G.R. No. 214081 , April 10, 2019
P/INSP. II GILBERT C. SAN DIEGO, Petitioner, vs. FACT-FINDING INVESTIGATION COMMITTEE (Under the Office of the DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN for Military and Other Law Enforcement Officers), Represented by AGIO DON. A ESQUIVEL, Respondent.

FACTS

A lifestyle check was initiated against petitioner P/Insp. II Gilbert C. San Diego, a Special Investigator of the National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM), based on allegations of extravagant living beyond his lawful income. The investigation revealed he owned high-value assets, including vehicles and corporate shares, and frequently traveled abroad using passports with different middle names. The Fact-Finding Investigation Bureau of the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military and Other Law Enforcement Officers (OMB-MOLEO) subsequently filed administrative complaints against San Diego. The charges included multiple counts of Grave Misconduct and Serious Dishonesty for various acts, such as making false declarations in his Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALNs) regarding assets and business interests, falsifying information in a marriage license application, misrepresenting his middle name in passport applications, and failing to secure required travel authorities for numerous foreign trips.
The OMB-MOLEO found San Diego guilty of sixteen counts of Grave Misconduct and six counts of Serious Dishonesty, imposing the penalty of dismissal with its accessory penalties. San Diego appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the OMB-MOLEO’s decision. He then elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari, arguing that the OMB-MOLEO and the CA erred in their findings.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the OMB-MOLEO’s finding that petitioner is guilty of Grave Misconduct and Serious Dishonesty, warranting the penalty of dismissal from the service.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the assailed CA decision. The Court held that substantial evidence supported the administrative findings. On the SALN violations, the Court ruled that the failure to accurately declare assets, such as a Nissan Patrol SUV registered to a corporation where he held shares, and the intentional omission of his wife and their financial interests, constituted Serious Dishonesty. These acts demonstrated a deliberate intent to conceal wealth, violating the law’s requirement for complete disclosure to monitor potential unexplained wealth.
Regarding the passport and marriage license falsifications, the Court found these were clear acts of misrepresentation going to petitioner’s integrity. Using passports with a different middle name (“Careon” instead of “Carlos”) and falsifying his spouse’s name and civil status on a marriage license were intentional deceptions constituting Grave Misconduct, defined as a transgression of established rules involving corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of duty. Furthermore, the Court upheld the findings on the unauthorized foreign travels. Petitioner’s failure to secure the required travel authorities for most of his trips abroad, despite being a government officer, was a deliberate violation of circulars intended to monitor official movements and prevent unauthorized absences, thus amounting to Gross Neglect of Duty and Serious Dishonesty. The totality of these proven infractions, characterized by corruption, willful intent to deceive, and disregard of rules, justified the supreme penalty of dismissal from service to preserve public trust in the government.