EN BANC
|
MARY
JANE VALLENTOS JAMIN, Complainant, - versus - JUDGE MANUEL A. DE CASTRO, MCTC,
JAGNA and GARCIA-HERNANDEZ, Respondent. |
|
A.M. No.
MTJ-05-1616 (Formerly OCA IPI No.
05-1781-MTJ Present: PUNO, C.J. QUISUMBING, YNARES-SANTIAGO, SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, CARPIO, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, CARPIO-MORALES, AZCUNA, TINGA, CHICO-NAZARIO, GARCIA, VELASCO, JR., NACHURA, and REYES, JJ.
Promulgated:
|
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
PER CURIAM:
The instant administrative case stemmed from a complaint for
rape filed by herein complainant Mary Jane Vallentos Jamin (Jamin, for short) against
Judge Manuel A. de Castro of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Jagna and
Garcia-Hernandez,
In
her affidavit-complaint[1] dated
April 1, 2005 which she filed with the Bohol Provincial Prosecutor’s
Office and where it was docketed as I.S. No. 05-1625, complainant Jamin narrated
the rape incident which allegedly occurred in the early evening of March 29, 2005 at the bodega of a videoke bar located at the public market
of Guindulman, Bohol where she was then employed as a waitress. Her narration:
a) When I was changing my clothes in the bathroom of our videoke house, [respondent] Manuel de Castro followed me and opened the door of the bathroom without my permission;
b) After our supper, I was attending to said Manuel A. de Castro and his six companions as they were drinking …. After an hour more or less of serving them, this Manuel A. de Castro was acting like an uncivilized person …. He kissed and hugged us including my co-worker Agnes. Then he touched me in the different parts of my body against my will. I even threatened him to be policed when he showed lascivious acts but he continued doing lasciviousness by putting his hand on the delicate parts of my body …. I shouted for help and cried while he slowly brought me to the bodega of the videoke house but … nobody helped me but instead they shouted in loud voices saying: “ Sige dad-a na didto ug iyota”. In english , Go ahead, bring that lady there and fuck her. I only know those people in faces. In the dark area of that bodega, that Judge Manuel A. De Castro successfully raped me as being a big man held my two hands in his one hand and the other hand undressed me. That man having superior strength and me a fragile woman, …, I became helpless.
c) I became so weak of what that
Judge Manuel A. de Castro has done to me, of inserting his penis to my vagina.
xxx.
Agnes A. Ybañez, (Ybañez) a co-worker of
complainant at the videoke bar,
likewise executed before a public prosecutor a sworn AFFIDAVIT dated
7. That later, I noticed that Judge de Castro dragged Mary Jane [Jamin] towards the bodega and a certain Baby Olaer, a companion of Judge de Castro helped in pushing Mary Jane to go with him while Mary Jane refused and I told them not to force her if it is against her will and yet they continued with their act … and when Mary Jane and Judge de Castro was (sic) inside the bodega, Baby Olaer closed and locked the door of the bodega;
8. xxx;
9. That, later, I noticed Judge de Castro came out from the bodega already sweating and his shirt was even wet with his sweat and when Mary Jane came out, she confessed to me that she was forced by Judge de Castro to have sexual intercourse with her and the judge really succeeded in having carnal knowledge with her against her will;
In
his counter-affidavit[3]
dated
To
support his profession of innocence and
the falsity of the charge, respondent
judge likewise submitted an Affidavit of Retraction and Withdrawal[4] of
complainant dated
Complainant,
in her affidavit of retraction and withdrawal, stated that the case was filed hastily upon the advice of some of her friends.
By a Ist Indorsement dated
Meanwhile, or on
On
In his Comment[8] dated
xxx
That in the evening of March 29, 2005, …at about 8:00 o’clock …, Judge de
Castro entered our newly constructed Videoke Bar … and while glancing on the
interior design of the bar, he was offered a drink by one of [his] … friends …
and the said Judge obliged; and after drinking the offered shot of wine, he
went near our cashier Agnes Ybañez and teased her about her scant dress …, then
stole a kiss on her cheek I witnessed these happening while staying at the
entrance of the bar letting salt water drip off from my wet body as I have just
gone sea bathing. Then I entered the bar and upon passing them, Judge de Castro
noticed me and turned his jokes on me by following me and kissing me on the ear
from behind and attempted to enter the bathroom also while his friends were
laughing and urging him to enter. I threatened Judge de Castro to have him
arrested by the Police if he will not leave me alone, while still laughing,
judge de Castro left and I heard him thanking his friends x x x (Word in bracket added.)
