Scribd
Upload
93 views1 page

Ombudsman vs. Mapoy: Misconduct Case

The document discusses a case involving two NBI investigators who were accused of extorting money from someone they arrested. The Ombudsman found them guilty of grave misconduct and dishonesty. The Court of Appeals reversed this ruling but the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, finding substantial evidence that the investigators were illegally soliciting money.

Uploaded by

Rolly Canico Arot
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
93 views1 page

Ombudsman vs. Mapoy: Misconduct Case

The document discusses a case involving two NBI investigators who were accused of extorting money from someone they arrested. The Ombudsman found them guilty of grave misconduct and dishonesty. The Court of Appeals reversed this ruling but the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, finding substantial evidence that the investigators were illegally soliciting money.

Uploaded by

Rolly Canico Arot
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

G.R. No.

197299 February 13, 2013

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, Petitioner,


vs.
RODRIGO V. MAPOY and DON EMMANUEL R. REGALARIO, Respondents.

FACTS:

 Mapoy and Regalario (respondents) are Special Investigators of the National Bureau of
Investigation (NBI), assigned at the Criminal Intelligence Division (CRID).
 they implemented a search warrant against Pocholo Matias (Matias), and were able to seize
250,000 sacks of imported rice.
 Matias was then charged with technical smuggling or violation of Section 3602 of the Tariff
and Customs Code before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Valenzuela
 respondents were arrested by the elements of the Counter Intelligence Special Unit of the
National Capital Regional Police Office (CISU-NCRPO) during an entrapment operation
based on the complaint of Matias that the respondents extorted money from him in exchange
for not filing any other criminal charges against him
 the Ombudsman ruled that respondents are hereby found guilty of Grave Misconduct and
Dishonesty
 The CA reversed the ruling of the Ombudsman.

ISSUE:
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED IN REVERSING THE
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN’S

RULING: (YES)

It is well-entrenched that in an administrative proceeding, the quantum of proof required for a finding
of guilt is only substantial evidence or such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion and not proof beyond reasonable doubt which requires moral
certainty to justify affirmative findings.

In this case, the Court finds substantial evidence to support the charges against respondents for
grave misconduct and dishonesty. Records show that Matias sought the help of the police to entrap
respondents who were illegally soliciting money from him. Hence, the CISU-NCRPO planned an
entrapment operation.

Similarly, respondents have been dishonest in accepting money from Matias. Dishonesty has been
held to include the disposition to lie, cheat, deceive or defraud, untrustworthiness, lack of integrity,
lack of honesty, probity or integrity in principle, lack of fairness and straightforwardness, among
others. Hence, their dismissal from the service with all its accessory penalties was in order

You might also like