Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) vs. Barron

A judge who demands and receives money from a party-litigant in a case pending before his sala commits serious misconduct in office warranting dismissal from the service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and privileges and disqualification from re-employment in any branch or instrumentality of the government. The defense of frame-up must be proved by clear and convincing evidence, and where the arrest is lawful for having been caught in flagrante delicto, a warrantless search of the person and the immediate vicinity is authorized as incidental to the lawful arrest.

Respondent Judge Florencio S. Barron was the Presiding Judge of Branch 35, Regional Trial Court of Dumaguete City, and was designated as Acting Presiding Judge of Branch 41, where Civil Case No. 10104, entitled "Mainit Marine Resources Corporation, Inc. (MMRC) vs. Alex J. Amor, Jr., and the Register of Deeds of Negros Oriental," was pending. David Crear was the president of MMRC, a party-litigant in the case pending before respondent's sala. The case arose from an entrapment operation conducted by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) sub-office based in Dumaguete City, wherein respondent was apprehended for having been found in possession of marked money utilized by the NBI in the operation.

Respondent Judge Florencio S. Barron was the Presiding Judge of Branch 35, Regional Trial Court of Dumaguete City, and was designated as Acting Presiding Judge of Branch 41, where Civil Case No. 10104, "Mainit Marine Resources Corporation, Inc. (MMRC) vs. Alex J. Amor, Jr., and the Register of Deeds of Negros Oriental," was pending. David Crear was the president of MMRC and a party-litigant in that case.

In the morning of June 4, 1996, at around 9:00 o'clock, Casildo Gabo, a retired court employee, went to the hatchery of MMRC to see David Crear. Introducing himself as Sheriff Gabo of RTC, Branch 36, he told Crear that Judge Barron wanted to see him at Salawaki Beach in Zamboanguita, Negros Oriental. Crear replied that he was not feeling well but added that he would go to Salawaki at around 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon. Sensing that there was more than meets the eye in the message of Gabo, Crear instructed Gemma Briones, the bookkeeper of MMRC, to call the NBI office. Crear talked to Special Investigator Teodoro M. Saavedra, informing him that he (Crear) and Judge Barron were to meet at Salawaki Beach Resort at around 3:00 o'clock that afternoon.

Agent-in-Charge Nicetas B. Hontucan instructed Special Investigator Teodoro M. Saavedra, SRA Paterno O. Reserva, and SRA Dominador D. Cimafranca to proceed to the beach resort that afternoon to conduct discreet surveillance to confirm the veracity of the information communicated to them by Crear. Crear arrived at Salawaki on the appointed hour astride a motorcycle driven by Rosendo Paculanang, a technician at MMRC. Judge Barron and Gabo were waiting, and so were the NBI agents who observed them through the use of binoculars. Both Crear and Judge Barron were seen talking at the far end of the beach, while Gabo, serving as a lookout, stayed in one of the sheds.

According to Crear, he was met by Sheriff Gabo who directed him to sit in the chair directly outside the door of the last cottage on the southern side of the resort. Crear had hardly warmed the chair for about five minutes when Judge Barron emerged from the cottage, casually dressed. Respondent judge then asked Crear to sit with him at a bench out on the beach. After the meeting, Crear went back to his office and entered on his computer his recollection of events before and during his talk with Judge Barron. The reconstruction of the conversation included Judge Barron telling Crear: "I've asked you to come here because I want to talk to you about your case. You see I need your help. It is clear to me as God is my witness, that you have been wronged. I can see this from that 'one document' that Alex Amor did not purchase the land. And again I need your help because my wife and daughter are preparing to travel to the United States." Judge Barron further stated: "Yes, and I need your help. You see we are in a symbiotic relationship. I can help you and you can help me. I can clearly see that it would be easy for me to write a decision for your case that would be favorable for your situation. But I will need your help. You know, I like working with foreigners because they understand that the salaries here in the Philippines are very low." When Crear asked about the mechanics of the arrangement, Judge Barron replied: "Well, as I said my wife and daughter will be flying to the U.S. and I think that they will need $2,000 each." They agreed to meet on Saturday at 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon at the same place.

