If a public official is charged criminally for an alleged wrongdoing proscribed by the penal laws, may he be charged administratively as well? Yes, since his single act of wrongdoing may constitute both a crime (for which he must be imprisoned) and a service-related misconduct (for which he must be disciplined).

The aim of the criminal case is to punish an offense done to the state; that of the administrative, to improve public service. For this reason, criminal proceedings are considered penal in nature, while administrative proceedings remedial. The highest penalty for a criminal offense is imprisonment; that for an administrative is removal.

Because the penalty in a criminal case is graver, the rules call for a higher degree of evidence to convict, namely, proof beyond reasonable doubt. This is proof that produces moral certainty in an unprejudiced mind about the guilt of the accused, one that is totally inconsistent with his innocence. In an administrative case, the evidence needed to sustain a finding is only substantial evidence, or relevant evidence a reasonable mind might accept as already adequate to support his conclusion.

Moreover, the guilt of the accused in a criminal case is generally established only through the strict application of technical rules of evidence. Administrative proceedings, on the other hand, sometimes dispense with technical rules in order to arrive at a verdict, as long as the official is given an opportunity to present his side and confront the witnesses against him.

A related matter is based on the difference of the degrees of proof mentioned. Considering that the administrative case requires a lesser degree of proof, a public official who is charged both criminally and administratively may tell the Ombudsman or any disciplining body to wait first on the administrative case until his guilt in the criminal case is definitely established.

This point is often raised because the official may want to avoid being preventively suspended while the two cases against him are being investigated. Unfortunately for him, unless the elements in both cases are exactly the same, the administrative case is not suspended because the public-trust character of his office, which exacts utmost loyalty and integrity from him, requires that the administrative case cannot wait.

If the public official is acquitted in the criminal case, will the administrative case still prosper? Yes, because that evidence which, under the exacting demands of criminal evidence and procedure, is inadequate, may be adequate under the less-exacting demands of administrative evidence and procedure.

What if the official is convicted in the criminal case, how will this affect his administrative case? We might think that because the official has already been convicted of the criminal charge, the administrative case ending up against him is a foregone conclusion. Not so, because of the differences that may exist in the actual articulation of the administrative charge, in the actual evidence presented therein, and in the actual appreciation of the evidence in the administrative case.

A more difficult question is: If the administrative case found the public official innocent of the administrative charge, how will this affect the criminal charge? The official may ask for the outright dismissal of the criminal case on the theory that if the evidence presented in the administrative proceedings, where the evidence needed is less-exacting, did not stand up, how could it stand up in the criminal case where the evidence required is more exacting?

The criminal case shall go on. The theory advanced assumes there is complete identity in all the ingredients of and in the procedures followed in both criminal and administrative cases. It is not so, because, again, there may actually be differences between the two proceedings in the manner the charge is articulated, in the elements of the charge, in the evidence presented therein, and in the manner or light with which the evidence presented is appreciated.

****

I welcome feedback at ombproper@ombudsman.gov.ph. The above is meant only as a general guide, and is not a prediction of what the Ombudsman will do in actual cases. The assistance of counsel must be sought for specific advice as to rights and obligations also in actual cases.

Editorial: Taking stock

WE have a recent Associated Press (AP) dispatch from Washington to remind us how Ronald Reagan defined economic downturns.

Through the Looking Glass: The Close-Now, Hear-Later Doctrine

Conclusion 

This doctrine, fired from the hip to preempt asset dissipation against banks proven insolvent, is self-explanatory. Upon insolvency and where there is an imminent danger that an insolvent bank’s assets may be dissipated, then authorities invoke the doctrine.

Sway: The nature of our leaders

Almost always, nature offers the simplest explanation for a person’s why, what and how. This is the case even for politics, if only to explain President Arroyo’s decision to run in 2004 despite making earlier pronouncements that she wouldn’t, or why President Marcos opted for declaring martial law in 1972 to bypass the presidential election of 1973.

Omerta: Morales has got to go

All the signs are pointing in one direction. These suggest that Customs Commissioner Morales, based on his bureau’s huge revenue-collection shortfall over the past 21 months, may, sooner than you think, be among the first major casualties of the Lateral Attrition Act of 2005.

The Essential Thing: Criminal, administrative raps vs the same person

If a public official is charged criminally for an alleged wrongdoing proscribed by the penal laws, may he be charged administratively as well? Yes, since his single act of wrongdoing may constitute both a crime (for which he must be imprisoned) and a service-related misconduct (for which he must be disciplined).

Servant Leader: Part I: Creation–a network of life

We are blessed with a Cardinal who loves to teach us. Last month, this column featured the pastoral teaching of His Eminence entitled “Weakness and sickness—the way to fullness of life.” This week and the next few weeks, I will share with you the Cardinal’s latest teaching, Life is one!