Office of the Court Administrator vs. Judge Filomeno Pascual

The ground for removal or discipline of a judicial officer for misconduct, corruption, or a graver offense must be established beyond reasonable doubt, upon competent evidence derived from direct knowledge and after due investigation; where law enforcers induce the act and plant the evidence, the charge fails as instigation, not entrapment.

Respondent Filomeno Pascual was the Presiding Judge of the Municipal Trial Court of Angat, Bulacan. The administrative proceeding against him was initiated by the Office of the Court Administrator after an anonymous letter, purportedly from Ceferino Tigas, alleged irregularities and corruption in his court. The matter implicated Canons 2 and 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct and Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code on bribery.

In February 1993, a letter signed by a certain Ceferino Tigas and addressed to Hon. Reynaldo Suarez of the Office of the Court Administrator charged respondent Judge Filomeno Pascual, Presiding Judge of the Municipal Trial Court of Angat, Bulacan, with irregularities and corruption. On March 10, 1993, the letter was referred to the National Bureau of Investigation for investigation of the alleged illegal and corrupt practices of respondent. Then NBI Director Epimaco Velasco ordered a “discreet investigation” by SA Edward Villarta, team leader, SI Reynaldo Olazo, HA Teofilo Galang, SI Florino Javier, and SI Jose Icasiano. The team proceeded to Angat, Bulacan, to look for Tigas but discovered that he was a fictitious character. Because they could not find Tigas, they proceeded to the residence of Candido Cruz, an accused in respondent’s sala. On March 23, 1993, Cruz executed an affidavit before SA Edward Villarta stating that he was the accused in Criminal Case No. 2154 for Frustrated Murder; that respondent, after conducting the preliminary investigation, decided that the crime committed was only physical injuries and assumed jurisdiction; and that Cruz believed he was made to understand by respondent that, in view of his favorable action, Cruz was to give respondent P2,000. Cruz also stated that respondent was believed to be a drunkard and would in all probability need money to serve his vice. Based on this statement, the NBI agents caused respondent to be entrapped.

The NBI report stated that on March 25, 1993, at about 4:00 in the afternoon, Candido Cruz met Judge Pascual at the Colegio de Sta. Monica near the Municipal Building of Angat, Bulacan, where the judge was attending the graduation of his daughter. Cruz told Judge Pascual that he already had the P2,000 which the judge was asking him. Judge Pascual did not receive the money because, according to him, there were plenty of people around; he instructed Cruz to see him at his office the following day. At about 8:30 in the morning of March 26, 1993, Cruz proceeded to the office of Judge Pascual at the Municipal Trial Court of Angat, Bulacan, and handed to him four pieces of P500.00 bills contained in a white mailing envelope previously marked and glazed with fluorescent powder. The NBI agent stayed outside the courtroom; after about fifteen minutes, Cruz came out and signaled that Judge Pascual had already received the marked money. The agent immediately entered the room and informed the judge about the entrapment. The judge denied having received anything from 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 judge was invited to the Office of the NBI-NCR, Manila, subjected to ultraviolet light examination; after finding fluorescent powder on his right hand, he was booked, photographed, and fingerprinted. The results and his person were referred to the Inquest Prosecutor of the Office of the Special Prosecutor, Ombudsman, with the recommendation that he be charged and prosecuted for Bribery under Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code.