On June 6, 1996, David Crear, along with Gemma Briones and Rosendo Paculanang, executed their respective sworn statements at the NBI Dumaguete City Sub-Office. Thereafter, on June 8, 1996, Rosendo Paculanang and David Crear gave their supplemental sworn statements. Crear also filed a complaint sheet with the NBI. Subsequently, the NBI agents drew up an entrapment plan for the respondent judge and Casildo Gabo. Since David Crear did not have the $4,000.00 cash which the respondent asked, the NBI agents improvised. The amount of ₱30,000.00 in 100, 50, 20, and 10 peso bills were sorted into eleven (11) bundles to make it appear as containing ₱10,000.00 each, thus purportedly totaling ₱110,000.00, roughly the equivalent of $4,000.00 which respondent judge requested. The NBI Regional Chemist, Cesar Cagalawan, marked and treated the eleven (11) bundles with fluorescent powder at the NBI Dumaguete Sub-Office.

In the morning of June 8, 1996, the NBI operatives occupied strategic places at the Salawaki Beach Resort, again aboard Rosendo Paculanang's motorcycle. At the vicinity of Mag-abo in the town of Zamboanguita, they met Judge Barron's Mitsubishi Lancer bearing plate No. 16-G35, heading in the direction of Dumaguete City. The car blinked its headlights signaling them to stop. Consistent with the entrapment plan, Crear was able to convince Judge Barron to go back as Crear had left the money at Salawaki. Crear rode in Judge Barron's car while Gabo was Paculanang's passenger on the motorcycle. Upon their arrival at Salawaki, Crear alighted from the car and discreetly informed the NBI operatives that the money would be delivered to Judge Barron inside the latter's car. The NBI agents then positioned themselves and waited for the pre-arranged signal. Crear returned to the car carrying a black leatherette clutch bag containing the eleven (11) bundles of marked money amounting to ₱30,000.00. Immediately after boarding the car, Crear gave the pre-arranged signal of opening the door on his side twice, indicating that the money had been handed to and received by Judge Barron.

The NBI reported the arrest as follows: "NBI operatives then rushed up toward the car and caught Subject Barron in flagrante delicto in possession of the marked money in the act of putting the same underneath the driver's seat from a black leatherette clutch bag. During the arrest, Subject BARRON tried to draw his gun from his shoulder holster but was prevented from doing so. Subject BARRON was handcuffed and was informed of the reason for his arrest and was likewise informed of his right under the Constitution as well as his rights under R.A. 7438. Recovered underneath the driver's seat were the eleven (11) bundles of marked money and a black leatherette clutch bag. Confiscated likewise from his possession was a 9mm Cal. Browning Short Pistol with Serial No. 9203338 from his shoulder holster."

After the arrest was made, respondent judge was taken to the NBI Office, where he was booked, photographed, and fingerprinted. The ultra violet light examination conducted on his hands yielded residues of the "fluorescent yellow powder" used earlier to mark the bundles of money. The peso bills with serial numbers and denominations were duly listed by the bundle. Respondent Judge was then turned over to the Dumaguete City police station for temporary custody and safekeeping. An information for the crime of Direct Bribery was filed before the Sandiganbayan against Respondent Judge, as principal, and Casildo Gabo, as accomplice.

On June 11, 1996, the Philippine Daily Inquirer carried the news story "NBI Arrests Negros Judge for getting P30,000.00 bribe." Likewise, the incident came out in the Negros Chronicle on June 16, 1996. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) sought the assistance of NBI Director Santiago Toledo to verify the authenticity of the news report. The OCA was then furnished with a certified copy of the radio message received from the NBI at Dumaguete City and media release containing a case summary and photographs of respondent judge being examined, and pictures of his car and marked money.

