Republic of the Philippines

Department of Justice
PAROLE AND PROBATION
ADMINISTRATION
DOJ Agencies Bldg., NIA Road, Diliman,
Quezon City

PAROLE AND PROBATION

ADMINISTRATION
(Danilo M. Capili),
Complainant,
ADM CASE NO. P-117
For: Serious Dishonesty and
Conduct Prejudicial to the
Best Interest of the Service

-versusJOSE D. SUMANGIL,
Supervising Probation
And Parole Officer
Respondent,

DECISION
The constitution mandates that public office is a public trust. Public
officers are enjoined to be at all times accountable to the people, serve them
with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, and act with
patriotism and justice. (Section 1, Article XI, 1987 Constitution as quoted in
several cases such as Civil Service Commission vs. Cortez, G.R. No. 155732,
June 3, 2004 and Villar vs. Angeles, AM. No. P-062276, February 5, 2006)
Antecedents Facts and Statement of the Case
The Complainant, Danilo M. Capili, is the Chief Psychologist at the
Parole and Probation Administration Central Office while Respondent, Jose D.
Sumangil holds the position of Supervising Probation and Parole Officer at
San Jose City Parole and Probation Office.
On January 9, 2014, respondent visited the Complainant at the Parole
and Probation Administration Central Office Clinical Division to verify if he is
included in the list scheduled to take the psychological examination on
January 14, 2014. The Complainant answered in the positive after which
Respondent asked for the formers cell phone number. Thereafter,
Respondent proceeded to invite complainant to have lunch but the latter
declined and Respondent eventually left the building. Complainant then sent
a text message to Director Edita K. Buemio and told her of Respondents visit
and purpose.
In the evening of January 9, 2014, Complainant received a text
message form Respondent asking for help to pass the test. Respondent sent
other text messages suggesting the same intent but Complainant refused to
heed his request.
Complainant sent a message to Director Buemio and
Ms. Judea Asuncion informing them of Respondents message however they
did not reply.
On February 17, 2014, Complainant executed a Complaint-Affidavit and
filed the same with the Legal Division on February 21, 2014. In his

Complaint-Affidavit, Complainant imputes against Respondent the

administrative offense of Grave Misconduct through Attempted Corruption of
Public Official and Serious Dishonesty and attached as annexes print outs of
screen shot images of his conversation with respondent, to quote:

Mr. Capili: Good morning po madam. Nagpunta po ditto si Mr.

Sumangil at nagtatanong kung kasama daw po siya sa mageexam sa January 14. Sinabi ko po na kasama siya, marked as
Annex A;

Director Buemio:
Oo kasama cia. Tnx 4 ur assistance. Bkit
d p cia d2 naginquire. Gawa p nmin listing ng lahat mag exam.
Bukas fax n Rachel s u. Tnx., marked as Annex B;

Mr. Sumangil: Sir Danny gud pm po, inuulit ko po ang

pkiusap, pkitulungan mnlng ako n pumasa s psycho exam s tues.
Magre2tire npo ako within 2 yrs. Gus2 ko nlng po 2maas ng konti
ung maggng pension ko, wla po
mka2alam kung kunin man
nyo ung 20k bilang pasa2lamat ko s pagtulong nyo s akin, wla
pong kondisyong iba un kundi pumasa lng ako, ta2nawin ko po
utang n loob, atin2 lng po 2, tnx po!, marked as Annex C;

Mr. Capili: Una sa lahat ay bawal ang gagawin ninyong iyan.

Hindi po ako kailanman tumanggap ng suhol mula sa kahit
sinoman. Kaya pakiusap
ko lang po na tigilan ninyo ang
pagpapadala ng text na ganito. Huwag rin po kayong
magtatangkang pumunta ditto sa bahay at baka mapahiya lang
po
kayo. Salamat po., marked as Annex D;

Mr. Sumangil: Gud morning Sir Danny, pcensya npo kung

naoffend kau s nsbi ko cgro pod hl s kgustuhan ko nlang n
mptaas ng konti ung retirement ko, pkitulungan nyo nlng po ako
n mkpasa s exam at tatanawin ko poi sang mlking utang n loob
hbang pnhon, sorry po ulit at marami pong slamat!, marked as
Annex E;

Mr. Sumangil: Gud pm Sir Danny inuulit ko ung paghingi ng

dispensa s nsbi nun, at tatanawin ko pong 1 mlaking utang n
loob po s inyo tulungan lng po nyo ako n mkapsa s exam n 2,
handa po ako tumulong s knino man n gus2 nyong matulungan
financial man ibang bagay s darating n pnahon. Magpasbi lng po
kau o txt nyo lng ako, slamat po ulit Sir Danny at Godbless po!,
marked as Annex F.

