Case Digest: Presado vs Genova, AM NO. 91-657, June 21, 1993

                            New Code of Judicial Conduct, Propriety  |     Legal Ethics

Facts:

Seven administrative complaints were filed against Judge Manuel C. Genova.

            Re: A.M. No. RTJ-91-657 (Lourdes Presado v. Judge Manuel C. Genova)

Lourdes Presado filed an administrative complaint against Judge Manuel C. Genova, accusing him of violating the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Presado alleged that Judge Genova's wife received money from adopting parents, from Adela Du, and from Aida Valencia, who had pending cases before the judge. Presado also claimed that Judge Genova and his wife received a sumptuous meal from Emma Diaz Hao, a party to a case before the judge. 

Judge Genova denied the allegations, presenting affidavits and testimonies supporting his defense. During the investigation, Presado filed manifestations stating her loss of interest in prosecuting the complaint and her "change of heart" due to her involvement with certain religious organizations. The Investigating Justice recommended the dismissal of the complaint due to the lack of evidence and Presado's withdrawal of charges. The court adopted the recommendation and dismissed the complaint, noting that the withdrawal left the charges unsubstantiated.

          Re: A.M. No. RTJ-91-704 (Dominador Sia v. Hon. Judge Manuel C. Genova)

Dominador Sia filed a complaint against Judge Manuel C. Genova, accusing him of "Serious Misconduct, Dishonesty, and Conduct Unbecoming and Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service." Sia claimed that Judge Genova refused to allow him to present documentary evidence in a case and favored the opposing party represented by Judge Silvestre Aguirre, who is Judge Genova's brother-in-law and Mrs. Emma Diaz Hao, who allegedly provided gifts in exchange for a favorable decision. 

Judge Genova filed a comment defending his actions, stating that Sia's requests were denied for valid reasons such as being filed out of time or lacking merit. The Investigating Justice reviewed the proceedings and found that Sia failed to submit his documentary exhibits within the given period and did not raise the previous favorable decision in his defense. The Court agreed with the Investigating Justice's recommendation to exonerate Judge Genova from any liability regarding the denial of Sia's formal offer of evidence in the case and dismissed the administrative complaint due to lack of evidence. Regarding the accusation of receiving gifts, Judge Genova denied any involvement or confirming any blood relation with Ms. Emma Diaz-Hao, and the Court found no evidence supporting the claim.

        Re: A.M. No. RTJ-91-721 (Jose de Jesus, Jr. v. Judge Manuel C. Genova) 

Jose de Jesus filed a complaint against Judge Manuel C. Genova for "Serious Misconduct, Dishonesty, and Conduct Unbecoming and Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service." The complaint alleged that Judge Genova and his wife resided in his chambers, using them as their living quarters. The provincial government paid their electric bills, which led to public criticism. An affidavit stated that they had been living in the chambers since May 1991.

Judge Genova presented a written permit from the Governor of Masbate allowing him to stay overnight at the courthouse while working. The Investigating Justice found that they had "permanently stayed" in the chambers. Judge Genova explained that he requested permission to stay overnight due to safety concerns in the area. The Investigating Justice concluded that government property should only be used for official purposes, and the permit did not allow using the chambers as living quarters. Judge Genova failed to prove his claim of oral permission to use the chambers as living quarters. The Court agreed with the Investigating Justice's conclusion and found Judge Genova guilty of serious misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

        Re: A.M. No. RTJ-91-746 (Marthie O. Zurbito v. Judge Manuel C. Genova)

Marthie O. Zurbito filed a complaint against Judge Manuel C. Genova for "Gross Ignorance of the Law, Grave Abuse of Discretion and Dishonesty." The complaint pertains to a murder case (Criminal Case No. 6184) where the accused, Adonis Francisco, pleaded guilty but invoked the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. Despite the guilty plea, Judge Genova acquitted the accused, allegedly fabricating facts not found in the records and causing irreparable injustice to Marthie Zurbito and her family.

In response, Judge Genova claimed that the accused initially pleaded guilty but later changed his statement to claim self-defense. Judge Genova argued that the prosecution's circumstantial evidence was insufficient to support a conviction and that he believed the accused's self-defense claim. The Deputy Court Administrator and Investigating Justice found the charges against Judge Genova to be meritorious, noting his failure to conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness of the guilty plea as required by law. The decision rendered by Judge Genova in Criminal Case No. 6184 revealed factual inconsistencies and a misapplication of the law on self-defense. The Investigating Justice recommended a one-month suspension without pay for Judge Genova as a consequence of his actions.

        Re: A.M. No. RTJ-91-767 (Delfin Ricarte v. Hon. Judge Manuel C. Genova)

Delfin Ricarte filed a complaint against Judge Manuel C. Genova for "Incompetence, Grave Abuse of Discretion and Gross Ignorance of the Law." Ricarte claimed that Genova, in the murder case against Sonny Baruelo, acquitted the accused based on insufficient evidence and partiality towards the defense. Ricarte alleged that Genova discredited the prosecution eye-witness without factual basis and relied solely on personal notes instead of the official transcript. 

Genova argued that the case was simple self-defense and the victim did not provide an affidavit before his death. The Investigating Justice found inconsistencies in Genova's decision, questionable credibility of defense witness testimony, and lack of convincing evidence for the claim of self-defense. The Investigating Justice concluded that Genova displayed negligence and ignorance of the law in his decision-making. The recommended penalty for Genova was one month of suspension without pay. The Court agreed with the Investigating Justice's findings and identified gross ignorance and failure to consider evidence in Genova's decision.

