NUEZ vs. CRUZ-APAO

               (A.M. No. CA-05-18-P, April 12, 2005)

Facts:

   Complainant Nuez's case had been pending with the CA for more than two years. He filed an illegal dismissal case against PAGCOR before the Civil Service Commission (CSC).  The CSC ordered complainant’s reinstatement but a writ of preliminary injunction and a temporary restraining order was issued by the CA in favor of PAGCOR, thus complainant was not reinstated to his former job pending adjudication of the case. In line with this,  Nuez was in desperate need of help that can speed up his case before the CA.  He contacted, Elvira Cruz-Apao, an Executive Assistant II of the acting Division Clerk of Court of CA, whom he learned from his sister-in-law.  Elvira texted Zaldy, that a favorable decision can be made provided P1Million be given to her.  Zaldy bargained for a lower amount but Elvira refused, mentioning that it is the flat rate the person who will make the favorable decision.  Elvira texted Zaldy that they have to meet at times Plaza Un Avenue.  Zaldy and Elvira met and negotiated for a lower price, but to no avail.  They arranged for another meeing, but now, Zaldy coordinated to matter with GMA 7 Imbestigador, where assistance from PAOCTF was sought for an entrapment operation.  During the meeting, marked money was prepared.  Agents of PAOCTF were in position to execute the entrapement.  When Elvira arrived, she was anxious that an entrapment will be made.  Eventually the PAOCTF operators executed the entrapment and investigated the respondent. 

     The respondent maintained that what happened was a case of instigation and not an entrapment. She asserted that the offer of money in exchange for a favorable decision came not from her but from complainant. To support her contention, she presented witnesses who testified that it was complainant who allegedly offered money to anyone who could help him with his pending case. She likewise claimed that she never touched the money on 28 September 2004, rather it was Capt. Maclang who forcibly held her hands and pressed it to the envelope containing the money. She thus asked that the administrative case against her be dismissed.

Issue:

 Whether or not text messages can be used as evidence before the court.

Held:

   The Supreme Court held that, complainant was able to prove by his testimony in conjunction with the text messages from respondent duly presented before the Committee that the latter asked for One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00) in exchange for a favorable decision of the former’s pending case with the CA. The text messages were properly admitted by the Committee since the same are now covered by Section 1(k), Rule 2 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence which provides:

"Ephemeral electronic communication" refers to telephone conversations, text messages . . . and other electronic forms of communication the evidence of which is not recorded or retained."

  

    Under Section 2, Rule 11 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence, "Ephemeral electronic communications shall be proven by the testimony of a person who was a party to the same or who has personal knowledge thereof . . . ." In this case, complainant who was the recipient of said messages and therefore had personal knowledge thereof testified on their contents and import.  Respondent herself admitted that the cellphone number reflected in complainant’s cellphone from which the messages originated was hers. Moreover, any doubt respondent may have had as to the admissibility of the text messages had been laid to rest when she and her counsel signed and attested to the veracity of the text messages between her and complainant. It is also well to remember that in administrative cases, technical rules of procedure and evidence are not strictly applied. We have no doubt as to the probative value of the text messages as evidence in determining the guilt or lack thereof of respondent in this case.

     Hence, the high court  found Elvira Cruz-Apao guilty of Grave Misconduct and violation of SECTIONS 1 and 2 of the CODE OF CONDUCT FOR COURT PERSONNEL and is accordingly DISMISSED from government service, with prejudice to re-employment in any branch, instrumentality or agency of the government, including government-owned and controlled corporations.