Facts:

The case involves Pedro Almazan as the complainant and Municipal Judge Delfin Rosario of Malasiqui, Pangasinan as the respondent. On July 31, 1974, the Supreme Court En Banc received complaints alleging moral misconduct against Judge Rosario. Specifically, the complaints claimed that he had a second wife living in San Carlos City, Pangasinan, a school teacher with whom he had a son, and a third wife in Malasiqui working at the local puericulture center. The complaints also accused him of arrogance, impoliteness, and notorious gambling activities. In his written response dated January 18, 1973, Judge Rosario denied all allegations, asserting they were baseless and malicious. He supported his claims with affidavits from reputable local officials, including the Chief of Police and Assistant Fiscals, who confirmed on personal knowledge that there were no illicit relationships with the women mentioned in the complaints.

The complaints were subsequently referred to the National Burea

...

Facts:

Origin of the Complaints

• Two complaints were filed against Municipal Judge Delfin Rosario.
• One complaint was written by Pedro Almazan, who was later determined to be a fictitious person.
• The other complaint came from an anonymous “civic spirited citizen” who chose not to disclose his identity.
• Both complaints charged the judge with immorality and unprofessional conduct.
• The alleged immorality centered on claims that he had:
• A second wife in San Carlos City (Pangasinan) who was a schoolteacher and had one son with him.
• A third wife in Malasiqui (Pangasinan) employed at the Puericulture Center.
• Additional charges included allegations of arrogance, impoliteness, and notorious gambling activities.

Respondent’s Denial and Evidence

• The respondent, Municipal Judge Delfin Rosario, filed an answer on January 18, 1973, categorically denying the charges.
• He refuted having a second wife or a third wife as alleged.
• He maintained that his conduct had always been irreproachable and that he always decided cases impartially based on merit.
• His answer was supported by several pieces of documentary evidence:
• Affidavit of the Chief of Police of San Carlos City (Pangasinan) (Annex "A").
• Joint affidavit of Assistant Fiscals Dominador G. Soriano and Jose G. Nicolas (Annex "B").
• Sworn statement of Dr. Armando De G. Andaya (Annex "C").
• All supporting evidence denied any personal knowledge of the judge’s involvement in any illicit relationships or his alleged misconduct.

The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Involvement

• The complaints were referred to the NBI, and through the 4th Indorsement dated August 7, 1973, the investigation was conducted.
• Director Jolly R. Bugarin’s report detailed the following:
• Evidence of an illicit relationship with Desideria Cardeno, a schoolteacher, resulting in a son named Arnulfo Rosario (born around 1952).
• Verification through birth certificate and school records.
• Verification of an affair with Vicenta (Seting) Evangelista, a sanitary inspector at the Malasiqui Puericulture Center, ongoing for nearly 10 years.
• No evidence was found to substantiate the charges of arrogance, impoliteness, and notorious gambling.
• A check of the respondent’s judicial records contradicted the charge that no cases were filed in his court.
• The investigation concluded that Pedro Almazan was fictitious.

Hearings and Further Proceedings

• Following a resolution by the Court En Banc on February 6, 1974, the case was referred to District Judge Pedro A. Ramirez for investigation and report.
• On the set hearing date (March 6, 1974), only the respondent and his counsel appeared; the fictitious complainant could not be located despite efforts by local police.
• The respondent presented documentary evidence during successive hearings, notably on March 13, 1974, when:
• NBI Agent Cesar E. Guerrero presented the initial documentary evidence that formed the basis of the NBI Director’s report.
• The respondent called witnesses including Desideria Cardeno, the Chief of Police, Assistant Fiscals, and Dr. Andaya to support his denial of the allegations.

Evidentiary and Procedural Concerns

• The complaints were not sworn to and originated from unverifiable sources, placing the respondent in a position where he had to prove his innocence without facing a direct confrontation of his accusers.
• The investigation’s methodology and timing raised issues regarding:
• The requirement imposed on a public official to demonstrate his moral integrity despite the uncorroborated nature of the allegations.
• A potential violation of the respondent’s due process rights, being compelled to provide evidence to rebut baseless charges.

Issue:

Due Process Violation

• Whether the respondent’s right to due process was compromised by being forced to prove his innocence against unverified allegations.
• Whether placing the burden on the judge to counter unsubstantiated complaints is itself a procedural irregularity.

Sufficiency and Credibility of the Evidence

• Whether the evidence obtained through “discreet inquiries” and the resulting NBI report was sufficient and reliable to support the allegations of immorality and misconduct.
• Whether the hearsay and unverified nature of the complaints should be admissible in proceedings against a public official.

Relevance and Timing of the Alleged Acts

• Whether the relationship allegedly established in 1952 (with Desideria Cardeno) was relevant given that it predated the respondent’s appointment as Municipal Judge in 1962.
• Whether actions or relationships that ceased prior to his judicial appointment constitute valid grounds for current disciplinary action.

The Nature of the Accusations

• Whether allegations based solely on anonymous and fictitious sources can form a sufficient basis for disciplinary measures.
• Whether uncorroborated personal attacks (e.g., claims of arrogance, impoliteness, and gambling) can justly implicate a public official’s integrity.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)