Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 164460 June 27, 2006
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, Re!e"en#e$ %& Hon. SIMEON '. MARCE(O,
Petitioner,
vs.
CARMENCITA D. CORONE(, Respondent.
D ! I S I O N
PANGANIBAN, CJ:
In ad"inistrative cases, a findin# of #uilt "ust be supported b$ substantial evidence. In the
present case, an unauthenticated photocop$ of an alle#ed receipt does not constitute substantial
evidence to sho% that respondent is #uilt$ of dishonest$. In fact, absent an$ authentication, the
photocop$ is inad"issible in evidence& at the ver$ least, it has no probative value.
The !ase
'efore us is a Petition for Revie%
(
under Rule )* of the Rules of !ourt, assailin# the +u#ust ,-,
,../ Decision
,
and the 0une ,-, ,..) Resolution of the !ourt of +ppeals 1!+2 in !+34R SP
No. 55.)5.
/
The !+ Decision nullified petitioner6s Order of Disapproval dated March ,/, ,..(,
)
%hile the !+ Resolution denied petitioner6s Motion for Reconsideration.
*
The challen#ed
Decision disposed thus7
89:RFOR, pre"ises considered, and in vie% of all the fore#oin#, the petition is 4IVN
D; !O;RS. The Disapproval b$ <Petitioner= O"buds"an on the March ,/, ,..<(=
<>
= Order
of 4raft Investi#ation Officer I 4race :. Morales, #rantin# the "otion for reconsideration of
<Respondent= !ar"encita D. !oronel is +NN;??D and ST +SID for havin# been done
%ith #rave abuse of discretion a"ountin# to lac@ or eAcess of Burisdiction. !onseCuentl$, the
March <5=, ,..<(=
<5
= Order of 4raft Investi#ation Officer I 4race :. Morales eAoneratin#
<Respondent= !ar"encita D. !oronel is hereb$ RINST+TD and +FFIRMD.8
-

