In an administrative case involving the application of the 15-day rule of RA No. 6713, the good
faith, motive, credibility, and legal standing of the complainant were questioned
by the respondent. We assisted him in preparing his sur-reply.
Sec. 5 (a) of R.A 6713 provides:
“Act promptly on letters
and request- All Public Official and employee shall, within (15) days from receipt
thereof, respond to letters, telegrams or other means of communication
sent by the public. The reply must contain the action taken.”
The respondent alleges that the hands of the complainant are “unclean”. In response the complainant
argues that the respondent’s self-serving allegation deserves no weight and
credit; that the respondent has not presented any evidence of bad faith and
malice; that the complainant is entitled to the presumption of good faith in the performance of his legal and moral
duty as a citizen to participate and to be vigilant in insuring:
(a)
good governance,
(b)
transparency, and
(c)
accountability
in their Barangay, as commanded by Article XI of the 1987 Constitution.
Sec. 1, Art. XI, of the 1987 Constitution
provides that:
(a)
“public
office is a public trust” and that
(b)
“public
officers and employees must at all times be accountable
to the people, serve them with utmost
responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, act with patriotism and
justice, and lead modest lives.”
The very Preamble of the 1987
CONSTITUTION speaks of:
(a)
the
“common good”,
(b)
“rule of law”, and
(c)
“truth, justice, (and) freedom”.
Sec.
28, Art. II of the 1987 Constitution provides that “the State adopts and implements a policy of full public disclosure of all its transactions involving
public interest.”
Sec.7, Art. III of the 1987 Constitution provides that:
1.
“the right of the people to information on matters of public
concern shall be recognized”; and that
2.
“access to official records, and to documents, and
papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to government research data used as basis
for policy development, shall be afforded the citizen”.
The respondent claims that the complainant
violated the Cybercrime Prevention Act (R.A.
No. 10175) when the latter submitted to the investigating office the screen shot copy of the subject vehicle from
the Facebook Timeline of a Brgy Ex-O. The respondent alleges that the picture
does not prove any offense.
The complainant argues that the privacy status of the Facebook
account of the Ex-O is “Public”.
It means that:
1.
all pictures posted by xxx
are open to be seen by the General Public
and
2.
the General Public has the right to access the same or to
take screen shots thereof.
The picture of the vehicle attached to the reply-affidavit of the complainant
was a corroborating evidence
to describe to the Council the physical
appearance of the subject motor vehicle.
The complainant argues that the pending issues is the violation by the respondent
of the 15-day rule of R.A 6713.
It is not about the physical
appearance of the said motor vehicle.
On social media-based evidence, the case of RHONDA AVE S. VIVARES, et. al.
vs. ST. THERESA’S COLLEGE, et. al., G.R. No. 202666, September 29,
2014, is useful. It held:
1. “Facebook connections are
established through the process of “friending” another user.”
2. “By sending a “friend
request”, the user invites another to connect their accounts so that they can
view any and all “Public” and “Friends Only” posts of the other.”
3. “Once the request is
accepted, the link is established and both users are permitted to view the
other user’s “Public” or “Friends Only” posts, amon others.
4. “Friending”, therefore,
allows the user to form or maintain one-to-one relationships with other users,
whereby the user gives his or her “Facebook friend” access to his or her
profile and shares certain information to the latter.
5. “(A) Facebook user can
regulate the visibility and accessibility of digital images (photos) posted on
his or her personal bulletin or “wall” except for the user’s profile picture
and ID, by selecting his or her desired privacy setting:
(a)
“Public-the default setting;
every Facebook user can view the photo;
(b)
“Friends
of Friends- only the user’s Facebook friends and the their friends can view the
photo;
(c)
“Friends-only
user’s Facebook friends can view the photo;
(d)
“Custom-the
photo is made visible only to particular friends and/or network of the Facebook
user; and
(e)
“Only
Me-the digital image can only be viewed can be viewed only by the user.”
6. “Before one can have an
expectation of privacy in his or her OSN activity, it is first necessary that
said user xxx manifest the intention to keep certain posts private, through the
employment of measures to prevent access thereto or to limit its visibility.”
7. “As applied, even assuming that the photos in
issue are visible only to the sanctioned students’ Facebook friends, respondent
STC can hardly be taken to task for the perceive privacy invasion since it was
the minors’ Facebook friends who showed the pictures to Tigol.”
8. “Respondents were mere
recipients of what were posted.”
9. “They did not resort to any
unlawful means of gathering the information as it was voluntarily given to them
by persons who had legitimate access to the said posts.”
10. “(I)nformation, otherwise
private, voluntarily surrendered by them can be opened, read, or copied by
third parties who may or may not be allowed to such access.”
The respondent questions the credibility of the complainant. The respondent
claims that the complainant is not a law-abiding citizen; that the complainant has
a previous case; that the subject Letter, dated xxx, of the complainant is untrue;
and that the complainant is not a bona fide voter nor a taxpayer of their Barangay.
In response the complainant argues that the claim of the respondent constitutes
an unfair and dirty attempt to assassinate
his character as a law-abiding and vigilant citizen; that the words of the
respondent are unbecoming of
an elected public official; that the respondent is employing diversionary tactics to
maliciously confuse the Council and to unjustly destroy his credibility; that
the argument of the respondent is irrelevant
and immaterial to the pending issues; and that the malicious tactic of
the respondents imposes a chilling
effect on the part of vigilant citizens of their Barangay who might
wish to participate in the future in promoting the rule of law, transparency, and good governance.
