UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW Evidence

E2024 Professor Jacoba

Civil Service Commission v. Belagan
G.R. No. 132164 – October 19, 2004
En banc | Sandoval-Gutierrez, J.

Topic: Conduct and Character as Evidence; Rule 130, Secs. 35-36; 54; Rule 132, Sec. 3; Art. 1256, Civil
Code; Sec. 6, RA 8505; Character

Article/s Invoked:
Sec. 51(a)(3), Rule 130. Character evidence not generally admissible; exceptions. —
(a) In Criminal Cases:
xxx xxx xxx
(3) The good or bad moral character of the offended party may be proved if it tends to establish
in any reasonable degree the probability or improbability of the offense charged.
Sec. 11, Rule 132. Impeachment of adverse party's witness. — A witness may be impeached by the party
against whom he was called, by contradictory evidence, by evidence that his general reputation for truth,
honesty, or integrity is bad, or by evidence that he has made at other times statements inconsistent with his
present testimony, but not by evidence of particular wrongful acts, except that it may be shown by the
examination of the witness, or the record of the judgment, that he has been convicted of an offense.

Parties:
PETITIONER RESPONDENT
Civil Service Commission (CSC) Allyson Belagan

Case Summary:
Gapuz and Annawi filed two separate complaints against Belagan, the Superintendent of the Department of
Education, Culture and Sports (DECS). Gapuz charged him with sexual indignities and harassment, while
Annawi charged him with sexual harassment and various malfeasances. Gapuz alleged that she filed an
application with the DECS office for a permit to operate a pre-school. When Belagan came with her to inspect
the school premises in compliance with one of the requisites for the permit, he placed his arms around her
shoulders and kissed her cheek while they were both descending the stairs of the 2nd floor. Several days later,
when Gapuz went to the DECS Division Office and inquired about her application, Belagan respondent, “Mag-
date muna tayo.” She declined and reported the incident to DECS Asst. Superintendent Ngabit.

After Belagan forwarded his recommendation to approve Gapuz’s application to the DECS Regional Director,
Gapuz learned from a local newspaper that some female employees of DECS were charging a high-ranking
official with sexual harassment, who turned out to be Belagan. She then wrote a letter-complaint for sexual
indignities and harassment to former DECS Secretary Gloria.

Belagan denied their charge of sexual harassment and presented evidence to disprove Annawi’s imputation of
dereliction of duty. The DECS Secretary rendered a Joint Decision finding Belagan guilty of four counts of
sexual indignities or harassments committed against Annawi; and two counts of sexual advances or indignities
against Gapuz. Belagan was ordered dismissed from service.

Upon appeal, the CSC affirmed the DECS Secretary Decision in Gapuz’s case, but dismissed Annawi’s
complaint. Belagan seasonably filed a MFR, contending he has never been charged any offense in his 37 years
of service, while in contrast, Gapuz was charged with several offenses before the MTC of Baguio City, as
well as complaints against her with the Barangay Chairmen of Barangay Gabriela Silang and Barangay
Hillside, both in Baguio. Belagan claimed that the numerous cases filed against Gapuz cast doubt on her
character, integrity, and credibility. The CSC denied his MFR, saying that “the character of a woman who was
the subject of a sexual assault is of minor significance in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the
person accused of having committed the offense.
 UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW Evidence
E2024 Professor Jacoba
Belagan filed with the CA a petition for review. The CA reversed the CSC and dismissed Gapuz’s complaint,
holding that the latter was an unreliable witness and her character questionable. The CA also considered
Belgana’s unblemished service record for 37 years.

The CSC, through the SolGen, filed this instant petition against Belagan, alleging that the CA misappreciated
the facts and erred in not giving credence to Gapuz’s testimony, as well as giving due weight to the findings
of the DECS which conducted an administrative investigation. Belagan maintained that Gapuz’s derogatory
record undermined the verity of her charge.

The SC resolved the issue of whether or not Gapuz’s derogatory record is sufficient to discredit her
credibility [NO].