By
Resolution of
Meanwhile,
the OCA submitted a Report, styled as Memorandum[11]
dated
The
OCA would later submit a supplemental Report[12]
dated October 23, 2006 to inform the Court that the complainant personally came to the office of Senior Deputy Court
Administrator Zenaida N. Elepaño to report, under oath, the threat made by the driver of
Judge de Castro, a certain “Awe” Tubig, should
she pursue the rape case against the respondent judge which may ultimately
result in the denial of his retirement benefits. The OCA also informed the
Court that the complainant, when asked, confirmed the veracity of the
allegations in her affidavit-complaint filed against the respondent judge with
the Bohol Provincial Prosecutor’s Office.
Subsequent developments saw the
complainant addressing a letter[13]
to Senior Deputy Court Administrator Zenaida N. Elapaño. Therein, she stated
her disinclination to pursue the case against the respondent judge for fear
that the judge might get back at her and send her to prison.
The findings and recommendation of
the OCA in its Report, as supplemented, are well taken, the affidavits of
retraction adverted to earlier, notwithstanding. Substantial evidence,
circumstantial and testimonial, obtain to hold the respondent judge liable for gross
misconduct and immorality.
The Court notes, to start off, that
respondent did not ascribe to the complainant, then trying to earn a living
waiting on tables and, night after night, putting up with the boorishness of drunks, any plausible motive for her to accuse him of
rape, except to vaguely point to some
people as instigating the charge for the
purpose of harassing him. He failed, however,
to show why, how and by whom the harassment was done. Notably, respondent did
not categorically deny, let alone traverse, the serious allegations of the
complainant and her witness, Ybanez. He
simply claimed in his Comment[14] that
the criminal complaint for rape against him, upon which the administrative aspect
thereof was based, had been dismissed by the Prosecutor’s Office of Bohol.
And lest it be overlooked, respondent
did not present an affidavit of any individual or any of his friends who were
with him at the bar attesting to his innocence, or refuting the allegations
against him. His junior process server and the latter’s wife who owned the videoke bar – who, in the natural order
of things, would side with him – did not make any declaration, much less
execute a sworn statement to vouch for his innocence.
As it were, the respondent judge, by submitting, as Annex “5” of his Comment,[15]
complainant’s Supplemental Affidavit,[16]
is presumed to have admitted the allegations in said supplemental affidavit.
Among the allegations is that he was at the videoke
bar in the evening of March 29, 2005
where he made sexual advances and
committed what amounted to lascivious
acts not only as against complainant but also against Ybañez in full view of
other drinking individuals in a public place. In particular, he is deemed to
have admitted teasing Ybanez about her “scant dress,” kissing Ybanez on the
cheek and the complainant behind the ear, to the delight of his friends. Also deemed
admitted by the respondent judge was his attempt to enter the bathroom while complainant
was inside it, with his friends egging him on, but was foiled when the
complainant threatened to have him arrested by the police if he would not leave
her alone. These peccadilloes, apart from the morality aspect of the acts, in
themselves translate into a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct as they
reflect upon the respondent judge’s utter disregard of public opinion of the reputation
of the judiciary which he represents.
Time and again, the Court has adhered
to the exacting standards of morality and decency which every member of the
judiciary is expected to observe.[17] As
a dispenser of justice, a magistrate is judged not only by his official acts
but also by his private morals, to the extent that such private morals are
externalized.[18] He
should not only possess proficiency in law but should likewise possess moral
integrity, for the people look up to him as a virtuous and upright man. We said
so in a slew of cases, notably in Castillo v. Calanog,[19]
thus:
The Code of Judicial Ethics mandates that the conduct of a judge must be free of 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 impartiality of the judiciary, must behave with propriety at all times … 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.
Respondent judge has made much of the
affidavit of retraction and withdrawal[20] of
complainant upon which the Prosecutor’s Office of Bohol predicated its
dismissal of the underlying complaint for rape. It should be stressed, however, that
recantation is viewed with suspicion. For a recantation is exceedingly unreliable
inasmuch as it is easily secured from a
poor and ignorant witness, usually through intimidation or for monetary
consideration.[21] And
going by the social standing and economic status of the complainant, and as the
records tend to indicate, the mix of both factors seem to explain why
complainant affixed her signature to the
recanting affidavit.
