Fajardo v. Bacarro, Sr.
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Rosalito Fajardo filed an administrative complaint for dishonesty against Municipal Judge Gualberto B. Bacarro, Sr. The complainant alleged that his uncle, Vicente Fajardo, gave a pig to respondent judge in August 1974, in exchange for the dismissal of a frustrated murder case filed against Vicente. The complainant further alleged that the criminal case was subsequently dismissed by the respondent judge. Procedural History: Respondent judge denied the charge, claiming it was false and motivated by malice. He asserted that the dismissal of the criminal case was based on a motion filed by the private prosecutor due to an amicable settlement between the parties, where the accused paid the hospital expenses of the offended party. The records of the criminal case were forwarded to the Court of First Instance for review. The Deputy Court Administrator recommended the dismissal of the dishonesty complaint for lack of merit but suggested a reprimand for the judge's irregular actuation in dismissing the criminal case on an improper ground. The Petition: The administrative complaint was filed against Municipal Judge Gualberto B. Bacarro, Sr. for alleged dishonesty.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge committed dishonesty in dismissing the criminal case against Vicente Fajardo. Whether the respondent judge's act of dismissing the criminal case on the ground of amicable settlement was an irregular actuation warranting disciplinary action.
Ruling
The administrative complaint for dishonesty against Municipal Judge Gualberto B. Bacarro, Sr. was dismissed for lack of merit. However, the respondent judge was reprimanded for his irregular actuation in dismissing the criminal case for frustrated murder against Vicente Fajardo based on an improper ground. The Court warned that a repetition of similar offenses would be dealt with more severely.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of dishonesty: The Court found no clear evidence to prove the charge of dishonesty against the respondent judge. The complainant's uncle, Vicente Fajardo, who was allegedly involved in giving the pig, denied the report and stated that he never gave any pig to the respondent judge. Furthermore, the complainant himself took four years to report the alleged incident, and later disowned his denunciation in an affidavit, expressing regrets and explaining that he was pressured by a police officer to sign the statement. These facts indicated that the charge was ill-motivated and lacked substantiation. On the issue of irregular actuation in dismissing the criminal case: The Court agreed with the recommendation that the respondent judge's action in dismissing the criminal case for frustrated murder against Vicente Fajardo on the ground that the parties had amicably settled their case was unwarranted. Citing Hibberd vs. Robde & Mcmillan, the Court reiterated that a person suffering from a crime may not barter away the benefits of public order and personal safety by securing immunity from public prosecution in exchange for the satisfaction of civil damages. Courts are mandated to administer the law and should not aid in the perversion of justice. Therefore, while the charge of dishonesty was not proven, the judge's act of dismissing the case on such a ground was an irregular actuation that warranted a reprimand.
Main Doctrine
While a municipal judge may be reprimanded for dismissing a criminal case on an improper ground, such as an amicable settlement in a frustrated murder case, the charge of dishonesty must be proven by clear evidence, and the dismissal of the complaint for dishonesty is warranted if such evidence is lacking.