Incriminating Text

Moral lesson: Do not take text messages lightly as they can be used against you in court.

This was the painful lesson former Court of Appeals employee Elvira Cruz-Apao learned when the Supreme Court found her guilty of grave misconduct and dismissed her from public service for extorting P1 million in exchange for a favorable ruling from the appellate court. Apao was executive assistant II of the acting Division Clerk of Court of the CA’s 5th division.

The complainant presented to the court text messages sent by Apao by which the latter asked for P1 million in exchange for a favorable decision of Zaldy Nuez’s case with the CA (Pagcor vs Nuez) which has been pending for two years now.

According to the Supreme Court, the text messages were properly admitted by the ad hoc investigating committee created by the CA since the same are now covered by Section 1(k), Rule 2 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence which defines ephemeral electronic communication as that referring 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, the SC noted that the complainant who was the recipient of said messages and therefore had personal knowledge thereof testified on their contents and import.

According to the High Tribunal, Apao 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,” the Court held.

Nuez initially filed a complaint for extortion against Apao with the Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Commission–Special Projects Group (PAOCC-SPG) in Malacañang. This led to the conduct of an entrapment operation by elements of the Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Task Force (PAOCTF) on Sept. 28, 2004 when the supposed hand-over of the money was going to take place.

Apao was apprehended by the PAOCTF agents prompting then CA Presiding Justice Cancio Garcia (now Supreme Court Justice) to issue an order creating an ad hoc investigating committee that will investigate the case and recommend the proper administrative sanctions against her. The committee recommended her dismissal from service.

Nuez’s case was an illegal dismissal case against Pagcor. Complainant filed an illegal dismissal case against Pagcor before the Civil Service Commission (CSC) which ordered his 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.

Since he wanted expeditious decision of his case, Nuez sought the assistance of Apao sometime in July 2004 and the latter told him that a favorable and speedy decision of his case was attainable but the person who was to draft the decision was in return asking for P1 million.

When Nuez told Apao that he did not have that kind of money since he had been jobless for a long time, respondent replied, “Eh, ganoon talaga ang lakaran dito, eh. Kung wala kang pera, pasensiya ka.” Respondent even admonished complainant with the words “Wala tayo sa palengke iho.” when the latter bargained for a lower amount.

Complainant then asked for time to determine whether or not to pay the money in exchange for the decision. Instead, in August of 2004, he sought the assistance of the television program Imbestigador which accompanied him to PAOCCF-SPG where he lodged a complaint against respondent for extortion.

Apao, in his meeting with Nuez explained that the P1 million guaranteed a favorable decision only in the CA but did not extend to the Supreme Court should the case be appealed later. When respondent was asked where the money will go, she claimed that it will go to a male researcher whose name she refused to divulge. The researcher was allegedly a lawyer in the CA 5th Division where complainant case was pending. She also claimed that she will not get any part of the money unless the researcher decides to give her some.

The SC, in its decision, stressed that by soliciting the amount P1 million from complainant, respondent committed an act of impropriety which immeasurably affects the honor and dignity of the judiciary and the people’s confidence in it.

Meanwhile, in another case, the Supreme Court ruled that computer virus is not a valid excuse for delay in the filing of a pleading.

The High Tribunal upheld on January 24, 2005 the Court of Appeals’ denial of Helen Dagdagan’s second motion for extension and dismissing her petition for review for having been filed out of time. The litigant asked for the additional extension because a computer virus had caused the deletion of the entire draft of the petition.

“Deviations from the rules cannot be tolerated. The rationale for this strict attitude is not difficult to appreciate. These rules are designed to facilitate the orderly disposition of appealed cases. In an age where courts are bedeviled by clogged dockets, these rules need to be followed by litigants with greater fidelity. Their observance cannot be left to their whims and caprices. Moreover, rules of procedure are tools designed to promote efficiency and orderliness as well as to facilitate attainment of justice, such that strict adherence thereto is required,” the court said.

The SC noted that petitioner’s reason was “not compelling” for it to be granted. It said that petitioner’s counsel would not have encountered a problem if he had been systematic in his work as he could have saved the encoded petition in a diskette and printed it.

Rule 43, sec. 4 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended provides that an appeal be taken within 15 days from notice of the award, judgment, final order, or resolution. The rule allows only one motion for reconsideration but the CA may grant an additional period of 15 days within which to file a petition for review “for the most compelling reason.”

In this case, the Cordillera Administrative Region of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources dismissed petitioner Dagdagan’s letter-protest against the townsite sales application of respondent Marani Bacolod, holding that the public land in dispute was alienable and thus available for disposition.

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied. She then elevated her case to the Office of the President, but then Executive Secretary Ronaldo Zamora denied petitioner’s appeal and affirmed the decision of the DENR.

Consequently, petitioner’s counsel filed a motion for extension of time to file a petition for review under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure with the CA. The CA granted petitioner a non-extendible period of 15 days within which to file her petition for review.

Petitioner’s counsel however filed an “urgent ex-parte motion for extension” of five days on the ground that his entire draft of the petition was deleted from the computer due to computer virus. The CA denied petitioner’s second motion for extension and dismissed her petition for being filed out of time.

(Source: The Philippine IT Law Journal; Article Authored by: Mary Ann Ll. Reyes)