The Facts
+ccordin# to the !+, the facts are as follo%s7
8<Respondent= !ar"encita D. !oronel is a Senior +ccountin# Processor ' %ith Salar$ 4rade (.
of the ?ina"on 9ater District, ?anao del Norte. On Septe"ber ,>, (DD5, the 'oard of Directors
of ?ina"on 9ater District, b$ virtue of Resolution No. .*><,= Series of (DD5, desi#nated
<respondent= as Officer3in3!har#e, effective October (, (DD5 until a 4eneral Mana#er shall have
been appointed.
8In the "ornin# of October (), (DD-, <respondent= called for a "eetin# the officers of the
different 9ater Districts in ?anao del Norte and ?anao del Sur, as %ell as their advisors fro" the
?ocal 9ater ;tilities +d"inistration 1?9;+2. Since it %as nearin# lunchti"e, the #roup opted
to continue their "eetin# at Marvilla6s Store at 'aran#a$ 'unu3un, Ili#an !it$. The luncheon
"eetin#, attended b$ "ore or less ten 1(.2 persons, %as presided over b$ +dvisor Rhodora
4u"ban of the ?9;+. +s the host of the said "eetin#, <respondent= paid for the lunch in the
a"ount of One Thousand T%o <:=undred Thirteen <P=esos 1P(,,(/...2, as sho%n in cash Invoice
No. .5/> dated October (), (DD-.
8On Nove"ber (/, (DD-, <respondent= clai"ed for rei"burse"ent of her eApenses covered b$
Voucher No. D-3((3,/, char#eable a#ainst the representation and entertain"ent account of her
office. That ver$ sa"e da$, the voucher %as approved and <respondent= #ot her rei"burse"ent in
the a"ount of One Thousand T%o <:=undred Thirteen <P=esos 1P(,,(/...2.
8On Nove"ber (5, (DD-, Pedro !. Sausal, 0r. %as appointed 4eneral Mana#er of ?ina"on
9ater District. On Februar$ (DDD, he filed %ith the Office of the O"buds"an3Mindanao a
s%orn letter3co"plaint a#ainst herein <respondent= for dishonest$. The case %as doc@eted as
!ase No. OM'3MIN3+DM DD3.)). The co"plaint alle#es that <respondent= falsified the cash
invoice she sub"itted for rei"burse"ent b$ "a@in# it appear that the luncheon bill %as for One
Thousand T%o <:=undred Thirteen <P=esos 1P(,,(/...2 %hen in fact, it %as onl$ T%o <:=undred
Thirteen <P=esos 1P,(/...2, as reflected in the photocop$ of the ori#inal duplicate of cash invoice
No. .5/> dated October (), (DD-.
8On Nove"ber ,5, ,..., 4race :. Morales, 4raft Investi#ation Officer I of the OM'3
Mindanao, Davao !it$, rendered a decision, approved b$ the then O"buds"an +niano +.
Desierto on Dece"ber ,D, ,..., the dispositive portion of %hich reads3
E9:RFOR, pre"ises considered, this office finds and so holds that respondent
!+RMN!IT+ D. !ORON? is #uilt$ of DIS:ONSTF and is hereb$ DISMISSD fro" the
service, %ith forfeiture of all leave credits and retire"ent benefits, pursuant to Section ,, 1a2 in
relation to Sec. D of Rule GIV of the O"nibus Rules I"ple"entin# 'oo@ V of the
+d"inistrative !ode of (D-5. She is disCualified fro" re3e"plo$"ent in the national and local
#overn"ents, as %ell as in an$ a#enc$, includin# #overn"ent3o%ned or controlled corporations.
?et a cop$ of this decision be entered in the personal records of respondent.
ESO D!IDD.6
8On 0anuar$ (., ,..(, the Office of the O"buds"an, Manila, issued an order directin# the
4eneral Mana#er of ?ina"on 9ater District, ?anao del Norte, to i"ple"ent the decision dated
Nove"ber ,5, ,....
8<Respondent= filed her "otion for reconsideration dated Februar$ ,, ,..(. On March 5, ,..(,
4raft Investi#ation Officer I 4race :. Morales issued an Order, the decretal portion of %hich
states3
E9:RFOR, pre"ises considered, the Motion for reconsideration is #ranted and the Decision
of this Office dated Nove"ber ,5, ,... dis"issin# fro" the service respondent !ar"encita D.
!oronel is hereb$ ST +SID.6
A A A A A A A A A
8On March ,/, ,..(, <Petitioner= O"buds"an +niano Desierto DIS+PPROVD the above
order %ith a "ar#inal note, Ethe ori#inal decision stands.68
D

Ori#inall$, Respondent !oronel filed before this !ourt a Rule >* Petition,
(.
see@in# the
nullification of petitioner6s Disapproval Order for havin# deprived her of due process. In that
case,
((
%e said that the Petition should have been denied outri#ht. +fter all, in Fabian v.
Desierto,
(,
this !ourt held that appeals fro" the decisions of the Office of the O"buds"an
1OM'2 in ad"inistrative disciplinar$ cases should be ta@en to the !+ under Rule )/ of the Rules
of !ourt. In that case, thou#h, %e ruled that in the interest of Bustice, there %as a need to suspend
the application of Fabian and !ircular +M No. DD3,3.,3S!. 9e considered respondent6s Petition
then as a petition for revie% under Rule )/ and referred it to the !+ for adBudication on the
"erits.
(/