The complainant submitted a certified true copy of his Voters Registration Record issued
by the Commission on Election to prove that he is a Registered Voter of their Barangay.
The complainant submitted a copy of the Official Receipt for the payment of the Local Real Estate Tax on the real property of his deceased stepmother
to prove that he lives in the said property; that he is the one paying the said
tax; and that he is a taxpayer of the City.
The complainant argues that the case for qualified theft against him in
the past arose out of a mere
misunderstanding between him and the Barangay Treasurer. The miscommunication
referred to the turn-over of the hand-held radio which was assigned to him. His
possession and use of the radio was authorized by a Memorandum issued by the
Barangay Treasurer. The said case was dismissed.
The complainant argues that in the instant administrative case, the person
on trial, so to speak, is the respondent, not
the complainant; and that his aforecited dismissed
case is irrelevant and immaterial
to the instant administrative case against the respondent.
The complainant argues that the respondent claims that his complaint is
politically motivated for purposes of the upcoming 2016 Barangay Election. He states that he is not a politician; that
he has never been a politician; that politics is not his career path; that he
is an ordinary citizen who cares for good
governance, transparency and accountability in their Barangay; that he is not
a candidate in the 2016 Barangay Election; and that he is not a tool, dummy or
crony of a politician who will in the 2016 Barangay Election.
The complainant argues that his
good faith as a Complaining Citizen is presumed. If the respondent wishes to destroy the
presumption of good faith in his favor the respondent has the burden of proof
to prove her claim.
The complainant cited the case of Heirs of Severa
Gregorio vs. Court of Appeals, et al, G.
R. No. 117609, December 19, 1998, which held that:
1. “(I)t is axiomatic that good faith is always presumed unless
convincing evidence to the contrary is adduced”;
2. “It is incumbent upon the party alleging bad faith to sufficiently prove
such allegation”;
3. “Absent enough proof thereof,
the presumption of good faith prevails”;
4. “Without a clear and persuasive substantiation of bad faith, the
presumption of good faith in favor of respondents stands”.
The complainant cited
the analogous case of FRANCISCO M.
LECAROZ, et. al. vs.
SANDIGANBAYAN, et. al., G.R. No. 130872, March 25, 1999, which held that:
“The rule is that any mistake
on a doubtful or difficult question of law may be the basis of good faith”.
The complainant cited the case of People
vs. De Guzman, GR 106025, Feb. 9, 1994, which held that:
1. Innocence,
and not wrong-doing, is presumed.
2. Good
faith is presumed;
3. The
“presumption prevails until it is overcome by clear and convincing evidence to
the contrary”;
4. “If
not rebutted, it is conclusive”.
The complainant argues that his motive as a complaining
citizen is not a valid and legal ground:
1.
to dismiss a consummated administrative
offense or
2.
to free a guilty public
official from administrative liability.
Motive is irrelevant and immaterial to a determination of
guilt of a respondent in a consummated
administrative offense.
In the case of PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. LYNDON FLORES y MALARAYAP, G.R. No.
116524. January 18, 1996, it was held that there is no reason to doubt the credibility of a witness and the
veracity of his testimony “if his statements are not tainted with any contradiction, inconsistency, or prevarication”
and when the witness testified in a “candid,
categorical, and consistent manner”. (Citing People vs. Barte, 230
SCRA 401 [1994]).
If there is nothing on the record to show that a
witness was actuated by any improper
motive, “his testimony shall be entitled to full faith and credit”. (Citing
People vs. Dela Cruz, 229 SCRA 754 [1994]).
In the analogous case of People v. Gloria, Gayo, Cabilosa, and Cuison[G.R. No. 111806. March 9,
2000], it was held that:
1.
In a criminal
offense, “motive is not an element of the offense”.
2.
“Motive becomes
material only when the evidence is circumstantial or inconclusive, and there is
some doubt on whether a crime has been committed or whether the accused has
committed it”.
3.
“Indeed, motive is totally irrelevant when
ample direct evidence sustains the culpability of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt.”
[Citing: People v. Astorga, 283 SCRA 420, 433 (1997),
citing People v. Sta. Agata, 244 SCRA 677, 684 (1995); People v. Cayetano, 223
SCRA 770 (1993); People v. Magpayao, 226 SCRA 13, 27 (1993).]
4.
“Where a reliable
eyewitness has fully and satisfactorily identified the accused as the perpetrator
of the felony, motive becomes immaterial in the successful prosecution of a
criminal case.” [Citing: People v.
Castillo, 273 SCRA 22, 32 (1997), citing People v. Lovedioro, 250 SCRA 389
(1995).]
The complainant argues that his alleged bad
faith as a complainant has not been proved by the respondent.
In the case of Ford Philippines, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No.
99039, February 3, 1997, the Supreme Court held:
1. That “bad faith does not simply connote bad judgment or negligence”;
2. That bad faith “imports a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity
and conscious doing of wrong”;
3. That “it means a breach of a known duty through some motive or interest or ill
will that partakes of the nature of fraud”;
4. That “it must be reiterated that bad faith should be established by
clear and convincing evidence”; and
5. That “settled rule is that the law always presumes good faith
such that any person who seeks to be awarded damages due to acts of another has
the burden of proving that the latter acted in bad faith or with ill motive”.
