EN BANC
[ A.M. No. RTJ-17-2486 [Formerly A.M. No. 17-02-45-RTC, September 03, 2019 ]
RE: INVESTIGATION REPORT ON THE ALLEGED EXTORTION ACTIVITIES OF PRESIDING JUDGE GODOFREDO B. ABUL, JR., BRANCH 4, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BUTUAN CITY, AGUSAN DEL NORTE
DECISION
PER CURIAM:
Death of the respondent judge during the pendency of his administrative case shall not terminate the proceedings against him, much less absolve him, or cause the dismissal of the complaint if the investigation was completed prior to his demise. If death intervenes before he has been dismissed from service, the appropriate penalty is forfeiture of all retirement and other benefits, except accrued leaves.
Such is the situation in this administrative matter initiated against Judge Godofredo B. Abul, Presiding Judge of Branch 4, Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Butuan City, Agusan del Norte, in which the complaint charged him with extortion committed against prison inmates detained for violation of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002).
Antecedents
On April 7, 2015, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) received the letter sent by Rev. Father Antoni A. Saniel, Director of the Prison Ministry of the Diocese of Butuan,1 denouncing the extortionate activities committed by Judge Abul against the detainees of the Provincial Jail of Agusan.2 Allegedly, Judge Abul had demanded money ranging from P200,000.00 to P300,000.00 in exchange for the detainees' release from jail or the dismissal of the criminal cases.3 Father Saniel submitted with his letter the affidavits of Hazel D. Reyes (Reyes)4 and Anna Marie B. Montilla (Montilla) that attested to the extortion activities of Judge Abul.
In her affidavit, Reyes claimed that she was an "asset" of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA); that Judge Abul had extorted money from detainees accused of and undergoing trial for drug-related charges in exchange for their liberty; that a certain Naomi Saranggani, the wife of a detainee, had approached and asked her if she wanted her criminal case to be dismissed; that Saranggani had told her that Judge Abul summoned her to look for detainees facing drug-related charges who wanted their cases to be favorably resolved; that Saranggani had told her and Montilla that they should start raising money totalling P200,000.00 to pay Judge Abul; and that Montilla had related that when she attended her December 5, 2014 hearing, Judge Abul asked for her cellphone number so that they could directly communicate with each another.
On her part, Montilla averred that she had met Saranggani on November 4, 2014 when the latter went to the Agusan del Norte Provincial Jail to await the release of her husband, Walid Saranggani; that Saranggani had asked if she (Montilla) had wanted to be released from prison herself because Judge Abul could arrange her release in exchange for the sum of P200,000.00; that Saranggani had then used her phone to call someone whom she kept addressing as "judge;" that Saranggani had then handed the phone to her to talk to the person, who introduced himself as Judge Abul, and asked if she could pay P100,000.00 in exchange for her release; that she had later on personally met Judge Abul during her scheduled hearing on December 5, 2014, and he had told her that they should help one another because she could be convicted based on the document that she had signed; that Judge Abul had asked her phone number in case he would want to see her after her release; that Saranggani had intimated to her that they paid P250,000.00 to Judge Abul to secure the release of her husband; and that she had learned through Saranggani that Judge Abul had also been instrumental in the release of other prisoners after they had paid him.