Rulin# of the !ourt of +ppeals
The appellate court nullified petitioner6s Disapproval Order and reinstated the March 5, ,..(
Order of 4raft Investi#ation Officer I 4race :. Morales, %ho eAonerated respondent fro" the
char#e of dishonest$.
The !+ too@ co#niHance of the corroboratin# +ffidavits
()
sub"itted b$ respondent for the first
ti"e throu#h her Motion for Reconsideration
(*
before the o"buds"an. The !+ held that those
pieces of evidence adeCuatel$ supported her innocence. The court a quo reiterated the
investi#atin# officer6s findin# that her ad"inistrative liabilit$ for dishonest$ had not been
proven.
Further, the appellate court said that the OM'6s disapproval %as tainted %ith #rave abuse of
discretion.
(>
First, petitioner o"buds"an did not consider the credible evidence presented b$
respondent in her Motion for Reconsideration. Second, he did not #ive an$ Bustification for his
disapproval of the investi#atin# officer6s rulin#. This shortco"in# %as in contravention of the
constitutional "andate that all decisions, even if rendered b$ Cuasi3Budicial and ad"inistrative
bodies, should clearl$ and distinctl$ state the facts and the la% on %hich the$ are based. The !+
cited balla v. Paas,
(5
in %hich the Supre"e !ourt had denounced so"e Bud#es6 practice of
"erel$ notin# do%n their orders on the "ar#in of the "otions before the".
(-

:ence, this Petition.
(D

Issues
Petitioner raises the follo%in# issues in its Me"orandu"7
8I
9hether or not the !ourt of +ppeals erred in holdin# that respondent %as not #uilt$ of
falsif$in# the a"ount %ritten in the receipt.
8II
9hether or not the !ourt of +ppeals erred in holdin# that it %as #rave inBustice for then
O"buds"an Desierto not to have considered the evidence presented b$ respondent in her
Motion for Reconsideration.
8III
9hether or not the !ourt of +ppeals erred in holdin# that respondent %as denied due
process.
8IV
9hether or not the !ourt of +ppeals erred in holdin# that it %as #rave inBustice for then
O"buds"an Desierto not to #ive an$ Bustification in disapprovin# the Order of Dis"issal
b$ 4IO 4race :. Morales.8
,.

4oin# over petitioner6s ar#u"ents, the issues "a$ be reduced to the follo%in#7
(. 9hether petitioner6s Disapproval Order, eApressed as a "ar#inal notation, %as a valid
decision or order
,. 9hether the investi#atin# officer co""itted an error in ad"ittin# respondent6s 8ne%8
evidence
/. 9hether respondent %as #uilt$ of dishonest$.
The !ourt6s Rulin#
The Petition is partl$ "eritorious.
First Issue7
Validit$ of the Disapproval Order
Respondent "aintains that O"buds"an Desierto6s "ar#inal notation 33 %hich reads, 8The
ori#inal decision stands8 33 %as violative of her ri#ht to due process for failin# to state the basis
for the action.
,(

On the other hand, petitioner counters that the "ar#inal notation "et constitutional standards.
!itin# OlivareH v. Sandi#anba$an,
,,
the OM' "aintains that b$ referrin# to the ori#inal
Decision, the notation adopts the findin#s of fact and la% alread$ discussed.
,/

9e a#ree %ith petitioner. 9e held in OlivareH
,)
that the o"buds"an6s disapproval orders %ritten
as "ar#inal notations %ere valid, even if the$ did not specificall$ spell out their factual and
evidentiar$ basis.
,*
Indeed, this doctrine %as first established in !ruH v. People
,>
and has
consistentl$ been follo%ed in recent cases.
,5
In the present controvers$, it is %orth%hile to Cuote
a relevant portion of our rulin# in Olivarez7
8It "a$ be true that, on the face thereof, the "ar#inal notes see" to lac@ an$ factual or
evidentiar$ basis for failure to specificall$ spell out the sa"e. :o%ever, that is not all there is to
it. 9hat is actuall$ involved here is a situation %herein, on the bases of the sa"e findin#s of fact
of the investi#atin# prosecutors, respondent special prosecutors %ere of the opinion that, contrar$
to the for"er6s reco""endation, petitioner is probabl$ #uilt$ of the offense char#ed. Obviousl$,
therefore, since it is "erel$ a revie% of the conclusions arrived at b$ the investi#atin#
prosecutor, another or a ne% preli"inar$ investi#ation is no lon#er necessar$.8
,-

