G.R. No. 213500 . September 12, 2018.
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN AND THE FACT-FINDING INVESTIGATION BUREAU (FFIB), OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR THE MILITARY AND OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICES (MOLEO), PETITIONERS, VS. PS/SUPT. RAINIER A. ESPINA, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

This case involves a Motion for Reconsideration filed by Police Senior Superintendent Rainier A. Espina, seeking to reverse the Court’s March 15, 2017 Decision which found him guilty of Gross Neglect of Duty and dismissed him from service. The administrative case stemmed from Espina’s involvement in a “ghost delivery” scheme. As the Acting Chief of the PNP Management Division, he signed Inspection Report Forms (IRFs) that confirmed the receipt of tires and supplies and the performance of repair works on armored vehicles. These reported deliveries and services were later found to be non-existent.
In his motion, Espina essentially reiterated his defense, denying any failure of due diligence. He argued that his duty was merely to note the existence of the IRFs and that it was not his responsibility to physically re-inspect the deliveries, especially since the forms bore no facial irregularities. He further pleaded for a reduction of the penalty, citing mitigating circumstances such as it being his first offense, his 29 years of unblemished service, and his numerous awards and commendations.

ISSUE

Whether the penalty of dismissal from service imposed on respondent Espina should be reduced in light of the mitigating circumstances he presented.

RULING

The Court partly granted the motion for reconsideration. It upheld its finding of guilt for Gross Neglect of Duty but modified the penalty from dismissal to a one-year suspension without pay. The Court reiterated its legal reasoning that while the standard operating procedure did not expressly require Espina to physically re-inspect deliveries, his high-ranking position and the substantial amounts involved imposed a duty of higher care and vigilance. His notation and signature on the IRFs constituted a confirmation of the receipt of goods and performance of services, which he failed to verify, thereby breaching this duty.
However, the Court exercised its discretion under the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service to consider mitigating circumstances. Following precedents such as Office of the Court Administrator v. Egipto, Jr. and Fact-finding and Intelligence Bureau v. Campaña, the Court recognized Espina’s length of service, first-time offense, and untainted record with numerous awards as valid humanitarian grounds for penalty reduction. Consequently, the penalty was reduced to a one-year suspension. The period of his preventive suspension during the appeal was ordered credited against this penalty, making him eligible for immediate reinstatement to his former rank without loss of seniority rights. The Court clarified that he is not entitled to back salaries since the reduction of penalty does not equate to exoneration from the charge.