OCAMPO vs OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN
falsification was filed against Ocampo based on the same facts or
FACTS:
Jesus Ocampo is the Training Coordinator of NIACONSULT, a
subsidiary of the National Irrigation Administration.
The Agricultural Development Bank of Nepal (ADBN) requested
NIACONSULT for training of small-scale community irrigation
development, and Ocampo attended to the request.
o Ocampo requested an advance of 30% of training fees to
the amount of US $9600 = PhP 204,960.
o He also accepted two instalments of the training fee for
P61,488 and P143,472.
NIACONSULT demanded Ocampo to turn-over the total training fee
paid by ADBN which Ocampo personally received, but failed to remit
the amount.
This prompted NIACONSULT to file an administrative case before
the OMBUDSMAN.
o Ocampo failed to present a counter-affidavit amid being
ordered twice by the OMBUDSMAN to do so.
o The decretal portion of the Resolution stated that Ocampo
was to be discharged from the service, with forfeiture of
special benefits and special perpetual disqualification to
hold office in government; without prejudice to any civil
action NIACONSULT may institute to recover the amount
retained by Ocampo.
o Ocampo now assails lack of due process for not having
been given the opportunity to file a counter-affidavit and to
present his evidence. [Bulk issue of the case, but not our
concern in this topic. The decision just says that he waived
his right to due process when he failed to produce a counter-
affidavit amid being ordered twice to present his side]
While the case is pending, a criminal complaint for estafa and
incidents. The Regional Trial Court DISMISSED the case.
OCAMPOS CONTENTION: RTCs dismissal of the criminal case
serves as a bar to the administrative case that can no longer stand
on its own and therefore should be dismissed.
ISSUE/HELD:
Whether or not the dismissal of the criminal case affect the validity of the
administrative cases resolution? NO.
RATIONALE:
The dismissal of the criminal case will not foreclose
administrative action filed against petitioner or give him a clean
bill of health in all aspects.
On quantum of evidence: The RTCs dismissal simply means that
the prosecution was unable to prove the guilt of petitioner beyond
reasonable doubt. The lack or absence of proof beyond reasonable
doubt does not mean absence of any evidence whatsoever. The rule
in administrative proceedings is substantial evidence which merely
requires such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept
as adequate to support a conclusion. Considering this difference,
one decision cannot be binding on the other.