VALEROSO, Damacio A.
Re:   Conviction of a Crime
         Involving Moral Turpitude

x----------------------------------------------x

RESOLUTION No. 97-2876

 

Lita L. Correos, elementary grade school teacher, Lower Langcangan, Oroquieta City, filed a complaint against Damacino A. Valeroso, School District Supervisor, Madrid District, Madrid, Surigao del Sur, for alleged conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. The complaint stated, among other things, the following:

"That I am the complainant-witness in Criminal Case Nos. 12567 to 12569 for Estafa Thru Falsification against Damacino A. Valeroso, a School District Supervisor, District of Madrid, Surigao del Sur filed at the Sandiganbayan, Manila;

"That the Sandiganbayan in a decision rendered by its First Division dated July 15, 1991 in the case 'People of the Philippines vs. Damacino A. Valeroso' docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 12567 to 12569 for Estafa Thru Falsification finds accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt in Criminal Case No. 12568;

"That the dispositive portion of the decision of the Sandiganbayan reads as follows:

'Finding the accused DAMACINO VALEROSO guilty beyond reasonable doubt in Criminal Case No. 12568 of the Crime of Estafa through Falsification ass(sic) described in Article 315(7) (b) in relation to Article 171 (1) of the Revised penal Code and in application of Article 48 thereof, imposing upon him the indeterminate penalty of FIVE (5) YEARS ELEVEN (11) MONTHS, and ONE (1) DAY of Prison Correccional as minimum to ELEVEN (11) YEARS of Prison Mayor as maximum and to pay a fine of FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P5,000.00).'

"That despite said conviction accused DAMACINO VALEROSO, continue to discharge his official function as District Supervisor (now assigned at District of Madrid, Surigao del Sur) to the detriment of the service in general and to the prejudice of the herein complainant;

"That DAMACINO A. VALEROSO was convicted of crime involving moral turpitude which ought to be summarily dismissed from the government service;"

When required to submit his counter-affidavit, Valeroso averred, in part, as follows:

"2.a - That the judgment of conviction rendered by the Sandiganbayan in Crim. Case No. 12568 for Estafa is under appeal by way of review On Certiorari dated April 22, 1993 of the herein respondent-affiant x x x

"2.b - That to date, the Honorable Supreme Court has not yet resolved the above-stated Petition for Review of the herein affiant. In which, suffice to say that said judgment is not yet final and executory;

"2.c - That in the Minutes of the proceedings held on March 18, 1992, the First Division of the Sandiganbayan, ordered the reinstatement of the undersigned affiant to his original position as the District Supervisor of the Madrid District of the Province of Surigao del Sur, x x x

"2.d - That in two separate indorsements, the Secretary of the Department of Education Culture & Sports and its Regional Director of Region XI, Davao City, ordered the immediate reinstatement of the undersigned affiant in compliance of the order of the Sandiganbayan, x x x

"2.e - That on the basis of the documents x x x Schools Division Superintendent Rosita Q. Pimentel of the Province of Surigao del Sur, reinstated the undersigned affiant to his original position as District supervisor of the Madrid District of the Province of Surigao del Sur, x x x

Correos contradicted the foregoing averments of the respondent in her reply, the relevant portions of which state as follows:

"a. She was not furnished copies of the documents adverted to by the Respondent in his Counter-affidavit, more particularly the following:

a.1 Petition for Review on Certiorari which Respondent filed with the Supreme Court,

a.2 Minutes of the proceedings of the First Division of the Sandiganbayan ordering Respondent to be reinstated to his original position,

a.3 Two separate indorsements from the Secretary of DECS, Region XI, Davao City ordering respondent's reinstatement, and

a.4 Letter dated April 15, 1992 of Schools Division Superintendent Rosita Pimentel reinstating respondent.

"b. That had herein complainant been furnished copies of the aforementioned documents, she could have filed the necessary and appropriate of a crime involving moral turpitude which merits his summary dismissal from the service; and appropriate legal and administrative remedies xxx

"c. That assuming for the sake of argument that herein complainant indeed received those documents, administrative case against respondent would still prosper and availing because of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude which merits his summary dismissal from the service; and

"d. That the outcome of respondents appeal with the Supreme Court is entirely independent from the Administrative complaint lodged by herein complanant-affiant because only substantial evidence is necessary in an administrative proceeding which simply mean such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other minds equally reasonable might conceivably opine, otherwise (Santos vs. Court of Appeals, 229 SCRA 524), while that in a Criminal Case, proof beyond reasonable doubt.

The only issue to be resolved in this case is whether or not Damacino A. Valeroso can be held liable for the administrative offense of conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude in the light of the pendency of his appeal of the judgment of the Sandiganbayan before the Supreme Court.

The Commission rules in the negative.

A charge for conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude is deemed actionable only if the finding of guilt against the respondent has already attained finality or can no longer be the subject of an appeal. This is so because pending the appeal, the investigation of the case is deemed to be still continuing and the respondent remains entitled to the constitutional presumption of innocence until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, he could not at the time be rightfully held liable for the offense which arose out of his conviction of the criminal offense lodged against him. As provided for in Sec. 7, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court:

"Sec. 7. Modification of Judgment - A judgment of conviction may, upon motion of the accused, be modified or set aside by the court rendering it before the judgment has become final or appeal has been perfected. A judgment in a criminal case becomes final after the lapse of the period for perfecting an appeal, or when the sentence has been partially or totally satisfied or served, or the accused has expressly waived in writing his right to appeal, or the accused has applied for probation."

Thus, the instant complaint of Correos against Valeroso is premature and should be dismissed.

WHEREFORE, the complaint of Lita L. Correos is hereby dismissed without prejudice.

Quezon City, May 20, 1997

 

                                          (Signed)
                                             CORAZON ALMA G. DE LEON
                                            Chairman