Case Digest (A.M. No. RTJ-99-1453)
Facts:
Fr. Michael Sinnott et al. v. Judge Recaredo P. Barte, A.M. No. RTJ-99-1453, December 14, 2001, Supreme Court First Division, Pardo, J., writing for the Court. The administrative complaint arose after the acquittal by respondent Judge Recaredo P. Barte, then presiding judge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 29, Zamboanga del Sur, in two criminal cases charging Nenito Gadonan with the murders of Demetria Pedrano and Basilia Pedrano (Criminal Cases Nos. 0474 and 0475).On February 25, 1992, Demetria Pedrano was shot and Basilia Pedrano hacked to death. State prosecutors filed two murder charges against Nenito Gadonan; the cases were raffled to RTC Branch 29. After trial, Judge Barte promulgated a joint decision on January 20, 1995, acquitting Gadonan on reasonable doubt. There was no motion to inhibit the judge, no motion for reconsideration, and no appeal filed by the prosecution within the criminal docket as certified by the clerk of court.
On March 29, 1995, relatives of the victims together with Fr. Michael Sinnott filed a letter-complaint with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) accusing Judge Barte of bias and partiality, alleging that he had a personal relationship with members of the accused’s family (one daughter formerly served as his househelp and another was rumored to be his special companion). The complainants sought a mistrial and retrial of the criminal cases. Judge Barte filed a comment denying bias and explaining that no inhibition motion was filed during trial; he also disclosed a medical condition and denied improper influence.
Complainants later submitted an affidavit accusing Judge Barte of soliciting hired killers; because of the gravity of allegations the Supreme Court asked the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) to investigate. The NBI obtained a sworn statement from Richel Gadunan alleging a sexual relationship with Judge Barte, procured a certified true copy of the birth certificate of a child purportedly fathered by respondent, and found no marriage record in the local civil registry; it recommended administrative action for immorality and possible disbarment, but found no proof of an assassination plot.
The Court referred the matter to Associate Justice Marina L. Buzon of the Court of Appeals for investigation, receipt of evidence and recommendation. Hearings and evidence reception occurred in Pagadian City; witnesses for complainants testified (including a former process server, Fr. Sinnott, an NBI agent), and respondent testified and produced certified records showing the absence of any timely motions in the criminal cases. Richel Gadunan failed to appear despite subpoena. The investigating justice initially recommended dismissal for insufficiency of evidence, but on plenary review the Supreme Court e...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was an administrative complaint the proper and timely remedy to challenge the alleged bias of Judge Recaredo P. Barte and the acquittal in Criminal Cases Nos. 0474 and 0475?
- Did the acquittal of Nenito Gadonan itself establish judicial bias or partiality by Judge Barte sufficient to sustain an administrative charge?
- Was Judge Barte guilty of immoral conduct for consorting with a woman not his wife, and what...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)