The Supreme Court has affirmed that administrative offenses do not prescribe, focusing on maintaining public service integrity over merely punishing the individual. The case underscores the importance of substantial evidence in administrative cases, highlighting that mere inconsistencies do not automatically equate to falsification. It emphasizes that the burden of proof lies with the complainant to demonstrate guilt, ensuring fairness and upholding the presumption of regularity in public records.

When a Death Certificate Sparks Dishonesty Charges: Can an Administrative Complaint Expire?

This case originated from administrative and criminal complaints filed by Felipe L. Melchor against Gerty R. Gironella. Melchor accused Gironella of immorality and bigamy due to her second marriage. The narrative begins with the initial dismissal of the bigamy case based on a death certificate presented by Gironella, indicating her first husband’s death. However, the administrative case took a turn when Melchor challenged the validity of this death certificate, leading to a series of investigations and appeals. This dispute highlights the critical questions of whether an administrative action can prescribe and what constitutes sufficient evidence to prove dishonesty and misconduct in public service.

The central legal discussion revolves around two primary issues: the prescription of administrative actions and the sufficiency of evidence. Addressing the prescription issue, the Court referenced previous rulings stating that administrative offenses, concerning the character of public officers, do not prescribe. The aim is to improve public service and maintain public trust rather than merely to punish the individual. Specifically, the court clarified the interpretation of Section 20 of Republic Act No. 6770, the Ombudsman Act of 1989, stating:

SEC. 20. Exceptions. – The Office of the Ombudsman may not conduct the necessary investigation of any administrative act or omission complained of if it believes that: (5) The complaint was filed after one year from the occurrence of the act or omission complained of.

The Court emphasized that the one-year period in Section 20 pertains to the Ombudsman’s discretion to investigate, not to the prescription of the offense itself. The use of “may” in the provision indicates a permissive and discretionary function. As the Court noted, clear and unambiguous statutes must be applied literally without interpretation. Building on this principle, the Court then addressed the issue of the evidence’s sufficiency. Melchor alleged that Gironella and a local civil registrar conspired to falsify the death certificate of Gironella’s first husband, Jimmy Santiago.

However, the Court found that Melchor failed to overcome the presumption of regularity of public records. To rebut this presumption, evidence must be clear, convincing, and more than just preponderant; falsification must be proven, not presumed. The Court noted that inconsistencies between the records of the local civil registrar and the National Census and Statistics Office (NCSO) did not conclusively prove that Jimmy Santiago was alive or that the death certificate was falsified. It was possible that the error lay with the NCSO rather than the Civil Registry. The Court also addressed the joint affidavit presented by Melchor, stating that its admissibility was questionable:

Where the affiant did not appear, or was not presented during the administrative investigation to identify his sworn statement or affidavit, said statement or affidavit is hearsay and inadmissible in evidence.

The Court underscored the importance of direct evidence and the opportunity for cross-examination to validate the claims made in affidavits. Moreover, the Court considered the human element, stating that people generally do not lie about the death of loved ones. It would be easier for Melchor to demonstrate that Jimmy Santiago was alive and well if that were indeed the case.

Furthermore, the Court considered whether Gironella knowingly used a falsified document. To be administratively liable, Gironella must have known the death certificate was false when she used it. The Court concluded that Melchor had not provided sufficient evidence to prove Gironella’s knowledge of the falsity. In administrative proceedings, the burden of proof rests with the complainant, and the decision must be based on substantial evidence, not mere conjecture or speculation. The court in Mariano v. Roxas, A.M. No. CA-02-14-P, 31 July 2002, 385 SCRA 500, 505 held:

There must be substantial evidence to support respondent’s guilt. Without such evidence, respondent’s innocence must be upheld.

In comparing the arguments presented, Melchor relied on inconsistencies in public records and a joint affidavit to prove falsification and conspiracy. Gironella, on the other hand, presented the death certificate and argued that the burden of proof had not been met, and that any inconsistencies could be due to errors by the NCSO, not intentional falsification. Considering all the evidence and legal principles, the Supreme Court denied Melchor’s petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision, exonerating Gironella and Firmalo.

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issues were whether the administrative complaint against Gironella had prescribed and whether there was sufficient evidence to prove dishonesty and conduct unbecoming a public officer.
Does the Ombudsman have unlimited time to investigate complaints?	No, Section 20 of R.A. 6770 provides a one-year period for the Ombudsman to initiate investigations, but this refers to the Ombudsman’s discretion, not the prescription of the administrative offense itself.
What is needed to overturn the presumption of regularity of public documents?	To overturn this presumption, the evidence must be clear, convincing, and more than merely preponderant. Falsification must be proven, not presumed.
What role does intent play in administrative liability?	For administrative liability involving the use of a falsified document, it must be proven that the person knew of the falsity and still used it.
What is the standard of evidence in administrative proceedings?	The standard of evidence is substantial evidence, which means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.
Are affidavits always admissible as evidence?	No, affidavits are considered hearsay and inadmissible if the affiant does not appear or is not presented during the administrative investigation to identify the sworn statement or affidavit.
Can administrative offenses prescribe?	No, administrative offenses do not prescribe because the aim is to improve public service and maintain public trust, rather than merely to punish the individual.
Who carries the burden of proof in administrative proceedings?	The complainant bears the burden of proving the allegations in the complaint with substantial evidence.

This case clarifies the procedural and evidentiary requirements in administrative complaints against public officials. It highlights the importance of concrete evidence and due process in administrative proceedings. For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: FELIPE L. MELCHOR vs. GERTY R. GIRONELLA, G.R. No. 151138, February 16, 2005