OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR V. JUDGE PASCUAL A.M. No. MTJ-93-783. July 29, 1996
FACTS:
Sometime in February 1993, a certain Ceferino Tigas wrote a letter, addressed to Hon. Reynaldo Suarez of the Office of the Court Administrator of the Supreme Court, charging that irregularities and corruption were being committed by the respondent Presiding Judge of the Municipal Trial Court of Angat, Bulacan.
The letter was referred to the National Bureau of Investigation in order that an investigation into the alleged illegal and corrupt practices of the respondent may be conducted.
Special Agents Edward Villarta, team leader, SI Reynaldo Olazo, HA Teofilo Galang, SI Florino Javier and SI Jose Icasiano were ordered to conduct a discreet investigation by the then NBI Director Epimaco Velasco.
They proceeded to Angat, Bulacan, in order to look for Ceferino Tigas, the letter writer. However, they have found out that Ceferino Tigas was a fictitious name. In view of their failure to find Tigas, they proceeded to the residence of Candido Cruz, an accused in respondent judge’s sala.
In his affidavit executed on March 23, 1993 before SA Edward Villarta, Cruz declared that he was the accused in Criminal Case No. 2154, charged with the crime of Frustrated Murder. Respondent judge, after conducting the preliminary investigation of the case, decided that the crime he committed was only physical injuries and so, respondent judge assumed jurisdiction over the case. Cruz believed that he was made to understand by the respondent that, in view of his favorable action, Cruz was to give to respondent the sum of P2,000.00. Respondent judge is believed to be a drunkard and, in all probability, would need money to serve his vice.
In view of this statement, the NBI agents assigned to the case caused respondent judge to be entrapped, for which reason, the judge was thought to have been caught in flagrante delicto.
In their (NBI) report, it was said that : “On 25 March 1993, at about 4:00 in the afternoon, CANDIDO CRUZ met with Judge PASCUAL at the Colegio de Sta. Monica, near the Municipal Building of Angat, Bulacan, where Subject is attending the graduation of his daughter. CANDIDO CRUZ told Judge PASCUAL that he already had the P2,000.00 which he (Judge PASCUAL) is asking him. However, Judge PASCUAL did not receive the money because according to him there were plenty of people around. He then instructed CANDIDO CRUZ to see him (Judge PASCUAL) at his office the following day.
At about 8:30 in the morning of the following day (26 March 1993), CANDIDO CRUZ proceeded to the office of Judge PASCUAL at the Municipal Trial Court of Angat, Bulacan, and thereat handed to him four (4) pieces of P500.00 bills contained in a white mailing envelope previously marked and glazed with fluorescent powder.
In the meantime, the Undersigned stayed outside the courtroom and after about 15 minutes, CANDIDO CRUZ came out of the room and signaled to the Undersigned that Judge PASCUAL had already received the marked money. The Undersigned immediately entered the room and informed Subject about the entrapment. Subject denied having received anything from CANDIDO CRUZ, but after a thorough search, the marked money was found inserted between the pages of a blue book on top of his table.
The subject was invited to the Office of the NBI-NCR, Manila wherein he was subjected to ultraviolet light examination. After finding Subject’s right hand for the presence of fluorescent powder, he was booked, photographed and fingerprinted in accordance with our Standard Operating Procedure (S.O.P.).
As a result of the NBI’s investigation, judge Pascual was referred to the Inquest Prosecutor of the Office of the Special Prosecutor, Ombudsman, with the recommendation that he be charged and prosecuted for Bribery as defined and penalized under Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines.”
On May 11, 1994, by resolution of the Third Division of this Court, this case was referred to Executive Judge Natividad G. Dizon for investigation, report, and recommendation.
In connection with this investigation, respondent filed a Memorandum, dated July 28, 1995, wherein respondent judge presented his version of the case.
ISSUE:
WON due process was observed during the hearing of the bribery case of the respondent judge at the Sandiganbayan.
HELD:
NO. We note that the only bases for the Report and Recommendation submitted by Executive Judge Natividad G. Dizon consist of The Complaint, the Answer, the Memorandum of the respondent, and the transcript of stenographic notes of the hearing of the bribery case of the respondent judge at the Sandiganbayan. The respondent was, therefore, not afforded the right to open trial wherein respondent can confront the witnesses against him and present evidence in his defense.
This lapse in due process is unfortunate. The Rules, even in an administrative cases, demand that, if the respondent judge should be disciplined for grave misconduct or any graver offense, the evidence against him should be competent and should be derived from direct knowledge. The Judiciary to which respondent belongs demands no less. Before any of its members could be faulted, it should be only after due investigation and after presentation of competent evidence, especially since the charge is penal in character.The above-quoted Report and Recommendation of the investigating judge had fallen short of the requirements of due process.
The evidence aforesaid admits of irreconcilable inconsistencies in the testimonies of principal witness, Candido Cruz, and NBI Agent SI Reynaldo Olazo on several material points.
It will be remembered that the charge was intimated by someone who must have had an ax to grind against the respondent judge but who, by reason of cowardice or lack of evidence to put up a righteous case, did not come out in the open and instead wrote an anonymous letter. The letter-writer, naming himself as Ceferino Tigas, did not specify crimes committed or illegal acts perpetrated but charged respondent with anomalies in general terms. Respondent judge could not have been expected to make a valid answer or to otherwise defend himself from such vague accusations.
While then NBI Director Epimaco Velasco, upon being apprised of the Tigas letter, ordered the NBI investigating team to make a discreet investigation of respondent, the NBI team had instead caused an instigation or the entrapment of respondent judge. Not having found letter-writer Tigas and concluding that no such person exists, they sought out an accused before respondents court who could possibly be respondent judges virtual victim.
Thus, it is easy to conclude that the acts of the NBI agents which triggered the incident that transpired inside respondent judges chambers constituted instigation and not entrapment as claimed by the prosecution. It is evident that Candido Cruz was induced to act as he did in order to place respondent judge in a compromising situation, a situation which was not brought about by any request of respondent judge. It is surprisingly strange that an accused in a case would simply barge into the judges chambers without rhyme or reason, place bribe money on top of the judges desk without so much as explaining what the money was for. Respondent judges action on Candido Cruzs case which favored Cruz was effected long before. We can believe the fact that, under the circumstances, respondent judge did react in anger and threw the envelope at the accused Candido Cruz. The judge must have given back the money to Candido Cruz and literally drove Cruz out of his chambers bringing the money with him. This explains the reason why the NBI Agents notwithstanding a relentless search did not find the money inside the chambers. Four (4) NBI Agents made the search and they were unable to find the envelope with the marked money in it. This fact NBI Agent Olazo in effect admitted because he had to call back Candido Cruz in order to make Cruz divulge as to where the bribe money was placed. When, after all, Candido Cruz produced the money when he went back to the judges chambers, it became obvious that the money when offered to respondent judge was not received by the latter.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, respondent judge is hereby exonerated and the administrative case against him is DISMISSED.