Bartolome vs. Maranan, A.M. No. P-11-2979 November 18, 2014
FACTS: Maranan, a stenographer of RTC asked money from Bartolome
in the amount of 200k, which was later reduced to 160k, to facilitate the
filing of her case for annulment of marriage. Maranan undertook to have the
case decided in her favor without the need of court appearances. Bartolome reported
the matter to the police authorities. During the entrapment operation, Maranan
was caught in the act of receiving the money from Bartolome. Bartolome filed against
Maranan charging her with extortion, graft and corruption, gross misconduct and
conduct unbecoming of a court employee.
Bartolome attached the transcribed
electronic communications (text messages) between her and the Maranan; a
copy of an Electronic Psychiatric History form given to her by the Maranan for
her to accomplish in filing the petition for annulment of marriage; a copy
of the Imus Police Station Blotter showing that the Maranan was apprehended
during the entrapment operation; and a versatile compact disc (VCD)
containing the video taken during the entrapment operation conducted against her.
Maranan denied the accusations against her.
ISSUE: Whether or not Ephemeral electronic communications
are now admissible evidence.
HELD: YES. Ephemeral electronic communications
are now admissible evidence, subject to certain conditions. "Ephemeral
electronic communication" refers to telephone conversations, text
messages, chatroom sessions, streaming audio, streaming video, and other
electronic forms of communication the evidence of which is not recorded or
retained. It may be proven by the testimony of a person who was a party to
the communications or has personal knowledge thereof. (Sec. 1, Rule 11 of
A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC)
In the present case, we have no doubt
regarding the probative value of the text messages as evidence in considering
the present case. Bartolome, who was the recipient of the text messages and who
therefore has personal knowledge of these text messages, identified Maranan as
the sender through cellphone number 09175775982. Maranan herself admitted that
her conversations with Bartolome had been thru SMS messaging and that the
cellphone number reflected in the Bartolome’s cellphone from which the text
messages originated was hers. She confirmed that it was her cellphone number
during the entrapment operation the Imus Cavite Police conducted.
Bartolome herself certified that the
video and text messages are evidence of her complaint against Maranan. It is
also well to remember that in administrative cases, technical rules of
procedure and evidence are not strictly applied. A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC
specifically provides that these rules shall be liberally construed to assist
the parties in obtaining a just, expeditious and inexpensive determination of
cases.
The Court totally agrees with
the OCA’s finding that the respondent is guilty of grave misconduct and conduct
prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
No comments:
Post a Comment