A.M. No. MTJ-91-565. August 30, 1993
PATRICIO T. JUNIO, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE PEDRO C. RIVERA, JR., RESPONDENT.
PER CURIAM:
Fourteen (14) year-old Cristina Junio filed with the Office of the
Provincial Prosecutor a criminal complaint dated 24 May 1991 for acts of
lasciviousness against respondent Judge Pedro Rivera Jr. of the Municipal Trial
Court of Alaminos, Pangasinan.[1] The
filing of this complaint caused the commencement of Criminal Case No. 2422-A
against respondent Judge with Branch 55 of the Regional Trial Court of
Alaminos, Pangasinan.[2] Trial
of this case has been completed and the case is now pending decision.[3]
Meanwhile, Cristina’s father, Patricio Junio, filed a sworn
administrative charge dated 6 June 1991 against the respondent with the Court
Administrator with respect to the same acts complained of criminally; thus was
commenced the present administrative case. Complainant Patricio Junio further requested, through the Presidential
Committee on Human Rights, the Secretary of Justice to do something about the
matter.[4]
In a letter to the Chief Justice dated 16 January 1992, then
Justice Secretary Silvestre H. Bello III suggested that respondent Judge Rivera
be placed under preventive suspension, pending the outcome of both the criminal
and administrative cases.[5] This letter was seconded by
complainant’s own motion to the same effect dated 17 August 1992 and filed in
MTJ No. 91-565.[6]
After considering respondent’s answer to the administrative
complaint, with its attached annexes, as well as the Report of the Deputy Court
Administrator dated 27 December 1992 on this matter, the Court decided in a
Resolution dated 26 January 1993 to suspend preventively respondent Judge
during the pendency of the administrative case.[7] To
date, the Court has not permitted him to re-assume his official duties.
In two Resolutions dated 9 and 23 March 1993, the Court directed
Judge Eugenio Ramos of Branch 39, Regional Trial Court of Lingayen, Pangasinan,
to conduct an investigation in A.M. No. MTJ-91-565 and to submit his report and
recommendation thereon within sixty (60) days from receipt of the records of
the administrative case.[8]
Hearings were subsequently conducted by Investigating Judge Ramos
on 15 and 29 May 1993, as well as on 5 and 19 June 1993. In order to complete the administrative
investigation promptly, the parties agreed to reproduce by incorporation the
transcript of stenographic notes recorded in the criminal case, containing the
testimonies of witnesses who were presented by the parties anew in the present
administrative case. The parties
further agreed to address additional questions on direct examination to these
witnesses in the administrative case, subject to the right of the opposing party’s
counsel to cross-examine the witnesses on both the testimony given in the
criminal case, as well as the additional testimony given in this administrative
case.[9]
The gist of the acts complained of are contained in Cristina
Junio’s testimony as summarized by the Investigating Judge:[10]
“She testified that between the hours of 2:30 and 3:00 o’clock
in the afternoon of May 20, 1991 she was helping in the store of her parents
which is located at the Alaminos
Commercial Complex. She was sent to
their rented house to get the ingredients for halo–halo. The house is owned by the respondent who
stays at the ground floor, while the Junio family occupy the second floor.
Upon reaching the house, she went to their housemaid named
Concepcion Tugade who was then helping cook food for the celebration of the
respondent’s birthday. She got their
housemaid’s 1 year old child in order to dress her up and bring her to the
store. The name of the child is Shiela
May. She brought the child to her
(Cristina) room to change the former’s clothes.
While dressing up Shiela, respondent allegedly entered her room,
took Shiela and made her sit on the bed and after which he went near Cristina,
embraced her and kissed her. She tried
to push him. The respondent allegedly
let her loose and then left the room while she sat on the bed and cried.
Then the respondent allegedly returned, went near her and pushed
her until she was lying on the bed. He
then mounted on top of her, kissed her on the lips, inserted his right hand
inside her blouse and, simultaneously, inserted his left hand inside her maong
pants, mashed her breast and touched
her vagina, for a long time.
