A.M. No. MTJ-92-6-251 - Agcaoili vs. Ramos

The case involves a motion for reconsideration filed by respondent Judge Jose O. Ramos challenging the administrative penalty imposed on him.

Previously, on 7 February 1994, a decision finding him guilty of gross ignorance of the law, dereliction of duty, and serious misconduct was rendered, which led to his dismissal with forfeiture of his retirement benefits and a bar on reemployment in any government branch.

The charges originally included allegations of falsification and alteration of records in connection with the criminal case docketed as Crim. Case No. 24-0331.

It was alleged that respondent Judge had altered the filing date of the complaint from “5 December 1986” to “26 October 1987” to conceal his negligence in resolving the case.

Crim. Case No. 2529 – A complaint for murder filed on 12 November 1986 by Lt. Gregorio A. Pua, following a preliminary investigation on 5 December 1986.

Crim. Case No. 2632 (later renumbered as Crim. Case No. 24-0331) – A homicide complaint filed on 26 October 1987 by Sgt. Eugenio M. Marquez, where annexes bore dates differing from the complaint.

The discrepancy in dates led to confusion, as the records of Crim. Case No. 2529, which formed the basis for the homicide complaint, were not initially brought to the attention of the investigating judge.

Respondent Judge, by filing the motion for reconsideration, restated the factual backdrop and presented evidence to explain the apparent discrepancy.

He argued that the earlier filing (Crim. Case No. 2529) and the subsequent filing (Crim. Case No. 2632/24-0331) were inherently related, and the perceived falsification was the result of an oversight rather than intentional act.

Thirty-four years of dedicated government service, with twenty-six years in the judiciary.

An impending compulsory retirement (initially indicated for 28 November 1994, later corrected to 28 November 2004).

The absence of any charge or evidence of malice, fraud, dishonesty, or corruption in the complaint against him.

The Investigating Judge Artemio R. Alivia, after being directed to file his comment on the motion, admitted his error regarding the alteration finding, noting that his oversight was due to his ignorance of the prior Crim. Case No. 2529.

On 7 April 1994, the complainant, Judge Emerito M. Agcaoili, was required to file his comment.

His subsequent comment, submitted on 6 July 1994, was found unsatisfactory by the court as it did not adequately address the factual issues raised by the respondent.

Even Judge Agcaoili opined in his comment that the originally imposed penalty appeared harsh under the circumstances.

Whether the investigating judge’s finding of falsification of records was justified given that the discrepancy was a result of an oversight and not an intentional act by respondent Judge.
Whether the severe administrative penalty of dismissal with forfeiture of retirement benefits, which barred reemployment in any government capacity, was appropriate in light of the mitigating circumstances presented by the respondent.
Whether the court should modify the penalty to be more proportional and reasonable based on the respondent’s long and unblemished service record, his role as family provider, and the absence of any malice or fraudulent intent.
How the existence of two sets of criminal case records (Crim. Cases Nos. 2529 and 2632/24-0331) should be interpreted to determine if there was any actual falsification or mere clerical/administrative error.