View full case

NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION v. CONRADO M. NAJERA

FACTS:

On April 17, 2007, agents from the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) conducted a raid on a disco and amusement center to verify a complaint for human trafficking. The raiding team, composed of Conrado Najera, Frederick Liwag, Joel Respeto, and Wilson Monton, posed as customers and were allegedly provided with two lady entertainers who offered sexual pleasures for a fee. Conrado then announced the raid and apprehended 27 employees, including the cashier Francis Quilala. The arrested persons were later released.

Francis filed an administrative complaint against the raiding team, claiming that the center was not involved in prostitution. He alleged that Conrado ransacked the premises and instructed the other agents to confiscate cigarettes, mobile phones, and money from the cash register. He also claimed that Conrado attempted to extort P500,000 in exchange for the employees' freedom. Conrado and his team countered that they had proper authority from their supervisor to raid the establishment, which was operating without a permit from the local government. They denied the extortion incident.

During the investigation, the NBI found that the raid was unauthorized and that the agents failed to coordinate the operation with the relevant divisions within the NBI. Conrado was found guilty of grave misconduct by the Ombudsman, while the cases against Frederick, Joel, and Wilson were dismissed. Conrado was dismissed from the service, or alternatively, required to pay a fine equivalent to his salary for one year if the penalty of dismissal could no longer be enforced.

Conrado appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing that the Ombudsman merely relied on bare allegations and failed to substantiate the extortion and lack of authority claims. The CA partly granted the appeal and downgraded Conrado's liability to simple misconduct. It found that the alleged robbery and extortion were unsubstantiated and gave credence to Conrado's claim that he communicated the operation with his supervisor. The supervisor's absence in the investigation was noted.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the raid operation conducted by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) was authorized.

  2. Whether the NBI agents committed extortion and robbery during the raid.

RULING:

  1. The Court of Appeals (CA) found that the raid operation conducted by the NBI was unauthorized as the NBI agents failed to secure proper authority from their supervisor. Consequently, the CA downgraded the administrative liability of the respondent Conrado M. Najera from grave misconduct to simple misconduct.

  2. The CA found that the allegations of extortion and robbery committed by the NBI agents during the raid were unsubstantiated. Thus, the CA ruled in favor of the NBI agents and dismissed the administrative charges against them.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Administrative liability arises from an improper raid operation, particularly when there is a lack of proper authorization from the proper authorities.

  • In administrative cases, the burden of proof lies with the complainant to prove the charges filed against the respondents.

  • In determining administrative liability, the court considers the evidence presented by both parties and evaluates their credibility and weight.

  • Administrative offenses are classified according to their gravity, with grave misconduct being a more serious offense than simple misconduct.