The subBect notation, 8The ori#inal decision stands,8 %as a valid resolution. It actuall$ adopted
the factual and le#al conclusions of the ori#inal Decision. :ence, respondent should find her
bearin#s fro" that holdin#.
The notation does not den$ respondent of her ri#ht to due process. In ad"inistrative proceedin#s,
the essence of due process lies si"pl$ in the opportunit$ to eAplain one6s side or to see@
reconsideration of the action or rulin# co"plained of. 9hat is proscribed is the absolute lac@ of
notice or hearin#.
,D

In this case, respondent %as #iven ever$ opportunit$ to be heard. Si#nificantl$, her intelli#ible
pleadin#s before the !+ and this !ourt indicate that she @ne% the bases for the o"buds"an6s
Decision. In fact, she ver$ abl$ pinpointed its alle#ed errors that she thou#ht %ould "erit our
revie%. Not havin# been left in the dar@ as to ho% it %as reached, respondent6s insistence on a
denial of due process has no le#al le# to stand on.
Second Issue7
+d"ission of 8Ne%8 vidence
Petitioner cites Section - of Rule III of the Office of the O"buds"an6s Rules of Procedure
1+d"inistrative Order No. .52, %hich provides that a "otion for reconsideration "a$ be filed if
a ne%l$ discovered evidence %ould "ateriall$ affect the order or decision. :e then posits that
the +ffidavits of the restaurant proprietor and the "e"bers of the luncheon "eetin#, as %ell as
the !ertification of the baran#a$ captain, could not Cualif$ as ne%l$ discovered evidence. These
%ere alle#edl$ available and could have been readil$ produced b$ respondent %ith reasonable
dili#ence durin# the ad"inistrative adBudication of the case.
/.

On the other hand, respondent cites Sa"ala v. !+
/(
to support her clai" that rules of procedure
"ust not be strictl$ applied to frustrate substantial Bustice.
/,

Ne%l$ discovered evidence refers to that %hich alread$ eAists prior to or durin# a trial, but
%hose eAistence is not @no%n to the offerin# liti#ant& or, thou#h @no%n, could not have been
secured and presented durin# the trial despite reasonable dili#ence.
//
9hat is essential for a
particular piece of evidence to be properl$ re#arded as 8ne%l$ discovered8 is that the offerin#
part$ eAercised reasonable dili#ence in see@in# to locate the evidence before or durin# the trial,
but nonetheless failed to secure it. Thus, a part$ %ho @no%s of the eAistence of specific pieces of
evidence cannot offer the" as 8ne%l$ discovered8 %ithout an$ eAplanation for not presentin#
the" earlier.
/)

Petitioner is correct in sa$in# that the evidence presented b$ respondent in support of her Motion
for Reconsideration should not have been considered. :er Motion for Reconsideration
/*
did not
eAplain the belated presentation of her corroboratin# affidavits, but it "erel$ contained the
follo%in# state"ents7
8,. On the basis of the aforecited decision, the respondent hereb$ invo@e 1sic2 this Motion for
Reconsideration, anchored principall$ on the #round that, this Office co""itted serious errors in
<its= findin#s of fact and la%, %hich if left uncorrected %ill be preBudicial to the interest of the
herein respondent. The respondent has also discovered ne% evidence, %hich if considered, %ill
"ateriall$ affect the decision, %hich is bein# sou#ht to be reconsidered.8
/>

