AM P 99 1342; (September, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. P-99-1342. September 20, 2005. Concerned Taxpayer vs. Norberto V. Doblada, Jr., Sheriff, Regional Trial Court, Branch 155, Pasig City.
FACTS
Respondent Norberto V. Doblada, Jr., a sheriff, was dismissed from service for dishonesty due to his failure to file true and detailed Statements of Assets and Liabilities (SALs) for multiple years, violating Section 7 of R.A. No. 3019 and Section 8 of R.A. No. 6713 . The inaccuracies pertained to various properties and business interests, including a Baguio property, a residential lot in Rizal, a house and lot, a directorship in a foreign company, and fish pens. In his Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration, respondent offered explanations for each discrepancy, such as claiming properties were considered acquired only upon titling, that a business interest was minimal, and that assets were destroyed or not yet operational.
The Court also received a plea for mercy from respondent’s wife, citing his 34 years of government service, impending retirement, the couple’s serious illnesses requiring medication, and their reliance on retirement benefits for medical expenses. Respondent further argued that the charges for the 1974 and 1976 SALs had prescribed under the ten-year period in R.A. No. 3019 .
ISSUE
Whether the penalty of dismissal from service should be reconsidered and reduced based on the respondent’s explanations and the plea for humanitarian consideration.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the respondent’s explanations but granted partial reconsideration on the penalty, reducing it from dismissal to a six-month suspension without pay. The Court found that the respondent failed to prove that the inaccuracies in his SALs were mere typographical errors or lapses in memory, and not acts of dishonesty committed in bad faith. His contradictory declarations about property acquisition dates and his inconsistent statements regarding the value and significance of his business interests in ELXSHAR undermined his credibility.
Regarding prescription, the Court ruled that the administrative charges are not subject to the prescriptive period under R.A. No. 3019 , as that law governs criminal liability. Administrative offenses do not prescribe, and the respondent was also validly charged under R.A. No. 6713 , which contains no prescriptive period. However, the Court was persuaded by equitable and humanitarian considerations. Citing a precedent where penalties for dishonesty were mitigated, the Court considered the respondent’s long government service, clean record prior to this case, and the severe medical and financial plight of him and his wife. Consequently, the penalty was modified to a six-month suspension.