Forgiven but not absolved: COA denies P9M claim of ex-govt librarian

AN acquittal on insufficiency of evidence is not the same as affirmation of innocence.

With this pronouncement, the Commission on Audit denied the motion for reconsideration filed by a former librarian whose P9.13-million claim for back wages and other benefits against the National Library of the Philippines (NLP) was denied in 2022.

The COA en banc said the petition of Maria Luisa Moral, former Librarian V, cannot be granted because she was legally dismissed from service in 1996 based on an order of the Department of Education, Culture, and Sports (DECS, now Department of Education) in relation to the loss of hundreds of historical documents in her custody.

COA noted that while the Manila Regional Trial Court eventually acquitted her of qualified theft in 2008 on reasonable doubt, the court did not declare her innocent.

“The criminal charge against Ms. Moral was dismissed due to insufficiency of evidence; thus she was acquitted on reasonable doubt. Stated otherwise, her acquittal was not because she did not commit the acts alleged but because the evidence presented by the prosecution has fallen short of the quantum of proof required for conviction,” the commission said.

Even the pardon granted her by the Office of the President in 2015 failed to sway the COA to rule in her favor as it pointed out that Moral was found guilty on administrative offenses for dishonesty, grave misconduct, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

Further, the COA noted that she did not appeal the DECS ruling but only applied for executive clemency in 2011, or 15 years after her dismissal from government service.

“Back wages is a relief given to an illegally dismissed employee. Thus, before back wages may be granted, there must be a finding of unjust or illegal dismissal from work,” it added.

Regarding the presidential pardon, the commission said Moral was mistaken in her contention that it nullified her dismissal from service and entitled her to reinstatement with compensation.

At best, the COA said, it merely relieved her from payment of fines and forfeitures that may be imposed if she were convicted.

“The very essence of a pardon is forgiveness or remission of