At any rate, the Court is not bound
by the unilateral act of the complainant in a matter related to its
disciplinary power. As we stated in Molina
v. Paz: [22]
xxx
The Court does not dismiss administrative cases against members of the Bench
merely on the basis of withdrawal of the charges. Desistance cannot divest the
Court of its jurisdiction to investigate and decide the complaint against
respondent judge. Public interest is at stake in the conduct and actuations of
officials and employees of the judiciary. The program and efforts of the Court
in improving the delivery of justice … should not be frustrated and put to naught
by private arrangements between the parties.
On the whole, all roads logically lead
to the conclusion that the respondent judge has indeed failed to behave in such
a way that will promote confidence and respect for the judiciary. He deported
himself in a manner most unbecoming a judge as a model of moral uprightness. We
need not repeat the narration of the lustful acts committed by him, in order to
conclude that he is indeed unworthy to remain in office. The audacity under
which the same were committed and the seeming impunity with which they were
perpetrated shock one’s sense of morality.
Gross misconduct and immorality, under Section
8 (3) (8), Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, are classified as serious offenses punishable
by any of the sanctions enumerated in Section 11 of the same Rule, to wit:
SEC.11. Sanctions. – A. If the respondent is guilty of a serious charge any of the following sanctions may be imposed:
1. Dismissal from 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 or controlled corporations. Provided, however, that the forfeiture of benefits shall in no case include accrued leave credits;
2. Suspension from office with salary and other benefits for more than three (3) but not exceeding six (6) months; or
3. A fine of more than P20,000.00 but not exceeding P40,000.00.
As a final consideration, the Court
invites attention to A.M. No. 02-9-02-SC[23] prescribing
that if an administrative case against a judge involves an offense which
likewise constitutes a ground for the disciplinary action of members of the Bar
for violation of the Lawyer’s Oath, the Code of Professional Responsibility,
and/or the Canons of Professional Ethics, the administrative case shall also be
considered a disciplinary action against the respondent judge as a member of
the Bar. Thus, the respondent judge should also be required to show cause why
he should not likewise be suspended, disbarred or otherwise proceeded against, as a member of the Bar.
WHEREFORE, as
recommended by the Office of the Court Administrator, respondent Judge MANUEL A. DE CASTRO
of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Jagna and
Garcia-Hernandez, Bohol, is hereby DISMISSED
from the service, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits, except accrued
leave credits, and with prejudice to re-employment in any branch, agency or
instrumentality of the government, including government-owned or controlled
corporations. He shall forthwith CEASE
and DESIST from performing any
official act or function appurtenant to his office upon service on him of this Decision.
Lastly, respondent Judge is REQUIRED
to SHOW CAUSE why he should
not be disbarred as a member of the Philippine Bar.
SO ORDERED.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
|
LEONARDO
A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice
|
CONSUELO
YNARES-SANTIAGO Associate Justice
|
|
ANGELINA
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ Associate Justice
|
ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice
|
|
MA.
ALICIA M. AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ Associate Justice
|
RENATO
C. CORONA Associate Justice
|
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice |
ADOLFO
S. AZCUNA Associate Justice |
|
DANTE O.
TINGA Associate Justice
|
MINITA
V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice
|
|
CANCIO
C. GARCIA Associate Justice |
PRESBITERO
J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice |
|
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA Associate Justice |
RUBEN T.
REYES Associate Justice |
|
|
|
[1] Rollo, p. 10
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6] Supra note 1 at 42-43.
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13] Dated
[14] Supra note 8.
[15] Supra note 8.
[16] Supra note 9.
[17] Sicat
v. Alcantara, Adm. No. R.-6-RN,
[18] Junio v. Rivera, A.M.No. MTJ-91-565, 225 SCRA 284.
[19] Adm. Matter No. RTJ-90-447, 199 SCRA 75.
[20] Supra note 4.
[21] People
v. Ramirez, Jr., G.R. Nos. 150079-80,
[22] A.M. RTJ No. 01-1638,
[23] Re: Automatic Conversion of Some
Administrative Cases Against Justices of the Court of Appeals and the
Sandiganbayan; Judges of Regular and Special Courts; and Court Officials who
are Lawyers as Disciplinary Proceedings Against Them Both as such Officials and
as Members of the Philippine Bar.