The Ombudsman found Jesus Ocampo, a training coordinator for NIACONSULT, administratively liable for failing to remit training fees paid by the Agricultural Development Bank of Nepal that he had personally received. Ocampo argued that the dismissal of a related criminal case of estafa and falsification filed in regional trial court barred the administrative case. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the dismissal of the criminal case did not affect the validity of the administrative case's resolution, as the evidentiary standards differ and one decision is not binding on the other.
The Ombudsman found Jesus Ocampo, a training coordinator for NIACONSULT, administratively liable for failing to remit training fees paid by the Agricultural Development Bank of Nepal that he had personally received. Ocampo argued that the dismissal of a related criminal case of estafa and falsification filed in regional trial court barred the administrative case. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the dismissal of the criminal case did not affect the validity of the administrative case's resolution, as the evidentiary standards differ and one decision is not binding on the other.
The Ombudsman found Jesus Ocampo, a training coordinator for NIACONSULT, administratively liable for failing to remit training fees paid by the Agricultural Development Bank of Nepal that he had personally received. Ocampo argued that the dismissal of a related criminal case of estafa and falsification filed in regional trial court barred the administrative case. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the dismissal of the criminal case did not affect the validity of the administrative case's resolution, as the evidentiary standards differ and one decision is not binding on the other.
OCAMPO vs OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN While the case is pending, a criminal complaint for estafa and
falsification was filed against Ocampo based on the same facts or
FACTS: incidents. The Regional Trial Court DISMISSED the case. Jesus Ocampo is the Training Coordinator of NIACONSULT, a OCAMPOS CONTENTION: RTCs dismissal of the criminal case subsidiary of the National Irrigation Administration. serves as a bar to the administrative case that can no longer stand The Agricultural Development Bank of Nepal (ADBN) requested on its own and therefore should be dismissed. NIACONSULT for training of small-scale community irrigation ISSUE/HELD: development, and Ocampo attended to the request. o Ocampo requested an advance of 30% of training fees to Whether or not the dismissal of the criminal case affect the validity of the the amount of US $9600 = PhP 204,960. administrative cases resolution? NO. o He also accepted two instalments of the training fee for P61,488 and P143,472. NIACONSULT demanded Ocampo to turn-over the total training fee RATIONALE: paid by ADBN which Ocampo personally received, but failed to remit the amount. The dismissal of the criminal case will not foreclose This prompted NIACONSULT to file an administrative case before administrative action filed against petitioner or give him a clean the OMBUDSMAN. bill of health in all aspects. o Ocampo failed to present a counter-affidavit amid being On quantum of evidence: The RTCs dismissal simply means that ordered twice by the OMBUDSMAN to do so. the prosecution was unable to prove the guilt of petitioner beyond o The decretal portion of the Resolution stated that Ocampo reasonable doubt. The lack or absence of proof beyond reasonable was to be discharged from the service, with forfeiture of doubt does not mean absence of any evidence whatsoever. The rule special benefits and special perpetual disqualification to in administrative proceedings is substantial evidence which merely hold office in government; without prejudice to any civil requires such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept action NIACONSULT may institute to recover the amount as adequate to support a conclusion. Considering this difference, retained by Ocampo. one decision cannot be binding on the other. o Ocampo now assails lack of due process for not having been given the opportunity to file a counter-affidavit and to present his evidence. [Bulk issue of the case, but not our concern in this topic. The decision just says that he waived his right to due process when he failed to produce a counter- affidavit amid being ordered twice to present his side]