8The seriousness and the adverse conseCuential i"pact of the decision of this Office as a#ainst
the herein respondent, co"pelled the latter to clarif$ facts and thin#s %ith MR. M+RI+NO
M+RIO<,= 0R., %ho is the o%ner of Marvilla6s '$ the Sea, the sa"e business establish"ent %ho
1sic2 issued !ash Invoice Receipt No. .5/>, dated October (), (DD-, %hich is the #ist 1sic2 of the
co"plainant6s cause on the alle#ed ta"perin# of receipt %hich 1sic2 he accused respondent to
have co""itted the sa"e.
8+fter so"e initial bac@#rounder of the case, MR. M+RI+NO M+RIO<,= 0R., personall$
volunteered to eAecute and si#n a ES9ORN ST+TMNT6, before the Office of the !it$
Prosecutor, of the !it$ of Ili#an, detailin# ever$ fact as to the real truth of the "atter, the
substance of %hich is reflected in his S9ORN ST+TMNT A A A<.=8
/5

8+dditionall$, in support and in order to corroborate the S%orn State"ent of Mr. Mariano
MarHo, 0r., the affidavits of MR. !DRI! D. ?+4;RT+, 4eneral Mana#er of Jaus%a#an
9ater District, ?anao del Norte, MR. ROMO 0. +N4?S, 4eneral Mana#er of 9ao 9ater
District, ?anao del Sur, MR. 'D 4. 4+T+, of the ?ocal 9ater ;tilities +d"inistration, of
'alara, KueHon !it$, and that of MS. R:ODOR+ V. 4;M'+N, also of ?9;+, KueHon !it$,
Philippines, <a= !ertification issued b$ the Punon# 'aran#a$ of 'uru3un, Ili#an !it$, certif$in#
as to the reasonableness of the price paid b$ the respondent, in relation to the nu"ber of persons
present durin# that luncheon "eetin#, in relation to the prevailin# price then for "eals in that
area %hich is a tourist destination in the !it$ of Ili#an. The aforecited docu"ents are herein
si"ultaneousl$ appended and "ar@ed as +nneAes E!6, ED6, E6, EF6, and E46, respectivel$.8
/-

9e are convinced that the +ffidavits do not constitute 8ne%l$ discovered evidence.8 Respondent
did not prove that, even %ith reasonable dili#ence, she could not have obtained the" durin# the
investi#ation. There is no sho%in# %hatsoever that her corroboratin# %itnesses hesitated or
declined to #ive their testi"onies.
+s it is, the additional evidence offered b$ !oronel a"ount to no "ore than 8for#otten8
evidence, the belated uncoverin# of %hich %ould not have Bustified a reconsideration of the case.
For#otten evidence refers to evidence alread$ in eAistence or available before or durin# a trial&
@no%n to and obtainable b$ the part$ offerin# it& and could have been presented and offered in a
seasonable "anner, %ere it not for the sheer oversi#ht or for#etfulness of the part$ or the
counsel.
/D
Presentation of for#otten evidence is disallo%ed, because it results in a piece"eal
presentation of evidence, a procedure that is not in accord %ith orderl$ Bustice
).
and serves onl$
to dela$ the proceedin#s. + contrar$ rulin# "a$ open the flood#ates to an endless revie% of
decisions, %hether throu#h a "otion for reconsideration or for a ne% trial, in the #uise of ne%l$
discovered evidence.
Third Issue7
+bsence of Substantial vidence
Not%ithstandin# the inad"issibilit$ of the for#otten evidence of respondent, there is a basis for
reversin# the o"buds"an6s Nove"ber ,5, ,... Decision
)(
and for affir"in# the !+ Decision
),