Investigation and Report
of the Judicial Audit Team
The OCA conducted a fact-finding investigation of the complaint filed by Father Saniel through a team led by Atty. Rullyn S. Garcia.5
The team interviewed Reyes and Montilla who confirmed their affidavits. Reyes and Montilla also separately confirmed that in February 2015, Judge Abul arrived at the provincial jail and talked to them; that Judge Abul asked Reyes to execute a disclaimer that he would prepare and that he would ensure her release from detention; that as to Montilla, Judge Abul appeared to be annoyed by her affidavit, and said to her that he would just inhibit but would see to it that she would be convicted.6
The team reviewed the records of Criminal Case No. 15630 charging Walid Saranggani, Shaira Salic, Mike Saranggani and Ryan Umpa for violating Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 and raffled to the RTC Branch presided by respondent. The team concluded that Criminal Case No. 15630 had been decided in haste and without regard to procedural rules that cast doubt on the regularity of the acquittal of all accused.7
On February 28, 2017, the Court En Banc issued a resolution placing Judge Abul under preventive suspension, and required him to comment on the complaint and the investigation report.8
Comment/Answer of Judge Abul
In his comment/answer,9 Judge Abul denied all the accusations, and insisted that the same were false, baseless and concocted by an evil and malicious mind for the sole purpose of besmirching his unblemished record of service in the Judiciary. He maintained that Fr. Saniel had no personal knowledge of the alleged extortion activities; that the declarations of Reyes and Montilla were not based on their personal knowledge and were thus inadmissible against him; that he did not go to the provincial jail to confront Reyes and Montilla, but only to talk to the jail warden to inquire if the prisoners were being allowed to leave jail; that the affidavits of Reyes and Montilla had been notarized before notary public Atty. Nelbert T. Poculan, but the representative of the latter had stated that said affidavits were not notarized by Atty. Poculan; and that it was improbable for him to demand money from Reyes and Montilla considering that they had appeared to have no visible income to support themselves.
Pending review of this administrative case, the Court received the letter from the respondent's wife dated September 13, 2017 informing about Judge Abul's demise.10 Subsequently, the counsel for the late judge filed a Notice of Death and Motion to Dismiss,11 praying for the dismissal of the complaint in view of the respondent's death and the punitive nature of the administrative liabilities.12
OCA Report and Recommendation
On February 20, 2018, the OCA submitted its report,13 and recommended therein as follows:
PREMISES CONSIDERED, we respectfully recommend for the consideration of the Honorable Court that:
1. The motion to dismiss filed by respondent Judge's counsel, Atty. Teristram B. Zoleta, be DENIED for lack of merit; and
2. Judge Godofredo B. Abul, Jr., Branch 4, Regional Trial Court, Butuan City, Agusan del Norte, be ADJUDGED GUILTY of grave misconduct constituting violations of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary and FINED in the amount of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php500,000.00), to be deducted from his retirement gratuity.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.14
The OCA disagreed with the urging of the respondent's counsel to dismiss the complaint in view of his intervening demise, observing:
It has been settled that the death of a respondent does not preclude a finding of administrative liability. However, it may necessitate the dismissal of the case upon a consideration of the following factors: first, if the respondent's right to due process was not observed; second, the presence of exceptional circumstances in the case on the grounds equitable and humanitarian reasons; and third, the kind of penalty imposed.
In this case, none of the foregoing factors exists. First, respondent Judge's right to due process was not violated. As borne by the records, he was duly informed of the accusations against him, having been furnished with a copy of the letter-complaint of Fr. Saniel and its attached affidavits, as well as a copy of the investigation report of Atty. Garcia. In fact, he filed his comment thereon, which the Court received on 19 April. 2017. Second, his death alone is insufficient to justify the dismissal of the case on the ground of equitable or humanitarian consideration. A case was ordered dismissed by the Court by reason of the respondent's death for equitable and humanitarian considerations as the liability was incurred by reason of respondent's poor health. In this case, there was no circumstance other than respondent Judge's death that may warrant the invocation of equitable or humanitarian ground in his favor. Third, the penalty of fine may still be imposed notwithstanding his death. In fact, in one case, the respondent who died before the investigating judge was able to finish and submit his report but was duly notified of the proceedings against him and was directed to file his answer, although he opted not to comply therewith, was still meted the penalty of forfeiture of his retirement benefits, except his accrued leave credits, after having been found guilty of grave misconduct.15
The OCA found that the allegations against Judge Abul had been confirmed and validated by Judge Abul himself and by the court records; that the affidavits of Reyes and Montilla had appeared to be credible in light of Judge Abul's inability to impute any ill-motive, malice or bad faith to the accusers; and that based on the results of the investigation Judge Abul had violated Canon 2, Canon 3 and Canon 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary in a manner that amounted to grave misconduct.16
Issue
Did Judge Abul's actuations amount to gross misconduct constituting violations of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary?