In his defense, respondent judge proffered several arguments to support his innocence: (1) what happened was not an entrapment but a frame-up; (2) that he never made any gesture of voluntarily accepting the bribe money — fluorescent powder notwithstanding; (3) the NBI relied on the signal of David Crear, not on their personal discernment of what transpired in the car; and (4) that his car was subjected to an illegal search by the NBI agents. In addition, the respondent judge also presented the affidavits of Judge Teopisto Calumpang and SPO Avelino Burlaza.

Respondent's version of the incident was that sometime in April 1996, David Crear offered him money in exchange for a favorable decision in Civil Case No. 10104, offering something like ₱30,000.00, then increasing the offer to ₱50,000.00, thence to ₱100,000.00. Respondent claimed he referred the matter to Judge Teopisto Calumpang of RTC Branch 39, who advised him to report the bribe offer to the PNP and set the entrapment of Crear. On May 4, 1996, respondent claimed he officially reported Crear's bribe offer to the Dumaguete City PNP and the same was entered in the Police Blotter. SPO1 Burlaza and respondent agreed to set the entrapment after respondent could get Crear to agree on the time and place of payoff. Respondent claimed that on June 8, 1996, he went to Salawaki Beach for the purpose of obtaining information for the planned entrapment, and that Crear unceremoniously tossed bundles of money to him in his car, which he caught in reflex action, before the NBI agents arrested him.

• Frame-up vs. Entrapment: The OCA, through the report and recommendation of Justice Portia Aliño-Hormachuelos, found that respondent's defense of frame-up could not be accorded credence because the NBI operatives had no bias nor ill-motives against the respondent judge, and as law enforcement officers, they are presumed to have acted regularly in the performance of their duties.

• Credibility of Prosecution Witnesses: The testimony of NBI Agent Atty. Cimafranca was marked by spontaneity and candor, and he even engaged the respondent in a frank, matter-of-fact, straightforward recall of the June 8, 1996 entrapment, mentioning minutiae of the incident which could not be easily concocted.

• Suspicious Police Blotter Entry: The police blotter entry dated May 4, 1996 was highly suspicious, being written only on what appears to be the remaining small space at the bottom edge of the page, hardly befitting the prestige and standing of its alleged reporter, an RTC judge, as well as the importance of the alleged incident involving an attempt to bribe by an American national; the investigator believed this entry was only intercalated to lend credence to respondent's defense.

• Implausibility of Respondent's Version: Respondent's version strains credulity, as he would have the court believe that having had enough of Crear's impudence, he would personally report the matter to the PNP on a non-working day at 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon, personally travel to Crear's hatchery at least 30 kms away from Dumaguete City on a Wednesday merely to engage Crear in conversation, and subsequently undertake another distant travel 28 kms away to Salawaki Beach Resort on a Saturday afternoon merely to determine or agree on when the payoff would be, all without any policeman accompanying him.

• Frame-up: Respondent argued that what happened was not an entrapment but a frame-up, claiming that the NBI had carefully mapped out a frame-up operation against him as a retaliatory measure for all those cases which the NBI had filed and for which he caused the dismissal thereof.

• No Voluntary Acceptance: Respondent argued that he never made any gesture of voluntarily accepting the bribe money, fluorescent powder notwithstanding, claiming that the money was unceremoniously tossed to him by Crear.

• Reliance on Crear's Signal: Respondent contended that the NBI relied on the signal of David Crear, and not on their personal discernment of what transpired inside the car.

• Illegal Search: Respondent argued that his car was subjected to an illegal search by the NBI agents.

• Prior Report to PNP: Respondent presented the affidavits of Judge Teopisto Calumpang and SPO Avelino Burlaza to support his claim that he had reported Crear's bribe offer to the PNP and had planned an entrapment of Crear.

