VICENTE C. BUENAVISTA, JR., COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE MARCELO G. GARCIA, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 51, PUERTO PRINCESA, PALAWAN, RESPONDENT.

On September 13, 1988, Vicente C. Buenavista,
Jr., father of an 11-year-old rape victim, Gail Buenavista,
filed in this Court a verified administrative complaint against respondent
Judge Marcelo G. Garcia, presiding judge of Branch 51, Regional Trial Court of Palawan, and First Assistant Provincial Fiscal Sesinio B. Belen, for gross ignorance of the law and for knowingly issuing an unjust order or
judgment.

In January 1987, Buenavista filed two
complaints for rape in the Municipal Trial
Court of Aborlan, Palawan
(Crim. Cases Nos. 2233 and 2234), accusing Samuel M. Ledesma of having raped Gail Buenavista,
the 11-year-old daughter of the complainant. 
After the requisite preliminary investigation, a warrant for the arrest
of the accused was issued by Municipal Trial Judge Perfecto L. Pe, Jr., recommending no bail for the
accused.  Upon being forwarded to
the Office of the Provincial Fiscal, the complaints were docketed as Crim. Cases Nos. 6744 and 6745 in the sala
of Judge Marcelo Garcia, Branch 51 of the Regional Trial Court of Palawan and Puerto
Princesa City.  Despite the investigating judge’s
recommendation, Judge Garcia on June
22, 1987, admitted the accused to bail and directed that he be
released from custody (p. 4, Rollo).

Three days later, or on July
25, 1988, the rape victim, Gail Buenavista,
was kidnapped by the same accused, Samuel
Ledesma. 
A criminal charge of kidnapping was filed against him by the girl’s father on July 26, 1988 (Crim.
Case No. 9759) and a warrant for his arrest was issued by MTCC Judge Fernando
R. Gomez, Jr. of Puerto Princesa City, again
recommending “NO BAIL” (p. 5, Rollo).  The record does not show that he has been
apprehended.

On August 5, 1988,
based on an affidavit of desistance executed by the offended party on July 26, 1988, the day after she was
kidnapped, a Motion to Dismiss the rape cases dated July 4, 1988 was filed by Atty. Edgardo S. Arias, counsel of the accused.  The affidavit was notarized by First
Assistant Provincial Fiscal Sesinio B. Belen who
certified that he had “personally examined the above-named affiant” and that he
was “convinced that she voluntarily executed the foregoing affidavit and
understood the contents thereof” (p. 6, Rollo).  The affidavit alleged:

“AFFIDAVIT
OF DESISTANCE

“I, GAIL BUENAVISTA, Filipino citizen, with residence at 7 Tagumpay St., Purok Kalipay, Barangay Cuito, Puerto Princesa City,
under oath allege:

“That I am the complainant in Criminal Cases No. 6744 and 6745 all
for alleged ‘RAPE’ against accused SAMUEL M. LEDESMA, said case being pending
at Branch 51 of the REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF PALAWAN AND PUERTO PRINCESA CITY;

“That I signed the aforesaid complaint against accused SAMUEL M.
LEDESMA against my will, my signature in the complaint having been obtained
thru force, violence and intimidation done to me by my parents;

“There is no truth to the allegations contained in my sworn
statement executed by me against my will on January 27, 1987 at Aborlan, Palawan, taken by Patrolman Antonio Daquer.  There was no
force, violence or intimidation done against me by said accused SAMUEL M.
LEDESMA.  I was not forced by him to
submit to his desires.  It was all in accordance with my own will,
volition and consent that I went personally to him because we love each other
and I agree and consent to live with him as my husband.

“I therefore respectfully request that the cases filed against said
SAMUEL M. LEDESMA now pending in Branch 51 of the REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF
PALAWAN AND PUERTO PRINCESA CITY be dismissed as in fact I now withdraw
my complaints against him and I further manifest under oath that I am now
desisting from testifying against him in Court or in any other government
entity or agency in connection with the said criminal cases I filed against him
against my will, the same having been made possible thru physical force,
violence and intimidation done to me by my parents.

“IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 26th day of
July, 1988 at Puerto Princesa City.”
(p. 6, Rollo.)

The complainant was given no notice of the motion to dismiss.

On the same day, August
5, 1988, Judge Garcia issued an order for the provisional dismissal
of Criminal Cases Nos. 6744 and 6745, and canceling the bail (property) bond of
the accused (p. 9, Rollo).

