A.M. No. MTJ-03-1482. April 4, 2003.
ILUMINADA SANTILLAN VDA. DE NEPOMUCENO, complainant, vs. JUDGE NICASIO V. BARTOLOME, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, STA. MARIA, BULACAN, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Iluminada Santillan Vda. de Nepomuceno, the private complainant in a criminal case for Reckless Imprudence, filed an affidavit-complaint charging respondent Judge Nicasio V. Bartolome with violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. She alleged that the judge demanded and received P5,000.00 from her on March 1, 1999, as consideration for a favorable decision dated February 15, 1999, which convicted the accused and ordered civil indemnity. She further accused him of abusing his authority by later approving, in an Order dated May 31, 2000, the reduction of the convicted accused’s monthly civil liability payments from P10,000.00 to P2,000.00.
Respondent judge vehemently denied demanding any money. He argued that the allegation was a perfect scenario for an entrapment, which never occurred. Regarding the reduction of payments, he initially claimed in his defense that he never allowed such a reduction and that a Regional Trial Court decision had dismissed a related petition. The case was referred to an Executive Judge for investigation.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Nicasio V. Bartolome is administratively liable for (1) demanding and receiving a bribe, and (2) misconduct related to his official actions and statements in his defense.

RULING

The Court DISMISSED the charge of bribery but required the respondent to show cause for serious misconduct due to deliberate untruthful statements. On the bribery charge, the Investigating Judge found the complainant’s testimony, while firm, to be uncorroborated. The Court emphasized that an accusation of bribery is easy to concoct but difficult to disprove, requiring a panoply of evidence. The quantum of proof for such a grave charge must be more than substantial. The complainant’s lone testimony, absent other credible evidence, was deemed insufficient to establish guilt.
However, the Court found respondent administratively liable for violating the Code of Judicial Conduct regarding his defense on the payment reduction issue. The records, specifically his Order dated May 31, 2000, clearly showed he approved the Probation Office’s recommendation to reduce monthly installments to P2,000.00 “without modification.” Contradictorily, in his sworn Counter-Affidavit, he stated he had “reiterated” and “stayed put” with the P10,000.00 monthly payment. These deliberate inaccuracies under oath constituted a willful disregard of truth. Under Canon 2 and Rule 2.01 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, a judge must avoid impropriety and promote public confidence in the judiciary’s integrity. By making untruthful statements, respondent failed to uphold this standard. Thus, while the graft charge was unsubstantiated, he was ordered to show cause why he should not be penalized for Serious Misconduct.