Nuez v. Cruz-Apao

Zaldy Nuez's case, PAGCOR vs. Zaldy Nuez, had been pending in the Court of Appeals for over two years. Wanting a speedy decision, he contacted Elvira Cruz-Apao, Executive Assistant II in the office of the Acting Division Clerk of Court of the CA's 15th Division. In phone calls and SMS messages, she told him that a speedy and favorable decision could be had for P1,000,000. She said the price had been set by the person who would draft the decision, and she refused to bargain. Nuez went to GMA's Imbestigador program and filed an extortion complaint with the Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Commission. At a September 24, 2004 meeting, she confirmed the arrangement and said the money would go to a male lawyer-researcher in the CA. On September 28, 2004, Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Task Force agents apprehended her at a Jollibee restaurant after she touched an envelope of marked money, and she tested positive for ultraviolet powder. That evening she tearfully confessed to her superior, Atty. Gepty, that she had asked for money for a case. A CA investigating committee recommended her dismissal. Before it, she claimed instigation and said that Nuez had offered the money.

1. 1Whether the respondent solicited money for a favorable decision, and whether the operation was entrapment or instigation.
2. 2Whether the text messages between complainant and respondent were admissible and properly proven.

The respondent was guilty of grave misconduct. The operation was entrapment, not instigation. In entrapment, ways and means are used to catch lawbreakers in the execution of their own criminal plan. In instigation, the instigator induces the offense and becomes a co-principal. Here the demand came from the respondent. Nuez proved the solicitation through his testimony and the text messages. The messages were properly admitted as ephemeral electronic communications under Section 1(k), Rule 2 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence, which apply to administrative cases. Under Section 2, Rule 11, such communications "shall be proven by the testimony of a person who was a party to the same or who has personal knowledge thereof". Nuez, the recipient, testified on the messages. The respondent admitted that the sending number was hers, and she and her counsel signed and attested to the messages' veracity. Technical rules of evidence are also not strictly applied in administrative cases. Siringan, the Imbestigador researcher present at both meetings, corroborated Nuez, and the respondent's confession to Atty. Gepty supported the finding. Her denials were self-serving: she remembered only the messages that did not incriminate her. Soliciting money for a favorable decision violated Sections 1 and 2, Canon I of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel. Adopting the committee's recommendation, the Court dismissed her from government service with prejudice to re-employment and forfeited her retirement and all benefits except accrued leave credits.