Then Shiela May cried. The
respondent stood up and left the room. Cristina also took the child and went out of the room. The respondent was allegedly still in the
sala and he told her [Cristina] to stop
crying. Conching Tugade arrived and
complainant (Cristina) told the former what happened. She was advised to report it to her parents. Upon arrival in their store, she told her mother and she also told her
father. They then went to the police
headquarters and caused the incident to be entered in the police blotter. She identified her sworn statement marked as
Exhibit ‘D’ and series (sic) which she subscribed before Fiscal Finez on May
24, 1991. She claims damages in the
amount of P300,000.00.”
Witness Concepcion Tugade corroborated Cristina’s declaration
that after the incident, respondent Judge tried to console her at the sala.[11]
Respondent Judge Rivera, in his testimony, gave a different
version of the events of 20 May 1991, a version narrated by the Investigating
Judge in the following terms:
“He has been the Municipal Judge of Alaminos town since July
11, 1989. His wife is Patria Tady
Rivera. He resides in a house inherited
from his parents. It is two (2) stories
(sic). He resides in (sic) the ground
floor while the second floor is being rented by the Junio family since 1986. May 20 is his birthday and he heard Mass and
received Holy Communion on that
day. His wife Patria was in charge of
the cooking. There were actually three
(3) cooks, assisted by 6 or 7 persons.
The party actually began at past 10:00 o’clock with close friends and relatives in attendance. During lunch there were some 30 guests in
the garage and some 20 guests inside the dining room. He denied that he entered the bedroom of Cristina. He admitted going to the second floor but
only up to the front of the staircase and he was with Cesar Villar; that he
told Cristina that it was his birthday and ‘why don’t you kiss Tito
Peter?’, which she did by kissing him on the cheeks and he kissed back
also on the cheek; that Villar commented ‘Ano ba yan? Birthday kiss ba yan?’ He
denied that he went back to the second floor a second time because he was very
busy attending to his many guests.
He denied that he held the breast and private parts of the
complainant claiming that he cannot do that because she was like family to him
and he treated her like a daughter. He
denied seeing Tugade go up the house and that although he admits that there are
four (4) bedrooms in the second floor, he does not know the room of Cristina
nor as to which room is occupied by the rest of the Junio family.
x x x x x x x x x
That after May 20, 1991 there was no confrontation with the Junio’s
who vacated the second floor they were then renting although they owed back
rentals of some six (6) months although he
admits that they have paid said indebtedness since then.“[12]
The alleged innocent exchange of kisses on the cheek was
corroborated by respondent’s witness Cesar Villar.[13]
Respondent also presented as his witnesses Dominica Silag, Merlyn
Cortez, Eva Pertez and Joseph Cortez. They gave testimony tending to show that Cristina Junio’s affidavit
dated 24 May 1991, after being executed before the police authorities and
before its submission to the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor, was modified
by inserting additional questions and answers describing how complainant’s witness,
Concepcion Tugade, came to observe respondent Judge consoling a sobbing
Cristina in the sala after the incident.[14]
The Investigating Judge duly filed a Report dated 29 June 1993 on
the administrative investigation together with his recommendations thereon.[15]
The Investigating Judge in his Report “respectfully but
strongly recommended” that the respondent Judge be absolved of the
administrative charge.[16]
After careful deliberation on the Report of Investigating Judge
Eugenio Ramos, and after close examination of the record of A.M. No.
MTJ-91-565, the Court is unable to accept the findings and conclusions of the
Investigating Judge. The conclusions
presented by the Investigating Judge and the reasons which lead us to reject
them are set out below.
The Investigating Judge set out three (3) reasons for his
recommendation that respondent Judge Rivera be absolved from this
administrative charge. The first and
the third reasons are interrelated and will, therefore, be dealt with
together. The first reason presented by
the Investigating Judge is as follows:
“First. The
claim of Cristina that the respondent caused her to lay down on the bed, lay on
top of her, inserted his right hand inside her blouse in order to mash her
breast, and simultaneously the respondent
inserted his left hand inside the denim pants of Cristina in order to hold her ‘vagina’ and that this was
done for a ‘long time’ is unbelievable and totally unacceptable. It was concocted by a person who had no
imagination whatsoever, or at least, had not experience enough to know that
what was pictured was physically impossible of accomplishment … unless
Judge Rivera is Mr. Rubber-man himself, or he is a contortion artist.