Acting on said Complaint-Affidavit, Hon. Manuel G. Co, Administrator,

issued a Memorandum dated February 21, 2014 requiring Respondent to
answer the Complaint-Affidavit within ten (10) days from receipt thereof.

On March 13, 2014, Respondent filed his Counter-Affidavit dated March

10, 2014. In his Counter-Affidavit, he admitted some of the facts alleged in
the Complaint-Affidavit, to quote:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
2. As alleged by Mr. Danilo Capili in his complaint-affidavit, I visited him
at the former Clinical Division on January 9, 2014 to verify if I was included in
the list of those who will take the psychological examination on January 14,
2014;
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
4. As a gesture of goodwill and gratitude which I always used to be, I
also asked Capili to join me for a lunch and nothing more, but he said he was
busy then so I left their office gracefully thereafter;
Respondent, however, while admitting ownership over the subject sim
card number used in texting the Complainant, specifically denied the
allegation that he was the one who sent the subject text messages to
Complainant.
On March 18, 2014, Hon. Manuel G. Co, Administrator, issued Special
Order No. 106, S. 2014 directing Arnulfo B. Quilang and Ronald R. Merrera,
Senior Probation and Parole Officer and Attorney II, respectively, to conduct a
fact-finding investigation in Tarlac City regarding the matter.
On March 27, 2014, SPPO Quilang and Atty. II Merrera submitted their
fact-finding investigation report to the Administrator. Complainant did not
submit a Reply, and the case was deemed submitted for resolution.
In his Preliminary Investigation Report dated April 14, 2014, Atty. Rey
Daniel N. Gonzaga, found probable cause and recommended the filing of
formal charge against Respondent for the offense of SERIOUS DISHONESTY
and CONDUCT PREJUDICIAL TO THE BEST INTEREST OF THE SERVICE.
Information gathered revealed that, contrary to his allegations and that of
her niece, Rubylyn Ramirez a.k.a Rubylyn Sumangil (Rubylyn), Respondent
continued to use the subject postpaid line in all of his official communications
even after he was relieved as OIC of Tarlac City PPO and until present day.
Moreover, Respondents immediate supervisor said that Sumangil never used
any mobile number in their official communications other than the subject
mobile number. Furthermore, Respondent failed to present Rubylyn during
the field investigation to verify the due execution of her Sinumpaang
Salaysay. On the same day, Administrator Co issued a Formal Charge against
Respondent.
In his Counter-Affidavit dated April 29, 2014, Respondent denied the
charges against him and reiterated the defenses made in his CounterAffidavit in answer to the Complaint-Affidavit with the additional defense that
it was his niece Rubylyn who sent the subject text messages as shown in her
Affidavit dated March 10, 2014. Respondent thereafter requested that a
formal investigation be conducted.
During the Preliminary Conference held on June 19, 2014, Respondent
admitted the facts stated in the Complaint-Affidavit except the allegation

that Respondent was the one who sent the subject text messages to
Complainant.
On September 5, 2014, the prosecution presented the Complainant as
its first witness. He identified the complaint dated February 17, 2014, swore
on the veracity of the allegations contained therein and identified the
documents annexed thereto. The prosecution thereafter moved that said
complaint be considered as the direct testimony of the Complainant.
On the other hand, Respondent reiterated his defense that he was not
the one who allegedly sent the subject text messages to Complainant. He
testified that it was actually his niece who sent the same and that no proof
was presented to buttress such claim. For her part, Rubylyn admitted that
indeed she was the one who sent the subject text messages to Complainant
because he wants to help her uncle.
In addition, Respondent questioned the admission as evidence of the
Fact-Finding Report submitted by SPPO Quilang and Atty. II Merrera for failure
of CPPO Jennifer G. Valencia to execute an affidavit in relation to her
statements relative to the case.