Respondent’s version, presented in his Memorandum dated July 28, 1995, was that the NBI agents persuaded Candido Cruz to participate in what they called an “entrapment operation,” prepared his affidavit and supplementary affidavit, and dusted four P500 bills with fluorescent powder. In the afternoon of March 25, 1993, the NBI, along with Cruz, proceeded to the municipal building of Angat, Bulacan, but learned that the judge was not in his office and was attending graduation rites at the nearby Colegio de Sta. Monica; they moved the operation to the school grounds. Cruz approached the judge and tried to give him an envelope allegedly containing money, but the judge refused to accept it and angrily drove Cruz away. Rebuffed, the NBI agents reset the operation for the following day. At around 9:30 in the morning of March 26, 1993, the NBI agents and Cruz arrived at the municipal building. Cruz entered the judge’s chambers and placed an envelope allegedly containing marked money on his desk. The judge thought it was a pleading for filing and told Cruz to file it with the Office of the Clerk of Court in the adjacent room. Cruz replied that it was the money the judge was asking for. Upon hearing this, the judge erupted in anger, grabbed the envelope on the desk, and hurled it at Cruz. The envelope fell on the floor; the judge picked it up, inserted it inside the pocket of Cruz’s polo shirt, and drove him out of the chamber. Seconds later, agents Villarta and Olazo entered the open door, introduced themselves, and told the judge that the money Cruz gave him was marked. The judge told them that he did not receive or accept money from Cruz. The agents nevertheless searched the room, its table, drawers, every nook and cranny, and the pockets of the judge’s pants, but failed to find the envelope with the marked money. One of the agents called Cruz, who was waiting outside at a waiting shed fronting the municipal building, and asked him where the envelope was. Cruz came back to the room and, together with agent Olazo, approached the cabinet and said “heto pala.” The envelope, which came from the pocket of Cruz’s polo shirt, was then placed on top of the judge’s table, pictures were taken, and the judge was arrested.

The testimonies of the principal witnesses diverged on material points. In his testimony before the Sandiganbayan, NBI Agent SI Reynaldo Olazo stated that the marked money used in the entrapment operation actually came from Candido Cruz and not from the NBI, and that he was not able to see what actually transpired between Cruz and the judge inside the chambers; he was outside and entered only after Cruz gave the signal that the money had been delivered. Candido Cruz, on the other hand, testified that the marked money was given to him by the NBI and that, when he went out of the judge’s chambers after giving the money, he signaled to one Col. Javier, who was then positioned immediately outside the chambers.

Executive Judge Natividad G. Dizon, in her report and recommendation dated August 11, 1995, found the sworn affidavits of the complainants and NBI agents and the documentary proofs more convincing and nearer to the truth, credited the NBI agents as having no motive to fabricate the charge, and found respondent’s defense of instigation untenable. She also found respondent’s claim that the NBI agents connived with Cruz unpersuasive and his excuse of fluorescent powder on his hand flimsy, and recommended that appropriate penalty be imposed upon respondent.

• Instigation and Illegal Machinations: Respondent maintained that the NBI agents, tasked only with a discreet investigation, engaged in incriminatory machinations, planting of evidence, unlawful arrest, and illegal search and seizure; they persuaded Candido Cruz to participate in an entrapment operation.
• No Receipt or Acceptance of Money: Respondent argued that on March 25, 1993, he refused the envelope and angrily drove Cruz away, and on March 26, 1993, he thought the envelope was a pleading, told Cruz to file it with the clerk of court, and when told it was money, he hurled it at Cruz, inserted it in Cruz’s pocket, and drove him out; he never received or accepted the money.
• Search Failed to Find Money: Respondent maintained that the NBI agents searched his chambers, table, drawers, and even his pockets but failed to find the envelope, and that Cruz later produced it from a cabinet, showing the money was planted.
• Timing of Alleged Bribe: Respondent argued that his favorable action on Cruz’s case had already been rendered before the alleged entrapment, so there was no reason for him to ask for a bribe on March 26, 1993.
• Humiliation and Prosecution: Respondent claimed he was humiliated when the envelope was placed on his desk for photographs and that the facts showed unlawful prosecution and planting of evidence amounting to persecution.

• Due Process in Administrative Investigation: Whether respondent judge was afforded due process where the investigation report was based only on the complaint, answer, memorandum, and transcript of stenographic notes of the Sandiganbayan bribery case, without open trial and opportunity to confront witnesses and present evidence.
• Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Whether the charge of bribery against respondent judge was established beyond reasonable doubt.
• Entrapment vs. Instigation: Whether the NBI operation was a valid entrapment or constituted instigation and planting of evidence.
• Credibility and Inconsistencies: Whether the testimonies of Candido Cruz and NBI Agent Olazo were sufficiently consistent and credible to support the charge.