Ruling of the Court
We adopt the findings of the OCA but modify its recommendation.
Based on the sworn declarations of Reyes and Montilla, as well as the court records of Criminal Case No. 15630, there appeared to be sufficient grounds to hold Judge Abul administratively liable for extortion as charged against him. Consequently, the Court concurs with the following observations of the OCA, viz.:
Going into the merits of the case, it may be true that some of the statements made by Reyes and Montilla in their respective affidavits and before Atty. Garcia were not necessarily based on their own personal knowledge since they were just mostly conveyed to them by Naomi. Nonetheless, these statements cannot simply be brushed aside as hearsay and, therefore, inadmissible in evidence against respondent Judge. It bears stressing that some of these statements were confirmed and validated by respondent Judge himself and by the records of Criminal Case No. 15630.
First, Reyes and Montilla claimed that respondent Judge went to the Agusan del Norte Provincial Jail on 4 or 5 February 2015, and this was admitted by respondent Judge, although he denied talking with them since his supposed purpose in going there was merely to ask its Officer-In-Charge, Mr. Antenorio, whether prisoners are allowed to leave the jail premises without the court's authority in light of the complaint-affidavits of Reyes and Montilla against him that were executed before Atty. Puculan on 13 January 2015. However, the positive assertion by Reyes and Montilla that he personally talked with them inside the Provincial Warden's office is more credible than his bare denial. Notably, Montilla claimed that it was Mr. Antenorio who convinced them to talk with respondent Judge. If, indeed, he did not purposely talk with Reyes and Montilla, he could have easily obtained an affidavit or statement from Mr. Antenorio to refute such allegation, but he conveniently failed to do so.
Second, the allegation of Reyes that Naomi told her and Montilla that the drugs case against her (Naomi's) husband and his co-accused was dismissed by respondent Judge on 24 November 2014, as well as the allegation of Montilla that Naomi went to the Provincial Jail sometime in November 2014 to fetch her husband and relatives after they were acquitted by respondent Judge, are not without factual basis. As borne by the records of Criminal Case No. 15630, the Decision acquitting the accused in said case was promulgated on 24 November 2014 without the presence of all the accused, even if such presence is required under Section 6, Rule 120 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, thereby making it necessary for Naomi to fetch her husband and his co-accused from the Provincial Jail. The consistency between the statements of Reyes and Montilla and the circumstances of said case, as borne by the records, makes the allegations of Reyes and Montilla credible.
It bears stressing that respondent Judge was furnished with a copy of the Investigation Report dated 10 February 2017 of Atty. Garcia, where said statements and circumstances of the subject criminal case were clearly outlined. It was also stated therein that Reyes claimed that Naomi told her that her husband and his co-accused obtained a favorable decision after paying respondent Judge the amount of Php 250,000.00. Atty. Garcia characterized the proceedings in the same criminal case as a "patent irregularity" since respondent Judge "decided it with undue haste and without due regard to the procedural rules, resulting in the questionable acquittal of all the accused" However, despite the gravity of the irregularity imputed to him and despite being required to comment thereon, respondent Judge offered not a single word to refute the findings and observations of Atty. Garcia, thereby giving the impression that respondent Judge has admitted such findings and observations.