(1) Most of the 22 cases filed with the MTC against Gapuz were committed in 1985 and 1986. For
the complaints filed with the Chairmen of Brgy. Gabriela Silang and Brgy. Hillside, the acts took place
in 1978 to 1979. This administrative case took place in 1994. These cases and complaints, therefore,
are no longer reliable proof of Gapuz’s character or reputation.
• Settled is the principle that evidence of one's character or reputation must be confined to a time not
too remote from the time in question. In other words, what is to be determined is the character or
reputation of the person at the time of the trial and prior thereto, but not at a period remote from
the commencement of the suit.
(2) Belagan failed to prove that Gapuz was convicted in any of the criminal cases specified.
• The general rule prevailing is that it is not permissible to show that a witness has been arrested or
that he has been charged with or prosecuted for a criminal offense, or confined in jail for the
purpose of impairing his credibility. This view is based upon one or more of the following grounds:
a) A mere unproven charge against the witness does not logically tend to affect his credibility;
b) Innocent persons are often arrested or accused of a crime;
c) One accused of a crime is presumed innocent until his guilt is established;
d) A witness may not be impeached or discredited by evidence of particular acts of
misconduct.
• Sec. 11, Rule 132 also provides that a witness may not be impeached by evidence of particular
wrongful acts.
(3) The Court is convinced to sustain the CSC Resolution as it is supported by substantial evidence.
• Gapuz testified in a straightforward, candid, and spontaneous manner. Her testimony is replete
with details. Gapuz would not have normally thought about these details if she were not telling the
truth. Furthermore, her testimony is corroborated by The DECS Asst. Division Superintendent
Ngabit, who testified that Gapuz reported to him that Belagan kissed her and asked her for a date.
• It is the DECS investigating officials who are in a better position to determine whether Gapuz is
telling the truth, considering that they were able to hear and observe her deportment and manner
of testifying.
• The CA ruled that there was ample evidence to show Gapuz had a motive in accusing Belagan,
that is, to pressure him to issue a permit. However, this is unconvincing as Belagan already issued
the permit when Gapuz filed her letter-complaint.

Doctrine:
Credibility means the disposition and intention to tell the truth in the testimony given. It refers to a person's
integrity, and to the fact that he is worthy of belief. A witness may be discredited by evidence attacking his
general reputation for truth, honesty or integrity.

Evidence of one's character or reputation must be confined to a time not too remote from the time in question.
In other words, what is to be determined is the character or reputation of the person at the time of the trial and
prior thereto, but not at a period remote from the commencement of the suit.
 UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW Evidence
E2024 Professor Jacoba

FACTS OF THE CASE

Two separate complaints were filed against Dr. Belagan, Superintendent of the Department of Education,
Culture and Sports (DECS). Gapuz, founder/directress of the Mother and Child Learning Center, charged
Belagan with sexual indignities and harassment. Annawi, a public school teacher at Fort Del Pilar Elementary
School, charged him with sexual harassment and various malfeasances.

Gapuz’s allegations:
• In March 1994, she filed an application with the DECS office for a permit to operate a pre-school
• One of the requisites for the issuance of the permit was an inspection of the school premises by the
DECS Division Office. Belagan volunteered.
• In June 1994, Gapuz and Belagan visited the school.
o While both descending the stairs of the 2nd floor, Belagan suddenly placed his arms around her
shoulders and kissed her cheek. At that time, there were no other people in the area.
o Fearful that her application will be jeopardized and her husband might harm Belagan, Gapuz
kept quiet.
• Several days later, Gapuz went to the DECS Division Office and inquired about her application, to
which Belagan responded, “Mag-date muna tayo.” Gapuz declined, left, and reported it to DECS Asst.
Superintendent Ngabit.
• Gapuz was forced to reveal the incident to her husband when he asked about the permit. When the
couple went to Belagan’s office, the latter denied having a personal relationship with Gapuz.
Afterward, Belagan forwarded his recommendation to approve Gapuz’s application to the DECS
Regional Director.
• In September 1994, Gapuz found out from a local newspaper that some female employees of the DECS
were charging a high-ranking official with sexual harassment. She found out that this was Belagan.
She then wrote a letter-complaint for sexual indignities and harassment to former DECS Sec. Gloria.
• In October 1994, Belagan was placed under suspension.

