A.M. No. 02-10-05-SC; February 3, 2003
RE: REPORT ON THE SERIES OF THEFT AND ROBBERY IN THE PREMISES OF THE SUPREME COURT

FACTS

A series of thefts and robberies occurred within the Supreme Court premises from May 2000 to July 2002, resulting in the loss of cash, jewelry, electronic gadgets, and other personal properties from various offices. An investigation was initiated, and initial findings from surveillance and a polygraph examination pointed to security personnel as the perpetrators. Watchman II Amante Alumno, after a polygraph indicated deception, confessed his involvement in a sworn statement. He implicated another casual watchman, Bernardo Viado, as his co-conspirator and the mastermind behind most of the incidents, detailing their methods and the specific offices they burglarized, including the chambers of Justices.
Following Alumno’s confession, both respondents were preventively suspended. During the administrative proceedings, Viado denied the allegations, claiming an alibi that he was on duty at different posts during the times of the thefts. However, the investigation established that the thefts were committed during hours when the respondents had the opportunity and access, and Viado’s defense was found to be unsubstantiated and inconsistent with the evidence.

ISSUE

Whether respondents Amante Alumno and Bernardo Viado are administratively liable for the series of thefts and robberies within the Supreme Court.

RULING

Yes, the respondents are guilty of Grave Misconduct and are dismissed from service. The Court found Alumno’s detailed, voluntary, and sworn confession to be credible and sufficient to establish his guilt. A confession, if corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti, is a potent evidence of guilt. The investigation confirmed the fact of the thefts (the corpus delicti), and Alumno’s statement provided specific details that aligned with the reported incidents, thereby corroborating his admission.
Regarding Viado, the Court ruled that Alumno’s confession was admissible against him as a co-conspirator. Statements made by a co-conspirator in furtherance of the conspiracy and during its existence are admissible against all conspirators. Alumno’s statement, which detailed their joint actions, was made while the conspiracy to conceal their crimes was still ongoing, thus binding upon Viado. The Court rejected Viado’s alibi for being inherently weak and unproven, especially when weighed against the positive identification and detailed confession of his co-accused. As security personnel sworn to protect the Court, their breach of trust through repeated thefts constitutes Grave Misconduct, warranting dismissal with forfeiture of all benefits and disqualification from re-employment in government.