• Due Process in Administrative Investigation: No. Respondent was not afforded an open trial to confront witnesses and present evidence; the report was based only on the complaint, answer, memorandum, and transcript of stenographic notes, falling short of due process.
• Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: No. The alleged bribery was not sufficiently and convincingly proven to warrant penalty; the reasonable doubt standard applies to judicial discipline for corruption.
• Entrapment vs. Instigation: Instigation, not entrapment. The NBI agents induced Cruz to place respondent in a compromising situation not brought about by respondent’s request, and the evidence was later produced in a manner indicating it was planted.
• Credibility and Inconsistencies: No. The testimonies of Cruz and Olazo admitted irreconcilable inconsistencies on material points, including the source of the marked money and what happened inside the chambers.

• Due Process in Administrative Investigation: The Rules, even in administrative cases, require that if a respondent judge is to be disciplined for grave misconduct or any graver offense, the evidence against him must be competent and derived from direct knowledge. The report and recommendation of Executive Judge Dizon rested only on the Complaint, the Answer, respondent’s Memorandum, and the transcript of stenographic notes of the hearing of the bribery case before the Sandiganbayan. Respondent was not afforded an open trial in which he could confront the witnesses against him and present evidence in his defense. Because the charge was penal in character, the Judiciary demanded no less than due investigation and presentation of competent evidence before a member could be faulted. The report therefore fell short of the requirements of due process.
• Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Under Raquiza vs. Castaneda, Jr., the ground for removal of a judicial officer should be established beyond reasonable doubt where the charge is misconduct in office, willful neglect, corruption, incompetency, and similar offenses, and the general rules on admissibility of evidence in criminal trials apply. Reasonable doubt is the inability to let the judicial mind rest easy upon the certainty of guilt after a thorough investigation of the whole evidence, as stated in U.S. vs. Lazada. Applying that standard, the alleged act of bribery committed by respondent was not sufficiently and convincingly proven to warrant the imposition of any penalty.
• Entrapment vs. Instigation: Although then NBI Director Epimaco Velasco ordered a discreet investigation, the NBI team instead caused the instigation or entrapment of respondent. After failing to find the fictitious Tigas, they sought out Candido Cruz, an accused before respondent’s court who could be considered a virtual victim. Respondent’s favorable action on Cruz’s case—reducing the charge from Frustrated Murder to physical injuries—had been rendered before Cruz was persuaded to participate in the operation; no bribe was asked at that time, making it unlikely that respondent would ask for one on March 26, 1993, after the favorable verdict had already been rendered. NBI Agent Olazo admitted that despite scouring respondent’s table for the envelope, no envelope was found, and he had to call Cruz, who was already outside, to locate it. Cruz then went straight to the top of a cabinet and produced the envelope, saying “heto pala.” These circumstances showed that the money, when offered to respondent, was not received by him and that the NBI agents’ acts triggered the incident. The operation constituted instigation and not entrapment, and the facts smacked of unlawful prosecution and planting of evidence amounting to persecution.
• Credibility and Inconsistencies: The evidence admitted irreconcilable inconsistencies in the testimonies of principal witness Candido Cruz and NBI Agent SI Reynaldo Olazo on several material points. Olazo testified before the Sandiganbayan that the marked money came from Candido Cruz and not from the NBI, and that he did not see what transpired between Cruz and respondent inside the chambers because he was outside and entered only after Cruz gave the signal. Cruz testified that the marked money was given to him by the NBI and that he signaled to Col. Javier, who was positioned immediately outside the chambers. The charge originated from an anonymous letter by a supposed Ceferino Tigas who did not specify crimes or illegal acts but charged respondent with anomalies in general terms, leaving respondent unable to make a valid answer. Cruz insisted that he participated only because the NBI agents made him believe there was an order from the Supreme Court; he was illiterate and more than seventy years old, which explained why he was easily persuaded and why his testimony contained inconsistencies. Under People vs. Hernandez, gross mistakes on very important points not easily forgotten are strong indicia of the falsity of a witness’s story. Respondent’s version was therefore favorably considered, and he was held blameless of the bribery charge.

