One of the seven trial court judges who were linked by President Duterte to illegal drugs in 2016 has been found guilty of gross ignorance of the law, gross misconduct, and violations of the New Code of Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary.
(MANILA BULLETIN)
But the SC could no longer order the dismissal of Baguio City Regional Trial Court (RTC) Judge Antonio C. Reyes, who handled mostly illegal drugs cases, because he had mandatorily retired from the Judiciary on Nov. 20, 2017 during the pendency of his administrative case.
Nevertheless, the SC – in a resolution released last Jan. 26 – ordered the forfeiture of Reyes’ retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, and barred his re-employment in any public office.
The SC upheld the findings of the investigation conducted by the office of Court Administrator Jose Midas P. Marquez based on recommendation by retired SC Associate Justice Roberto A. Abad who was tasked to do a fact-finding probe on the President’s allegations. Abad recommended the filing of an administrative case against Reyes.
Of the seven judges linked to illegal drugs by the President, only four of them were sitting judges when he made the public announcement on Aug. 7, 2016.
The SC, on recommendation of Abad, cleared three judges for lack of evidence.
In the case of Reyes, the SC in 2017 directed Marquez’s office to proceed with the inventory of cases handled by Reyes, to investigate the judge’s driver, and to request the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) to locate the witnesses identified in Abad’s report.
Witnesses testified that Reyes, through his emissaries, received money for the dismissal of illegal drugs cases. He was found to have dismissed an illegal drugs case even on a second motion for reconsideration which is prohibited by the Rules of Court.
Based on the testimonies of witnesses, Reyes’ price of acquittals and dismissal of drug cases ranged from P200,000 to P300,000.
It was found that the modus operandi of Reyes was that he will prepare two decisions – one for acquittal and one for conviction – and his “bag men” or “bag woman” will then approach the family of the accused for money.
If the payment is given on time, the acquittal decision will be promulgated.
If not paid, the accused will be convicted.
It was also found that if the convicted person will file a motion for reconsideration and his family would come up with the demanded money, the judgment of conviction will be reversed and a judgment of acquittal will then be issued.
The inventory on the cases and the investigation conducted on Reyes disclosed the cases where dismissal of the charges and acquittal of the accused were done on drugs cases.
Citing results of the investigation, the SC said: “One such questionable acquittal was the case of accused Jericho Cedo…where the accused was acquitted on his second motion for reconsideration.”
“There were also numerous motu proprio (using one’s initiative) dismissals even before the prosecution rested its case,” it said.
It was also confirmed that Reyes’ bag woman visits detainees in Baguio City jail to ask for money in exchange for their acquittal.
Reyes was also found to have several “bag men,” one of whom was his driver.
Affirming the findings during the investigation and the results of the judicial audit, the SC said:
“All the allegations against respondent judge and the results of the judicial audit clearly show that he violated the Canons of Judicial Conduct.
“Respondent judge was remiss in the discharge of his judicial functions and with the allegation of corruption, damaged the integrity of the Judiciary which he represents.
“Judges are strictly mandated to abide by the law, the Code of Judicial Conduct and existing administrative policies in order to maintain the faith of our people in the administration of justice.
“Any act which falls short of the exacting standard for public office, especially on the part of those expected to preserve the image of the Judiciary, shall not be countenanced.
“Thus, in view of all the foregoing, this Court finds respondent Judge administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law, gross misconduct and violations of Canons 1, 2, and 3 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct, as such, respondent Judge should be meted the ultimate penalty of dismissal from service.”