eAoneratin# her. 9e find the evidence presented b$ the co"plainant insufficient to support his
serious char#e that she %as dishonest.
+lthou#h sufficienc$ or insufficienc$ of evidence is a Cuestion of fact and is not #enerall$
subBect to revie% b$ this !ourt, the instant case falls under the reco#niHed eAceptions. The
ori#inal Decision of the o"buds"an %as not supported b$ the evidence, but %as #rounded
entirel$ on speculations, sur"ises and conBectures.
The evidence of the prosecution consisted "erel$ of the ori#inal Official Receipt 1OR2 No. .5/>,
and a photocop$ of the ori#inal duplicate of that receipt. The first %as a bill for P(,,(/& and the
latter, for P,(/. 'oth pieces of evidence refer to one and the sa"e Official Receipt& $et, the$
contain different a"ounts. Obviousl$, one of the" %as falsified. ;nfortunatel$, !o"plainant
Sausal, 0r., failed to prove that it %as indeed respondent6s receipt that %as falsified. +s it stands,
%e do not @no% for certain if the nu"ber 8(8 %as inserted in OR No. .5/> or %as deleted fro"
the unauthenticated photocop$ of the ori#inal duplicate. The evidence is eCuivocal. 'esides,
#iven that there %ere - to (. attendees in the luncheon "eetin#, a bill of P(,,(/ for "eals %as
not entirel$ i"probable, even in (DD-.
In ad"inistrative cases, the Cuantu" of proof necessar$ for a findin# of #uilt is substantial
evidence&
)/
that is, such relevant evidence that a reasonable "ind "i#ht accept as adeCuate to
support a conclusion.
))
In the instant case, the co"plainant did not present evidence to support
his theor$ that the photocop$ of the ori#inal duplicate reflected the true a"ount, or that OR No.
.5/> had indeed been falsified. That oversi#ht %as fatal to the dischar#e of his burden of proof.
+ reasonable "ind %ill not carelessl$ Bu"p to the conclusion that respondent is the #uilt$ part$.
The co"plainant6s evidence to prove falsification consisted of an unauthenticated
)*
photocop$ of
the ori#inal duplicate. :e could have obtained an affidavit fro" the restaurant proprietor or
e"plo$ee %ho had issued the receipt, in order to attest to its due eAecution and authenticit$.
+bsent an$ proof of due eAecution and authenticit$, the alle#ed photocop$ of the ori#inal
duplicate of OR No. .5/> does not convince us that it is an accurate reflection of the actual bill
incurred.
9hile this !ourt adheres to a liberal vie% of the conduct of proceedin#s before ad"inistrative
a#encies, it also consistentl$ reCuires so"e proof of authenticit$ or reliabilit$ as a condition for
the ad"ission of docu"ents. +bsent an$ such proof of authenticit$, the photocop$ of the ori#inal
duplicate should be considered inad"issible and, hence, %ithout probative value.
)>