Annawi’s allegations:
• On four separate occasions, Belagan touched her breasts, kissed her cheek, touched her groins,
embraced her from behind and pulled her close to him, his organ pressing the lower part of her back.
• Annawi also charged Belagan with:
(1) Delaying the payment of teachers’ salaries;
(2) Failing to release the pay differentials of substitute teachers;
(3) Willfully refusing to release the teachers’ uniforms, proportionate allowances and
productivity pay; and
(4) Failing to constitute the Selection and Promotion Board, as required by DECS rules and
regulations.

Belagan denied their charge of sexual harassment and presented evidence to disprove Annawi’s imputation of
dereliction of duty. The DECS Secretary rendered a Joint Decision finding Belagan guilty of four counts of
sexual indignities or harassments committed against Annawi; and two counts of sexual advances or indignities
against Gapuz. Belagan was ordered dismissed from service.

Upon appeal, the CSC affirmed the DECS Secretary Decision in Gapuz’s case, but dismissed Annawi’s
complaint. It ruled that Belagan’s transgression against Gapuz constituted grave misconduct and stated that
his misconduct towards an applicant for a permit to operate a private pre-school cannot be treated lightly.
Belagan seasonably filed a MFR, contending he has never been charged any offense in his 37 years of service,
while in contrast, Gapuz was charged with several offenses before the MTC of Baguio City, as well as
complaints against her with the Barangay Chairmen of Barangay Gabriela Silang and Barangay Hillside, both
in Baguio.
 UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW Evidence
E2024 Professor Jacoba
Belagan claimed that the numerous cases filed against Gapuz cast doubt on her character, integrity, and
credibility. The CSC denied his MFR , saying that “the character of a woman who was the subject of a sexual
assault is of minor significance in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the person accused of having
committed the offense. This is so because even a prostitute or a woman of ill repute may become a victim of
said offense,” and that the cases against Gapuz before the regular courts and her condemnation by her
community for wrongful behavior does not discount the possibility that she was telling the truth against
Belagan.

Belagan filed with the CA a petition for review. The CA reversed the CSC and dismissed Gapuz’s complaint,
holding that the latter was an unreliable witness and her character questionable. Given her aggressiveness and
propensity for trouble, "she is not one whom any male would attempt to steal a kiss." In fact, her "record
immediately raises an alarm in any one who may cross her path." The CA also considered Belgana’s
unblemished service record for 37 years.

The CSC, through the SolGen, filed this instant petition against Belagan, alleging that the CA misappreciated
the facts and erred in not giving credence to Gapuz’s testimony, as well as giving due weight to the findings
of the DECS which conducted an administrative investigation. Belagan maintained that Gapuz’s derogatory
record undermined the verity of her charge.

ISSUE/S & RATIO/S

W/N Gapuz’s derogatory record is sufficient to discredit her credibility—NO.
• Most of the 22 cases filed with the MTC against Gapuz were committed in 1985 and 1986. For the
complaints filed with the Chairmen of Brgy. Gabriela Silang and Brgy. Hillside, the acts took place in
1978 to 1979. This administrative case took place in 1994. These cases and complaints, therefore, are
no longer reliable proof of Gapuz’s character or reputation.
o Settled is the principle that evidence of one's character or reputation must be confined to a time
not too remote from the time in question. In other words, what is to be determined is the
character or reputation of the person at the time of the trial and prior thereto, but not at a period
remote from the commencement of the suit.
o To say that Gapuz’s credibility is diminished by proof of tarnished reputation existing almost
a decade ago is unreasonable.
• Belagan failed to prove that Gapuz was convicted in any of the criminal cases specified.
o The general rule prevailing is that it is not permissible to show that a witness has been arrested
or that he has been charged with or prosecuted for a criminal offense, or confined in jail for the
purpose of impairing his credibility. This view is based upon one or more of the following
grounds:
e) A mere unproven charge against the witness does not logically tend to affect his
credibility;
f) Innocent persons are often arrested or accused of a crime;
g) One accused of a crime is presumed innocent until his guilt is established;
h) A witness may not be impeached or discredited by evidence of particular acts of
misconduct.
o Sec. 11, Rule 132 also provides that a witness may not be impeached by evidence of particular
wrongful acts. Such evidence is rejected because of the confusion of issues and the waste of
time that would be involved, and because the witness may not be prepared to expose the falsity
of such wrongful acts. As it happened ITC, Gapuz was not able to explain or rebut each of the
charges against her listed by Gapuz.
• The Court is convinced to sustain the CSC Resolution as it is supported by substantial evidence.
o Gapuz testified in a straightforward, candid, and spontaneous manner. Her testimony is replete
with details. Gapuz would not have normally thought about these details if she were not telling
the truth. Furthermore, her testimony is corroborated by The DECS Asst. Division
Superintendent Ngabit, who testified that Gapuz reported to him that Belagan kissed her and
asked her for a date.
 UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW Evidence
E2024 Professor Jacoba
o It is the DECS investigating officials who are in a better position to determine whether Gapuz
is telling the truth, considering that they were able to hear and observe her deportment and
manner of testifying.
o The CA ruled that there was ample evidence to show Gapuz had a motive in accusing Belagan,
that is, to pressure him to issue a permit. However, this is unconvincing as Belagan already
issued the permit when Gapuz filed her letter-complaint.

