G.R. No. 152780 ; January 22, 2007
LIGAYA M. APOLINARIO, Petitioner, vs. DESIREE B. FLORES, Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Desiree B. Flores filed a sworn complaint before the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon against petitioner Ligaya M. Apolinario, a National Food Authority (NFA) employee, for falsifying her Daily Time Records (DTRs). The complaint alleged that petitioner knowingly made false time entries, as evidenced by discrepancies with the official General Daily Attendance Record (GDAR). An NFA fact-finding investigation in 1998 had already reported on these discrepancies, noting petitioner’s failure to produce required pass-out slips, travel authorities, or trip permits to justify her absences and tardiness for June and July 1995, as mandated by NFA Office Memorandum No. 19.
The Deputy Ombudsman initially docketed a criminal complaint for falsification (OMB-1-99-1970) but dismissed it via a Resolution dated April 10, 2000, because the NFA’s internal investigation report was still under evaluation. This resolution also recommended re-docketing the case as a complaint (CPL). It was subsequently re-docketed as OMB-CPL-1-00-0006 but was later closed based on an erroneous belief that the Civil Service Commission (CSC) had already disciplined petitioner for the same act. However, a separate administrative case for dishonesty (OMB-ADM-1-99-0821) proceeded. In a Decision dated September 21, 2000, the Ombudsman found petitioner guilty of dishonesty based on substantial evidence, notably the lack of supporting pass-out slips, and imposed a six-month suspension.

ISSUE

Whether the Ombudsman’s finding of administrative liability for dishonesty violates the constitutional protection against double jeopardy.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. The constitutional protection against double jeopardy applies exclusively to criminal cases and is not applicable to administrative proceedings. The administrative case against petitioner is separate and distinct from any criminal complaint for falsification. The dismissal of the initial criminal complaint (OMB-1-99-1970) was not an acquittal on the merits but a provisional dismissal pending the NFA’s evaluation. The subsequent closure of OMB-CPL-1-00-0006 was based on a factual error regarding a prior CSC case involving different complainants and issues. Therefore, the continuation of the administrative case did not place petitioner in double jeopardy.
The Court upheld the factual findings of the Ombudsman and the Court of Appeals, which are generally accorded respect and finality when supported by substantial evidence. The evidence, particularly petitioner’s failure to present required pass-out slips or travel documents to explain the discrepancies in her DTRs, constituted substantial proof of dishonesty. The penalty of six months suspension was thus affirmed.