The foregoing circumstances render the allegations of Reyes and Montilla not only admissible in evidence but also convincing, especially so that respondent Judge failed to offer any plausible imputation of ill motive, malice or bad faith on their part to make any false accusation against him. Montilla claims that she negotiated with respondent Judge over the phone regarding the amount he was asking in exchange for the dismissal of her case in the presence of Reyes and Naomi. Reyes corroborated Montilla's statement, having overheard the conversation between respondent Judge and Montilla as the phone was set on speaker mode. Montilla further claims that during the scheduled hearing of her case on 5 December 2014, respondent Judge called her to the lawyer's table, and admonished her for asking that the Php 200,000.00 she was supposed to pay him be reduced even if the affidavit she executed showed that she is guilty.17
The Code of Judicial Ethics mandates that the conduct of a judge must be free of every whiff of impropriety not only in regard to his discharge of judicial duties, but also to his behavior outside his office and even as a private individual.18 Indeed, judges should be extra prudent in associating with litigants and counsel who have matters pending before them in order to avoid even the mere perception of possible bias or partiality. They should be scrupulously careful with respect to pending or prospective litigations before them to avoid anything that may tend to awaken the suspicion that their personal, social or sundry relations could influence their objectivity, for not only must they possess proficiency in law but they must also act and behave in such manner that would assure litigants and their counsel, with great comfort, of the judges' competence, integrity and independence.19
In view of this, whether or not Judge Abul really demanded money in exchange for either the liberty of Reyes and Montilla or the dismissal of the criminal case filed against them even became immaterial herein. By simply meeting and talking with them as the accused whose cases were then pending in his sala, Judge Abul already transgressed ethical norms and compromised his integrity and impartiality as the trial judge. His actuations flagrantly violated the following norms and canons of The New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary, to wit:
CANON 2
Integrity
Integrity is essential not only to the proper discharge of the judicial office but also to the personal demeanor of judges.
SECTION 1. Judges shall ensure that not only is their conduct above reproach, but that it is perceived to be so in the view of a reasonable observer.
SECTION 2. The behavior and conduct of judges must reaffirm the people's faith in the integrity of the judiciary. Justice must not merely be done but must also be seen to be done.
x x x x
CANON 3
Impartiality
Impartiality is essential to the proper discharge of the judicial office. It applies not only to the decision itself but also to the process by which the decision to made.
SECTION 1. Judges shall perform their judicial duties without favor, bias or prejudice.
SECTION 2. Judges shall ensure that his or her conduct, both in and out of court, maintains and enhances the confidence of the public, the legal profession and litigants in the impartiality of the judge and of the judiciary.
SECTION 3. Judges shall, so far as is reasonable, so conduct themselves as to minimize the occasions on which it will be necessary for them to be disqualified from hearing or deciding cases.
x x x x
CANON 4
Propriety
Propriety and the appearance of propriety are essential to the performance of all the activities of a judge.
SECTION 1. Judges shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of their activities.
x x x x
As regards the acquittal of the accused in Criminal Case No. 15630, the Court agrees with and adopts the following relevant findings thereon by the OCA, to wit:
While there was no direct evidence that respondent Judge was paid Php 250,000.00 in consideration for the acquittal of all the accused in Criminal Case No. 15630, the highly questionable circumstances surrounding their acquittal on reasonable doubt give credence to the allegation of corruption against him. The decision was premature and grossly unprocedural, the same being in violation of Section 5, Rule 30 of the Rules of Court. Notably, he allowed the accused to manipulate the proceedings when he unduly acted favorably on their memorandum praying for their acquittal despite the vehement opposition thereto of the prosecution, correctly pointing out that the same could not be treated as demurrer to evidence having been filed out of time. Worse, without considering the merits of the prosecution's opposition to the memorandum despite its legal and logical soundness, he submitted the case for decision by merely stating in his order that "the defense has filed a memorandum indicating that they (sic) are submitting the case for decision based on prosecution's evidence and the prosecution has submitted its comment." With extraordinary and undue speed, he penned the decision on the same day that the case was submitted for decision, and he promulgated the decision without the presence of the accused in violation of Section 6, Rule 120 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Plainly enough, Judge Abul's actuations and behavior constituted grave misconduct. It is settled that grave misconduct exists where the requisites of corruption, clear intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of established rule are present. As an element of grave misconduct, corruption consists in the act of an official or fiduciary person who unlawfully and wrongfully uses his station or character to procure some benefit for himself or for another person, contrary to duty and the rights of others.20
Judge Abul's death intervened in the meantime. Nonetheless, and as recommended by the OCA, his death should not result in the dismissal of the administrative complaint. In Gonzales v. Escalona,21 we held that the Court is not ousted of its jurisdiction by the mere fact that the respondent public official had meanwhile ceased to hold office. Verily, jurisdiction over the case or subject matter, once acquired, continues until final resolution. With more reason is this true herein because Judge Abul was fully afforded due process during the investigation.
