G.R. No. 258888 , April 08, 2024
ROLANDO B. ZOLETA, PETITIONER, VS. INVESTIGATING STAFF, INTERNAL AFFAIRS BOARD, OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, REPRESENTED BY: GIPO III ALFRED YANN G. OGUIS AND AGIO OMAR R. LEANO, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

On July 21, 2017, Leonardo R. Nicolas, Jr., an Ombudsman employee, was arrested for extortion. While detained, he executed an affidavit dated August 2, 2017, stating that he had been transacting with petitioner Rolando B. Zoleta, a former Assistant Ombudsman, in fixing cases pending for preliminary investigation in exchange for money. Based on this, Alfred Yann G. Oguis of the Internal Affairs Board-Investigating Staff (IAB-IS) filed an administrative complaint against Zoleta for Serious Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. The complaint was supported by Nicolas, Jr.’s affidavit, a letter, screenshots of SMS messages between Nicolas, Jr. and a contact named “AO Roy Zoleta,” and a screenshot of the mobile number. The IAB preventively suspended Zoleta for six months. Instead of filing a counter-affidavit, Zoleta filed a Manifestation questioning the complaint’s validity and detailing his government service and health. Oguis submitted a Judicial Affidavit of Nicolas, Jr. dated August 15, 2017. After submitting position papers, the OMB found Zoleta guilty and dismissed him from service. Zoleta’s motion for reconsideration was denied. He then filed a Petition for Review with the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the OMB’s decision. Zoleta elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the OMB’s decision finding Zoleta administratively liable, specifically concerning: (1) the validity of his preventive suspension; (2) the admission and probative value of evidence (the Judicial Affidavit and text message screenshots); (3) the finding of administrative liability; and (4) alleged violations of his right to due process and equal protection.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA decision. The Court held:
1. On Preventive Suspension: The preventive suspension was valid. The Ombudsman has the power to preventively suspend an officer under investigation. The evidence against Zoleta, consisting of the detailed affidavit and judicial affidavit of Nicolas, Jr. corroborated by text messages, was strong enough to warrant suspension to prevent influence on witnesses or tampering with records.
2. On Admission of Evidence: The admission of the Judicial Affidavit of Nicolas, Jr. and the text message screenshots was proper. Administrative bodies like the IAB are not bound by strict technical rules of procedure and evidence. The right to cross-examine is not indispensable in administrative proceedings. The text messages, while electronic evidence, were presented in printed screenshots. Under the circumstances, the OMB could consider them, especially as their contents were detailed and corroborated by the sworn statements. The fact that the messages were obtained without a court order did not render them inadmissible in an administrative investigation.
3. On Administrative Liability: The finding of guilt for Grave Misconduct, Serious Dishonesty, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service was supported by substantial evidence. Nicolas, Jr.’s categorical statements, based on personal knowledge as a participant in the scheme, detailed Zoleta’s involvement in case-fixing for money. These statements were corroborated by the text message exchanges showing demands and receipts of bribe money. The OMB verified that the cases and persons mentioned in the messages were real. Zoleta’s defense, which mainly attacked the complaint’s form and the evidence, failed to rebut the substantive allegations.
4. On Due Process and Equal Protection: Zoleta was afforded due process. He was given the opportunity to answer the complaint, file a position paper, and move for reconsideration. His right was not violated by his inability to cross-examine Nicolas, Jr., as this is not a requisite in administrative due process. The anonymity of the IAB investigator, per its internal rules, did not violate his rights, and he failed to prove any bias. The penalty of dismissal was appropriate given the gravity of the offenses, which eroded public trust in the Ombudsman.