GR 133530; (October, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 133530 ; October 25, 2004
DONATO S. SUYAT, JR., petitioner, vs. HON. RUBEN D. TORRES, in his capacity as Executive Secretary, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Donato S. Suyat, Jr., a 2nd Assistant Provincial Prosecutor of Rizal, was administratively charged with grave misconduct. The case stemmed from a robbery complaint filed against several suspects, including the sons and nephew of Imelda Torres. Imelda Torres alleged that Suyat demanded and agreed to accept ₱15,000.00 in exchange for dismissing the case. She reported the matter to the NBI, which conducted an entrapment operation.
On June 9, 1993, Imelda Torres, accompanied by NBI agents, handed Suyat an envelope containing marked money after he gave her a resolution dismissing the case. Upon the pre-arranged signal, NBI agents apprehended Suyat. Forensic examination later revealed fluorescent powder on his hands. The Secretary of Justice found Suyat guilty and recommended dismissal, which was affirmed by the President through Administrative Order No. 95. The Court of Appeals dismissed Suyat’s petition for certiorari, prompting this appeal.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the administrative dismissal of petitioner for grave misconduct.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition. The Court emphasized that in a Rule 45 petition, only questions of law may be raised, as it is not a trier of facts. Findings of fact by administrative bodies, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are conclusive if supported by substantial evidence. The Court found that the Secretary of Justice, the Office of the President, and the Court of Appeals had all meticulously reviewed the evidence and consistently found Suyat guilty.
The evidence, including the credible testimony of Imelda Torres and the corroborating NBI entrapment operation, substantiated the charge of grave misconduct. The petitioner failed to demonstrate any grave abuse of discretion or lack of substantial evidence in the lower tribunals’ rulings. Even disregarding the forensic chemistry results, the totality of the evidence amply supported the conclusion that Suyat solicited and received money in connection with his official duties. Thus, his dismissal from service was upheld.