• Frame-up vs. Entrapment: Whether the defense of frame-up should be credited over the prosecution's evidence of a valid entrapment operation.
• Validity of Warrantless Search: Whether the search conducted on respondent's car was illegal, notwithstanding the arrest having been made in flagrante delicto.
• Voluntary Acceptance of Bribe: Whether respondent voluntarily accepted the bribe money despite the presence of fluorescent powder on his hands and his claim that the money was unceremoniously tossed to him.
• Reliance on Pre-Arranged Signal: Whether the NBI agents' reliance on the pre-arranged signal given by Crear vitiated the entrapment operation.
• Credibility of Defense Witnesses: Whether the testimonies of respondent's witnesses, Judge Teopisto Calumpang and SPO1 Avelino Burlaza, should be given credence.

• Frame-up vs. Entrapment: No. The defense of frame-up was not sustained, as respondent failed to present any convincing evidence to substantiate his claim. What transpired was a valid entrapment, which has received judicial sanction as long as it is carried out with due regard to Constitutional and legal safeguards.

• Validity of Warrantless Search: No. The search conducted on respondent's car was lawful. Where the arrest of the accused was lawful, having been caught in flagrante delicto, there is no need for a warrant for the seizure of the fruit of the crime as well as for the body search upon him, the same being incidental to a lawful arrest.

• Voluntary Acceptance of Bribe: Yes. Respondent voluntarily accepted the bribe money. The pictures taken immediately after the arrest reveal that the bundles of money were neatly placed under the driver's seat, and the incident report filed by the NBI showed that he was caught placing the money under the driver's seat.

• Reliance on Pre-Arranged Signal: No. The reliance of the NBI agents on the signal given by Crear was appropriate, as it was the manner by which Crear would convey to the agents that the marked money was already in possession of the respondent judge.

• Credibility of Defense Witnesses: No. Little, if any, weight should be given to the testimonies of respondent's witnesses. Judge Calumpang was a compadre and good friend of respondent, and his disposition was taken while he was confined at the hospital and too sick to effectively relate the circumstances. SPO1 Burlaza's testimony was wanting in substantial veracity, and respondent was once a family lawyer of Burlaza.

• Frame-up vs. Entrapment: The Court noted that frame-up as a defense has been invariably viewed with disfavor, for it can just easily be concocted but is quite difficult to prove. The defense of frame-up must be proved by clear and convincing evidence because it is of the same category as alibi. In this case, respondent failed to present any convincing evidence to substantiate his claim. There was no evidence on record that the NBI harbored a personal grudge against the respondent judge. The Court cited Mallari vs. Court of Appeals, holding that "Absent strong and convincing proof to the contrary, this Court is bound by the presumption that the arresting officers were aware of the legal mandates in effecting an arrest and strictly complied with the same." Clearly what transpired was an entrapment and not a frame-up.

• Validity of Warrantless Search: The Court held that where the arrest of the accused was lawful, having been caught in flagrante delicto, there is no need for a warrant for the seizure of the fruit of the crime as well as for the body search upon him, the same being incidental to a lawful arrest. Citing People vs. De Lara, the Court held: "A contemporaneous search may be conducted upon the person of the arrestee and the immediate vicinity where the arrest was made." The Court further noted that a firearm was confiscated on the person of the respondent judge, and there was even an attempt on his part to draw such weapon. The search, being merely an incident to the lawful arrest, cannot be stigmatized as unlawful.

• Voluntary Acceptance of Bribe: The Court found respondent's denial of accepting the bribe money despite the presence of fluorescent powder on his hands to deserve scant consideration. The pictures taken immediately after the arrest revealed that the bundles of money were neatly placed under the driver's seat. If the bundles of money were "unceremoniously tossed to him," it is difficult to understand how all the money found themselves orderly placed under his seat. Furthermore, the incident report filed by the NBI showed that he was caught placing the money under the driver's seat.

