Adm. Matter No. 93-9-741-0 - IN RE: Judge Geronimo Baldo

Secretary Franklin N. Drilon of the Department of Justice referred the case to the Court via a letter dated August 23, 1993 for possible disciplinary action against Judge Geronimo A. Baldo.
The referral was based on a sworn statement by Luis Corcolon, one of the accused in the rape and murder of Eileen Sarmenta and the murder of Allan Gomez (students of the University of the Philippines, Los Baños).
Corcolon’s statement alleged that Judge Baldo ordered the cleaning of the Tamaraw van—in which the corpses of the victims were found—to destroy incriminating evidence.

In his sworn statement (asinumpaang salaysay) dated July 28, 1993, Corcolon narrated that after the victims’ bodies were obtained, he heard that Judge Baldo (misstated as “Judge Ubaldo” in the statement) had ordered the cleaning of the vehicle by police personnel.
Corcolon’s statement included ambiguous phrases such as “Hindi ko mawari” (could not understand), which later became a focal point for clarifying his intended meaning.
Judge Baldo, a Municipal Trial Court judge in Calauan, Laguna, was implicated as having played a role in the alteration of the crime scene by his alleged involvement in the cleaning operation.

Upon receipt of the report, the Court directed Judge Baldo on September 14, 1993 to provide his comment and ordered him to go on leave pending investigation.
In his comment filed on October 18, 1993, Judge Baldo denied any involvement in ordering the cleaning of the van.

He stated that he never had any conversation with Chief Inspector Robin CaAo on the day in question regarding the investigation.
He claimed to have noticed the van already cleaned upon his return from lunch and asserted that he only instructed that the blood in the gutter be removed—not the cleaning of the van itself.

The affidavit of Chief Inspector Robin M. CaAo denying any order given by Judge Baldo to clean the vehicle.
The testimony of PO1 Arnulfo Umali, who initially stated that the bodies were still in the van when Judge Baldo left for lunch, but later modified his testimony after being confronted.
An affidavit from an errand boy, Manolito H. Replan, who claimed not to have seen either Judge Baldo or Corcolon inside the police station throughout the day.

The case was initially dismissed by a panel of state prosecutors on the ground of insufficient evidence linking Judge Baldo to the alleged order.
Judge Baldo pointed out that in an earlier statement on July 12, 1993, Corcolon did not mention his involvement, and later, on October 3, 1995, Corcolon retracted his earlier statement, alleging that he had been tortured by agents of the Presidential Anti-Crime Commission (PACC).
Despite the retraction, subsequent investigations led by Executive Judge Norberto Y. Geraldez of the Regional Trial Court of Calamba, Laguna, resulted in a split in opinions:

In a report dated February 12, 1997, Judge Geraldez recommended the dismissal of Judge Baldo for grave misconduct, giving weight to the circumstantial evidence.
Deputy Court Administrator Bernardo P. Abesamis, however, recommended the dismissal of the complaint based on an alternative interpretation of Corcolon’s ambiguous statement.

Contradictions between Judge Baldo’s claim of not conversing with Chief CaAo and CaAo’s testimony, which placed the judge at the municipal building early in the morning when the van arrived.
Evidence suggesting that cleaning of the van was carried out at around 1:00 p.m. by a detention prisoner, Arnold Barredo, despite Judge Baldo’s claim that he was not present at that time.
Modifications in the testimonies of officials (e.g., PO1 Arnulfo Umali), who altered their statements under pressure, thereby indirectly implicating Judge Baldo.

The investigation underscored the likelihood that, even if Judge Baldo did not explicitly order the cleaning, his presence and conduct implied his tacit approval or indifference to the destruction of demonstrable evidence.

The investigation culminated in a disciplinary action where the Court held that Judge Baldo’s conduct, though not criminal, fell short of the integrity expected of a judicial officer.
In recognition of his failure to safeguard evidence and in light of the circumstantial indications of misconduct, the Court fined Judge Geronimo A. Baldo P20,000.00 for serious misconduct.
It was noted that Judge Baldo retired on October 1, 1997, after reaching the compulsory retirement age.

Whether Judge Geronimo A. Baldo ordered or was complicit in the cleaning of the Tamaraw van, thereby contributing to the destruction of evidence in the Gomez-Sarmenta case.
Whether the ambiguous language in Luis Corcolon’s statements, including his later retraction and claims of torture, can be reliably interpreted to imply an order from Judge Baldo.
Whether the contradictions in the testimonies—particularly the discrepancy between Judge Baldo’s claim of non-interaction with Chief Inspector CaAo and CaAo’s account—sufficiently establish his involvement in the alleged misconduct.
The extent to which the modifications in witness testimonies, ostensibly influenced by Judge Baldo’s questioning, undermine the credibility of the evidence regarding his role in the incident.
Whether the conduct of Judge Baldo, as evidenced by his apparent indifference to preserving the crime scene, constitutes a failure to perform his judicial duty to uphold the integrity of the investigative process.