A.M. NO. RTJ-01-1631 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, VS. JUDGE JAIME F. BAUTISTA, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 75, VALENZUELA, METRO MANILA.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly signed the order and gave it to the unidentified court personnel in the presence of Paruli, with the instruction to give it to the clerk of court on Monday morning. In the counter-affidavit he executed on March 29, 2001, [24] respondent gave a different version of the March 20, 2001 incident. In a supplemental counter-affidavit [25] dated December 17, 2001, he further alleged that Paruli placed the envelope on top of his table, modifying his earlier statement that it was placed inside his drawer. He also testified that the first time he saw Paruli was during the March 16, 2001 hearing, during which a court employee whom he could not remember pointed out Paruli to him and whispered "Sir, iyan yung complainant na palaging nagpupunta dito na nakikiusap na kung puede malift." He also added that while being booked at the NBI head, office, the lady chemist asked for his wallet, which he readily turned in for examination. He however claims that he has no knowledge of what the chemist did to his wallet as many people were already around them at the time. Court stenographer Imelda Estanislao also took the witness stand to support respondent's denial. In her testimony, [26] she verified the two affidavits [27] she executed wherein she narrated that in the afternoon of March 20, 2001, Paruli arrived insisting to see her superior, respondent herein, who was then resting. She ushered Paruli into respondent's chambers, and while standing by the door, she saw Paruli shake the hands of respondent vigorously. After about five minutes, Paruli rushed out and later returned with the NBI agents. She also testified that throughout the five-minute exchange between respondent and Paruli, she never saw the latter take out his wallet. She also stated that subsequently in that same afternoon, an NBI agent and a reporter came to her office looking for the money which they claimed respondent gave her. They searched her table and left when they did not find the money. Justice Barrios in his report recommended the exoneration of respondent for lack of sufficient proof to overturn the latter's constitutional presumption of innocence. He found material defects the complainant's account which in his view cast serious doubts on the truth of the alleged entrapment. After a thorough and careful study of the records, this Court does not agree with the aforestated recommendation. In an administrative proceeding, only substantial evidence, or that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, is required. Evidence required to support a conviction in a criminal case is not necessary, as the standards of integrity demanded of members of the Bench are not satisfied by conduct which merely allows one to escape the penalties of the criminal law. [28] The evidence presented by the complainant is sufficient to establish the entrapment of the respondent judge. In Co v. Calimag, Jr. [29] this Court said: "[A]n accusation of bri