clarified

that

it

is

not

the

execution

of

the

Contract

which

was

used

as

a

leve

rageagainst

him

by

the

Cornplainant

but

the

validity

thereof

and

the

release

of

the

monthly

rentals

highlighting

the

factthattheComplainantisasignatorytothechecks.



Lastly,theRespondentdefendedhimselfagainstthealleged

fabricated

statements

and

a[egations

he

hurled

against

the

Complainant

in

violation

of

his

Lawyer,s

oath.

He

emphasrzed

that

his

allegations

were

not

fabricatecl

as

ploven

by

the

decision

of

the

Office

of

the

Ombudsman

dated

16

Muy

2013

which

found

substantial evidence against

the

Complainant

for

Grave

Misconduct

ancl

violation

of

section

7

(cl)of

RA

No

6713ordering

his

removal

from

office.

He

craimed

that

this

complaint

for

disbarment

is

obviously

an

act

of

revenge

by

the

Complainant

against

his

person.

The

Respondent,

thru

Atty.

Judith

Z.

Luis,

attached

the

,follclwing

DocumentaryEvidencetohisVerifiedPositionPaper:

1.)

Contract

of

Lease

between

him

and

the

PRC

dated

12

|Jovernber

2012;

2 )

PRC

Disbursement

voucher

for

the

2-months

security

Deposit

amounting

to

PhP

785'500'00;

3.)

PRC

Disbursement

voucher

for

the

2-moths

monthly

rentals

(octoberandNovemberzolz)amountingtoPhP785,600.00;

4.)ACopyofthepapershowingtheComplainant,sconrputationas

well

as

notations

in

the

Ccmplainant,S

clvn

hanrlr,r,ritirrg;

5.)

Request

for

cancellation

of

ururegotiated

Manager,s

C,lrecks;

6.)

CD

containing

the

video

of

the

supposecl

planned

entrapment

on

4

I)ecembet

2012;

7.)CDcontainingthevideooftheentrapmentonSDecember2]012;

8.)

Ombudsman

Decision

dated

16

May

20\3;

9.)

Letter

by

the

Respondent

to

DO]

Sec.

Leila

De

Lima

dated

L0

A to

T';

10.)

The

complainant's

Counter-Affidavit

submitted

before

the

Office

of

the

Ombudsman

dated

B

April

2013;

11.)

The

Respondent's

Complaint-Afficlavit

dated

3

December

marked

as

Exh.

,,QQ,,

at

the

1't

Div.

of

the

Sandiganbir.yan;

2012

12.)

Check

duplicate

for

the

2-months

rental

paid

to

the

l(espondent

showingthattheComplainantwasasignatorytothecheck.

=\tr

,\t

\



ISSUE

The

sole

issue

is

whether

or

not

the

Respondent

is

guilty

of

violating

Rule

1.01

canon

1

and

Rul

e

7.03,Canon

7

ol

the

tawyers'

Professional

Code

of

ResPonsibilitY

FINDINGS

AND

RECOMMENDATION

This

Commission

finds

in

the

negative'

Rule

1,.01.,

Canon

1

Provides:

,,A

laruyer

shnll

not

engage

in

unlazuful,

dishonest,

innnornl

or

deceitful

conduct'

While

Rule

7.09,

Canon

7

Provides:

A

Laroyer

shall

not

engage

in

conduct

that

adaersely

reflects

on

lis

fitness

to

prnctice

law,

noi

shall

he,

whether

in public

or priuate

life,

behaue

in

scandalous

mmner

to

the

disuedit

of

the legal

profession'

stripped

to

the

core,

the

complainant's

main

allegation

is

that

the

Respondent

had

framed

him

up

to

make

it

appear

that

he

had

forced

him

to

give

him

bribe

money

and

that

the

Respondent

had

deliberately

made

false

statements

under

oath

in

his

complaint-affidavits

in

order

to

support

the

charge

of

bribery

against

him.

This

Commission

is

not

persuaded'

After

a painstaking

evaluation

of

the

voluminous

pieces

of

evidence

submitted

by

both

the

Complainant

and

the

Respondent,

this

commission

finds

no

basis

for

the

instant

complaint'

The

videos

submitted

by

both

parties

speak

for

itself'

Tire

applicatiotr

of

the

principle

of

Res

ipsa

loquitur

is

apt'

The

videos

are

clear

enough

evidence

showing

whom

between

the

parties

had

indeed

committed

an

unlawful

and dishonest

conduct'

\,r

r

Y.

,\.



Lastly

but

more

import

antly,this

Commission

takes

judicial

notice

of

the

decision

rendered

by

the

office

of

the

ombudsmad

in

the

administrative

case

against

herein

Complainant

finding

him

GUILTY

of

Grave

Misconduct

and

violating

section

7

(d)

of

RA

No'

6713

and

ordered

DlsMlssEDfrompublicservice Withoutdelvingintomoredetails,this

decision

bolsters

the

need

tn

absolve

herein

Respondent

frorrr

the

instant

charges.

WHEREFORE,

in

,riew

of

the

furegoin8,

ii

is

herei:y

recomnlenrlect

that

instant

complaint

be

DISMISSED

for

want

of

any

factual

or

legal

basis'

Respectfully submitted this

11

May

2015'

MARIA

Commissioner

'

oMB-4-12-0453

(NBl-cTD

vs

Alfredo

Yap-Po),

16

May

2013'



-

tl

i-i

14

-ffr^,t

'-

L;

i

t/'t {^l}

t,

ALFREDO

Y. PO,

ATTY.

ERNESTO

DAVID

L.

DELOS

SANTOS,

NOTICE

OF

RESOLUTION

Sir/Madam:

Please

take

notice

that

on

june

2l),2015

a

resoiution

was

passed

by

the

Board

of

Governors

of

the

Integrated

Bar of

the

Philippines

in

the

abcive-

entitled

case

the

origlnal

of

which

is now on

file

in this

office,

quote:

RESOLUTION

NO.

XXI-20T5-573

CBD

Case

No.14-4232

(Ad-.

Case

No.

9798)

Alfredo

Y.

Po

vs.

Atty.

Ernesto

David

L.

Delos

Santos

RESOLVE,D

to

ADOPT

antl

APPRO',E,

AS

iT

iS

hereblt

ADOPTED

and

APPROT/ED,

the

Report

and

Recommendation

of the

Inue;tigating

Commissioner

in

tlte

aboue-entitled

case,

herein

made

part

oJ

this

Reso/1ttion

as

Annex

'A ,

And

Jinding

the

recomruendation

n

be

jwlE

supported

fu

the

eaidence

on

record

and

applicable

laws,

the

case

is

berebl

DISMISSED.

ffft*z-L,ra*<, *'

NASSER

A.

MAROHOMSALIC

National

Secretarft/*

-ovef-

INTEGRATED

BAR

OF

THE

PHILIPPINES

BOARD

OF

GOVERNORS

PASIG

CITY

Complainant,

-vefsus-

CBD

CASE

NO.

14.4232

(ADM.

CASE,

NO.

9798)

x-

Documents

CBD No.14-4232 Commissioners Report