Nuez vs Cruz-Apao

AM CA 04-18-P, April 12, 2005

Facts: 

This is an administrative case for Dishonesty and Grave Misconduct against the respondent, Executive Assistant II of the Acting Division Clerk of Court of the 15th Division, Court of Appeals. The complaint arose out of respondent’s solicitation of P1Million from complainant Zaldy Nuez in exchange for a speedy and favorable decision of the latter’s pending case. This led to the conduct of an entrapment operation by elements of the PAOCTF and the apprehension of the respondent by the PAOCTF agents in the course of the entrapment operation.

Complainant’s case referred to had been pending with the CA for more than 2 years. Desiring for an expeditious decision of his case, complainant sought the assistance of respondent. Through phone conversation and series of text messages exchanged via SMS, complainant informed respondent of the particulars of his case. Allegedly, complainant thought that respondent would be able to advise him on how to achieve an early resolution of his case. It turned out that respondent told complainant that a favorable and speedy disposition of his case was attainable but the person who was to draft the decision was in return asking for P1Million Pesos.

Complainant negotiated to reduce the amount but respondent held firm asserting that the price had been set, not by her, but by the person who was going to make the decision. With the help of Imbestigador and the PAOCTF, an entrapment operation was set which led to the apprehension of respondent.

Issue: 

Whether or not what transpired was instigation and not entrapment which led to the apprehension of the respondent.

Held: 

Complainant’s narration of the incidents which led to the entrapment operation are ore in accord with the circumstances that actually transpired and are more credible that respondent’s version.

Complainant was able to prove by his testimony in conjunction with the text messages from respondent duly presented that the latter asked for 1Million Pesos in exchange for a favorable decision of the former’s pending case with the CA. The text messages were properly admitted by the Committee since the same are now covered by Section 1(k), Rule 2 of the Rules of Evidence.

Under Section 2, Rule 11of the Rules on Electronic Evidence, “Ephemeral electronic communications shall be proven by the testimony of a person who was a party to the same or who has personal knowledge thereof….” In this case, complainant was the recipient of said messages and therefore had personal knowledge thereof testified on their contents and import. Respondent herself admitted that the cellphone number reflected in complainant’s cellphone from which the messages originated was hers. Moreover, any doubt respondent may have had as to the admissibility of the text messages had been laid to rest when she and her counsel signed and attested to the veracity of the text messages between her and complainant. In administrative cases, technical rules of procedure and evidence are not strictly applied. We have no doubt as to the probative value of the text messages as evidence in determining the guilt or lack thereof off respondent in this case.

Respondent found guilty of Grave Misconduct. Dismissed from service.