To be sure, in order to test and verify if this particular claim
of Cristina is physically possible, the undersigned tried to re-enact it with
my wife but it was determined that it was physically impossible of
accomplishment. The jurisprudence
laid down by the Honorable Supreme Court, that ‘testimony to be believed must
not only emanate from the mouth of a credible witness, but must be credible in
itself’ has been constant and fixed as not to require citation.
Moreover, the respondent was in barong tagalog and white
pants. It is submitted that Judge Rivera
was intelligent enough to know that if he will lie down on top of a girl who is
resisting, his barong will become very crumpled, as well as his pants. Certainly with visitors coming and going to
wish him well, he will look funny to say the least, meeting his well wishers
in ‘crumpled’ baronq pilipino (sic).
The complainant Cristina appeared before the undersigned during the
investigation. She was already 16 years
old. The incident allegedly happened in
1991 when she was 14 years old. Without
casting any aspersion to Cristina, even today when she is already 16 years of
age, the undersigned did not notice in her a fairly developed bust, as will
turn the male eyes in a manner that will cause him to throw caution to the
winds and make him think unchaste thoughts. It would have been more so, two years ago when she was only 14.”[17]
(Underscoring supplied)
The third reason of the
Investigating Judge is set out in the following manner:
“Third. The
complainants have been living in the second floor of the respondent’s house for
several years. Since 1989 the latter
has been staying in the ground floor of his house. It is highly improbable that the respondent will be stupid
enough to choose May 20 to do and perform the acts of which he is accused
on that very day:
a. which
is his birthday;
b. with so many people present coming and going
to his house, which it was his social duty and obligation to meet and entertain
as guests;
c. at
a time when his wife was present;
d. when
in thanksgiving he attended the offering of the holy sacrifice of the mass and
received holy communion;
e. when only the first phase of the celebration,
i.e., lunch, was finished and that more important guests are expected to
arrive.”[18]
(Underscoring supplied)
The first reason given by the Investigating Judge is totally
unacceptable to this Court. The
Investigating Judge has not provided the Court with a cogent judicial basis for
exercising (or refraining from exercising) its disciplinary jurisdiction over
judges in the case at bar. The extraordinary
first reason submitted by the Investigating Judge has in fact given rise to the
impression, to the mind of this Court, that he has, in desperation, bent over
backwards to exonerate respondent Judge.
In the first place, this Court does not believe that what
Cristina, in her clear and forthright testimony, said that respondent Judge
did, i.e., that he “lay on top of her, inserted his right hand inside her
blouse in order to mash her breast, and x x x inserted his left hand inside
[her] denim pants in order to hold her ‘vagina’ and that this was done for a
‘long-time'” was
“physically impossible.” That the Investigating Judge may have found
it not physically possible for him to “re-enact” with his wife the
testimony of Christina, does not impress this Court. That the Investigating Judge found Cristina at age 16 (and
therefore a fortiori at age 14) bereft of what he considers a
“fairly developed bust” capable of generating “unchaste
thoughts”, is even less impressive to this Court. We consider that Judge Ramos’ avowed
personal tastes in the matter of female sexual attractiveness prove
nothing. There are any number of cases
in the Philippine Reports of males convicted of raping 14-year old, and even
younger, females. The fact, therefore,
that the Investigating Judge was able to contemplate the offended party
Cristina without experiencing “unchaste thoughts,” is no legal reason
for disbelieving her testimony. That
the Investigating Judge may have found Cristina sexually unattractive,
certainly does not demonstrate that respondent Judge found her similarly
undesirable, at that particular moment, or that the latter could not have
kissed and fondled Cristina.
