Case Digest: Carbonel vs. CSC; 630 SCRA 202 (2010)
Due Process | Constitutional Law
Facts:
Petitioner Clarita J. Carbonel, an employee of the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology, was charged with dishonesty, grave misconduct, and falsification of official documents by the Civil Service Commission Regional Office No. IV (CSCRO IV). During an investigation, it was discovered that Carbonel's personal appearance and signature on the application form for the Career Service Professional Examination were different from the attached photo and the verification slip. Carbonel admitted that she had paid someone to obtain the Career Service Professional Eligibility for her.
Based on the investigation, the CSCRO IV found Carbonel guilty of the charges and imposed the penalty of dismissal from the service. Carbonel appealed, but the CSC dismissed the appeal as it was filed almost three years after receiving the CSCRO IV decision. Carbonel then brought the case to the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the decisions and resolutions of the CSCRO IV and the CSC.
Issue:
WoN her right to due process was violated because she was not afforded the right to counsel when her statement was taken.
WoN her right to due process was violated because she was not afforded the right to counsel when her statement was taken.
Held:
It is true that the CSCRO IV, the CSC, and the CA gave credence to petitioner’s uncounselled statements and, partly on the basis thereof, uniformly found petitioner liable for the charge of dishonesty, grave misconduct, and falsification of official document
However, it must be remembered that the right to counsel under Section 12 of the Bill of Rights is meant to protect a suspect during custodial investigation. Thus, the exclusionary rule under paragraph (2), Section 12 of the Bill of Rights applies only to admissions made in a criminal investigation but not to those made in an administrative investigation.
Principle:
While investigations conducted by an administrative body may at times be akin to a criminal proceeding, the fact remains that, under existing laws, a party in an administrative inquiry may or may not be assisted by counsel, irrespective of the nature of the charges and of petitioner’s capacity to represent herself, and no duty rests on such body to furnish the person being investigated with counsel. The right to counsel is not always imperative in administrative investigations because such inquiries are conducted merely to determine whether there are facts that merit the imposition of disciplinary measures against erring public officers and employees, with the purpose of maintaining the dignity of government service.
Comments
Post a Comment