OMBUDSMAN V. TORRES AND TORRES (REMEDIAL, ADMINISTRATIVE)

The existence of malice or criminal intent is not a mandatory requirement for a finding of falsification of official documents as an administrative offense. What is required is simply a showing that the private respondents made entries in their respective DTRs knowing fully that they were false. The offense is in the nature of MALUM PROHIBITUM. The element of damage is also not absolutely necessary, since this case does not pertain to the felony of falsification under the Revised Penal Code. Further, it remains arguable that there could have been damage caused the government as public money was paid for hours of work not actually rendered.

It is a well-entrenched jurisprudential principle that the dismissal of the criminal case involving the same set of facts does not automatically result in the dismissal of the administrative charges against private respondents.

While it is true that factual findings of administrative agencies that are affirmed by the CA are conclusive upon and generally not reviewable by the SC, the rule admits of the following exceptions:

• when the findings are grounded entirely on speculations, surmises, or conjectures;
• when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible;
• when there is grave abuse of discretion;
• when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts;
• when the findings of fact are conflicting;
• when the findings went beyond the issues of the case or are contrary to the admissions of the parties to the case;
• when the findings are contrary to those of the trial court or the administrative agency;
• when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based;
• when the facts set forth in the pleadings are not disputed;
• when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record; and
• when certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties were manifestly overlooked, which if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion.

Given the particular circumstances surrounding the case, it cannot be justly and validly inferred that private respondents indeed falsified their DTRs without the presentation of the corresponding DTRs themselves, since these DTRs were supposed to be the subject of the falsification. A party to an administrative case must prove his affirmative allegation with substantial evidence, and the complainant before the Office of the Ombudsman could not have established proof of the falsification absent the alleged falsified documents.