The Investigating Judge’s argument that respondent Judge Rivera’s
barong and pants would have become “very crumpled” if he had indeed
lain on top of Christina, is also unpersuasive. Assuming, for sake of argument, that respondent Judge would have
become terribly conscious of his hypothetically crumpled clothing, we note that
the incident took place in respondent Judge’s home where he could have quite
easily changed his clothing.
Clearly, the Investigating Judge found the matter a question of
credibility and chose to repose his entire faith and confidence in the word of
the respondent Judge as evidenced by his third reason. But his third reason appears to this Court
to be an ad hominem and post–hoc argument
entirely speculative in nature, to which we are unable to ascribe substantial
weight. Moreover, the Investigating
Judge disregarded the testimony given by respondent Judge and his witnesses
that alcoholic liquor was served to respondent Judge’s guests during his
birthday celebration,[19] as
well as the testimony of complainant’s witness Concepcion Tugade, who had
declared in Criminal Case No. 2422-A that respondent Judge had indeed been
drinking liquor along with his guests on that day.[20]
Considering inter alia that the normal effect of
alcoholic liquor, even when the point of intoxication is not reached, is to
loosen the ordinary inhibitions of the drinker,[21] we
are not impressed with the Investigating Judge’s third reason. Upon the other hand, it is pertinent to
recall that crimes against chastity have been committed in many different kinds
of places, including places which many would consider as inappropriate or as
presenting a high risk of discovery.[22]
More importantly, the Investigating Judge has overlooked
completely the clear and forthright manner in which Cristina testified as to
what had happened to her in the afternoon of 20 May 1991 at the second floor of respondent Judge’s house. Respondent Judge has not suggested that
Cristina is a dissolute person, a woman-child of ill-repute, capable of
deliberately fabricating a story of lewd or lascivious acts. Neither has respondent Judge submitted any
motive which might reasonably have led Cristina to engage in such a
fabrication. The Investigating Judge
himself simply observed that Cristina, was a “poor and innocent [girl] who
has been raised as a country
lass up to that moment,” who could have misinterpreted an
“innocent” gesture (a kiss on the cheek) administered by respondent
Judge. Cristina immediately told
Concepcion Tugade, who arrived shortly after the incident, what respondent
Judge had done to her. Further,
Cristina that very same afternoon reported to her parents what had happened to
her and her parents in turn forthwith reported the matter to the police at the
Alaminos Police Station where the incident was “blottered.”[23]
The Investigating Judge in his report decries the acts of Cristina’s parents as
“over-reaction;” this the Court is totally unable to understand. Cristina and her parents behaved in exactly
the way we would expect them to behave if Cristina’s story was true. They behaved as law-abiding people subjected
to an outrage upon their honor and family can be expected to behave.
Respondent Judge sought to explain the filing of the
administrative and criminal charges against him in terms of a supposed desire
on the part of the Junios to “get even” with him for his alleged
reminders to the Junios about their arrearages of rent.[24]
This explanation inspires little or no confidence. The Junio family vacated the second floor of respondent’s house
two (2) days after the incident. At the
time they left, they apparently had four (4) months rent in arrears; respondent
Judge himself acknowledged, however, that they paid their backrentals in full
after their departure.[25] The
Junios were evidently a middle class (or lower-middle income bracket)
family. They made their living out of a
store in the Alaminos Commercial Complex; they were, in the eyes of respondent
Judge, “lowly businessmen.”[26] As
such, we find it very difficult to believe that Cristina and her family would
fabricate a tale of sexual abuse by respondent, a municipal judge who, in a
town like Alaminos, Pangasinan, is a personage of importance and influence, one
whom most people would go to some length to avoid offending.
