A.M. No. RTJ-20-2579 (Formerly A.M. No. 20-06-75 RTC) - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE EDRALIN C. REYES, PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH 43, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, ROXAS CITY, ORIENTAL MINDORO.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

ACCORDINGLY , we respectfully recommend, for the consideration of the Honorable Court, that respondent Presiding Judge Edralin C. Reyes, Branch 43, Regional Trial Court, Roxas City, Oriental Mindoro, be found GUILTY of the following offenses: Gross Misconduct constituting violations of the New Code of Judicial Conduct; Bribery direct and indirect and violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. No. 3019); Serious Dishonesty; and Gross Immorality and be meted the following sanction for each offense: 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. [116] Issue This Court is tasked to determine whether the Judge Reyes should be held administratively liable for the charges against him. Ruling of the Court We affirm the factual findings of the OCA and the JIB but modify their findings on Judge Reyes's administrative liability. One of the nuances of the law on judicial ethics is the significance of public perception. Compared to other proceedings, courts examine and weigh evidence not merely to determine actual culpability, but also consider the effects of the case to the public's perception of the judiciary. Thus, in disciplinary proceedings, the rigid evidentiary requirements in criminal cases do not apply. Only substantial evidence is required. Substantial evidence is defined as that amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The standard of substantial evidence is satisfied when there is reasonable ground to believe that respondent is responsible for the misconduct complained of, even if such evidence might not be overwhelming or even preponderant. [117] Likewise, this Court recognizes that corruption is an offense that is done in secrecy. [118] It would be inconsistent with logic and human experience to fit a square peg in a round hole and nitpick technicalities on pieces of evidence of corruption, that by its nature, are hard to obtain. In this case, Judge Reyes assails the evidence presented against him for they were allegedly obtained in violation of his right to privacy. Invoking the exclusionary rule, he claims that the text messages obtained from the subject laptop be disregarded. Further, since the judicial audit was conducted as a result of transgression of his constitutional right, he contends that the evidence and information obtained by the judicial audit teams should likewise be excluded as it is a fruit of a poisonous tree. Considering the foregoing, this Court is presented with the delicate task of weighing various compelling considerations in order to arrive at a just resolution of this controversy. Put on balance is judicial integrity, on one hand, and Judge Reyes's claim of transgr