SAMALIO V CA were scheduled.
Special Prosecutor moved that the case be considered submitted for
MAR 31 2005 | CORONA, J
FACTS
CRIMINAL CASE
SAMALIO was formerly an Intelligence Officer of Bureau of Immigration and
Deportation
 City Prosecutor’s Office of Pasay City recommended that SAMALIO be prosecuted
for Robbery and Violation of Sec 46 Immigration Law before Sandiganbayan
under the following facts:
o MS. WENG SAI QIN arrived at NAIA from Saipan. While waiting for her turn
at the arrival immigration counter, her passport was examined by Immigration
Officer Pajarillaga. Nothing that MS. WENG, a Chinese, was holding a
Uruguayan passport, she suspected that the passport was fake. So she was
brought to SAMALIO who was the duty intelligence officer
o MS WENG, who could only speak in Chinese, asked SAMALIO by sign
language that she wanted to meet a friend who was waiting at NAIA arrival
area. He approved the request and accompanied her to the arrival area.
SAMALIO, WENG and her male friend returned to the immigration area.
o While inside the office of SAMALIO, MS WENG asked that her passport be
returned. Sensing a demand for money in exchange for her passport, she
flashed $500 in front of SAMALIO which was grabbed by SAMALIO. Her
passport was returned and she was allowed to leave. When she checked her
passport later, it did not bear an immigration arrival stamp so she complained
against SAMALIO.
ADMINISTRATIVE CASE
BID Commissioner RESPICIO issued Personnel Order No. 93-179-93 commencing
an administrative case against SAMALIO for violation of CSMC No. 46 Rule 2 Sec 1
for dishonesty, oppression, misconduct, disgraceful and immoral conduct, inefficiency
and incompetence in the performance of official duties, iolation of reasonable office
rules and regulations and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service
 SAMALIO was required to submit his answer to the charges with supporting
statements and documents and whether or not he elects a formal investigation if
his answer is not considered satisfactory
 SAMALO was preventively suspended for 90 days as the charge sheet against him
involves dishonesty, oppression and misconduct
SAMALIO’S ANSWER: Denied charges and expressly elected a forma investigation if
such answer be not found to be satisfactory; attached affidavits of his witnesses
PEDREALBA, AQUINO, AUSTRIA and VITAN [UNSATISFACTORY – SET FOR
FORMAL HEARING BEFORE BOARD OF DISCIPLINE OF BID]
 Several postponed hearings due to requests and non-availability of the parties
(mostly due to absence of SAMALIO’s witnesses)
 SAMALIO moved to dismiss; Special Prosecutor did not interposed any objection
[case not dismissed – Special Prosecutor given 5 days to inform Board WON
he intends to present additional witnesses]
BID Commissioner issued Personnel Order No. 93-428 reorganizing the Board of
Discipline – case assigned to a new Board; subpoenas were again sent and hearings
resolution based on the records [GRANTED]
BID Acting Commissioner: SAMALIO guilty of the charges and ordered dismissed
from service
 1ST ENDORSEMENT (former Justice Secretary GUINGONA, JR): confirmed
penalty of dismissal from service
 CSC: appeal DISMISSED; decisions affirmed
CRIMINAL CASE: During pendency of administrative case, SAMALIO was convicted
in Sandiganbayan of the crime of Robbery – penalty of 4M1D Arresto Mayor to
4Y2M11D Prission Correcional and to indemnify WENG US$500 [SAMALIO did not
appeal conviction, applied for and was granted probation for 2 years]
CA: Petition for review dismissed; validity of CSC resolutions upheld
ISSUE: WON SAMALIO was denied due process? NO
SAMALIO: He was deprived of due process because no witness or evidence was
presented against him and CA erred in the interpretation of Sec 47 Rule 130 Rules of
Court and that there was no hearing conducted on his case
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
COURT: CSC decision and resolution upholding resolution of SOJ confirming decision
of BID Commissioner are supported by substantial evidence
 CSC, as well as SOJ and Commissioner of BID, decided the case on the basis of
pleadings and papers submitted by the parties, and relied on the records of
the proceedings taken
 The decision was based on the criminal complaint filed by WENG against
SAMALIO before City Prosecutor’s Office as well as Resolution of same office
recommending the prosecution of SAMALIO at the Sandiganbyan for the
crimes of robbery and violation of Sec 46 of the Immigration Law
 They also took cognizance of the testimony of WENG in Sandiganbayan and the
fact that SAMALIO’s conviction in that case
 THUS, there was ample evidence which satisfied the burden of proof required in
administrative proceedings – substantial evidence or that the quantum of
relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a
conclusion – to support CSC decision
DUE PROCESS (APPLICATION OF ROC PROVISIONS)
Sec 47 Rule 130 ROC – “rule on former testimony” in deciding the administrative case
 The provisions of the Rules of Court may be applied suppletorily to the rules of
procedure of administrative bodies exercising quasi-judicial powers, unless
otherwise provided by law or the rules of procedure of the administrative agency
concerned.
