Digest 8:A.M. No. CA-05-18-P April 12, 2005 ZALDY NUEZ vs. ELVIRA CRUZ-APAO

A.M. No. CA-05-18-P April 12, 2005

ZALDY NUEZ, Complainant, 

vs.

ELVIRA CRUZ-APAO, respondent.

Facts:  Zaldy Nuez, filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against PAGCOR when the latter accused him of using illegal drugs.  The lower acceded with the prayer and contention of Zaldy but eventually the appellate court reversed the initial favorable decision of the court a quo.  In this regard, Zaldy was in desperate need of help that can spped up his case before the CA.  He contacted, Elvira Cruz-Apao, an Executive Assistant II of the acting Division Clerk of Court of CA, whom he learned from his sister-in-law.  Elvira texted Zaldy, that a favorable decision can be made provided P1Million be given to her.  Zaldy bargained for a lower amount but Elvira refused, mentioning that it is the flat rate the person who will make the favorable decision.  Elvira texted Zaldy that they have to meet at times Plaza Un Avenue.  Zaldy and Elvira met and negotiated for a lower price, but to no avail.  They arranged for a nother meeing, but now, Zaldy coordinated to matter with GMA 7 Imbestigador, where assistance from PAOCTF was sought for an entrapment operation.  During the meeting, marked money was prepared.  Agents of PAOCTF were in position to execute the entrapement.  When Elvira arrived, she was anxious that an entrapment will be made.  Eventually the PAOCTF operators executed the entrapment and investigated the respondent. 

Issue:  whether or not ephemeral communications can be used as evidence before the court?

Held:  Yes, the Supreme Court mentioned the following: 

Complainant was able to prove by his testimony in conjunction with the text messages from respondent duly presented before the Committee that the latter asked for One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00) in exchange for a favorable decision of the former’s pending case with the CA.  The text messages were properly admitted by the Committee since the same are now covered by Section 1(k), Rule 2 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence which provides:

"Ephemeral electronic communication" refers to telephone conversations, text messages . . . and other electronic forms of communication the evidence of which is not recorded or retained."

Under Section 2, Rule 11 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence, "Ephemeral electronic communications shall be proven by the testimony of a person who was a party to the same or who has personal knowledge thereof . . . ." In this case, complainant who was the recipient of said messages and therefore had personal knowledge thereof testified on their contents and import.  Respondent herself admitted that the cellphone number reflected in complainant’s cellphone from which the messages originated was hers. Moreover, any doubt respondent may have had as to the admissibility of the text messages had been laid to rest when she and her counsel signed and attested to the veracity of the text messages between her and complainant. It is also well to remember that in administrative cases, technical rules of procedure and evidence are not strictly applied. We have no doubt as to the probative value of the text messages as evidence in determining the guilt or lack thereof of respondent in this case.

Indeed the text messages of Elvira can be used as an evidence before court proceeding and even in administrative proceedings as in the case at hand.  Zaldy is one of the recipient of th txt messages, to which he has personal knowledge of the communication. 

Moreover, the person to whom the respondent confessed made a written report before Justice Villarama as to the actuations made by Elvira.

The high court reiterated that being an employee, she has a burden of presenting before the public, honesty and probity as en employee of the department that confer judgment and justice.

The high court dismissed the employee for grave abuse of discretion.