Cristina Junio underwent all the public travails which await a
woman who complains of acts such as those here attributed to respondent
Judge. Cristina testified first before
the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor and then in open court in the trial of
Criminal Case No. 2422-A and finally, once again, in the administrative
proceedings before the Investigating Judge. The record is bereft of any indication that Cristina was any different
from other ordinary teenagers her age; no indication that she was sexually
precocious or a congenital liar. We
have already noted that the Investigating Judge himself had observed that
Cristina was an “innocent” girl, “raised as a country
lass.” Thus her behavior in immediately reporting what had happened to her
parents and then to the police and the Provincial Prosecutor is consistent only
with a genuine desire to vindicate her honor and redress the wrong she knew had
been inflicted upon her.[27]
For the above “first” and “third” reasons,
the Investigating Judge concluded that “the above accusation of Cristina
was [merely] concocted.” The Report then went to the second reason adduced
by the Investigating Judge:
“Second. Obviously
therefore, the above accusation of Cristina was concocted. The second manufactured evidence was the
testimony of [Concepcion] Tugade. It was obviously intended to provide the
appearance of a corroborating testimony. It appears to be the result of an advice overheard by Eva Pertez when
Prosecutor Finez told Linda Junio, ‘x x x this is not the way to file a case,
you return, this is not the way to make a case x x x.’ The Rules of
Evidence has been particularly harsh on the ‘manufacture’ of evidence. x x x.
‘If it is shown that a person has attempted to falsify, fabricate,
suppress or destroy evidence, such conduct may be justly construed as an
indication of his consciousness that his case or defense is lacking in merit. x
x x'”[28]
The Investigating Judge narrated part of the testimony of
respondent’s witness Eva Pertez as follows:
“x x x She testified that on May 22, 1991 at about 11:00
o’clock in the morning she was at the store of Mrs. Linda Junio, mother of
Cristina Junio. Linda Junio was talking
to Fiscal Genebin Finez. We quote:
‘Q: While
there, you said you saw Fiscal Finez there, what was she doing there?
A: They
were talking together with Linda, sir.
Q: Were
you able to hear their conversation?
A: I
heard them talking together about Judge Rivera.
Q: Will
you please explain what is that, that you heard regarding their conversation
involving Judge Rivera.
A: What I heard is that Fiscal Finez said to Linda ‘this is not the way
to file a case, you return, this is not the way to make a case, you return.’
That is what I heard.'”[29]
(Underscoring supplied)
The Investigating Judge evidently
construed the above testimony as proof of a conspiracy to insert false
statements in the sworn statement of Cristina Junio. He was, in effect, not only imputing perjurious statements to
complainant’s witness, Concepcion Tugade, but also gross and probably criminal
misconduct to Fiscal Finez. We do not,
however, read the statement attributed to Fiscal Finez as an encour agement or inducement to add false statements
to Cristina’s affidavit. Far from it.
Policeman Joseph Cortez testified that after he had prepared
Cristina’s affidavit, he directed Cristina and her father to have the document
subscribed before Prosecutor Finez.[30]
Stenographer Merlyn Cortez declared, without objection from complainant’s
counsel, that prior to being sworn to, Cristina and her father had pleaded with
Prosecutor Finez to modify the document (Cristina’s affidavit) because it was incomplete.[31] Merlyn Cortez declared further that
Prosecutor Finez then questioned her (Cristina) anew on the incident and that
as a result, the affidavit was retyped by her (Merlyn Cortez) to reflect the
inclusion of certain words and additional questions posed by Prosecutor Finez
and answers given by Cristina. Relevant
portions of the testimony of stenographer Merlyn Cortez follow:
“ATTY. AQUINO: (Counsel for
respondent)
Q: You
said you saw that statement before the filing of the complaint, where did you
see it?
WITNESS:
In our office, sir.
ATTY. AQUINO:
Q: How
did you happen to see it?
A: Because
I was the one who retyped this affidavit, sir.
Q: Now,
will you please inform the Honorable Court why did you have to retype that
statement?
A: Because the father of Cristina Junio when they were inside the Office
of Prosecutor Finez pleaded to Prosecutor Finez because the statement taken by
the police according to the girl is lacking.
Q: To
whom – no. Who is that father you
mentioned?
A: Patricio
Junio, sir.
Q: And
what matters are lacking in the unretyped statement shown to Prosecutor Finez?
A: When the statement was explained to the girl – this statement was not
yet signed by the girl. And then, when
Fiscal Finez asked her why she did not yet affix her signature, the girl said
there was something that was not included in the statement. And then Prosecutor Finez asked the girl
‘what is that?’ And the girl even demonstrated what happened to her, sir.
x x x x
x x x
x x
ATTY. BOLINAS: (Counsel for complainant)
Q: Do
you recall, madam witness when you retyped this document?