The Issues
The issues to be resolved by this Office are the following:
I.
Whether or not the prosecution adduced substantial evidence to
establish that indeed respondent was the one who caused the subject text
messages to be sent to complainant.
II.

Whether or not respondent is guilty of the offense as charged.

The Ruling

I.

We are inclined to rule in the affirmative.

In administrative cases, substantial evidence is required to support any

finding. Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind
may accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The requirement is
satisfied where there is reasonable ground to believe that the petitioner is
guilty of the act or omission complained of, even if the evidence might not
be overwhelming.1
The fact that respondent still maintained control over the sim card used to
send the subject text messages may already constitute as reasonable ground
to believe that respondent is guilty of the act or omission complained of,
even if the evidence might not be overwhelming.
Respondents defense that he already assigned the sim card to her
niece thus making it impossible for him to send the text messages would at
most be self serving considering that respondent exercises moral
ascendancy over her niece and the latter lives under the respondents care.
1 Orbase v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 175115, December 23, 2009, 609 SCRA 111,
126.
4

Moreover, the apparent inconsistencies in the testimonies of Rubylyn

and the respondent do not give credence to the latters claim. During his
direct testimony, Respondent stated that he helped the witness Rubylyn in
writing her Sinumpaang Salaysay at his house. Thereafter, Respondent went
to the notary public to have it notarized. The secretary of the notary public
typed the Sinumpaang Salaysay using a typewriter then went out to have it
signed by the latter. However on direct examination of witness Rubylyn, the
latter declared that the notary public signed the Sinumpaang Salaysay in
front of her and Respondent.
It evokes disbelief. Evidence to be believed must not only proceed from
the mouth of a credible witness but it must also be credible by itself, and
must conform to the common experience and observation of mankind. 2
The following are the pertinent portions of the Transcript of
Stenographic Notes dated February 20, 2015 during the direct testimony of
respondent:
Atty. MJ:

Puwede ho bang malaman kung sino mismo yung gumawa

nung sinumpaang salaysay ni Rubilyn C. Sumangil?

Mr. Sumangil:

Tinulungan.. tinulungan ko po siya.

Atty. MJ:

Tinulungan mo siya? Saan pumirma si Rubilyn C. Sumangil

nung signature niya dun sa ah.. sa sinumpaang

salaysay niya.
Mr. Sumangil:
Atty. MJ:
niya
Mr. Sumangil:

Doon po sa bahay.
Sa bahay, hindi nakita ng notaryo publiko na pinirmahan
yung sinumpaang salaysay niya?
Hindi po.

Atty. MJ:
Rubilyn

Uhm.. Bakit walang naka attach na photocopy ng ID ni

C. Sumangil sa sinumpaang salaysay niya?

Mr. Sumangil:
po

Eh hindi naman na po hinanap ng abogado kaya akala ko

puwede na yung..

Hearing Officer: Sigurado ka ba sa sagot mo? Puwede kong kasuhan tong

Emas
na to, Atty. Emas na to, nagnonotaryo ng
walang ID. Puwede ko
kayo dalawa kasuhan. Panibagong
kaso to. Sigurado ka sa
sagot mo? Hindi hinanap?
Mr. Sumangil:

Yung ID.. ID sir?

Hearing Officer: ID ni Sumangil? Ni Rubilyn.. allegedly Rubilyn C. Sumangil?

Hindi hinanap ni Atty. Emas?
Mr. Sumangil:
po

Eh kasi po may nagpapapirma lang po kay At.. Atty. Emas

ng.. ng ah..

Hearing Officer: (Laughs)

2 People v. Parazo, 272 SCRA 512, 521 (1997)
5

Mr. Sumangil:
siya na

Ng ano ng mga affidavit po, may.. may assistant lang po

nagpapapirma po sa kanya.

Hearing Officer: So hindi talaga yun lawyer niya.. hindi talaga si Atty. Emas
ang
pumipirma ng affidavit?
Mr. Sumangil:

Ay ewan ko lang po.

