572 Phil. 6; 105 OG No. 9, 1182 (March 2, 2009)
PER CURIAM:
EVALUATION: The focal issue here is factual - i.e., whether or not another person actually took the Civil Service Commission Sub-Professional eligibility test at San Fernando, Pampanga on 27 May 1998, using the name Lourdes F. Bermejo. In the affirmative, the corollary legal issue proceeds - i.e., whether or not it constitutes dishonesty as would merit a finding of administrative liability on the part of respondent.The OCA's recommendation is well-taken.
At bar is an anonymous complaint, which respondent suspects is the handiwork of her husband's ["]other woman[."] In evidence is a certified copy of the Seat Plan of the examination concerned. Said document is of public record and indicates that it was duly checked and certified by the room examiner as well as counter-checked by the supervising examiner. The same indubitably bears out a different person appearing to take the exam using the name Lourdes F. Bermejo, whereas the real Lourdes F. Bermejo (whose picture matches the respondent's) is the one seated beside her. Respondent fails to overcome this evidence. Aside from the presumption of regularity in the execution of official documents, respondent in her two letters did not categorically deny the genuineness and due execution of the Seat Plan. Instead, she impliedly admitted the same by her defense that she could not anymore locate the person appearing atop her name.
We note that it took more than five (5) years for the supposed "concerned citizen" to assail the anomaly, and that the alleged motive imputed to complainant probably holds water. However, these, at best, are merely persuasive, circumstantial, and do not suffice to discount an evidence which tend directly to prove the fact in issue.
Coming to the next issue, it is our considered opinion that the circumstances constitute dishonesty, given the following considerations:
1) Respondent's insistent line is that she actually took the exam - which is misleading since she indeed took the same - but she kept mum on that (sic) she let another person use her name in taking the civil service examination;
2) Respondent asserts that the person who purportedly took the exam using the name Lourdes F. Bermejo was her husband's childhood peer who is now allegedly serving sentence for adultery and whose locality of origin was razed by fire. How she was able to figure out the details of said person, when she only supposedly met her briefly during [the] exam that took place more than five years ago, at a far place where respondent was a complete stranger, is suspect;
3) It should be stressed that as a matter of procedure, the room examiners assigned to supervise the conduct of a Civil Service examination closely examine the pictures submitted and affixed on the Picture Seat Plan (CSC Resolution No. 95-3964, Obedencio, Jaime A.). The examiners carefully compare the appearance of each of the examinees with the person in the picture submitted and affixed on the Picture Seat Plan. In cases where the examinee does not look like the person in the picture submitted and attached on (sic) the PSP, the examiner will not allow the said person to take the examination (CSC Resolution No. 95-5195, Taguinay, Ma. Theresa).
Hence, it is clear that somebody else took the CSC exam for respondent Lourdes F. Bermejo. For her to deny it and actually reap the benefits of passing the same, when in fact somebody else took it for her, constitutes dishonesty.
In similar cases, the Honorable Court is consistent in imposing the stern penalty of dismissal, pursuant to Section 23, Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292. [Pls. see: CSC vs. Zenaida T. Sta. Ana, A.M. No. P-03-1696 (April 20, 2003); Cruz and Paitim vs. CSC, G.R. No. 144464 (Nov. 27, 2001); Floria vs. Sunga A.M. No. CA-01-10-PI (Nov. 14, 2001)].
RECOMMENDATION: Respectfully submitted for consideration of the Honorable Court is our recommendation that:
- the instant complaint be docketed as a regular administrative matter; and
- respondent Lourdes F. Bermejo, (sic) be found guilty of dishonesty and accordingly DISMISSED as Court Stenographer II, MTCC, Puerto Princesa City, with forfeiture of all her retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, and with prejudice to reemployment in any branch or instrumentality of the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations.
After a thorough review of the matter, the Court finds that respondent is indeed guilty of dishonesty. An examination of respondent's Personal Data Sheet reveals that her signature and picture on it are different from those in her CAT Application and Picture Seat Plan. Respondent attributes such discrepancy to "unknown persons who may have been committing such anomaly and irregularity in the examination procedure of the CSC." However, this Court agrees with the observation of the executive judge that the irregularity should not be attributed to the CSC which had no motive in tampering with such documents. Even if such irregularity was attributable to error or oversight, respondent did not present any proof that it occurred during the examination and, thus, the CSC officials who supervised the exam enjoyed the presumption of regularity in the performance of their official duty. Besides, for the CSC to commit such a mistake - mixing up the pictures and signatures of examinees - was unlikely due to the strict procedures it follows during civil service examinations. In a similar case, this Court approved the findings of the CSC regarding procedures during examinations:On the other hand, in Donato v. Civil Service Commission Regional Office No. 1,[4] Alejandro Donato, Jr. was charged with dishonesty and falsification of public documents for representing himself as Gil Arce and taking the civil service exam under that name. The CSC and the Court of Appeals both found that the picture of Donato appeared on the Picture Seat Plan on top of the name Gil Arce. On the other hand, Arce admitted that he might have mistakenly submitted Donato's picture during the exam. The Court rejected Donato's claim that the case was merely the handiwork of his former principal who allegedly had an axe to grind against him in the face of positive evidence against him and Arce. Accordingly, the Court upheld the dismissal of both Arce and Donato.
It should be stressed that as a matter of procedure, the room examiners assigned to supervise the conduct of a Civil Service examination closely examine the pictures submitted and affixed on the Picture Seat Plan (CSC Resolution No. 95-3694, Obedencio, Jaime A.). The examiners carefully compare the appearance of each of the examinees with the person in the picture submitted and affixed on the PSP. In cases where the examinee does not look like the person in the picture submitted and attached on the PSP, the examiner will not allow the said person to take the examination (CSC Resolution No. 95-5195, Taguinay, Ma. Theresa).
Thus, the irregularity in respondent's Personal Data Sheet, CAT Application and Picture Seat Plan cannot be attributed to error on the CSC's part. It is clear that somebody else took the CSC exam for respondent Sta. Ana.
For respondent to claim that she herself took the CSC exam when in fact somebody else took it for her constitutes dishonesty.
In the offense of impersonation, there are always two persons involved. The offense cannot prosper without the active participation of both persons (CSC Resolution No. 94-6582). Further, by engaging or colluding with another person to take the test in his behalf and thereafter by claiming the resultant passing rate as his, clinches the case against him. In cases of impersonation, the Commission has consistently rejected claims of good faith, for "it is contrary to human nature that a person will do (impersonation) without the consent of the person being impersonated." (CSC resolution No. 94-0826)[6]Finally, respondent's allegations fail to controvert the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties of the CSC personnel. The Court has noted in previous cases the procedure followed during the conduct of the Civil Service Exams, as quoted by the OCA in its evaluation.[7] Respondent does not even allege that the CSC Regional Office No. 3 personnel who administered the exam departed from this established procedure or that any irregularity attended the conduct of the exam.