NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (NBI), COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE LUISITO T. ADAOAG,MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT, GERONA-RAMOS-PURA, TARLAC, RESPONDENT.

National Bureau of Investigation versus Adaoag

The Case

This is an administrative case brought by the National Bureau of Investigation against Judge Luisito T. Adaoag, then Acting Presiding Judge of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Gerona, Ramos and Pura in Tarlac. The charge is serious misconduct for acts constituting direct bribery, in relation to the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, and for issuing a warrant of arrest while under suspension. The case matters because it shows how the Supreme Court treats a judge who takes money in exchange for dismissing a case, and how it weighs evidence in an administrative proceeding where the complainant never took the witness stand.

Procedural History

The complaint was filed with the National Bureau of Investigation and later forwarded to the Office of the Court Administrator. The Court placed the respondent Judge under suspension pending the final outcome of the criminal proceedings against him. The Office of the Ombudsman provisionally dismissed the criminal case to give way to the Court's determination of administrative liability. When the Judge issued a warrant of arrest despite the suspension, the Court directed him to show cause why he should not be dismissed. The Court then referred the matter to Justice Narciso T. Atienza, a Consultant of the Office of the Court Administrator, for investigation, report and recommendation. Justice Atienza recommended dismissal for the bribery charge and a fine for the warrant issued while suspended. The case reached the Supreme Court as an administrative matter, and the Court resolved it in full session.

Facts

On May 9, 2003, Desiree Legario was arrested on a warrant issued by the respondent Judge for violation of the bouncing checks law. The arresting officer told her to prepare money for her release order. She was released on bail after giving 1,500 pesos to the officer and 2,000 pesos to the Judge. The officer later advised her to prepare a motion to postpone, a motion to quash, and 20,000 pesos for the Judge in consideration of the dismissal of her case. The Judge himself confirmed this in a telephone conversation with her on May 20, 2003.

Instead of paying, Legario sought the help of a television network and the National Bureau of Investigation. She executed a sworn statement, and the agents prepared five 100 peso bills dusted with fluorescent powder, mixed with other bundles of money. On June 11, 2003, an entrapment operation was conducted. An agent posing as Legario's aunt accompanied her to the Judge's chambers. The Judge told Legario that it is hard to have many cases, that she is still young, and that she should fix her case. The agent handed the marked money to the Judge, who received it after remarking, "baka may marka yan," meaning the money might be marked. The two women then left to give the signal.

The NBI agents entered the chambers, identified themselves, and asked the Judge to bring out the money. He at first refused but eventually took it out from his pocket using a handkerchief. The entire incident was videotaped. Examination of the dorsal and palmar portions of both his hands tested positive for fluorescent powder. The Judge denied the earlier extortion and claimed he had merely placed the envelope in his pocket intending to return it. Meanwhile, despite the suspension, he issued a warrant of arrest against a certain Ms. Salazar on October 22, 2003, and later claimed he believed in good faith that his suspension had been lifted because the Ombudsman had dismissed his case.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent Judge is guilty of serious misconduct for acts constituting direct bribery in soliciting and receiving money in consideration of the dismissal of a case.
• Whether or not the respondent Judge may be held administratively liable on the basis of affidavits and documentary evidence even though the complainant did not testify at the hearing.
• Whether or not the respondent Judge is liable for issuing a warrant of arrest while under suspension.

Applicable Provisions

Section 8 of Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, as amended, defines serious charges:

Sec. 8. Serious charges. – Serious charges include: 1. Bribery, direct or indirect; x x x x

This provision classifies bribery as a serious charge, which fixes the range of penalties the Court may impose.

Section 11 of the same Rule provides the sanctions:

Sec.11. Sanctions.- A. If the respondent is guilty of a serious charge, any of the following sanctions may be imposed: Dismissal from the service, forfeiture of all or part of the benefits as the Court may determine, and disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any public office, including government-owned or controlled corporations. Provided, however, That the forfeiture of benefits shall in no case include accrued leave credits; Suspension from office without salary and other benefits for more than three (3) but not exceeding six (6) months; or A fine of more than P20,000.00 but not exceeding P40,000.00.

This provision supplies the penalty of dismissal, forfeiture of benefits except accrued leave credits, and disqualification from public office.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court found substantial evidence that the Judge was guilty of serious misconduct for committing acts constituting direct bribery in soliciting and receiving money from Legario in consideration of the dismissal of her case. His intention to accept the money was clearly established by his act of pocketing it. That he touched the marked bills, contrary to his claim that he merely peeked at the envelope, was proven by the laboratory examination showing fluorescent powder on both hands. The Court found it hard to believe that he intended to return the money, because instead of rushing to the door to catch up with Legario, he pocketed it, which showed a resolve to take the money as his own.

On the second issue, the Court held that it is not legally objectionable to resolve an administrative case based solely on position papers, affidavits or documentary evidence, since affidavits of witnesses may take the place of their direct testimony. Legario's complaint and sworn statement, admitted as part of the testimony of the NBI supervising agent, were sufficient to support the conclusion that the Judge agreed to dismiss the case for material consideration.

On the third issue, the Court held that the Judge should be fined 2,000 pesos for issuing a warrant of arrest while under suspension. The dismissal of his case before the Office of the Ombudsman was only provisional and could not be considered the final outcome contemplated in the suspension resolution. The Court stressed that judges must conduct themselves in a manner free even from the appearance of impropriety, and that bribery is a serious misconduct condemned in the strongest possible terms.

Doctrine

A judge found guilty of direct bribery is guilty of a serious charge under Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, punishable by dismissal from the service, forfeiture of all or part of the benefits except accrued leave credits, and disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any public office, including government-owned or controlled corporations. In administrative proceedings, a case may be resolved based solely on position papers, affidavits or documentary evidence, because affidavits of witnesses may take the place of their direct testimony. A judge who issues a warrant of arrest while under suspension violates the suspension order and is liable for a fine, since a provisional dismissal of the criminal case is not the final outcome contemplated by the suspension.

Disposition

The Court found the respondent Judge guilty of serious misconduct and dismissed him from service with forfeiture of all benefits except accrued leave credits, with prejudice to reemployment in any branch of the government, and ordered him to pay a fine of 2,000 pesos for issuing a warrant of arrest while under suspension.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that bribery by a judge is a serious charge punished by dismissal, forfeiture of benefits except accrued leave credits, and perpetual disqualification from public office. Examiners like to use this case on the quantum of evidence in administrative proceedings, on the sufficiency of affidavits in place of direct testimony, and on the consequences of defying a suspension order.