ROSALITO FAJARDO, COMPLAINANT, VS. MUNICIPAL JUDGE GUALBERTO B. BACARRO, SR. OF TAMBULIG, ZAMBOANGA DEL SUR, RESPONDENTS.

Fajardo versus Bacarro

The Case

This is an administrative complaint for dishonesty filed with the Supreme Court against Municipal Judge Gualberto B. Bacarro, Sr. of Tambulig, Zamboanga del Sur. Rosalito Fajardo swore that his uncle, Vicente Fajardo, had given a pig to the respondent judge as consideration for the dismissal of a frustrated murder case against the uncle. The case matters to a reviewee for two reasons. First, it shows how the Court weighs an administrative charge of dishonesty that rests on weak and recanted evidence. Second, and more importantly, it is a compact lesson on the limits of a judge's power to dismiss a criminal case on the ground of amicable settlement, and on the ethical duty of a judge not to lend the court's aid to a private bargain that defeats the public interest.

Procedural History

The matter began as an administrative complaint filed directly with the Supreme Court, supported by a sworn statement of the complainant dated January 27, 1978. The respondent judge filed his comment denying the charge. Deputy Court Administrator Leo D. Medialdea then submitted a recommendation to dismiss the complaint for dishonesty for lack of merit, but to reprimand the respondent judge for his irregular actuation in dismissing the frustrated murder case on an improper ground. The Supreme Court, in an original administrative proceeding, agreed with that recommendation and resolved the case by resolution. Justice Abad Santos filed a separate opinion, with which Justice Escolin joined.

Facts

Sometime in August 1974, the complainant's uncle, Vicente Fajardo, took the complainant's pig and promised to pay for it later. He never paid. The complainant alleged that his uncle did not sell the pig but gave it to the respondent judge, because the judge had promised to dismiss the frustrated murder case pending against the uncle. The criminal case was in fact later dismissed by the respondent.

In his comment, the respondent judge called the charge absolutely false and highly preposterous. He explained that he had received complaints from prisoners in the municipal jail that they were not well treated and adequately fed despite increased allowances, and that his decision to investigate the matter began a rift between him and the police station commander. He denied receiving the pig as consideration for dismissal. He said the private prosecutor in the criminal case had moved to dismiss on the ground that the parties had amicably settled after the accused paid the hospital expenses of the offended party, and that the records were forwarded to the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga del Sur for review.

Two circumstances undermined the charge. The complainant's uncle, the very person who allegedly gave the pig, rejected the report as unfounded. And the complainant waited about four years before reporting the incident to the Philippine Constabulary. The complainant later executed an affidavit before the municipal mayor disowning his denunciation, expressing regret, and explaining that he could not resist the insistence of a policeman to sign his earlier statement. The uncle's sworn affidavit likewise stated that he never gave any pig to the respondent.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent judge is guilty of dishonesty for allegedly receiving a pig as consideration for dismissing a criminal case.
• Whether or not the respondent judge acted improperly in dismissing the frustrated murder case on the ground that the parties had amicably settled.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote a statute or rule. It rests on a doctrine of jurisprudence, which it quotes from the case of Hibberd versus Rohde and Mcmillan:

A person suffering from the commission of such a crime may not barter away the benefits of public order and personal safety and security of the people by representing to the culprit that he will actively aid in the task of securing immunity from public prosecution if his civil damages are made good.

This doctrine bears on the case because it explains why a criminal case may not be dismissed merely because the private parties have settled their civil differences.

Courts are charged with the duty of administering the law and they should not lend their aid to the enforcement of any contract which looks to its perversion.

This second sentence is the ethical core of the ruling: a judge who dismisses a criminal case to give effect to a private bargain places the court's authority behind the perversion of the law.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court dismissed the complaint for dishonesty for lack of merit. There was no clear evidence to prove the charge. The uncle who allegedly gave the pig rejected the report as unfounded. The four year delay before the complainant reported the incident indicated that the charge was ill motivated. And the complainant himself had disowned his denunciation in an affidavit, explaining that he could not resist the insistence of a policeman to sign his earlier statement.

On the second issue, the Court held that the respondent judge's dismissal of the criminal case on the ground that the parties had amicably settled was unwarranted. The Court quoted the doctrine above, that a person suffering from the commission of a crime may not barter away the benefits of public order, and that courts should not lend their aid to any contract which looks to the perversion of the law. The dismissal of a criminal case is not a private transaction between offender and victim; it touches the public interest in order and safety. The respondent judge was therefore reprimanded for his irregular actuation, with a warning that a repetition would be dealt with more severely.

Doctrine

First, an administrative charge of dishonesty against a judge must rest on clear evidence. Where the charge is contradicted by the very person who supposedly gave the bribe, is recanted by the complainant, and is belied by the complainant's long delay in reporting, the complaint must be dismissed for lack of merit.

Second, a criminal case may not be dismissed merely because the parties have amicably settled their civil liability. As the Court held, a person suffering from the commission of a crime may not barter away the benefits of public order and personal safety and security of the people, and courts should not lend their aid to the enforcement of any contract which looks to its perversion. A judge who dismisses a criminal case on that improper ground commits an irregular actuation warranting reprimand.

Disposition

The administrative complaint for dishonesty against Municipal Judge Gualberto B. Bacarro was dismissed for lack of merit, but he was reprimanded for his irregular actuation in dismissing the frustrated murder case on an improper ground, with a warning that a repetition would be dealt with more severely and with a copy of the resolution attached to his personal record.

Remember This

Memorize the line that a court should not lend its aid to any contract which looks to the perversion of the law, for that is the heart of the ruling. Examiners use this case to test the ethical duty of judges and the rule that criminal liability, unlike civil liability, cannot be bartered away by private settlement.