Hearing Officer: Oh eh sina.. sinabi mo kanina assistant niya lang ang

pumipirma
eh.
Mr. Sumangil:
Hindi po, hindi po. Siya ang pumipirma, siya po ang
nagdadala.
Hindi naman.. hindi naman po.. Ang ah.. ang
nangyari attorney,
dina.. dinala ko dun sa.. dun sa
opisina nung notaryo publiko.
Yung assistant lang po
niya yung andun..
Hearing Officer: So hindi mo kasama si Rubilyn Sumangil nung pinanotaryo
mo
to?
Mr. Sumangil:

Hindi na po.

Hearing Officer: Tinulungan mo si Rubilyn C. Sumangil na gawin tong

sinumpaang salaysay?
Mr. Sumangil:

Opo. Opo.

Hearing Officer: So malamang ikaw ang nag type?

Mr. Sumangil:

Hindi. Typewritten. Hindi po.

Hearing Officer: Sinong nag makinilya nito?

Mr. Sumangil:

Yung assistant po.

Hearing Officer: Nino?

Mr. Sumangil:

Ni.. nung attorney.

Hearing Officer: Sabi mo tinulungan mo siya.

Mr. Sumangil:

Oo nga po.

Hearing Officer: Oh sige you may proceed.

Atty. MJ:
Mr. Sumangil:
Rubilyn.

Sabi mo kanina Mr. Sumangil, ginawa ang sinumpaang

salaysay sa bahay niyo.
Iprinepare ko po yun.. Ginawa.. ginawa ko kasama si

Atty. MJ:

Eh, sinong nag makinilya nito?

Mr. Sumangil:

Yung assistant po nung abogado.

Atty MJ:

Saan ginawa tong sinumpaang salaysay?

Mr. Sumangil:
Atty. MJ:

Doon sa.. doon sa opisina. Sa opisina po ng abogado.

Pero hindi nakasa.. kasama ba si Rubilyn Sumangil nung..

Mr. Sumangil:
Nung pirmahan po.. nung pirmahan po nung.. nung
abogado
dahil hindi naman. Dinala lang po nung
assistant dun sa
abogado po yan na.. siguro baka..
baka sa bahay o kuwan niya
pero hindi na po.. hindi niya
po kami kasama, yung assistant
lang
po
ang
nagpapirma na kay attorney.
Atty MJ:
ang
Rubi..

Mr. Sumangil magulo ha. Sinabi mo kanina na ginawa niyo

kon.. ang affidavit na to sa bahay niyo kasama mo si
Rubilyn Sumangil.

Mr. Sumangil:

Opo.

Atty. MJ:

Pero ang nagmakinilya ay ang..

Mr. Sumangil:

Assistant

Atty. MJ:

Assistant ni Atty. Emas sa opisina niya?

Mr. Sumangil:

Opo.

Atty. MJ:
affidavit

Paano ngayon mapipirmahan ni Rubilyn Sumangil tong

na to..

Mr. Sumangil:
opisina.

Kasama ko po.. kasama ko po si Rubilyn nung.. nasa

Atty. MJ:

Si?

Mr. Sumangil:

Doon siya pumunta..

Atty. MJ:
Tinanong kita kanina kung kasam.. kung kasama mo si
Rubilyn
Sumangil
noong
pinirmahan
to
nung
pinanotaryohan to, ang
sabi mo hindi kasi sa bahay
ginawa.
Hearing Officer: That was your first statement Mr. Sumangil. Thats on tape.
Sabi
mo kanina, tinulu.. ginawa niyo to sa bahay at hindi
mo na siya
kasama nung dinala mo to. Nasa tape yan,
hindi ka puwedeng
magsinungaling, yun ang sinabi mo
kanina.
Mr. Sumangil:

Onga po attorney pero kasama.. kasama ko po eto pero

napirmahan na po niya.. ni Rubilyn po eto

nung..
Hearing Officer: Kaya nga.
Mr. Sumangil:

Nung pmunta kami sa abogado para panotaryohan.

Hearing Officer: Pinirmahan niya sa bahay?

Mr. Sumangil:

Opo.

Atty. MJ:

Paano niya mapipirmahan eto sa bahay kung hindi pa

namamakinilya ng..

Mr. Sumangil:

Minakinilya po muna ng assistant yan..

Atty. MJ:

Sa opisina?

