THE Supreme Court (SC) has warned that it would not hesitate to impose necessary penalties against public officers who will be found engaged in corruption and extortion.
In a 14-page ruling penned by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, the Court’s Second Division affirmed the decision issued by the Court of Appeals (CA) on May 30, 2024 and resolution dated September 17, 2024, which found Police Senior Superintendent Amador Hernandez, an aviation security officer, guilty of grave misconduct.
The Court also upheld his dismissal from the service, the forfeiture of his retirement and other benefits, and perpetual disqualification from reemployment in any government agency or instrumentality, including any government-owned or controlled corporation or government financial institution.
The ruling stemmed from the petition for review filed by Hernandez seeking the reversal of the CA’s rulings which affirmed the administrative decisions and resolutions of the Office of the President and the National Police Commission (Napolcom).
Both tribunals found him administratively liable for grave misconduct for extorting the amount of P5,000 from a lady passenger.
The passenger was accosted by aviation security personnel on October 3, 2011 at the Diosdado Macapagal International Airport during check-in for carrying Philippine currency in excess of P10,000 as required under the law
She was then escorted to the airport security station chief’s office where Hernandez and another individual spoke to her about her violation of a banking circular limiting the amount of Philippine currency that may be taken outside of the country.
The passenger narrated that the two threatened to bring her to Customs authorities which would delay her flight boarding and result in the confiscation of her money.
To avoid such scenario, the lady passenger asked Hernandez what she could not and the latter replied ‘kung ano maluwag sa iyo’ (Whatever is convenient for you).
When the passenger offered P1,000 for her release, the police officer merely laughed at her.
After some negotiation, the passenger agreed to pay P5,000 for her release.
The lady passenger later filed an administrative complaint against Hernandez before Napolcom for grave misconduct for extorting money from her which ruled against the latter.
Hernandez subsequently appealed Napolcom’s ruling before the Office of the Preside which also denied his appeal, prompting him to elevate the case before the CA.
The CA affirmed both the decisions of the Napolcom and the Office of the President, which led Hernandez to bring issue before the SC.
Hernandez argued that CA ruling relied solely on the ‘bare statements given by the lady passenger and her companions.’
He added that the CA affirmed the findings of the Napolcom and of the Office of the President despite lacking factual and legal basis.
In denying his petition, the SC held that the CA acted within the bounds of its authority by affirming his liability after reviewing the evidence on record.
‘The established facts place petitioner’s actions squarely within the scope of grave misconduct, as it amounted to ‘unlawful behavior’ and a ‘deliberate violation of a rule of law.’ His unlawful behavior is further attended by corrupt intent, shown in how he used his public office to procure monetary benefit for himself,’ the SC said.
The Court also stressed that having a long track record of good service or that such misconduct was the officer’s first offense cannot be used as basis to lower the penalty against him.
‘Public office is a public trust. Any violation of this trust through grave misconduct is punishable by dismissal from service,’ the SC stressed.
The SC noted that the petitioner did not only extort money from the lady passenger but he also tried to conceal his wrongdoing by executing a sham waiver.