On the same date, a petition to revive the dismissed cases was filed by the complainant in the
Office of the Provincial Fiscal Eustaquio Z. Gacott, Jr. who filed on August 9, 1988 an “Urgent Motion
to Revive Dismissed Cases and to Issue Warrant of Arrest” on the grounds that:

“xxx                           xxx                               xxx

“4. Being a young minor, the raped victim does not know and cannot
fully comprehend and understand for herself the impact and legal consequence of
said affidavit of desistance;

“5. The aforesaid affidavit of desistance is not valid and legal
because being only 13 years of age, as stated above, which is not even a marriageable, the raped victim cannot give a valid consent
or approval to its execution;

“6. There is no
showing that the complainant, Vicente Buenavista or
his wife, has given his or her conformity to the execution
of said affidavit of desistance.  They were neither consulted nor their consent obtained in the
execution of the questioned affidavit of desistance;

“7. The Honorable Court will please take note that the motion to
dismiss was dated much earlier than the date of the affidavit of desistance;

“8. The raped victim’s affidavit of
desistance was prepared a day after she was kidnapped and her whereabouts is
unknown up to this time.  Under this
circumstance the conclusion is inevitable that she was made to execute and sign the same (affidavit of desistance)
under duress, threats and intimidation; and

“9. A case of kidnapping against the above named-accused was filed
and is now pending before the Municipal
Trial Court of
Puerto Princesa City,
docketed as Criminal Case No. 9759.” (p. 20, Rollo.)

On August 19, 1988,
Judge Garcia granted Fiscal Gacott’s motion (p. 22, rollo).

The complainant has charged both Fiscal Sesinio
Belen and Judge Marcelo Garcia with gross ignorance of the law, the fiscal for
having certified that he was convinced that Gail Buenavista
“voluntarily executed the affidavit of desistance and understood the contents
thereof” (p. 17, rollo), and Judge Garcia, for
dismissing the rape complaints on the
basis of the minor’s affidavit of desistance knowing, as he should have known,
that an eleven-year-old girl is incompetent to execute such affidavit.

In the resolution of this Court dated October 11, 1988, respondent
Judge was ordered to comment on the complaint.

In his comment, respondent Judge explained that in view of the
certification of the trial fiscal, Sesinio B. Belen,
that he believed the minor, Gail Buenavista, fully
and freely executed her affidavit of desistance, and as said fiscal did not
oppose the motion to dismiss the rape cases, he (Judge Garcia) thought the
provisional dismissal of the cases was proper since, anyway, he gave the fiscal
six (6) months within which to revive or refile
them.  On August 10, 1988, or barely five
(5) days later, the Provincial Fiscal, Eustaquio Z. Gacott, Jr., did file an “Urgent Motion to Revive Dismissed
Cases and to Issue Warrant of Arrest,” which he (Judge Garcia) immediately
calendared for hearing with notice to the defendant’s counsel, Atty. Edgardo Arias.  He
granted the motion on August 19, 1988,
and issued a warrant for the arrest of the accused on August 22, 1988. 
It is not known, however, whether the accused was re-arrested or not.

Judge Garcia further alleged that Samuel Ledesma,
through his uncle, former Provincial Board Member Ricardo Baldevieso
of Narra, Palawan,
“has already paid ample amount to complainant Vicente Buenavista,
which was covered by receipts, which was shown to the court.  This payment was made due
to an agreement during a sort of a conference between the parties in the
chamber of the Presiding Judge” (p. 13, Rollo).

Respondent Judge alleged “that the complainant, Gail Balmonte Buenavista, has never
appeared before the court even for once since after the arraignment of the
accused Samuel Ledesma” (p. 13, Rollo).  Moreover, “the complaining witness GAIL
BUENAVISTA has executed an affidavit of desistance, claiming therein under
oath, that no force, violence or intimidation was done to her by the accused
and that of her own free will she personally went to the accused and submitted
herself to him voluntarily since they were sweethearts and she agreed and
consented to live with him as her husband. 
A copy of complainant’s ‘Affidavit of Desistance’ is hereto attached as ANNEX
‘A’ hereof” (p. 7, Rollo) and “that in the month of September, 1988 this court
received a letter from Mrs. Gail Buenavista Ledesma stating among other things, that she was not raped
by the accused Samuel Ledesma, she loves him to be
her husband.  She ask
(sic) the court to dismissed (sic) Criminal Cases Nos. 6744 and 6745 for Rape
against Samuel Ledesma.  She copy furnished the City Fiscal, the
National Bureau of Investigation, the Provincial Fiscal and MTC Judge Fernando
Gomez.  (Letter of Mrs.
Gail Buenavista Ledesma
dated September
4, 1988 as Annex ‘G’ of this comment” (p.
13, Rollo).

Under the circumstances, respondent Judge believed that he “acted
judiciously and exercise (sic) a sound discretion in the issuance of its [sic]
orders” (p. 13, Rollo).

The complaint was referred to Justice Jose C. Campos, Jr. of the
Court of Appeals for investigation, report and recommendation.  In an order dated February 14, 1990, the administrative case was
set by Justice Campos for hearing on March
14, 1990 at 9:30 A.M. at
the Moran Hall, Court of Appeals, whereat the parties and their counsel were
ordered to appear and testify (p. 38, Rollo).  Judge Garcia received the notice in the
ordinary course of mail on March 8,
1990.  The notice to the
complainant, Vicente Buenavista, Jr., was returned by
the Post Office at Puerto Princesa, Palawan, with the notation that the addressee
moved out without leaving a forwarding address and his whereabouts are
unknown.  The parties having waived their
right to appear and be heard, the administrative case was resolved without
their presence.  On March 19, 1990, Justice Campos submitted his
report and recommendation based on the complaint and the respondent’s comments
together with the annexes of both.