Mr. Sumangil:
muna
Atty. MJ:

Opo. Yung assistant po muna ang.. ang.. prinipare mo

niya.
Ok.

Mr. Sumangil:
Tapos ah.. inuwi ko ulit. Ah.. pinapirmahan ko po kay
Rubilyn.
Tapos kasama ko po si Rubilyn na.. ibinalik sa
abogado po yan
para panotaryohan.
Atty. MJ:
Bakit
na siya
sana

Hindi ba.. Bakit hindi mo sinama si Rubilyn C. Sumangil?

nagpabalik balik ka pang ganun? Eh kung sinama mo
agad nun noong ittype.. noong ittype yan eh di
napirmahan na agad.

The varying response of Respondent in his statements on direct

examination is notable and is highly suspect. These statements contradicted
that of witness Rubylyn, to quote from the same Transcript of Stenographic
Notes of even date:
Atty. MJ:

May we know who prepared this sinumpaang salaysay?

Rubilyn:
Yun nga po pumunta po kami sa notary na ano sa isang
opisina
po ng
isang abogado. Yun po sinalaysay
ko po at.. sinulat..
tinype naman po ng abogado
yun dun sa..
Hearing Officer: Paano, paano? Can you clarify? Uh.. Pano niyo.. Sino ang
nagprepare nun?
Rubilyn:

Yung abogado ho sa Tarlac.

Hearing Officer: Abogado? Nakita mo yung abogado?

Rubilyn:

Opo.

Atty. MJ:

You narrated the facts and then..

Hearing Officer: Paano? Paano?

Rubilyn:
ayun po

Uhm.. kinuwento ko ho sa kaniya yung nangyari tapos

sinulat ho niya tapos after po niyang naisulat..

Hearing Officer: Kinuwento mo..

Rubilyn:

Opo.

Hearing Officer: Kinuwento mo dun sa lawyer?

Rubilyn:

Opo.

Hearing Offier:

Tapos anong ginawa nung abogado?

Rubilyn:

Ayun po sinulat ho niya lahat.

Hearing Officer: Sinulat niya muna?

Rubilyn:
Atty. MJ:
Rubilyn:
binasa ko

Opo.
And then?
Tapos ayun nga ho tinype ho nila tapos yun after that
bago ko ho pinirmahan.

Atty. MJ:

Uh.. May we know, you signed.. When you signed this

sinumpaang salaysay, uh.. you were.. the
lawyer, the notary
public is in front of you?
Rubilyn:

Opo.

Atty. MJ:

The no.. The notary public saw you signed this sinumpaang
salaysay?

Rubilyn:

Opo.

Atty. MJ:

And Mr. Sumangil was.. Was Mr. Sumangil there?

Rubilyn:

Opo andun din po siya.

Atty. MJ:
Hmm.. Ok. I think your testimony is different from Mr.
Sumangil
because according to Mr. Sumangil, when you
signed this
document, it was.. the document was
brought to your house,
you signed it and then after signing
he returned the document
to the notary public and then
the notary public signed this ay
notarized
this
document. I have no question.
The ruling of the Supreme Court in People vs. Argawanon cited by
respondent is misplaced because the issue involves a criminal case. In
criminal cases, the quantum of proof required is proof beyond reasonable
doubt while in administrative cases only substantial evidence is required.
Administrative proceedings are governed by the substantial evidence
rule. A finding of guilt in an administrative case would have to be sustained
for as long as it is supported by substantial evidence that the respondent has
committed acts stated in the complaint or formal charge. As defined,
substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind may
accept as adequate to support a conclusion.3