• Reliance on Pre-Arranged Signal: The Court held that the means employed and the manner by which the entrapment operation was conducted was not assailed successfully. The reliance of the NBI agents on the signal given by Crear was appropriate, as it was the manner by which Crear would convey to the agents that the marked money was already in possession of the respondent judge. The arresting officers could not place themselves in a conspicuous position where they could easily be seen by the respondent judge, as the transaction was supposedly between Crear and Judge Barron only. The Court noted that ways and means are resorted to for the purpose of trapping and capturing the lawbreaker in the execution of his criminal plan, and entrapment is not a bar to the prosecution and conviction of the lawbreaker.

• Credibility of Defense Witnesses: The Court gave little weight to the testimonies of respondent's witnesses. Judge Teopisto Calumpang Sr.'s disposition was taken when he was still confined at the Holy Child Hospital, and although he was able to attest to the contents of his affidavit and confirm his signature, he could not effectively and intelligently relate the surrounding circumstances leading to the execution of said affidavit, as he was too sick to do so. In addition, Judge Calumpang was a compadre and a good friend of the respondent judge. SPO1 Avelino Burlaza's testimony was wanting in substantial veracity, and the manner by which the alleged bribe attempt was reported was not commensurate to the stature of the judge. The entry in the police blotter was hurriedly written, while the other entries in the same book appeared to be written more deliberately, and the entry seemed cramped as it was written at the bottom of the page, leaving the impression that it was a fabricated entry. Moreover, Burlaza did not inform his superior of the bribe attempt, contrary to standard operating police procedures. What further taints the credibility of this police officer is that respondent judge was once a family lawyer of Burlaza.

The Court concluded that a judge should always be a symbol of rectitude and propriety, comporting himself in a manner that will raise no doubt whatsoever about his honesty. The conduct of respondent judge showed that he can be influenced by monetary considerations. His act of demanding and receiving money from a party-litigant constitutes serious misconduct in office. It is this kind of gross and flaunting misconduct, no matter how nominal the amount involved on the part of those who are charged with the responsibility of administering the law and rendering justice quickly, which erodes the respect for law and the courts. Respondent judge tainted the image of the Judiciary to which he owes fealty and the obligation to keep it at all times unsullied and worthy of the people's trust. There is no place in the Judiciary for those who cannot meet the exacting standards of judicial conduct and integrity.

• Frame-up vs. Entrapment — Frame-up as a defense has been invariably viewed by the Court with disfavor, for it can just easily be concocted but is quite difficult to prove. The defense of frame-up must be proved by clear and convincing evidence because it is of the same category as alibi. In this case, respondent failed to present any convincing evidence to substantiate his claim of frame-up, and the Court found that what transpired was a valid entrapment, which has received judicial sanction as long as it is carried out with due regard to Constitutional and legal safeguards.

• Warrantless Search Incidental to a Lawful Arrest — Where the arrest of the accused was lawful, having been caught in flagrante delicto, there is no need for a warrant for the seizure of the fruit of the crime as well as for the body search upon him, the same being incidental to a lawful arrest. A contemporaneous search may be conducted upon the person of the arrestee and the immediate vicinity where the arrest was made. The individual being arrested may be frisked for concealed weapons that may be used against the arresting officer, and all unlawful articles found in his person, or within his immediate control, may be seized.

• Presumption of Regularity in Performance of Official Duties — Absent strong and convincing proof to the contrary, the Court is bound by the presumption that the arresting officers were aware of the legal mandates in effecting an arrest and strictly complied with the same. This presumption was applied to the NBI operatives in this case, who were presumed to have acted regularly in the performance of their duties.

• Standard of Judicial Conduct — A judge should always be a symbol of rectitude and propriety, comporting himself in a manner that will raise no doubt whatsoever about his honesty. The conduct of a judge who can be influenced by monetary considerations constitutes serious misconduct in office, and there is no place in the Judiciary for those who cannot meet the exacting standards of judicial conduct and integrity.

• "Frame-up as a defense has been invariably viewed by this Court with disfavor for it can just easily be concocted but is quite difficult to prove." — This passage establishes the Court's treatment of the frame-up defense, which is disfavored because it is easily fabricated but difficult to prove, and was central to the Court's rejection of respondent's defense.

