8/18/2019 Samalio v. CA
1/3
G.R. No. 140079. March 31, 2005
AUGUSTO R. SAMALIO, petitioer, !". #OURT O$ A%%&ALS,
#I'ILS&R'I#& #OMMISSION, (&%ARTM&NT O$ )USTI#&
a* +UR&AU O$IMMIGRATION, re"po*et".
$act": Petitioner Augusto R. Samalio was formerly an
Intelligence Ocer ofthe Bureau of Immigration and Deportation. On
!e"ruary #$$%& 's. (engSai )in arri*ed at the +AIA from Saipan.
(hile waiting for her turn at thearri*al immigration counter&
her passport was e,amined "y an ImmigrationOcer. +oting that 's.
(eng& a -hinese& was holding a ruguayan passport&the
immigration ocer suspected that the former/s passport was fa0e.
's.(eng was ta0en out of the 1ueue and "rought to Petitioner
Samalio who wasthe duty intelligence ocer. (hile inside his
oce& 's. (eng as0ed that herpassport "e returned. Sensing a
demand for money in e,change for herpassport& 's. (eng 2ashed
3455.55 in front of Samalio& which was ta0en "ythe Samalio.
Shortly& her passport was returned and she was allowed to
lea*e. (hen 's. (eng chec0ed her passport and later disco*ered
that it didnot "ear an immigration arri*al stamp. 6hereafter&
's. (eng complainedagainst Samalio.
6hen BID -ommissioner commenced an administrati*e case
againstpetitioner Samalio for 7iolation of -S'- +o. 89& Rule
& Section #& fordishonesty& oppression&
misconduct& disgraceful and immoral conduct&ineciency and
incompetence in the performance of ocial duties& *iolationof
reasona"le oce rules and regulations and conduct preudicial to the
"estinterest of the ser*ice. Samalio was pre*enti*ely suspended for
a period ofninety ;$5< days as the charge sheet against him
in*ol*es dishonesty&
oppression and misconduct. In the meantime& during the
pendency of theinstant administrati*e case& Samalio was
con*icted "y the Sandigan"ayan ofthe crime of Ro""ery& as
de=ned in Articles $% and $8& paragraph 4 of theRe*ised Penal
-ode. Samalio did not appeal the con*iction and insteadapplied for
and was granted pro"ation "y the Sandigan"ayan for two ;<years
in an Order dated Decem"er #& #$$8.
Petitioner claims he was not accorded due process and that the
-A failed
to consider the proper e>ects of his discharge under
pro"ation. In support of
his contention that he was depri*ed of due process&
petitioner alleges that no
witness or e*idence was presented against him& that the -A
erred in theinterpretation of Section 8?& Rule #%5 of the Rules
of -ourt and that there
was no hearing conducted on his case.
I""e: (hether or not Petitioner Samalio was not accorded due
process.
R-i: Petitioner/s contention is without merit.
8/18/2019 Samalio v. CA
2/3
6he -S-& as well as the Secretary of @ustice& too0
cogniance of the
testimony of (eng Sai )in in the Sandigan"ayan -riminal -ase
against
Samalio& and the fact of petitioners con*iction in that
case. 6hus& there was
ample e*idence which satis=ed the "urden of proof re1uired
in
administrati*e proceedings su"stantial e*idence or that 1uantum
of rele*ant
e*idence which a reasona"le mind might accept as ade1uate to
ustify a
conclusion to support the decision of the -S-. 6he -S- and the
Secretary
of @ustice did not err in applying Section 8?& Rule #%5 of
the Re*ised Rules of
-ourt& otherwise 0nown as the rule on former testimony&
in deciding
petitioner/s administrati*e case. 6he pro*isions of the Rules of
-ourt may "e
applied suppletorily to the rules of procedure of administrati*e
"odies
e,ercising 1uasiCudicial powers& unless otherwise pro*ided
"y law or the
rules of procedure of the administrati*e agency concerned.
!or Section 8?& Rule #%5 to apply& the following
re1uisites must "esatis=ed: ;a< the witness is dead or una"le to
testify ;"< his testimony or
deposition was gi*en in a former case or proceeding& udicial
or
administrati*e& "etween the same parties or those
representing the same
interests ;c< the former case in*ol*ed the same su"ect as
that in the
present case& although on di>erent causes of action
;d< the issue testi=ed to
"y the witness in the former trial is the same issue in*ol*ed in
the present
case and ;e< the ad*erse party had an opportunity to
crossCe,amine the
witness in the former case.
In this case& (eng Sai )in was una"le to testify in the
administrati*eproceedings "efore the BID "ecause she left the
country on !e"ruary 9&
#$$%& or e*en "efore the administrati*e complaint against
petitioner was
instituted.
Eence& the issue testi=ed to "y (eng Sai )in in the
Sandigan"ayan
-riminal -ase was the same issue in the administrati*e case&
that is& whether
petitioner e,torted money from (eng Sai )in. Petitioner also had
the
opportunity to face and crossCe,amine his accuser& (eng Sai
)in& and to
defend and *indicate his cause "efore the Sandigan"ayan.
-learly& all the
re1uisites for the proper application of the rule on former
testimony& as
em"odied in Section 8?& Rule #%5& were satis=ed.
6hus& the -S- and the
Secretary of @ustice committed no error when they applied it and
too0
cogniance of the former testimony of (eng Sai )in in
Sandigan"ayan
-riminal -ase +o. #F9?$ where petitioner was con*icted.
