ONE CASE DEALS WITH A CRIME. THE OTHER DEALS WITH HIS CONDUCT IN OFFICE.

A criminal case decides whether someone is guilty of a crime. An administrative case deals with misconduct in public service and whether the official should be disciplined or removed.

Lagman faced both over alleged jueteng payoffs while he was vice governor.

The Ombudsman ordered his dismissal in a decision dated January 28, 2025, made public that April. Lagman denied receiving the payoffs, left the governor’s office and said his lawyers were preparing an appeal.

The Sandiganbayan later found that the prosecution had not proved the criminal charges. That did not, by itself, overturn the Ombudsman’s decision.

THE PROSECUTION HAS TO PROVE MORE TO WIN A CRIMINAL CASE

To convict someone, the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. If it cannot, the accused must be acquitted.

An administrative case uses a lower standard called substantial evidence: enough relevant proof for a reasonable person to accept the finding.

The complaint still needs more than an accusation. But proof that falls short in a criminal trial may be enough in an administrative case.

That is why two cases about the same events can end differently. Each has to be decided using the proof before it and the rules that apply.

CHECK WHY THE COURT ACQUITTED HIM

In Lagman’s criminal case, key witnesses withdrew or contradicted their earlier statements. The Sandiganbayan found that the remaining proof was not enough to convict him.

An acquittal for lack of proof does not have the same effect on a dismissal as a clear court finding that the acts used to justify it were not unlawful.

The Supreme Court discussed the general rule in *Paredes v. Court of Appeals*: criminal and administrative cases proceed independently. Even when they involve the same events, the proof submitted in each may differ.

Lagman’s acquittal settles the criminal charges in his favor. Whether it changes his dismissal has to be addressed in the administrative case.

SOMETIMES THE ACQUITTAL TAKES AWAY THE REASON FOR DISMISSAL

That happened in *Larin v. Executive Secretary*.

The administrative case against Aquilino Larin was based on his criminal conviction. The Supreme Court later overturned that conviction and clearly found that the acts used against him were not unlawful or irregular.

The Court ruled that there was no longer a basis for the administrative case. It also ordered his return to his position.

The connection between the two cases was crucial: the conviction had been the basis for the administrative action, and the Court had rejected the finding of wrongdoing behind it.

An acquittal can therefore change a dismissal. It depends on what the court decided, not simply on the fact that the accused won.

ASK WHAT THE ORDER SAYS ABOUT RETURNING TO OFFICE

Seeking to return to office is different from winning an order that allows it.

Check whether a later decision overturns the dismissal, orders the person’s return, or grants some other remedy. The position and period covered also need to be clear.

For Lagman, the earlier dismissal and the criminal acquittal are confirmed. This article has not verified a decision on any administrative appeal or an order returning him to office.

We cannot turn that gap into a claim that he has regained his position—or that he has no way to challenge the dismissal.