4iven the fli"s$ char#e and the paucit$ of the evidence a#ainst respondent, there is no need for
her to present additional evidence to vindicate herself. The Office of the O"buds"an should
have dis"issed the +d"inistrative !o"plaint a#ainst her in the first place. !learl$, her #uilt %as
not proven b$ substantial evidence.
9:RFOR, the Petition is DNID. Respondent !ar"encita D. !oronel is hereb$
GONR+TD of the char#e a#ainst her for lac@ of substantial evidence. No pronounce"ent as
to costs.
SO ORDRD.
ARTEMIO '. PANGANIBAN
!hief 0ustice
!hair"an, First Division
9 !ON!;R7
CONSUE(O )NARES*SANTIAGO
+ssociate 0ustice
MA. A(ICIA AUSTRIA*MARTINE+
+sscociate 0ustice
ROMEO J. CA((EJO, SR.
+ssociate 0ustice
MINITA '. CHICO*NA+ARIO
+sscociate 0ustice
! R T I F I ! + T I O N
Pursuant to Section (/, +rticle VIII of the !onstitution, I certif$ that the conclusions in the
above Decision %ere reached in consultation before the case %as assi#ned to the %riter of the
opinion of the !ourt6s Division.
ARTEMIO '. PANGANIBAN
!hief 0ustice
Foo#no#e"
(
Rollo, pp. ,/3)-.
,
Id. at *.3>.. Fifteenth Division. Penned b$ 0ustice Ser#io ?. PestaLo 1"e"ber2 and
concurred in b$ 0ustices Rodri#o V. !osico 1Division chair2 and Rosalinda +suncion3
Vicente 1"e"ber2.
/
Id. at >,3>/.
)
Id. at (,D. Petitioner o"buds"an disapproved the March 5, ,..( Order of 4raft
Investi#ation Officer 4race :. Morales, #rantin# respondent6s Motion for
Reconsideration.
*
Id. at >*35,.
>
Refer to +ssailed !+ Decision, p. (& rollo, p. *..
5
Id.
-
Id. at (.3((& rollo, pp. *D3>..
D
Id. at ,3)& id. at *(3*/.
(.
Rollo, pp. (/(3()D.
((
!oronel v. Desierto, ))- Phil. -D), +pril -, ,../.
(,
,D* S!R+ )5., Septe"ber (>, (DD-.
(/
!oronel v. Desierto, supra at D./.
()
+ssailed Decision, pp. >3-& rollo, pp. **3*5.
(*
Rollo, pp. ((*3(,).
(>
+ssailed Decision, pp. -3D& rollo, pp. *53*-.
(5
/>, S!R+ /-D, +u#ust D, ,..(.
(-
+ssailed Decision, p. D& rollo, p. *-.
(D
The Petition %as dee"ed sub"itted for decision on Septe"ber ,D, ,..*, upon the
!ourt6s receipt of respondents6 Me"orandu", si#ned b$ +tt$. +rthur ?luch Padilla.
Petitioner6s Me"orandu" 33 si#ned b$ Solicitor 4eneral +lfredo ?. 'enipa$o, +ssistant
Solicitor 4eneral +leAander 4. 4es"undo, and Solicitor Mauricia . Dinopol 33 %as
received b$ the !ourt on Ma$ ((, ,..*.
,.
Petitioner6s Me"orandu", pp. 53-& rollo, pp. ,,*3,,>. Ori#inal in uppercase.
,(
Petition dated 0ul$ ), ,..(& id. at ().3()/.
,,
/(D Phil. )*, October ), (DD*.
,/
Petitioner6s Me"orandu", pp. (D3,(& rollo, pp. ,/53,/D.
,)
Supra note ,,.
,*
Supra at *-3*D.
,>
,// S!R+ )/D, 0une ,5, (DD).
,5
Dia"ante III v. Sandi#anba$an, 4.R. No. ()5D((, October (), ,..*& 4allardo v.
People, )*> S!R+ )D), +pril ,(, ,..*.
,-
Supra at *D3>., per Re#alado, 0.
,D
Iacarias v. National Police !o""ission, et al, )() Phil. /-5, October ,), ,../&
Navarro III v. Da"asco, et al., /(> Phil. /,,, 0ul$ (), (DD*.
/.
Petitioner6s Me"orandu", pp. ((3()& rollo, pp. ,,D3,/,.
/(
/>/ S!R+ */*, +u#ust ,/, ,..(.
/,
Respondent6s Me"orandu", rollo, pp. ,>.3,>(.
//
Rules of !ourt, Rule /5, Sec. ( 1b2.
/)
See Tu"an# v. !+, (5, S!R+ /,-, +pril (5, (D-D.
/*
Rollo, pp. ((*3(,).
/>
Id. at ((>.
/5
Id. at (,..
/-
Id. at (,(3(,,.
/D
Tu"an# v. !+, supra note /).
).
!ansino v. !+, ).D S!R+ )./, +u#ust ,(, ,../.
)(
Rollo, pp. ((.3(().
),
Id. at 53(5.
)/
Tapiador v. Office of the Ombudsman, ),D Phil )5, March (*, ,..,.
))
Velasquez v. Hernandez, )/5 S!R+ /*5, +u#ust /(, ,..).
)*
Rules of !ourt, Rule (/,, Sec. ,..
)>
P?DT !o. Inc. v. Tia"son, 4R Nos. (>)>-)3-*, Nove"ber ((, ,..*.