Other Ratio
• While Sec. 51(a)(3) of Rule 130 only applies to criminal cases, even assuming that this rule can be
applied to an administrative offense such as in this case, the Court still cannot sustain Belagan’s
posture.
o Not every good or bad moral character of the offended party may be proved under this
provision. Only those which would establish the probability or improbability of the offense
charged. This means that the character evidence must be limited to the traits and characteristics
involved in the type of offense charged. Thus, on a charge of rape — character for chastity, on
a charge of assault — character for peaceableness or violence, and on a charge of
embezzlement — character for honesty.
o Hence, the pieces of evidence Belagan presented on the cases filed against Belagan are
inadmissible under this provision because they do not establish the probability or improbability
of the offense charged. These pieces of evidence had no bearing on Gapuz’s chastity.
• Although Gapuz is the offending party, by testifying on her own behalf, she opened herself to character
or reputation attack pursuant to the principle that a party who becomes a witness in his own behalf
places himself in the same position as any other witness, and may be impeached by an attack on his
character or reputation. Hence, the CA is correct in holding that her character or reputation in a sexual
charge is a proper subject of inquiry.

On Belagan’s penalty
• The Court is not inclined to impose the penalty of dismissal from service, as Belagan has served the
government for 37 years wherein he made a steady ascent from an Elementary Grade School Teacher
to Schools Division Superintendent.
o He also received numerous awards in devoting the best years of his life to the education
department, and this is the first time he had been administratively charged. He is also in the
edge of retirement, and he had filed his application for retirement when Gapuz filed her
complaint.
o Length of service and other analogous cases are two of the mitigating circumstances the Court
applied under Sec. 53, Rule IV of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil
Service.
o While the Court will not condone the wrongdoing of public officers and employees, however,
neither will it negate any move to recognize and renumerate their lengthy service in the
government.

RULING
Petition granted; CA decision reversed. CSC resolutions are affirmed with modification that Belagan is
suspended from office without pay for one year.

NOTES
Gapuz’s offenses before the MTC: (all criminal cases from 1980-1991)
• 2 cases of light oral defamation
• 1 case of light threats
• 2 cases of malicious mischief
• 5 cases of unjust vexation
• 2 cases of grave threats
• 8 cases of grave oral defamation
 UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW Evidence
E2024 Professor Jacoba
• 2 cases of slight physical injuries

Gapuz’s offenses before the Barangay Chairmen of Brgy. Gabriela Silang and Brgy. Hillside: (1978-1979)
• Grave threats
• Unjust vexation
• Rumor mongering
• Oral defamation
• Harassment and threats
• False accusation
• Habitual trouble maker
• Spreading rumors against Brgy. Captain and Police Chief
• Called residents of their Barangay for an emergency meeting and she shouted invectives against the
residents
• Shouted invectives against the Brgy. Sanitary Inspector
• Shouted invectives against the servants of Mr. De Leon
• Terrorized council meeting
• Harassed Mrs. Baoas
• Quarreled with Mrs. C. Ballesteros during the council meeting
• Hurling invectives along her alley in the early morning
• Tapped electric wire from Mrs. de los Santos’ with the latter’s consent
• Shouting and hurling invectives scandalously around her residences
• Shouting, complaining about alleged poisoned sardines near the premises of her residence which killer
her hen
• Shouting unpleasant words around the neighborhood; she did not like the actuations of a bayanihan
group near the waiting shed