• "Where the arrest of the accused was lawful, having been caught in flagrante delicto, there is no need for a warrant for the seizure of the fruit of the crime as well as for the body search upon him, the same being incidental to a lawful arrest." — This passage articulates the doctrine of warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest, which the Court applied to validate the search of respondent's car and the seizure of the marked money and firearm.

• "All told, a judge should always be a symbol of rectitude and propriety comporting himself in a manner that will raise no doubt whatsoever about his honesty." — This passage states the standard of judicial conduct that respondent violated, serving as the basis for the Court's conclusion that respondent's conduct constituted serious misconduct in office.

• "There is no place in the Judiciary for those who cannot meet the exacting standards of judicial conduct and integrity." — This passage articulates the Court's rationale for dismissing respondent from the service, emphasizing the high standards required of members of the Judiciary.

• People vs. Velasco, 252 SCRA 135 — Cited for the proposition that frame-up as a defense has been invariably viewed by the Court with disfavor, for it can just easily be concocted but is quite difficult to prove.

• People vs. Constantino, 235 SCRA 384, citing People vs. Fernandez, 209 SCRA 1 — Cited for the rule that the defense of frame-up must be proved by clear and convincing evidence because it is of the same category as alibi.

• People vs. Basilgo, 235 SCRA 191 — Cited for the proposition that entrapment has received judicial sanction as long as it is carried out with due regard to Constitutional and legal safeguards.

• Mallari vs. Court of Appeals, 265 SCRA 456 — Cited for the rule that "Absent strong and convincing proof to the contrary, this Court is bound by the presumption that the arresting officers were aware of the legal mandates in effecting an arrest and strictly complied with the same."

• People vs. Lua, 256 SCRA 539 — Cited for the doctrine that where the arrest of the accused was lawful, having been caught in flagrante delicto, there is no need for a warrant for the seizure of the fruit of the crime as well as for the body search upon him, the same being incidental to a lawful arrest.

• People vs. De Lara, 236 SCRA 291, citing People vs. Castiller, 188 SCRA 376 — Cited for the rule that "A contemporaneous search may be conducted upon the person of the arrestee and the immediate vicinity where the arrest was made."

• People vs. Quejada, 223 SCRA 77 — Cited for the proposition that the search, being merely an incident to the lawful arrest, cannot be stigmatized as unlawful.

• Yuson vs. Noel, 227 SCRA 1 — Cited for the standard that a judge should always be a symbol of rectitude and propriety, comporting himself in a manner that will raise no doubt whatsoever about his honesty.

• Office of the Court Administrator vs. Gaticales, 208 SCRA 508 — Cited for the proposition that the conduct of a judge who can be influenced by monetary considerations constitutes serious misconduct in office, and it is this kind of gross and flaunting misconduct which erodes the respect for law and the courts.

• Garcia vs. De la Peña, 29 SCRA 766 — Cited for the proposition that respondent judge tainted the image of the Judiciary to which he owes fealty and the obligation to keep it at all times unsullied and worthy of the people's trust.

• Capuno vs. Jaramillo, Jr., 234 SCRA 212 — Cited for the proposition that there is no place in the Judiciary for those who cannot meet the exacting standards of judicial conduct and integrity.

• Rule 31, Section (m), Revised Rules on Evidence — The presumption that law enforcement officers have acted regularly in the performance of their duties, applied to the NBI operatives in this case.

• R.A. 7438 — The law defining certain rights of persons arrested, detained, or under custodial investigation, which the NBI agents informed respondent of during his arrest.

• Constitutional Right Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures — The Court held that the warrantless search of respondent's car was lawful as incidental to a lawful arrest, respondent having been caught in flagrante delicto.

Justices Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Martinez, Quisumbing, and Purisima concurred. Chief Justice Narvasa was on official leave.