A: I
could not remember the exact date, sir.
Q: But
you retyped the said document before the filing of the complaint?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: Before
you retyped this document, Fiscal Finez interrogated the complainant Cristina
Junio?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: Were you present when the
interrogation took place?
A: I was outside the room,
sir.
Q: And did you enter the
room in the course of the said interrogation?
A: Yes, sir, when they called
for me.
Q: And you said that
Cristina Junio was interrogated, was the father present?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And how many were inside
the room?
A: I think they were four
(4), sir.
Q: You said they were four
(4), tell us the names of the persons who were inside the room?
A: Prosecutor Finez,
Cristina Junio, Mr. Patricio Junio and another person, sir. If I am not mistaken, it was Miss Tugade.
Q: You were referring to
Conching Tugade?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: The statement of
Cristina Junio was still unsigned when you saw it for the first time?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And you were present
at the time Prosecutor Finez was explaining the contents of this document to
Cristina Junio?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: And
Prosecutor Finez asked Cristina Junio if the said sworn statement contains
what happened, am I correct?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: And
you heard that Cristina Junio told the Prosecutor that there is still
lacking?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: And
that, what is lacking is what you mentioned as part of answer and question
No. 9?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: And
likewise, what is also lacking are questions and answers from 11, 12, 13 and
14?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: Who
propounded this question No. 11? ‘Anong ginawa mo noong lumabas si Judge Rivera
sa kuwarto?’ Who asked this
question?
A: Prosecutor
Finez, sir.
Q: And how about this Answer ‘Kinuha ko yong bata and inilabas ko sa
kuwarto at nasalubong ko si Ate Conching ang ina ng bata at nagsumbong na ako
sa kanya.’ Who gave this answer?
A: Cristina
Junio, sir.
Q: Question No. 12 is, ‘Ano ang ginawa ni Ate Conching?’ And the answer
is “Tinanong niya kung bakit ako umiiyak at sinabi kong hinalikan ako
ni Judge Rivera at nilamas niya ang aking suso and maselang parte ng aking
katawan.’ Now, who asked this question?
A: Prosecutor
Finez, sir.
Q: And
how about the Answer?
A: Cristina
Junio, sir.
Q: Question
No. 13 states: ‘Ano ang reaksiyon ni Ate Conching sa isinumbong mo sa
kanya?’ Who asked this question.
A: Prosecutor
Finez, sir.
ATTY. BOLINAS:
Q: And
there is an answer “Siya ay nagalit at pinapunta niya ako sa puwesto ng
Nanay ko.’ Who gave this answer?
A: Cristina
Junio, sir.
Q: There
is also a question No. 14 ‘Sumunod ka ba sa utos ni Ate Conching?’ Who asked
this question?
A: Prosecutor
Finez, sir.
Q: And there is an Answer ‘Opo at ako’y nagsumbong sa Nanay ko. Ang nanay ko naman ay nagsumbong sa tatay
ko. Silang dalawa ay nagalit.’ Now, who gave this answer?
A: Cristina
Junio, sir.
Q: Madam witness, I direct your attention to question No. 3 and the
question is, ‘Ano naman ang dahilan at gusto mong idimanda si Pedro Rivera,
Jr.?’ Was this question re-asked
by Pro. Finez?
A: No,
sir.
Q: But
question No. 1 up to No. 8 were admitted by the complainant Cristina Junio,
am I correct?
A: Yes,
sir.
ATTY. BOLINAS:
At this juncture, Your
Honor, may we respectfully pray that question No. 1 up to question No. 8 and
answers be bracketed and marked as Exhibit ‘B-4,’ Your Honor.
COURT:
Bracket and mark.
