Ombudsman vs Pelino G.R. No.

179261, April 18, 2008 Preventive Suspension/Requisites/Evidence strong against respondent/No gadalej Facts: The Field Investigation Office (FIO) of the Office of the Ombudsman, through its Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer Maria Olivia Elena A. Roxas, filed a complaint against Beatriz S. Pelino, respondent, and Joseph Albert Pelino Cuaki for (a) 18 counts of Perjury in her SALN, (b) violation of RA 67131, (c) Dishonesty and Grave Misconduct, and (d) RA 13792. Respondent is the head of the BIR Large Taxpayers Document Processing and Quality Assurance Division while Cuaki is Respondents son. The Complaint charged respondent with illegally acquiring and accumulating property and investments, as well as incurring expenses and liabilities grossly disproportionate to her income and earning capacity as a government employee, and for not disclosing the same in her annual SALNs. She also failed to declare in her Personal Data Sheet that she has a son. The Ombudsman placed respondent under Preventive Suspension for six months. Respondent challenged the propriety of the preventive suspension. The CA issued a TRO on the suspension, hence, this appeal by the Petitioner. Issue: W/N the Preventive Suspension was proper; Ruling: Yes. Ratio: The court has held that for a preventive suspension to be proper the law requires that, first, the evidence of guilt is strong; and second, that at least any one of the following circumstances is present (a) the charge involves dishonesty, oppression or grave misconduct or neglect in the performance of duty; (b) the charge warrants removal from the service; or (c) the respondents continued stay in office may prejudice the case filed against him. The court found that the evidence against Pelino was strong. 1. Pelino failed to prove by evidence that the questioned properties were not hers. In the absence of such proof, the finding that she should have declared the same properties in her SALNs in accordance with the law was sustained.

1 2

Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees An Act Declaring Forfeiture in Favor of the State any Property Found To Have Been Unlawfully Acquired By Any Public Officer or Employee

2. She also failed to prove her allegation that the birth certificate of CUAKI is a forgery. Considering that the said birth certificate was not voided it constitutes proof of filiation. 3. There also appears strong evidence to suggest that, apart from failing to disclose the subject properties in her SALNs, Pelino is harboring unexplained wealth considering the sheer number of real and personal properties acquired by her and in that of Cuaki. Considering Pelino high rank and the gravity of the charges against her (which merit dismissal), it cannot be said the Office of the Ombudsman acted with GADALEJ. There is nothing improper in suspending an officer pending his investigation and before the charges against him are heard.