Worth noting is that the Court already sternly warned Judge Abul in Calo v. Judge Abul, Jr.22 "to be more circumspect in issuing orders which must truly reflect the actual facts they represent to obviate engendering views of partiality among others." The warning evidently fell on deaf ears in view of the clear showing that Judge Abul still committed another serious offense.
It is now time to impose the stiffer penalty on him.
Under Section 11, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, grave misconduct constituting violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct is a serious offense that results in dismissal from the service, forfeiture of all or part of the benefits, and perpetual disqualification from reappointment or appointment to any public office, including government-owned and controlled corporations, except accrued leave credits.23
Had Judge Abul not died, he would have been meted the extreme penalty of dismissal, with the concomitant forfeiture of all retirement and allied benefits due to him, except accrued leaves, as an accessory penalty. Considering that his intervening death has rendered his dismissal no longer feasible, the accessory penalty of forfeiture of all such retirement and allied benefits, except accrued leaves, then becomes the viable sanction.
WHEREFORE, the Court FINDS and DECLARES the late Presiding Judge Godofredo B. Abul, Jr. of Branch 4, Regional Trial Court, Butuan City, Agusan del Norte GUILTY of GROSS MISCONDUCT; and, accordingly, FORFEITS all benefits, including retirement gratuity, exclusive of his accrued leaves, which shall be released to his legal heirs.
SO ORDERED.
Bersamin, C.J., Carpio, Peralta, Perlas-Bernabe, Jardeleza, Reyes, Jr., J., Carandang, and Inting, JJ., concur.
Leonen, J., See separate opinion.
Caguioa, Reyes, Jr., A., and Gesmundo, JJ., joins the dissent of J. Hernando.
Hernando, J., I dissent. Please see dissenting opinion.
Lazaro-Javier, and Zalameda, JJ., joins the dissent of J. Hernando.
NOTICE OF JUDGMENT
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that on September 3, 2019 a Decision, copy attached herewith, was rendered by the Supreme Court in the above-entitled case, the original of which was received by this Office on October 17, 2019 at 3:58 p.m.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) EDGAR O. ARICHETA
Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1 Rollo, pp. 13-14.
2 Id. at 20-22.
3 Id. at 13.
4 Id. at 15-19.
5 Id. at 4.
6 Id. at 7-8.
7 Id. at 10.
8 Id. at 58-59.
9 Id. at 61-77.
10 Id. at 91.
11 Id. at 95-97.
12 Id. at 96
13 Id. at 104-119.
14 Id. at 119.
15 Id. at 114-115.
16 Id. at 116-117.
17 Id. at 115-116.
18 Munsayac-De Villa v. Reyes, A.M. Nos. RTJ-05-1925, RTJ-05-1926, RTJ-05-1927, RTJ-05-1928, RTJ-05-1929, RTJ-05-1930 & P-05-2020, June 26, 2006, 492 SCRA 404, 426.
19 Sibayan-Joaquin v. Javellana, A.M. No. RTJ-00-1601, November 13, 2001, 368 SCRA 503, 508.
20 Office of the Ombudsman v. Asis, G.R. No. 237503 (Notice), June 20, 2018.
21 A.M. No. P-03-1715, September 19, 2008, 566 SCRA 1.
22 A.M. No. RTJ-06-1996 (Resolution), July 25, 2006, 496 SCRA 416.
23 Section 11, Rule 140, Rules of Court.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