After a careful consideration of the complaint and respondent
Judge’s comment thereon, we find merit in the complainant’s charge that Judge
Garcia acted either in gross ignorance of the law or with malice and deliberate
intent to unjustly dismiss the criminal cases against Samuel Ledesma.  As observed
by Mr. Justice Campos:

“To be guilty of ‘knowingly rendering an unjust judgment,’ it is
necessary that the judgment or order was rendered with conscious and deliberate
intent to perpetrate an injustice.  And the test to determine whether the
judgment or order is unjust, may be inferred from
the circumstance that it is contrary
to law or is not supported by evidence.  (In re:  Rafael C. Climaco, Adm. Case No. 134-J, Jan. 21, 1974; 55 SCRA 107).  A judgment maybe said to be unjust when it is
manifestly against the law and contrary to the weight of evidence.  (Sec. 1, par. [c], Rule 37, Rules of Court). 
An unjust judgment is one contrary to the standards of right and justice
or standards of conduct prescribed by the law. 
(US vs. Oglesby Grocery Co., 264 F. 691; Komen vs. City of St. Louis, 316
Mo. 9; 289 S.W. 838).” (p. 4, Report and
Recommendation.)

In view of Judge Garcia’s legal background as a former Assistant
Provincial Fiscal of Palawan in 1985, the Court
cannot imagine that he would be ignorant of the law which penalizes statutory
rape (Art. 335, Par. 3, Revised Penal Code) or that he did not know that as the
victim’s consent in statutory rape is invalid, it is not a defense (People vs.
Gonzales, 58 SCRA 265; People vs. Celic, 137 SCRA 166).  Being incompetent to give valid consent to the rape committed
against her, her consent to the dismissal of the original charge against her
rapist is likewise invalid.

Judge Garcia’s allegation that “ample amount” had been paid by the accused to the complainant
to settle the case “during a sort of a conference between the parties in
the chambers of the presiding judge”
(Underscoring ours; p. 13, Rollo) while evidently
intended to impugn the motives of the complainant in prosecuting the rapist and
kidnapper of his daughter has only succeeded in revealing Judge Garcia’s
improper and immoral intervention in brokering a compromise of the criminal
cases against Ledesma.  It is an admission that he is either ignorant
of the rule that criminal cases are not allowed by law to be compromised, and
that an offer of compromise by the accused is an implied admission of guilt
(Sec. 24, Rule 130, Rules of Court), or that he does not know that his
participation in such a transaction is unbecoming of a judge.

Respondent Judge also admitted that the offended party, Gail Buenavista, has never appeared before him “even for once”
(p. 13, Rollo). 
That circumstance would have aroused suspicion in a more alert Judge
that she was being sequestered by the accused to prevent her from disowning the
letter she supposedly signed in defense of the accused (Annex B, p. 24, Rollo) and her affidavit of desistance (Annex B-2, p. 17, Rollo).

For all the foregoing, we find respondent Judge Marcelo G. Garcia
guilty of serious misconduct, gross ignorance of the law, and knowingly
rendering an unjust order or judgment. 
The last is punishable under Article 204 of the Revised Penal Code as
follows:

“Art. 204. 
Any judge who shall knowingly render an unjust judgment in a case
submitted to him for decision shall be punished by prision
mayor and perpetual disqualification.” (p. 3, Report and
Recommendation.)

The penalty of absolute perpetual disqualification from office in
a criminal case is the equivalent of dismissal from the service in an
administrative proceeding, for a judge who is unfit, or perpetually
disqualified to hold public office, may not be allowed to continue in the
service.

He has violated the Code of Judicial Conduct which requires every
judge to be the embodiment of competence, integrity and independence (Canon 1,
Rule 1.01).  By conniving to stifle and
sabotage the prosecution of the accused for the serious crime of rape, he has
placed his integrity, independence and impartiality under a cloud.  A judge who displays arrant ignorance of, or indifference to,
the law, erodes public confidence in the competence and fairness of the
courts.  He commits a disservice to the
cause of justice.

WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Judge Marcelo Garcia
guilty of serious misconduct and hereby orders his immediate dismissal from the
service with forfeiture of retirement benefits, except the monetary value of
his accrued leaves.

In view of Assistant Fiscal Sesinio B. Belen’s questionable actuations in
the dismissal of Criminal Cases Nos. 6744 and 6745 (for rape) and Criminal Case
No. 9759 (for kidnapping), let a copy of this decision be furnished the
Honorable Secretary of Justice for his information and proper disposition.

SO ORDERED.

Fernan, C.J., Narvasa,
Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Paras, Feliciano, Gancayco,
Padilla, Bidin, Sarmiento,
Cortes, Griño-Aquino, Medialdea,
and Regalado, JJ., concur.