PLEYTO VS PNP-CIDG

An act done in good faith, which constitutes only an error of judgment and for no ulterior
motives and/or purposes, does not qualify as gross misconduct, and is merely simple
negligence. Thus, at most, petitioner is guilty of negligence for having failed to ascertain
that his SALN was accomplished properly, accurately, and in more detail.
Negligence is the omission of the diligence which is required by the nature of the
obligation and corresponds with the circumstances of the persons, of the time and of the
place. In the case of public officials, there is negligence when there is a breach of duty
or failure to perform the obligation, and there is gross negligence when a breach of duty
is flagrant and palpable. Both Section 7 of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and
Section 8 of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and
Employees require the accomplishment and submission of a true, detailed and sworn
statement of assets and liabilities. Petitioner was negligent for failing to comply with his
duty to provide a detailed list of his assets and business interests in his SALN. He was
also negligent in relying on the family bookkeeper/accountant to fill out his SALN and in
signing the same without checking or verifying the entries therein. Petitioners
negligence, though, is only simple and not gross, in the absence of bad faith or the
intent to mislead or deceive on his part, and in consideration of the fact that his SALNs
actually disclose the full extent of his assets and the fact that he and his wife had other
business interests.
Each party in an administrative case must prove his affirmative allegation with
substantial evidencethe complainant has to prove the affirmative allegations in his
complaint, and the respondent has to prove the affirmative allegations in his affirmative
defenses and counterclaims. In this case, contrary to the findings of the Office of the
Ombudsman and the Court of Appeals, this Court pronounces that substantial evidence
sways in favor of the petitioner and against complainant PNP-CIDG.
While this Court commends the efforts of the PNP-CIDG and the Office of the
Ombudsman to hold accountable public officers and employees with unexplained
wealth and unlawfully acquired properties, it cannot countenance unsubstantiated
charges against a hapless public official just to send a message that the government is
serious in its campaign against graft and corruption. No matter how noble the intentions
of the PNP-CIDG and the Office of the Ombudsman are in pursuing this administrative
case against petitioner, it will do them well to remember that good intentions do not win
cases; evidence does.

The mandate of the Office of the Ombudsman is expressed in Section 12, Article XI of
the Constitution, in this wise: Sec. 12. The Ombudsman and his Deputies, as protectors
of the people, shall act promptly on complaints filed in any form or manner against
public officials or employees of the Government, or any subdivision, agency, or
instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations, and
shall, in appropriate cases, notify the complainants of the action taken and the result
thereof.
The authority of the Ombudsman to conduct administrative investigations is beyond
cavil. Republic Act No. 6770, otherwise known as The Ombudsman Act of 1989,
intended to bestow on the Office of the Ombudsman full administrative disciplinary
authority. The provisions of The Ombudsman Act of 1989 cover the entire gamut of
administrative adjudication which entails the authority to, inter alia, receive complaints,
conduct investigations, hold hearings in accordance with its rules of procedure, summon
witnesses and require the production of documents, place under preventive suspension
public officers and employees pending an investigation, determine the appropriate
penalty imposable on erring public officers or employees as warranted by the evidence,
and, necessarily, impose the said penalty. Pleyto vs. Philippine National Police Criminal
Investigation and Detection Group (PNP-CIDG), 538 SCRA 534, G.R. No. 169982
November 23, 2007