ATTY. BOLINAS:
No further question,
Your Honor.”[32]
(Underscoring supplied)
The portions added to the then still
unsubscribed affidavit of Cristina are marked below by underscoring:
“x x x x
x x x
x x
09. T: Ano pang ibang nangyari?
S: Sa nangyaring iyong ako ay natulala at
hindi makagalaw, makaraan ng ilang minuto, bumalik uli si Judge Rivera sa aking
kuwarto, habang ako ay nakaupo sa aking kama, nilapitan niya ako at hinawakan
sa magkabilang balikat at hawak niya ang aking dalawang kamay at pinahiga niya
ako sa kama, gusto kong manlaban sa kanya pero hindi ako makagalaw, pumatong
siya sa akin at hinimas niya ang aking suso at ang aking pagkababae at habang
nilalamas niya ang maseselang parte ng aking katawan ay pinaghahalikan niya ako
sa bibig, gusto kong sumigaw upang humingi ng saklolo pero walang boses na
lumalabas sa aking bibig.
x x x x
x x x
x x
11. T: Ano ang ginawa mo noong lumabas si Judge Rivera sa
kuwarto mo?
S: Kinuha ko yong bata at inilabas ko sa
kuwarto at nasalubong ko si Ate Conching, ang ina ng bata at nagsumbong ako sa kanya.
12. T: Ano ang ginawa ni Ate Conching?
S: Tinanong niya sa akin kung bakit ako
umiiyak at sinabi kong hinalikan ako ni Judge Rivera at nilamas niya ang aking
suso at maselang parte ng aking katawan.
13. T: Ano ang reaksiyon ni Ate Conching sa isinumbong mo sa
kanya?
S: Siya ay nagalit at pinapunta niya ako
sa puwesto ng nanay ko, sir.
14. T: Sumunod
ka ba sa utos ni Ate Conching?
S: Opo at ako’y nagsumbong sa nanay
ko. Ang Nanay ko naman ay nagsumbong
sa tatay ko. Silang dalawa ay nagalit.”[33]
The foregoing compels us to the conclusion that what the
Investigating Judge interpreted as a sinister intercalation was, to the
contrary, an innocent and necessary effort to improve an incomplete or
partially inaccurate document by means of a more thorough interrogation of the affiant
by Prosecutor Finez. Prosecutor Finez’
purpose in propounding additional questions to Cristina Junio and in causing
the modification of the affidavit to include such additional questions and
answers, was quite professional and routine.
We conclude that the administrative charges preferred by Cristina
Junio and her father against respondent Judge have been substantiated by a
preponderance of evidence, evidence which is clear and convincing and which
respondent Judge has not successfully rebutted.
Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct prescribes that:
“A judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of
impropriety in all activities.”
Rule 2.01 of the same Code provides that:
“A judge should so behave at all times as to promote public
confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.”
This Court has laid down exacting
standards of morality and decency from those who serve in the judiciary.[34]
A member of the judiciary is judged not only by his official acts but also by
his private morals, to the extent that such private morals are externalized in
behavior. Respondent judge has failed
to measure up to those demanding standards.
In Castillo v.
Calanog, Jr.,[35] the Court stressed that:
“The Code of Judicial Ethics mandates that the conduct of a
judge must be free of [even] a whiff of impropriety not only with respect to
his performance of his judicial duties, but also to his behavior outside his
sala and as a private individual. There
is no dichotomy of morality: a public official is also judged by his private
morals. The Code dictates that a judge,
in order to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartially of the
judiciary, must behave with propriety at all times. As we have very recently explained, a judge’s official life can not
simply be detached or separated from his personal existence. Thus:
Being the subject of constant public scrutiny, a judge should
freely and willingly accept restrictions on conduct that might be viewed as
burdensome by the ordinary citizen.
