A.M. No. RTJ-21-003 - Re: Jose S. Jacinto, Jr.

The case involves an anonymous complaint filed against Hon. Jose S. Jacinto, Jr., then Presiding Judge of Branch 45, RTC of San Jose, Occidental Mindoro.
The complaint relates to his administrative misconduct in 17 criminal cases involving illegal drugs, where he was found guilty of gross ignorance of the law or procedure.
In those drug cases, the judge either improperly granted motions for rehabilitation or transferred custody of the accused to the Provincial Parole and Probation Office without the necessary endorsements and examinations required under Sections 54 and 57 of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165.

The judge allowed some of the accused to undergo rehabilitation without the endorsement of the Dangerous Drugs Board or a proper examination by a Department of Health-accredited physician.
In cases where the accused were transferred to the custody of the parole and probation board, there was no evidence of their voluntary rehabilitation, and the office is not legally recognized as a detention facility for those accused of drug-related offenses.

The judge transferred the custody of prisoner Ruben Tiu from the national penitentiary to the Sablayan Prison and Penal Farm without securing approval from the Supreme Court.
The transfer was maintained for a period of eight months despite an early compromise agreement between the parties, raising serious questions about the necessity and propriety of the action.

The Court found the judge guilty on 17 counts of gross ignorance of the law and ordered his dismissal from service, with forfeiture of retirement benefits (except leave credits) and prohibition from re-employment in government.
Additionally, the judge was found liable for gross misconduct in the civil case and was fined P30,000.00.

Filed on 10 May 2022, a year after the administrative sanctions were imposed, the judge pleaded for the restoration of his retirement benefits.
In his motion, the judge:

Admitted his lapses in both the 17 illegal drug cases and Civil Case No. R-1792.
Cited his 39 years of judicial service as evidence of his dedication, industry, loyalty, and devotion to duty.
Attributed his misconduct to personal hardships in 2008, including bouts of vertigo attacks, high blood pressure, and the illness and eventual demise of his wife from pancreatic cancer, suggesting that these difficulties affected his judgment.

Letters from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Occidental Mindoro Chapter attesting to his character as “compassionate,” “fair,” “just,” and “prompt.”
A letter from the Municipal Social Welfare and Development Office (MSWDO) of Rizal, Occidental Mindoro, noting his legal guidance in handling violence against women and children (VAWC) cases and his neutrality in dealings with victims.
Cited previous cases (e.g., Geocadin v. PeAa, Re: Diaz, Re: Masamayor, and Re: Ong) as precedents for granting judicial clemency under certain circumstances.

The overarching goal of administrative and disciplinary proceedings is to maintain the integrity and public confidence in the judicial system.
The manifestation with motion involves balancing the punitive measures imposed on an erring public officer with considerations of reformation and evidence of remorse.

Whether or not the petition for judicial clemency filed by the judge should be granted.

Specifically, whether the judge has satisfied the required criteria, such as demonstrating genuine remorse, substantial evidence of reformation, and meeting the minimum five-year period as laid down in the guidelines.
Whether the personal hardships and supporting testimonials are sufficient to outweigh the gravity and frequency of his past administrative misconduct.