 The Rules of Court, which are meant to secure to every litigant the adjective phase
of due process of law, may be applied to proceedings before an administrative
body with quasi-judicial powers in the absence of different and valid statutory or
administrative provisions prescribing the ground rules for the investigation, hearing
and adjudication of cases before it
Requisite for application of Sec 47 Rule 130:
(1) The witness is dead or unable to testify
(2) His testimony or deposition was given in a former case or proceeding, judicial or
administrative, between the same parties or those representing the same interests
(3) The former case involved the same subject as that in the present case, although
on different causes of action
(4) The issue testified to by the witness in the former trial is the same issue involved
in the present case
(5) The adverse party had an opportunity to cross-examine the witness in the former
case
IN CASE AT BAR, ALL REQUISITES WERE SATISFIED
 WENG was unable to testify in the administrative proceedings before BID because
she left the country even before the administrative complaint was instituted [this
fact was already disclosed to the parties]
 SAMALIO did not deny that the testimony of WENG was given in Sandiganbayan,
a case which sprang from the information filed pursuant to Resolution of City
Prosecutor’s Office, the very same resolution used by Commissioner as basis for
filing of the administrative complaint [Issue testified to by WENG in
Sandiganbayan was the same issue in the administrative case (WON
SAMALIO extorted money from her)]
 CSC and SOJ did not err when they applied it and took cognizance of WENG’s
testimony in Sandibanbayan in the case where SAMALIO was convicted
Administrative tribunals exercising quasijudicial powers are unfettered by the
rigidity of certain procedural requirements, subject to the observance of
fundamental and essential requirements of due process in justiciable cases
presented before them
 In administrative proceedings, technical rules of procedure and evidence are not
strictly applied and administrative due process cannot be fully equated with due
process in its strict judicial sense
 administrative penalty that could have been interrupted by the probation at the
IN CASE, Uniform Rules of Procedure in the Conduct of Administrative Investigations
in CSC which were applicable to SAMALIO’s case provided that administrative
investigations shall be conducted without necessarily adhering to technical rules
applicable in judicial proceedings
 The Uniform Rules provides that evidence having materiality and relevance to the
administrative case shall be accepted
 Not only was SAMALIO’s objection to the application of Sec 47 Rule 130 a
technicality that could be disregarded, the testimony of WENG in Sandiganbayan
was also material and relevant to the administrative case – CSC was correct in
applying Sec 47 Rule 130 when it took cognizance of the testimony
ON HEARING
RULE: In administrative cases, the requirement of notice and hearing does not connote
full adversarial proceedings
 Due process in an administrative context does not require trial- type proceedings
similar to those in courts of justice. Where opportunity to be heard either through
oral arguments or through pleadings is accorded, there is no denial of procedural
due process.
 A formal or trial-type hearing is not at all times and in all instances essential. The
requirements are satisfied where the parties are afforded fair and reasonable
opportunity to explain their side of the controversy at hand.
IN CASE, SAMALIO was heard through the various pleadings which he filed with Board
of Discipline when he filed his answer and 2 motions to dismiss as well as other motions
and papers. He was also able to participate in all stages of the administrative
proceeding. He was able to elevate his case to the Secretary of Justice and,
subsequently, to the CSC by way of appeal.
ON APPROVAL OF PROBATION
BACLAYON V MUTIA ET AL (invoked by SAMALIO) – the grant of probation
suspended the imposition not only of the principal penalties but of the accessory
penalties as well
 SAMALIO: Approval of probation in the criminal case restored him to all civil rights
lost or suspended as a result of his conviction, including the right to remain in
government service
COURT:
(1) BACLAYON is not applicable. In that case, no administrative complaint was
instituted against the public officer during the pendency of the criminal case against
her and even after her conviction.
(2) Dismissal is not an accessory penalty of the penalty imposed by Sandiganbyaan.
Even if his contention was correct, the grant of probation could not have resulted
in the suspension of an accessory penalty like dismissal that does not even exist.
(3) “To suspend” means “to stop temporarily; to discontinue” or “to cause to be
intermitted or interrupted”.
 SAMALIO was granted probation by Sandiganbayan on Dec 12 1992, he was
dismissed from service by BID Commissioner on JUL 25 1996. Since the grant
of probation was granted long before the administrative case was decided, the
probation could not have possibly suspended the imposition of the penalty of
dismissal from the service in the administrative case since there was no
time it was granted
(4) The imposition of the penalty of dismissal could not have been suspended by the
grant of probation
 As SAMALIO himself contends, the criminal action is separate and distinct
form the administrative case so administrative liability is separate and distinct
from penal liability.
WHEREFORE, PETITION DENIED