Memorandum
Memorandum
Memorandum
COURT OF APPEALS
CEBU
CELSO JOMENTO,
Petitioner,
Respondent.
x---------------------------------------
--- x
PETITIONERS MEMORANDUM
1
SUBJECT INDEX
Page
No.
(2) Arguments 3
2
Petitioner who took the examination.
A. Table of Cases 28
B. Table of Statutes 31
(4) Relief 32
STATEMENT OF FACTS/CASE
3
in the Picture Seat Plan against their actual appearance and
looks.
After a meticulous and exhaustive examination and
determination that the pictures and the examinees are the
same persons, the examiners allowed the examinees to get
inside the examination room. After the examinees were
seated, the pictures of the examinees were reexamined
against the actual physical appearances and features of the
examinees, after which their respective pictures were then
attached to the Picture Seat Plan.
Now and then, the examiners would make thorough and
exhaustive rounds to make certain that the pictures of the
respective examinees correspond to the persons actually
taking the examination.
Petitioner underwent the same rigorous procedure the
examiners carefully examined Petitioner, determined that he
was indeed the person appearing on the picture in the
Picture Seat Plan, and was the same person who affixed his
signature in the Picture Seat Plan.
Petitioner took this examination at Room 22-11 of the
Criminology Building of the University of Negros Occidental
Recoletos (UNO-R), Bacolod City, under the strict supervision
of the personnel of the Civil Service Commission and under
the unflinching watchful eye and assistance of military men
in the vicinity.
Petitioner was thus extremely surprised when,
sometime in the year 2000 or eleven years later, he was
made the subject of a complaint alleging that he caused
another person to take the civil service examination on July
30, 1989.
Petitioner was exonerated of the unjustified accusation
when the CSCRO dismissed the administrative case against
4
him for insufficiency of evidence through Decision dated July
31, 2000.
Subsequently, sometime in 2004, another undated
letter complaint was filed against Petitioner by a certain
Jose Delos Santos, alleging that Petitioner caused another
person to take the July 30, 1989 civil service examination on
his behalf. Notwithstanding that no additional evidence was
submitted since the filing of the first complaint in the year
2000, the unverified complaint of Jose Delos Santos was
made the basis of the Formal Charge dated May 30, 2005
against Petitioner for dishonesty, and subsequently, the Civil
Service Commission Regional Office VI (CSCRO VI) Decision
dated August 13, 2009. An original duplicate copy of the
Formal Charge dated May 30, 2005 is hereto attached as
Annex C and is made an integral part hereof.
It must be emphasized that as the records of this case
will reveal, the alleged complainant Jose De Los Santos
was never presented as a witness to attest under oath to the
truth of the accusations in his complaint, nor cross-examined
to test the truthfulness and credibility of his allegations.
Petitioner submitted his Motion to Dismiss dated July
16, 2005, which served as his counter-affidavit/sworn
statement to the Formal Charge. (Annex D of the Petition
for Certiorari)
Several formal investigative hearings were conducted
by the CSCRO VI through hearing officer Atty. Cherry dela
Cruz. During the formal investigative hearings, only
Petitioner presented the testimonies of the examiners and
supervisors who conducted the July 30, 1989 examination.
All three witnesses consistently testified under oath that it
was Petitioner himself who took the examination on July 30,
1989. The prosecution, on the other hand, presented no
5
witnesses at all to substantiate the allegations in the Formal
Charge.
After the hearings, both the prosecution and the
defense submitted their respective Formal Offer of Exhibits.
Thereafter, the parties were required by the CSCRO VI to
submit their respective memoranda. Original duplicate
copies of the Formal Offer of Exhibits dated April 18, 2006
submitted by Petitioner and the Formal Offer of Exhibits
dated December 1, 2005 of the prosecution are hereto
attached as Annexes E and F, respectively, and are
made integral parts hereof. An original duplicate copy of
Petitioners Memorandum dated May 31, 2006 is also
attached to this Petition as Annex G and is made an
integral part hereof.
The CSCRO VI rendered a Decision dated August 13,
2009, finding Petitioner guilty of Serious Dishonesty and
dismissing him from the service. (Annex H of the Petition
for Certiorari)
Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration on October
1, 2009.
On November 23, 2009, the CSCRO VI promulgated a
Decision denying Petitioners Motion for Reconsideration.
(Annex I of the Petition for Certiorari)
Petitioner filed an appeal with the Civil Service
Commission in accordance with Sections 43 and 46 of the
Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, to
appeal the Decision dated November 23, 2009, which
affirmed the Decision dated August 13, 2009 rendered by
the CSCRO VI.
