A.M. No. RTJ-93-1062 - De la Cruz vs. Concepcion

Complainants: Eliza Ratilla de la Cruz (13), Edeline Cuison (11), Ana Maria Cruz (12), and Lolita Santiago (12), assisted by their respective guardians.
Respondent: Judge Crisanto C. Concepcion, Regional Trial Court, Branch 12, Malolos, Bulacan.
Case: Administrative complaint against Judge Concepcion for gross ignorance of the law and knowingly rendering an unjust judgment for acquitting Loreto Estrella, Jr., accused of acts of lasciviousness.

On November 16, 1988, accused Loreto Estrella, Jr., coach of girls’ volleyball team at Bustos Central School, allegedly summoned complainants and other players to inspect their private parts for pubic hair, complying with MEC (now DECS) memorandum circulars.
The girls, arranged in groups, removed their shorts and panties and showed their private parts. The accused allegedly touched and stroked their exposed genital areas.
Complainants alleged the acts were done with lewd designs, forcibly and unlawfully, constituting acts of lasciviousness.

At trial, complainants testified consistently about being touched on their private parts by the accused, describing his facial expression as one of wild excitement.
The accused admitted examining the pubic hair to verify age eligibility but denied touching private parts or threatening complainants.
Respondent Judge Concepcion acquitted the accused, finding:

The girls consented to the inspection without force, albeit reluctantly.
The accused only touched the mons veneris (external area where pubic hair grows), not the inner genital orifice.
The possibility of touching for five minutes multiple times was unlikely and inconsistent with prior police statements.
The accused's conduct stemmed from following MEC/DECS guidelines on physical inspection for age eligibility, not from lewd intent.
Moral damages were awarded due to the humiliation and mental anguish caused, although the act was not felonious.

Almost a year before, another judge acquitted the same accused on similar charges involving a different complainant, with no allegations against that ruling.

Whether Judge Concepcion was guilty of gross ignorance of the law in acquitting the accused.
Whether Judge Concepcion knowingly rendered an unjust judgment.
Whether the respondent judge's ruling constituted administrative liability despite the acquittal.
The proper application of reasonable doubt and the presumption of innocence in criminal cases involving delicate factual determinations.
Whether the acts of the accused constituted acts of lasciviousness in light of governmental guidelines on physical examination of minors.