3 Office of the Ombudsman vs. Florentina Santos, G.R. No. 166116, March 31, 2006.
9

II. Anent the second issue, we likewise rule in the affirmative.

On Serious Dishonesty
Dishonesty is defined as the concealment or distortion of truth, which
shows lack of integrity or a disposition to defraud, cheat, deceive or betray
and intent to violate the truth.4
In Light Rail Transit Authority vs. Salvaa, the Supreme Court briefly
discussed CSC Resolution No. 06-0538, to quote:
Resolution No. 06-0538 recognizes that dishonesty is a grave
offense
punishable by dismissal from service. It, however, also
recognizes that "some acts of Dishonesty are not constitutive of an offense
so grave as to warrant the imposition of the penalty of dismissal from the
service.
Recognizing the attendant circumstances in the offense of
dishonesty,
the Civil Service Commission issued parameters "in order
to guide the
disciplining authority in charging the proper offense" and to
impose the proper
penalty.
The resolution classifies dishonesty in three gradations: (1)
serious; (2) less serious; and (3) simple. Serious dishonesty is punishable by
dismissal. Less serious dishonesty is punishable by suspension for six
months and one day to one year for the first offense and dismissal for the
second offense. Simple
dishonesty is punishable by suspension of one
month and one day to six
months for the first offense, six months and
one day to one year for the second offense, and dismissal for the third
offense.
Also, Section 52, Rule IV of the RRACCS provides:
Section 52. Classification of Offenses. Administrative offenses with
corresponding penalties are classified into grave, less grave or light,
depending on their gravity or depravity and effects on the government
service.
Under Section 3 of Resolution No. 06-0538, serious dishonesty
comprises the following acts:
Section 3. Serious Dishonesty. The presence of any one of the
following
attendant circumstances in the commission of the dishonest act
would
constitute the offense of Serious Dishonesty:
a. The dishonest act causes serious damage and grave prejudice to the
government.
4 Civil Service Commission (CSC) Resolution 06-0538, April 4, 2006.
10

b. The respondent gravely abused his authority in order to commit the

dishonest act.
c. Where the respondent is an accountable officer, the dishonest act
directly
involves property, accountable forms or money for which
he is directly
accountable and the respondent shows an
intent to commit material
gain, graft and corruption.
d. The dishonest act exhibits moral depravity on the part of the
respondent.
e. The respondent employed fraud and/or falsification of official
documents in
the commission of the dishonest act related to
his/her employment.
f. The dishonest act was committed several times or in various
occasions.
g. The dishonest act involves a Civil Service examination, irregularity
or fake
Civil Service eligibility such as, but not limited to,
impersonation, cheating
and
use of crib sheets.
h. Other analogous circumstances. (Emphasis supplied)
Under Section 4 of Resolution No. 06-0538, less serious dishonesty
is classified by the following acts:
Section 4. The presence of any one of the following attendant
circumstances
the commission of the dishonest act would constitute the
offense of Less
Serious Dishonesty:
a. The dishonest act caused damage and prejudice to the government
which
is not so serious as to qualify under the immediately preceding
classification.
b. The respondent did not take advantage of his/her position in
committing
the dishonest act.
c. Other analogous circumstances.
Simple dishonesty, on the other hand, comprises the following offenses:
Section 5. The presence of any of the following attendant
circumstances in the commission of the dishonest act would constitute the
offense of Simple
Dishonesty:
a. The dishonest act did not cause damage or prejudice to the
government.
b. The dishonest act had no direct relation to or does not involve the
duties
and responsibilities of the respondent.
c. In falsification of any official document, where the information
falsified is
not related to his/her employment.

11

d. That the dishonest act did not result in any gain or benefit to the
offender.
e. Other analogous circumstances.
Given these circumstances, the offense committed can be properly
identified as simple dishonesty as the same did not cause damage or
prejudice to the government and had no direct relation to or did not involve
the duties and responsibilities of the respondent. Neither did the dishonest
act result in any gain or benefit to the offender.
On Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service
The prosecution presented no evidence in this regard, hence, the
prosecution was not able to prove based on substantial evidence the guilt of
Respondent on the charge of Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the
Service.
We hold, therefore, that Respondent is guilty of Simple Dishonesty only.
Considering the fact that this is the first offense of respondent and his
length of service, and there being no aggravating circumstances, the
imposable penalty therefore should be the minimum provided by law.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, this Office finds Supervising
Probation and Parole Officer JOSE D. SUMANGIL GUILTY of Simple
Dishonesty and hereby meted out the penalty of SUSPENSION from service
for a period of One (1) month and One (1) day without pay with WARNING
that a repetition of the same or similar offense in the future shall be dealt
with more severely.
SO ORDERED.
Quezon City. June 15, 2016.

MANUEL G. CO, CESO I, MNSA

Administrator/ Disciplining
Authority

12