ILUMINADA SANTILLAN VDA. DE NEPOMUCENO, PETITIONER, VS. JUDGE NICASIO V. BARTOLOME, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, STA. MARIA, BULACAN. RESPONDENT.

Nepomuceno versus Bartolome

The Case

This is an administrative case in which Iluminada Santillan Vda. de Nepomuceno charged Judge Nicasio V. Bartolome, presiding judge of the Municipal Trial Court of Sta. Maria, Bulacan, with violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. She alleged that he demanded and received five thousand pesos as consideration for a favorable decision in a criminal case, and that he abused his authority in later reducing the monthly installment of the civil liability. The case matters because it fixes the evidentiary standard for bribery charges against judges and because it shows that a judge may escape the main charge yet still be held to account for untruthful statements made in his own defense.

Procedural History

The complainant filed an affidavit-complaint before the Office of the Court Administrator. Acting on the recommendation of that office, the Supreme Court referred the matter to the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Malolos for investigation, report, and recommendation, so that both parties could substantiate their allegations in a formal hearing. After several hearings, the investigating judge found that the complainant remained firm and steadfast in her claim of demand and payment, but concluded that her testimony, standing alone, was insufficient to warrant a finding of guilt. The case then came before the Supreme Court as an original administrative matter, and the Court resolved it on the records and the investigator's report.

Facts

The complainant was the private complainant in a criminal case for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide and slight physical injuries, filed in October 1994 before the Municipal Trial Court of Sta. Maria, Bulacan, presided over by the respondent judge. The deceased victim was her daughter, and the injured victim was her son. In a decision dated February 15, 1999, the respondent found the accused guilty, sentenced him to six years imprisonment, and ordered him to pay the heirs of the deceased and the injured the sum of 66,523 pesos and 70 centavos supported by receipts, to indemnify the heirs 75,000 pesos, and to pay the costs. The decision was promulgated on April 13, 1999. The accused applied for and was granted probation.

What followed was a long series of orders on the civil liability. On July 21, 1999, upon motion of the complainant, the respondent issued a writ of execution. On December 7, 1999, he revoked the probation and ordered the arrest of the accused for failure to comply with the conditions of probation. On motion for reconsideration, he issued an order dated January 11, 2000 allowing the accused to settle the civil liability by paying 30,000 pesos within ten days and 10,000 pesos per month thereafter. When the accused failed to pay for April, May, and June 2000, the respondent denied a motion for reduction of the installments. On May 31, 2000, however, he approved the recommendation of the Bulacan Parole and Probation Office reducing the monthly payment from 10,000 pesos to 2,000 pesos. The complainant's motion for reconsideration was denied on July 13, 2000.

The complainant then filed a petition for certiorari before the Regional Trial Court of Bulacan, which was dismissed on December 6, 2001, although that court declared that the mode of payment in the January 11, 2000 order stands. In her administrative complaint, the complainant insisted that the respondent demanded and received 5,000 pesos as consideration for the favorable decision, and that he abused his authority in reducing the monthly payment. The respondent denied both charges. The investigating judge found that the complainant claimed the demand was made on February 19, 1999 in the respondent's chamber, and that the money was handed to him on March 1, 1999 at about 9:30 in the morning at the stairs of the Municipal Hall while a flag ceremony was going on. No other evidence substantiated these allegations.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent judge is guilty of violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act for allegedly demanding and receiving five thousand pesos as consideration for a favorable decision.
• Whether or not the respondent judge abused his authority in approving the reduction of the monthly installment of the civil indemnity from 10,000 pesos to 2,000 pesos.
• Whether or not the respondent judge should be administratively dealt with for making deliberate untruthful statements in his defense during the proceedings.

Applicable Provisions

Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct provides:

A judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities.

This canon supplies the standard against which the respondent's conduct in his own defense was measured.

Rule 2.01 of the Code of Judicial Conduct provides:

A judge should so behave at all times as to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.

The Court held that the respondent transgressed this mandate by willfully and deliberately making inaccurate and untruthful statements in his defense.

Section 3 of Rule 140 of the Rules of Court is the provision the Court invoked when it required the respondent to show cause why he should not be dealt with administratively for serious misconduct.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court dismissed the charge for insufficiency of evidence. It agreed with the investigating judge that the complainant's testimony, standing alone, could not support a finding of guilt. The Court laid down the governing standard in memorable terms: an accusation of bribery is easy to concoct and difficult to disprove, so the complainant must present a panoply of evidence in support of such an accusation. Because the imputed misconduct is so grave that, if proven, it would entail dismissal from the bench, the quantum of proof required should be more than substantial.

On the second issue, the Court found no malice, ill motive, or taint of abuse of authority in the order reducing the installments. The order rested on the manifestation of the Chief Parole and Probation Officer that, after intensive investigation, the probationer was found to be in unstable financial status and capable of making a monthly payment of only 2,000 pesos.

On the third issue, the Court found that the respondent had twice made untruthful and inaccurate statements in his desire to free himself from the controversy. First, he insinuated in his comment before the Office of the Court Administrator that the decision had already been released, making the complainant's claim of a demand after its release appear unbelievable. The Court examined the comment and found no such insinuation, since his statement was premised on the complainant's own assertions, and he had stated in his counter-affidavit that the decision was promulgated on April 13, 1999. Second, while he stated in his comment that he approved the recommendation reducing the monthly installment and denied the motion for reconsideration, he consciously and deliberately made contradictory statements in his counter-affidavit, claiming that he reiterated an earlier order fixing the monthly payment at 10,000 pesos and that he stayed put with his January 11, 2000 order. The records belied him, for the order of May 31, 2000 showed that he approved the recommendation without modification. The Court held that by willfully and deliberately making inaccurate and untruthful statements in his defense, the respondent transgressed the mandates of the Code of Judicial Conduct, and considering that the statements were under oath, he should be required to show cause why he should not be dealt with administratively for serious misconduct.

Doctrine

First, a charge of bribery against a judge must be supported by a panoply of evidence, not by the complainant's lone testimony. The accusation is easy to concoct and difficult to disprove, and because the misconduct alleged would warrant dismissal from the bench, the quantum of proof must be more than substantial.

Second, a judge's act enjoys the presumption of regularity absent proof of malice or ill motive, as where an order reducing installment payments rests on the recommendation of the parole and probation office.

Third, under Canon 2 and Rule 2.01 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, a judge must avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety and must behave at all times so as to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. Deliberate untruthful statements made under oath in one's own defense violate these mandates and can be the basis of a separate administrative liability for serious misconduct under Section 3 of Rule 140, even when the principal charge is dismissed.

Disposition

The administrative complaint against Judge Nicasio V. Bartolome was dismissed for insufficiency of evidence, but he was required to show cause within ten days why he should not be administratively dealt with for serious misconduct for making deliberate untruthful statements during the proceedings.

Remember This

Memorize the line that an accusation of bribery is easy to concoct and difficult to disprove, so the complainant must present a panoply of evidence, with proof more than substantial. Examiners use this case to test the quantum of proof in administrative charges against judges and the rule that a judge who lies under oath in his own defense may be disciplined even if the main charge fails.