A.M. No. 1048 - Reyes vs. Gaa

An administrative complaint for disbarment was filed against respondent, a former Assistant City Fiscal of Manila, for malpractice and willful violation of his oath as an attorney.
The complaint arose from an alleged extortion incident involving respondent and complainant Wellington Reyes.
On March 30, 1971, at approximately 9:00 A.M., Reyes reported to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) that he had been the victim of extortion.

Complainant asserted that he paid respondent an initial amount of P500.00 on March 1, 1971 and an additional P500.00 on three separate occasions.
A subsequent “payoff” was scheduled for 11:00 A.M. on the same day at respondent’s office in City Hall.
The NBI set up an entrapment operation wherein complainant provided several peso bills totaling P150.00, which were marked by the NBI’s Forensic and Chemistry Division.
When the entrapment took place around 2:30 P.M. (after a delay caused by other transactions), the respondent allegedly accepted the marked money, which he placed in his right pocket.
NBI agents immediately apprehended respondent; his hands were found to contain traces of a yellow fluorescent powder from the marked money.

Following the apprehension and forensic examination, respondent was processed by the NBI, which included photographing, fingerprinting, and record checking.
The NBI recommended the prosecution of respondent for violation of Section 3(b) of R.A. No. 3019 and later recommended the filing of administrative charges and disbarment.
Besides this criminal case (IS No. 71-6558), there were earlier administrative cases against respondent:

Administrative Case No. 10 for Grave Misconduct filed by Angel Alora on October 13, 1969, where respondent was found guilty and recommended for suspension.
Administrative Case No. 10-A for partiality filed by Fabiola Fajardo on April 26, 1970, which was still pending resolution.

Respondent, while answering the disbarment complaint, denied extortion. He claimed that the marked money had been surreptitiously planted by the complainant without his consent.
He further contended that the criminal case against him was still under preliminary investigation by the City Fiscal of Manila and counter-filed charges of incriminatory machination, perjury, and attempted corruption of a public official against the complainant.

The case was initially referred to the Solicitor General for investigation, report, and recommendation.
Following the adoption of Rule 139-B of the Revised Rules of Court, jurisdiction transferred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Board of Governors for investigation and disposition.
On March 15, 1993, Commissioner Vicente Q. Roxas of the Commission on Bar Discipline recommended respondent’s disbarment.
This recommendation was subsequently approved by the IBP Board of Governors via a resolution dated March 26, 1994.

Whether respondent, as a government official and an attorney, committed extortion by receiving marked money during an entrapment operation conducted by the NBI.
Whether respondent’s denial of the charge, claiming that the money was planted by the complainant, is sufficient to counter the evidence presented.
Whether the evidence, including the marked money and its forensic trace, and his actions during the entrapment, justify the disciplinary action of disbarment.
Whether prior administrative cases and the gravity of the misconduct affect respondent’s qualification and integrity as a member of the bar.