Cited Laws
TL;DR — Ruling
the case was submitted for decision.
Accordingly, at about 7 o'clock in the morning of the following day, October 30, Bulatao met the NBI operatives in the house of Francisco Mamba, Sr., former representative of the 3rd District of Cagayan, where the entrapment was planned. Bulatao was given a tape recorder to record his conversation with whoever will receive the money. At 9 a.m., Bulatao went to the Municipal Trial Court and waited for his case to be called. At 10:30 a.m., respondent went out of his chambers and talked to SPO2 Jonathan Santos and SPO4 Carlos Poli, representatives of P/Sr. Inspector Salvador in the preliminary investigation. Respondent then called Bulatao and led him and the two police officers to the office of the MTC court personnel. Inside, respondent asked Bulatao if he had the money with him. When he answered in the affirmative, respondent took them to his chambers and left them there as he proceeded to his sala. After handing the money to the police officers, Bulatao went out of respondent's chambers. Upon his signal, the NBI operatives waiting outside respondent's court then rushed to the judge's chambers and arrested the two police officers after recovering 11 pieces of P500.00 marked bills in their possession. [5] After the matter was referred by this Court to Executive Judge Orlando Beltran for investigation, the latter scheduled several hearings for the reception of evidence for the respondent. The records show that hearings were set on different dates (December 10, 1997, January 30, 1998, February 10, 1998, March 3, 1998, March 10, 1998, September 10, 1998, October 9, 1998, November 11, 1998, January 5, 1999, February 9, 1999, March 4, 1999, and April 5, 1999), but respondent did not appear despite due notice. Accordingly, he was deemed to have waived the right to present evidence and the case was submitted for decision. Hence only his counter-affidavit was considered, in which respondent claimed that it was Bulatao who asked permission to talk to the two police officers. He denied that he took the three to his chambers. [6] On the basis of these facts, the Investigating Judge made the following recommendation: "The foregoing facts indisputably show that the respondent Judge allowed the use of his chambers by the two (2) police officers SPOII Jonathan Santos and SPOIV Carlos Poli and Renato Bulatao, the accused in the criminal case for illegal possession of firearms, so that they could talk about the "settlement" of Bulatao's case which was then pending preliminary investigation by the respondent Judge. Although the two (2) witnesses, Abner Cardenas and Tomas Latauan, Jr., claimed that they did not hear the subject of the conversation between Bulatao, on one hand, and the two (2) policemen and the respondent Judge Dominador L. Garcia, on the other, before the three first-named persons went inside the chambers of the respondent Judge, it is not difficult to conclude that they must have talked about the criminal case of Bulatao and its "settlement." For if
A.M. No. RTJ-99-1446 - CONCERNED EMPLOYEES OF THE RTC OF DAGUPAN CITY, COMPLAINANTS, VS. JUDGE ERNA FALLORAN-ALIPOSA, IN HER CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 41, DAGUPAN CITY.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library
A.M. No. RTJ-99-1446
CaseA.M. No. P-04-1789 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 02-1402-P) - JUDGE JOSE MANUEL P. TAN, COMPLAINANT, VS. HENRY G. PAREDES, SHERIFF IV, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 29, SURIGAO CITY.[A.M. NO. RTJ-04-1841 (FORMERLY OCA IPI NO. 02-1523-RTJ)]HENRY G. PAREDES, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE JOSE MANUEL P. TAN.RESOLUTION
A.M. No. P-04-1789
CaseA.M. NO. MTJ-05-1604 (FORMERLY OCA I.P.I. NO. 04-1580-MTJ) - MARITES O. TAM, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE JOCELYN G. REGENCIA
A.M. NO. MTJ-05-1604