A judge should personify integrity and exemplify honest public
service. The personal behavior of a
judge, both in the performance of his official duties and in private life
should be above suspicion.”[36]
All judges in all levels of the judicial hierarchy, from this Court
down to the Municipal or Metropolitan Trial Courts, are bound to observe the
above exacting standards. There is,
however, a special reason for requiring compliance with those standards from
those who, like respondent Judge Rivera, are Municipal or Metropolitan judges
and are accordingly “front-liners” of the judicial department. As such, a Municipal (or Metropolitan) Judge
is the most visible living representation of the country’s legal and judicial system. He is the judicial officer who on a day-to-day
basis deals with the disputes arising among simple, rural people who comprise
the great bulk of our population. He is
the judicial officer who comes into closest and most frequent contact with our
people. The judiciary as a whole and
its ability to dispense justice are inevitably measured in terms of the public
and private acts of judges in the “grass roots” level, like
respondent Judge Pedro C. Rivera, Jr.[37] It
is essential, therefore, if the judiciary is to engage and retain the respect
and confidence of our nation, that this Court insist that municipal judges and
all other judges live up to the high standards demanded by our case law and the
Code of Judicial Conduct and by our polity.
WHEREFORE, respondent Judge Pedro C. Rivera,
Jr. is hereby found guilty of gross misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the
best interest of the judiciary, and is hereby DISMISSED from the service with
prejudice to re-employment in any part of the government service including
government-owned or controlled corporations, with forfeiture of all retirement
benefits and privileges (if any), except the money value of accrued earned
leave credits. Respondent Judge is
hereby ORDERED to cease and
desist immediately from rendering any order or decision, or continuing any
proceedings, in any case whatsoever, effective immediately upon receipt of a
copy of this Resolution.
Narvasa, C.J., Cruz, Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin, Griño-Aquino,
Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Nocon, Bellosillo, Melo, Quiason, Puno, and Vitug, JJ., concur.
[1]
Rollo, p. 2.
[2]
Id., pp. 18 and 34.
[3]
TSN, 15 May 1993, p. 9; Rollo,
p. 105.
[4]
Rollo, pp. 1 and 11.
[5]
Id., p. 11.
[6]
Id., p. 66.
[7]
Id., pp. 68-70.
[8]
Id., pp. 71 and 73.
[9]
Report of Investigation and
Recommendation, pp. 1-2 [hereinafter referred to as the “Report”]; Rollo,
p. 111.
[10]
Report, pp. 2-3.
[11]
TSN, 5 August 1992, pp. 9-11.
[12]
Report, pp. 5-6.
[13]
Id., p. 5; TSN, 5 June
1993, pp. 44-45.
[14]
Id., pp. 6-8.
[15]
Rollo, p. 111.
[16]
Report, p. 9.
[17]
Id., pp. 9-10.
[18]
Id., pp. 10 and 11-12.
[19]
TSN (Cesar Villar), 5 June 1993, p. 48; TSN (Pedro Rivera, Jr.), 5 June 1993,
p. 59.
[20]
TSN, 6 August 1992, pp. 12-13.
[21]
People v. Aguiluz, 207 SCRA 187, 193 (1992).
[22]
See, e.g., People v. Detuya, 154 SCRA 410, 421-422 (1987); People v.
Viray, 164 SCRA 135, 141-142 (1988), reiterated in People v. De los
Reyes, 203 SCRA 707, 723 (1991); People v. Rafanan, 182 SCRA 811, 815
& 819-820 (1990)
[23]
TSN, 29 May 1993, pp. 6-7, 24.
[24]
TSN, 10 February 1993, pp. 36-37.
[25]
TSN, 5 June 1993, pp. 106-107; TSN, 10 February 1993, pp. 37-38.
[26]
TSN, 29 May 1993, pp. 4-16; TSN, 10 February 1993, p. 38.
[27]
See People v. De Guzman, G.R. Nos. 51385-86, 22 January 1993.
[28]
Report, p. 10.
[29]
Id., p. 7.
[30]
TSN, 27 January 1993, pp. 4-5 and 7.
[31]
TSN, 19 June 1993, pp. 13-18.
[32]
Id.
[33]
“Salaysay,” Rollo, pp. 3-4.
[34]
Sicat v. Alcantara, 161 SCRA 284, 288 (1988).
[35]
199 SCRA 75 (1991).
[36]
199 SCRA at 83.
[37]
E.g., De la Paz v. Inutan,
64 SCRA 540, 548-9 (1975); and Castillo v. Barsana, 63 SCRA 388, 391
(1975).