A.C. No. 134-J - IN RE: Climaco

A verified complaint was filed on October 15, 1968, by Acting City Fiscal Norberto L. Zulueta and Eva Mabug-at against Judge Rafael C. Climaco.
The charges included gross malfeasance in office, gross ignorance of the law, and knowingly rendering an unjust judgment.
The complaint arose from Judge Climaco's order dated September 5, 1968, and his decision acquitting Carlos Caramonte in Criminal Case No. 690 for Robbery in Band with Homicide.
The Supreme Court gave due course to the complaint on October 22, 1968, requiring Judge Climaco to respond within ten days.
The case was referred to Associate Justice Nicasio Yatco for investigation, which concluded with a recommendation for exoneration of Judge Climaco.

The original criminal case involved thirteen principals, seven accomplices, and two accessories charged with Robbery in Band with Homicide.
Only Carlos Caramonte was arrested and tried; others remained at large or had their cases dismissed.
Judge Climaco issued an order on September 5, 1968, taking judicial notice of the fishing industry in the area relevant to the case.
On September 21, 1968, he acquitted Caramonte, leading to an appeal by Acting City Fiscal Zulueta.

The Solicitor General commented on the appeal, noting that the prosecution could not appeal a judgment of acquittal due to double jeopardy.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on January 30, 1969, affirming the acquittal based on the lack of evidence linking Caramonte to the crime.

The complainants alleged that Judge Climaco's ocular inspection of the crime scene was biased and conducted improperly.
They claimed that the order issued on September 5, 1968, was null and void and indicative of gross ignorance of the law.
The complainants argued that the judge's actions were influenced by political pressure, leading to an unjust acquittal.

The investigator found no concrete evidence supporting the claim that Judge Climaco conducted a "secret ocular inspection."
The evidence presented did not substantiate the allegations of misconduct or ignorance of the law.
The judge's decision was based on the lack of identification of Caramonte by witnesses, raising reasonable doubt about his guilt.

Under Section 173 of the Revised Administrative Code, grounds for removal of a judge include serious misconduct and inefficiency.
Serious misconduct requires evidence of corrupt intent or persistent disregard for legal rules.
The complainants failed to prove that Judge Climaco acted with malice or corrupt intent in h...continue reading