• Due process in administrative disciplinary proceedings against judges — Where a judge may be disciplined for grave misconduct or a graver offense, the evidence against him must be competent and derived from direct knowledge, and he must be afforded an open trial or the opportunity to confront witnesses and present evidence, especially when the charge is penal in character. The Court applied this by rejecting the investigating judge’s report because it rested only on the complaint, answer, memorandum, and transcript of stenographic notes of the Sandiganbayan bribery case.
• Proof beyond reasonable doubt in judicial discipline — The ground for removal of a judicial officer for misconduct in office, willful neglect, corruption, incompetency, or similar charges must be established beyond reasonable doubt, with the general rules on admissibility of evidence in criminal trials applying. The Court found the bribery charge not sufficiently and convincingly proven under this standard.
• Reasonable doubt — Reasonable doubt is the inability to let the judicial mind rest easy upon the certainty of guilt after a thorough investigation of the whole evidence. The Court applied this definition to conclude that no penalty could be imposed on respondent.
• Instigation and planting of evidence — Where law enforcement agents induce a person to act so as to place the respondent in a compromising situation not brought about by the respondent’s own request, and the evidence is later produced in a manner indicating it was planted, the operation is instigation rather than valid entrapment and cannot support a bribery charge. The Court characterized the NBI operation as instigation because Cruz was induced to place respondent in a compromising situation, the money was not found during the search, and Cruz later produced it from a cabinet.
• Credibility and inconsistencies — Gross mistakes on very important points not easily forgotten are strong indicia of the falsity of a witness’s story. The Court applied this to Candido Cruz’s testimony, considering his illiteracy, age, and the NBI’s representation that the Supreme Court had ordered the operation.
• Canons 2 and 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct — A judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities and should perform official duties honestly, impartially, and diligently. The investigating judge invoked these canons, but the Supreme Court did not impose discipline because the evidence did not warrant conviction.

• "We find that the evidence on record does not warrant conviction." — This states the Court’s threshold conclusion and the basis for exonerating respondent despite the investigating judge’s contrary recommendation.
• "The ground for the removal of a judicial officer should be established beyond reasonable doubt. Such is the rule where the charges on which the removal is sought is misconduct in office, willful neglect, corruption, incompetency, etc. The general rules in regard to admissibility of evidence in criminal trials apply." — This is the Court’s canonical formulation of the quantum of proof required in judicial disciplinary proceedings for corruption or grave misconduct.
• "In view of the foregoing facts, it is easy to conclude that the acts of the NBI agents which triggered the incident that transpired inside respondent judge’s chambers constituted instigation and not entrapment as claimed by the prosecution." — This is the ratio decidendi on why the NBI operation could not sustain the bribery charge.
• "The foregoing set of facts smacks of unlawful prosecution and planting of evidence amounting to persecution." — This expresses the Court’s characterization of the NBI agents’ conduct and reinforces the finding that the evidence was planted.

• Raquiza vs. Castaneda, Jr., 81 SCRA 235, 244 [1978] — The Court reiterated this ruling for the standard that the ground for removal of a judicial officer should be established beyond reasonable doubt and that the general rules on admissibility of evidence in criminal trials apply. It is the controlling precedent on the quantum of proof in judicial discipline.
• People vs. Hernandez, 91 Phil. 334 [1952] — Cited for the proposition that gross mistakes on very important points not easily forgotten are strong indicia of the falsity of a witness’s story, which the Court used in assessing Candido Cruz’s testimony.
• U.S. vs. Lazada, 18 Phil. 90, 96 [1910] — Cited for the definition of reasonable doubt as the inability to let the judicial mind rest easy upon the certainty of guilt after a thorough investigation of the whole evidence.

• Article 210, Revised Penal Code — Defines and penalizes bribery. The NBI recommended that respondent be charged and prosecuted under this article, and the administrative case concerned the alleged bribery. The Court found the charge not sufficiently and convincingly proven.
• Canons 2 and 3, Code of Judicial Conduct — Canon 2 requires a judge to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities; Canon 3 requires a judge to perform official duties honestly, impartially, and diligently. The investigating judge found respondent violated these canons, but the Supreme Court did not impose discipline because the evidence did not warrant conviction.
• Rules on administrative discipline of judges — The decision states that the Rules, even in administrative cases, demand that if a 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 Court applied this to reject the report and recommendation that lacked an open trial and confrontation of witnesses.

Padilla (Chairman), Bellosillo, Vitug, and Kapunan, JJ., concurred.