The Honorable Commission denied Petitioners appeal
through Resolution No. 10-0717 dated April 6, 2010. (Annex
____ of the Petition for Certiorari)
6
Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration of
Resolution No. 10-0717 dated April 6, 2010, which was
denied by the Honorable Commission through Resolution
No. 10-00390 dated November 22, 2010. (Annex ____ of the
Petition for Certiorari)
Hence, this appeal.
ARGUMENTS
7
exists on record strong evidence proving Petitioners
innocence of the charge against him.
The Honorable Commission further declares in its
Resolution No. 10-0717 dated April 6, 2010 that:
It should be emphasized that the Petitioner
cannot rely on what he perceives to be weakness of the
evidence by the other party, the CSCRO No. VI, as the
same has presented substantial evidence which is the
only proof required in administrative cases.
8
On the other hand, Petitioner offered overwhelming
evidence to prove his innocence of the charge against him.
Petitioner had unequivocably and categorically testified
that he personally took that Career Service Professional
Examination conducted last July 30, 1989; that the picture
and the signature appearing in the Picture Seat Plan that he
submitted are genuinely his own; and that he took this
examination at Room 22-11 of the Criminology Building of
the University of Negros Occidental Recoletos (UNO-R),
Bacolod City, under the strict supervision of the personnel of
the Civil Service Commission and under the unflinching
watchful eye and assistance of military men in the vicinity.
He further presented no less than the three Civil
Service Commission personnel who actually supervised and
proctored the examination. These witnesses gave their
candid, straight-forward, uncompromising and unreserved
testimonies to this effect: Ms. Helen P. Apellido-Taclobos was
assigned as the Room Examiner/Proctor in that examination,
specifically at Room 22-11, where the Petitioner was listed as
one of the examinees. She was assisted at that time by
another Room Examiner, Ms. Lennie Padilla and Supervising
Examiner, Ms. Julieta Tabino, to see to it that the integrity of
the examination would be unquestionable. Mrs. Apellido-
Taclobos testified that as examiners, they exercised extreme
caution in comparing the names of the examinees against
the Admission Slips that they hold, and their pictures against
their actual appearance and looks. She further testified that
only after a meticulous and exhaustive examination and
determination that the pictures and the examinees are the
same had the examiners allowed the examinees to get
inside the examination room. That again a re-examination of
the pictures of the examinees against the actual physical
9
appearances and features were made when these
examinees are now seated, after which their respective
pictures were then attached in the Picture Seat Plan. Now
and then, the examiners would make thorough and
exhaustive rounds to make certain that the pictures of the
respective examinees would correspond to the persons
actually taking the examination. Mrs. Apellido-Taclobos
categorically testified that Petitioner underwent the same
rigorous procedure the examiners carefully examined
Petitioner, determined that he was indeed the person
appearing on the picture in the Picture Seat Plan, and was
the same person who affixed his signature in the Picture Seat
Plan. If she had any doubts at all that it was not Petitioner,
she could have driven him out of the room. She stated
without a cloud of doubt that it was Petitioner, not an
impostor, who personally appeared before them on July 30,
1989, and that it was Petitioner who actually took the civil
service examination on the same date. (Affidavit of Helen P.
Apellido-Taclobos dated July 16, 2005 attached as Exhibit 1
of the Formal Offer of Exhibits dated Aril 18, 2006, which is
attached as Annex E to the Petition for Certiorari.)
Ms. Lennie Padilla corroborated the testimony of Mrs.
Apellido-Taclobos. She likewise unreservedly declared with
absolutely certainty that it was Petitioner Celso Jomento, and
no other, whom she allowed to take the civil service
examination she proctored on July 30, 1989 at UNO-R and
whom she admitted only after a careful scrutiny of his
picture and person was done. (Affidavit of Lennie O. Padilla
dated July 4, 2005 attached as Exhibit 2 of the Formal Offer
of Exhibits dated Aril 18, 2006, which is attached as Annex
E to the Petition for Certiorari.)
10
Ms. Julieta M. Tabino a retired Principal of the Negros
Occidental Provincial High School (NOHS) under oath stated
in her Affidavit, which affidavit was admitted by the
prosecution, that in that CSC Career Professional
Examination last July 30, 1989, held at the Criminology
Building of UNO-R, this City, she was appointed a
Supervising Examiner. She personally instructed all Room
Examiners/Proctors to follow and comply with all the
instructions to safeguard the integrity of the examination,
most especially in the exhaustive and meticulous
examination of the identity of the examinees. The
procedures in place were strictly and dutifully followed, to
ensure the integrity of the examination. Anything that is
amiss or out of order was immediately reported to her by the
proctors and room examiners. She is then authorized to take
positive action in order to preserve the integrity of the
examination.