        Re: A.M. No. RTJ-91-816 (Deborah Perino v. Judge Manuel C. Genova) 

Deborah Perino filed a complaint against Judge Manuel C. Genova for "Ignorance of the Law."

The complaint is about a decision made by a judge in a murder case. Two of the accused, Nicomedes Estorum and Joel Estorum, were acquitted despite strong evidence against them. Joel Estorum was not even under the jurisdiction of the trial court.

The judge defended the decision, stating that Joel Estorum should be acquitted in the interest of justice. The prosecution presented evidence that the accused stabbed and shot the victim. The defense claimed self-defense and that the victim instigated the confrontation. The judge found Nicasio guilty but acquitted Nicomedes and Joel due to lack of evidence.

The Investigating Justice criticized the judge for dismissing the case against Joel Estorum prematurely. Inconsistencies between the testimonies and affidavits of the accused raised doubts about their credibility. The judge's reliance on People v. Fernandez as a basis for acquittal was unjustified. The Investigating Justice recommended the judge's suspension from office for one month due to gross negligence and ignorance of the law.

        Re: A.M. No. RTJ-92-823 (Rizalina Q. Valencia v. Judge Manuel C. Genova) 

Rizalina Q. Valencia filed a complaint against Judge Manuel C. Genova for "Accepting Bribe Money." Valencia claimed that Genova received P2,000 on February 13, 1989, and P5,000 on July 27, 1989, from Aida Valencia, one of the plaintiffs in a case presided over by Genova. Copies of two vouchers were attached to the complaint as evidence. 

Genova denied receiving any money and stated that the vouchers were fake. Evelyn Posadas, an accountant for Aida Valencia, testified that she prepared the vouchers for Genova and that Aida threatened her not to appear as a witness. Aida Valencia denied giving money to Genova and stated that the signatures on the vouchers were not hers. 

The Investigating Justice concluded that there was insufficient evidence to prove bribery but criticized Genova for improprieties in his conduct. Genova used a litigant named Flora Guadayo as a witness in this administrative his and even though she had already testified for him he has not inhibited himself from presiding over her case. The investigator believes that this action by the judge shows a lack of sound discretion and compromises the impartiality of the judge.

Genova also visited the stenographers' office to obtain a transcript, and Aida Valencia initially paid for it, although he claims to have reimbursed her later. This payment is seen as an act of impropriety considering that she won a case in his sala.

Still, the Court found the evidence to be inconclusive, with the balance of evidence at equipoise, and held that Genova cannot be found guilty of bribery based on the available evidence.

Held:

Taking now a global view of all the seven (7) cases against respondent Judge, and considering more particularly the conclusions we reached in respect of the fourth, fifth and sixth cases (A.M. No. RTJ-91-746; A.M. No. RTJ-91-767; and A.M. No. RTJ-91-816) above, in conjunction with our conclusion in the third case (A.M. No. RTJ-91-721), the Court concludes that respondent Judge has been shown to be unfit to remain in the Judiciary and must accordingly, in the interest of the service, be removed from the service. In the fourth, fifth and sixth cases above, respondent Judge exhibited ignorance about basic principles of criminal law so gross and appalling as to compel the conclusions that he could not have been acting in good faith; that he is grossly incompetent as a judge; and that to allow him to remain a judge is to impose an intolerable risk of letting loose on our hapless society more persons who have committed crimes as serious as murder and who should be behind prison bars. In the third case, respondent Judge demonstrated that he is capable and willing to devote government property to private and family purposes, a demonstration which reinforces the Court's conviction concerning respondent Judge's unfitness to remain in the Judiciary.

Ruling:

WHEREFORE, the Court Resolved to DISMISS the respondent Judge for gross ignorance of the law amounting to gross incompetence and misconduct in office, and in the best interest of the service, with forfeiture of all retirement privileges and benefits he might otherwise be entitled to, except accrued earned leave privileges or the money value thereof. This Resolution is immediately executory and respondent Judge shall vacate his position forthwith.

Recit Version:

Seven administrative complaints were filed against Judge Manuel C. Genova. In four cases, the respondent Judge exhibited gross ignorance of basic principles of criminal law, indicating incompetence and lack of good faith. The Court concludes that the respondent Judge must be DISMESSED from the service.

Jose de Jesus filed a complaint for serious misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, alleging that Genova and his wife lived in his chambers with the provincial government paying their electric bills.

Marthie O. Zurbito filed a complaint for gross ignorance of the law and dishonesty, related to a murder case where Genova acquitted the accused despite a guilty plea.

Delfin Ricarte filed a complaint for incompetence, grave abuse of discretion, and gross ignorance of the law, alleging partiality and reliance on personal notes instead of the official transcript in a murder case.

Deborah Perino filed a complaint for ignorance of the law, concerning the acquittal of two accused individuals in a murder case, one of whom was not under the jurisdiction of the trial court.

Rizalina Q. Valencia filed a complaint for accepting bribe money. The Investigating Justice concluded that there was insufficient evidence to prove bribery but criticized Genova for improprieties in his conduct. Genova used a litigant as a witness in the case despite her previous testimony for him, compromising his impartiality. Genova visited the stenographers' office to obtain a transcript, and Aida Valencia initially paid for it, which is seen as an act of impropriety.