A.M. No. 17-11-06-CA - Re: Normandie B. Pizarro

An anonymous letter-complaint, with attached photographs, was filed on September 20, 2017, against Associate Justice Normandie B. Pizarro of the Court of Appeals.
The complaint charged Justice Pizarro with multiple allegations including habitual gambling, selling judicial decisions to support a gambling addiction, and maintaining an illicit relationship by providing expensive gifts and properties to a mistress.
The photographs, consisting of four sheets, purportedly depicted him at casino tables at the Midori Hotel and Casino in Clark, Pampanga.

The anonymous document alleged that Justice Pizarro was a gambling addict losing millions of pesos daily in casinos.
The complaint insinuated that he “sold” decisions to finance his habit, thereby suggesting corruption and moral turpitude.
Additional allegations included that he bought high-value properties and vehicles for his alleged mistress and that he and her family frequently traveled abroad for gambling and shopping.
The sole material evidence attached consisted of photographs showing his presence at a casino.

On November 21, 2017, a Court Resolution noted the referral of the anonymous complaint by the Ombudsman and required Justice Pizarro to file a comment.
On December 8, 2017, Justice Pizarro submitted his comment admitting to being photographed at a casino table.
He explained that the photographs were taken while he accompanied a balikbayan friend and that their casino play was in a “parlor game” format with low stakes and limited exposure of identity.
He also admitted to a previous instance in 2009 of casino play, justifying it as an indiscretion committed under the strain of terminal cancer.
Justice Pizarro denied the more serious allegations, including selling decisions and having a mistress, describing these as unfounded and politically motivated attacks aimed at defaming his character.

The anonymous complaint, while severe in its moral and corruption allegations, lacked corroborative evidence except for the photographs showing casino attendance.
The administrative matter was referred by the Ombudsman to the Court on October 24, 2017.
The case highlighted tensions regarding judicial conduct, evidentiary requirements in administrative proceedings against members of the judiciary, and the balance between protecting judicial independence and enforcing ethical standards.

Whether the anonymous letter-complaint, lacking substantial supporting documentation (apart from the photographs), can justify administrative charges of corruption, immorality, and misconduct.
Whether the bare allegations, particularly concerning selling decisions and maintaining an illicit relationship, meet the required standard of evidence for administrative proceedings.

Whether Justice Pizarro, as a member of a collegiate appellate court (and not of the inferior courts or court personnel), falls within the ambit of provisions prohibiting gambling or presence in gambling casinos.
How the definitions under Presidential Decree No. 1067-B, P.D. No. 1869, and related circulars apply to a justice whose official functions involve the administration of justice.

What penalty is adequate in light of Justice Pizarro’s admission of gambling on two separate occasions.
Whether a fine is sufficient or a harsher sanction (such as dismissal) is warranted given his higher judicial rank and the public expectations inherent in his position.