She testified that in the examination held on July 30,
1989, no report was ever made to her of any irregularity or
untoward incident, such as the taking of the examination by
a person other than the examinee himself. (Affidavit of
Julieta M. Tabino dated July 9, 2005 attached as Exhibit 3 of
the Formal Offer of Exhibits dated Aril 18, 2006, which is
attached as Annex E of the Petition for Certiorari.)
Again, we respectfully emphasize that the testimonies
of these witnesses, especially that of Mrs. Apellido-Taclobos
and Ms. Padilla, prove beyond doubt that it was Petitioner
who actually took the civil service examination on July 30,
1989. The testimonies of Petitioners witnesses were never
refuted by the prosecution.
In reference to the Picture Seat plan (PSP) and
Personal Data Sheet (PDS) used for comparison of the
11
pictures and signatures of Petitioner, the Honorable
Commission states in its Resolution No. 10-0717 dated April
6, 2010 that:
12
Without his passing the said examination,
Jomento can never attain permanent status in his
position. More intimidating is the probability that he
may be displaced from the service, even before his
temporary appointment expires, the moment a
qualified and interested applicant comes xxx. Thus it
was imperative for him to resort to a last-ditch
maneuver to hold on to his position by asking
somebody else to take the examination for and in his
behalf. (Par. 3, page 1, Resolution No. 10-0717 dated
April 6, 2010, Annex A)
13
declared that the room examiners have performed
their duties regularly and had compared the pictures
on the Picture Seat Plan and the faces of the persons
who took the July 30, 1989 examination.(Par. 1, Page 6,
of the CSCRO VI Decision dated August 13, 2009, Annex H
of the Petition for Certiorari; Par. 5, page 7, Resolution No.
10-00390 dated November 22, 2010, Annex B of the
Petition for Certiorari) Despite the Commissions reliance on
the credibility of the said witnesses, the Honorable
Commission still refused, without reason, to believe the
consistent testimonies of the three witnesses that it was
Petitioner himself who appeared before them to take the
examination, and whose picture and signature appears on
the Picture Seat Plan. No explanation was proffered by the
Commission why it accepted part of the witnesses
testimonies while completely disregarding the rest.
14
exoneration from all charges of wrongdoing in the instant
administrative case.
a. The Honorable
Commission erred
when it ruled that
Petitioner allowed an
impersonator to take
for and in his behalf
the Career Service
Professional
Examinations
conducted on July
30, 1989 in Bacolod
City.
15
namely, Mrs. Helen P. Apellido-Taclobos Ms. Lennie Padilla
and Ms. Julieta Tabino. As the assigned examiners who
conducted the July 30, 1989 examination, it was these
witnesses themselves who examined Petitioner face to face
before allowing him to take the examination; it was they
themselves who examined firsthand the picture and
signature of Petitioner on the Picture Seat Plan, and
determined with certainty and conviction upon seeing
Petitioner during the presentation of their testimonies that it
was Petitioner himself who took the examination in 1989.
b. The Honorable
Commission erred
when it concluded
that it was not
16
Petitioners
photograph that was
attached on the
Picture Seat Plan
pertaining to the July
30, 1989 Career
Service Professional
Examination.
17
development that naturally affected his appearance.
(Attached as Exhibits 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, respectively
to Formal Offer of Exhibits dated April 18, 2006, Annex E)
It is not unreasonable to expect that Petitioner as he appears
today most certainly does not look exactly like the Petitioner
as he appeared eight years ago in 2001, nor does the
Petitioner of 2001 look exactly like the Petitioner as he
appeared twenty years ago in 1989.
18
take the examination. Considering that the two persons were
co-employees, it was easy for the Commission to verify that
one of them took the examination for the other. It was clear
that the person whose picture appears on the Picture Seat
Plan was not the picture of the person who was supposed to
take the examination. In the Cruz vs. Paitim case, both the
person who impersonated and the person impersonated
were administratively charged.
19
It must be noted that the Honorable Commission even
observed similarities between Petitioner and the face on the
picture affixed on the Picture Seat Plan. (Par. 6, page 6,
Resolution No. 10-0717 dated April 6, 2010, Annex B)
Petitioner respectfully submits that there are more
similarities than differences between Petitioner and the face
on the picture affixed on the picture Seat Plan as to support
the conclusion that they are actually one and the same
person.
c. The Honorable
Commission erred
when it concluded
that it was not
Petitioners
20
signature that was
affixed on the
Picture Seat Plan
pertaining to the July
30, 1989 Career
Service Professional
Examination.
