Question of intention

This case explains the meaning of being “formally charged” criminally or administratively. It has relevance to the recent plunder charges filed against some Senators and Congressmen allegedly involved in the P10-billion pork barrel scam.

This is the case of Wilma who was working in the Office of a Regional Election Director when she decided to apply before the Supreme Court (SC) for the position of Clerk of Court of a Regional Trial Court. In item No. 37 (a) of the Personal Data Sheet (PDS) of her application Wilma wrote “No” after the question, “Have you ever been formally charged?” in any administrative or criminal case?

At the time she filled up this PDS, however, an administrative and criminal complaint for violation of Section 4 © of R.A. 6713 and Section 3 (e) of R.A. 3019 or the Anti-Graft Law has been filed against her and her Election Regional Director before the Office of the Ombudsman. This complaint was filed by Tony, a private citizen who had some grievances against them.

When Tony learned of Wilma’s application and such answer in her PDS, he wrote a letter to the Supreme Court (SC) charging Wilma with dishonesty for falsifying her PDS. Tony alleged that Wilma has not disclosed in her application as Clerk of Court with the SC, her pending administrative and criminal charges before the Ombudsman.

In her comment, Wilma admitted that she was aware of the two complaints filed against her and her former Regional Election Director before the Ombudsman. She however pointed out that these complaints are still under preliminary investigation since probable cause has not yet been determined by the investigating officer. In fact the Ombudsman had merely issued an order requiring them to submit their counter affidavits, the affidavits of their witnesses and such other controverting evidence. The order further stated that “the case shall thereafter be considered submitted for final disposition or taking of further action as may be warranted. Wilma contended that she should not be considered as formally charged yet. Hence she was not guilty of dishonesty. Was she correct?

Yes. Dishonesty is “intentionally making a false statement in any material fact; or practicing or attempting to practice any deception or fraud in securing registration, examination, appointment or promotion. It is not simply bad judgment or negligence. It is a question of intention.

The intention to falsify or misrepresent is absent on the part of Wilma when she answered the question, “have you ever been formally charged?” When she filled up her PDS she had in mind the Uniform Rules on Administrative Case in Civil Service which state that a person shall be considered formally charged in administrative proceedings: (a) upon the filing of the complaint at the instance of the disciplining authority, or (b) upon the finding of the existence of a prima facie case by the disciplining authority, in case of a complaint filed by a private person. So Wilma has not yet been formally charged administratively.

In criminal cases, the determination of whether a person is formally charged is found in Rule 122 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure which is “upon the finding of probable cause by the investigating prosecutor and the filing of Information in Court with the written authority and approval of the Ombudsman. Clearly, Wilma has also not yet been formally charged criminally. There were no final dispositions of the cases yet. In fact Tony himself stated in his complaint that these cases were not yet resolved by the Ombudsman. Hence the complaint of dishonesty against Wilma should be dismissed for lack of merit (Plopinio vs. Zabala-Carino, A.M. P-08-2458, March 22, 2010 616, SCRA 269).

*      *      *

E-mail: [email protected]