21
Even the sample signatures offered by the prosecution
as the real signatures of Petitioner vary slightly from each
other in stroke, length and style, and yet the prosecution do
not dispute that these are all the signatures of Respondent-
apellant, despite the differences. (Exhibits D-4, H-2 and
F-1, Par. 3, Page 6, Decision dated August 13, 2009, Annex
H) What is the basis or standard for concluding that the
sample signatures of Petitioner are the true signatures of
Petitioner despite differences in the strokes and loops
between these signatures? What standards are to be used to
objectively conclude if the signatures were made by the
same or different persons? These questions, and the
conclusions reached by the prosecution and the CSRO VI
only highlight how subjective and unreliable ordinary opinion
can be. Such opinion cannot be made the basis of the
conclusion that the signature in the Picture Seat Plan was a
forgery.
22
attest to the fact that it was Petitioner himself who affixed
the signature on the Picture Seat Plan in 1989.
23
Supreme Court. As in the afore-quoted case, there were
differences in the signatures of a person in the course of
several years. The Supreme Court ruled that such
differences are not evidence of forgery. In ruling that forgery
was not proved in the case of Rivera vs. Turiano, the
Supreme Court declared thus:
24
for the variance of the signatures to be expected
and inevitable due to the passage of time.
25
d. The Honorable
Commission erred
when it concluded
that Petitioners
signature on the
Picture Seat Plan
pertaining to the July
30, 1989 civil service
examination was a
forgery based on its
own opinion only.
26
Witnesses Mrs. Apellido-Taclobos and Ms. Padilla
obviously do not agree with the opinion of the prosecution,
as they had the opportunity to witness first hand with their
own eyes that it was Petitioner himself who took the
examination, and that the signature affixed to the Picture
Seat Plan belongs to the Petitioner.
e. The Honorable
Commission erred
when it disregarded
the positive
eyewitness
testimonies of the
proctors
categorically
declaring under oath
that it was Petitioner
who took the
examination.
27
disregarding the testimonial evidence which clearly proved
that it was Petitioner who personally took the examination.
28
credibility of a witness respecting a portion of the testimony
of said witness to support its position, then it follows that the
rest of the testimony of the same witness is likewise
credible. It likewise bears noting that, while the CSCRO VI
explicitly relied on the testimonies of Petitioners witnesses
to support its Decision dated August 13, 2009, the CSCRO VI
later makes the conflicting and perplexing statement in its
Decision dated November 23, 2009 that the testimonies of
Petitioners witnesses cannot be given sufficient weight to
disprove the charges against him, as against the
documentary evidence presented by the prosecution. (Par. 5,
Page 2, Decision dated November 23, 2009, Annex I)
29
school teachers for decades. As of the time of the taking of
their respective testimonies, they were already of a
considerable advanced age, and travel from their
hometowns in the province of Negros Occidental to the place
of the hearings in Iloilo City could not be accomplished
without experiencing discomfort and difficulty on their parts.
At this late stage of their lives, Petitioners witnesses still
chose of their own free will to testify in the instant case
notwithstanding any inconvenience that such act may entail.
This they did even at the risk of exposure to prosecution for
perjury, at the of risk of hard-earned benefits due to them as
life-long public servants, for a person such as Petitioner who
has no relation to them at all, in order to shed light and
attest on the true circumstances in this case. In other words,
the witnesses had nothing to gain from testifying in the
instant case, and everything to lose. These circumstances
are a testament to the credibility, independence and
integrity of the Petitioners witnesses. With all due respect to
the Honorable Court, their respective testimonies as given
in full must be accorded the credence and weight they
deserve in determining the guilt or innocence of Petitioner.
30
Petitioner to take the examination. It is also by reason of this
same conviction that they testified under oath before the
CSCRO VI and under penalty of perjury that it was Petitioner
himself, and no other, who appeared before them to take the
examination.
II. The Resolution 10-0717 dated April 6, 2010
affirmed by Resolution No. 10-00390 dated
November 22, 2010 of the Honorable Commission is
not supported by the applicable law and
jurisprudence on the matter.
31
opinion of another who sees the same set of circumstances
through different eyes.
32
required to make a finding of facts based upon
evidence actually presented. Intellectual dishonestly
should never be permitted to confer either jurisdiction
or power upon any official, and, when power thus
acquired is attempted to be used to another's hurt, the
appellate courts should be alert to halt it.
PRAYER
33
dated April 6, 2010, as affirmed in Resolution No. 10-00390
dated November 22, 2010, rendered by the Civil Service
Commission be reversed and set aside.
EXPLANATION
34
the office of undersigned counsel from the place of filing and
service.
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
dated ______________
35
HON. FRANCISCO DUQUE
Chairman
Civil Service Commission
Constitution Hills, Batasang Pambansa
Complex
Diliman 1126 Quezon City
Affiant
36