A.M. No. MTJ-97-1120 - National Bureau of Investigation vs. Reyes

Case Summary (A.M. No. MTJ-97-1120)

Factual Background

On the evening of November 12, 1996, barangay officials of Barangay Majuben, Mabini, Batangas arrested Reynaldo Magday, Melvin Dalangin, Rex Cordero, and Primo Evangelista after they were caught using methamphetamine hydrochloride, known as shabu, during a drug session. The four were detained at the local police station and charged with violations of Section 16, in relation to Section 27, of Article III of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6425, the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. The information, docketed as Criminal Case No. 1817, was filed before the MCTC of Mabini-Tingloy, Batangas, presided by respondent.

On November 20, 1996, the mothers of Magday, Dalangin, Cordero, and Evangelista—identified in the record as Nenita Dalangin, Marina Cordero, and Nelia Evangelista (with the fourth mother addressed in the narrative)—approached respondent in an effort to secure the release of their sons. The NBI alleged, and the Court later accepted, that respondent promised to dismiss the case against all the accused for P240,000.00. As the mothers lacked sufficient funds, the amount was allegedly reduced to P15,000.00, with the exchange scheduled on November 28, 1996. Respondent allegedly failed to report, and the exchange was rescheduled one week later to December 5, 1996.

Three days before the scheduled pay-off, on December 2, 1996, the mothers reported the alleged extortion to the NBI at its regional office in Batangas City. After each mother executed separate sworn statements, the NBI planned an entrapment. The NBI readied the amount of P3,000.00, consisting of two five-hundred peso bills and twenty-one hundred peso bills, individually marked “P-96-187, ATP/NMC, 12/3/96, FCD, NBI” using invisible ink and dusted with yellow fluorescent powder. The NBI enlisted Intelligence Agent Josephine Cabardo to accompany the mothers and pose as the lender of the money.

On the appointed date, Dalangin, Cordero, and Evangelista, together with Cabardo, went to respondent’s chambers. Respondent instructed Evangelista to write a motion for reconsideration on yellow pad paper to be filed with the Regional Trial Court. Respondent then allegedly entered the adjoining latrine and placed the envelope containing the marked money on top of a rag mop above the latrine. After returning, respondent allegedly told the women to leave, claiming he felt warm. The women exited, and after a pre-arranged signal, NBI agents entered the chambers. A complication occurred: the agents failed to locate the envelope. Ultraviolet testing on respondent’s hands produced a negative result, though the rag mop handle showed traces of the yellow fluorescent powder. Since the agents did not carry a search warrant, they asked respondent to accompany them to the regional office.

During questioning at the NBI office, respondent allegedly confessed that he had taken the envelope using a handkerchief and placed it inside his desk. Respondent returned to his office with the agents and opened the uppermost left-hand drawer of his table, where the envelope was found. When tested with ultraviolet light, the money inside was shown to be the same marked and dusted money prepared by the NBI.

On December 9, 1996, an information was filed before the Sandiganbayan charging respondent under Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. On January 9, 1997, prior to NBI’s referral, respondent filed a letter resigning from his position citing health reasons. He later requested that he be allowed to work at the Judiciary Planning Development and Implementation Office (JPDIO) while awaiting action on the resignation and until his health improved. The Supreme Court directed him to submit a comment on the report, in which he alleged denial of rights during custodial investigation under Section 2(b) of R.A. No. 7438. In the course of the proceedings, respondent withdrew his resignation, which the Court noted.

Procedural History and Administrative Proceedings

The NBI referred the matter to the Supreme Court on January 20, 1997 through the Office of the Court Administrator. The Court suspended respondent from office and withheld action on his resignation and request for detail to the JPDIO. The Supreme Court then referred the administrative complaint to Executive Judge Mario Lopez for investigation, report, and recommendation, including the direction to designate an acting presiding judge in respondent’s court. When Judge Lopez inhibited himself due to close personal ties to respondent, the matter was referred instead to former Associate Justice Pedro A. Ramirez of the Court of Appeals for investigation and report.

After reception of the evidence, the Investigating Justice issued a Report dated August 12, 1998, concluding that the charge was well-substantiated and recommending dismissal from service with forfeiture of benefits and disqualification from reemployment in government, and further recommending disbarment. In view of this recommendation, the Court issued a resolution on April 20, 1999 requiring respondent to show cause why he should not be disbarred. Respondent failed to comply within the period allowed, prompting the Court’s resolution of September 14, 1999, which imposed a fine of P2,000.00 payable within five days, with imprisonment for five days in case of nonpayment.

On October 1, 1999, respondent filed a Compliance/Motion for Reconsideration, reiterating the alleged infringement of custodial rights under the Constitution and R.A. No. 7438, and also averring that the private complainants were guilty of instigation. The Court noted the compliance but denied the motion for reconsideration.

The Parties’ Contentions

Respondent did not deny the relevant sequence that the money placed on the mop was later found in his drawer and that he ultimately handed it to the NBI agents. Instead, he offered a different version of the events and challenged the credibility and legality of the process.

In his account before the Office of the Special Prosecutor, submitted as agreed material for his direct examination, respondent asserted that he did not extort money and that he had refused to accede to the mothers’ demands on earlier occasions. He claimed that he suggested they secure counsel and post bail and that, during later meetings, he allegedly instructed them to wait for the transmittal of records and to address their representations to the Provincial Prosecutor. Respondent further claimed that the women placed an envelope on his table but that he did not take money from the toilet with a handkerchief, did not see the money being placed, and did not have opportunity to plant it in his drawer after being brought to the NBI office with the agents. He argued that it was impossible for him to have placed the money in the drawer after the NBI agents took him away, and he contended that if he had indeed moved it using a handkerchief, the handkerchief should have been found and tested, which he claimed the NBI did not do.

The NBI, through the Investigating Justice and the Court’s assessment of the record, treated respondent’s defenses as unsupported. The Court relied particularly on the testimony of Intelligence Agent Josephine Cabardo, described as a disinterested witness who directly observed the entrapment operation and corroborated the testimonies of the private complainants. The Court also noted that respondent failed to provide a sufficient basis to disregard her testimony.

On the issue of alleged custodial rights, respondent raised as defense the claim that he was not accorded his rights during custodial investigation under Section 2(b) of R.A. No. 7438. The Court addressed this contention by treating its relevance as contingent on whether an extrajudicial confession or admission became the basis of conviction, which it found not to be necessary for the administrative determination.

The Court’s Findings

The Court held that the bribery charge was well-substantiated. It stated that respondent’s disavowal could not be credited. It observed that respondent did not deny that the money placed by Nenita Dalangin on the mop was the same money later taken from the drawer of his table in his chambers and handed to the NBI agents. The Court also found that respondent failed to offer any credible explanation for how the money ended up in his desk drawer. On these circumstances, the Court reasoned that respondent himself had taken and possessed the bribe money and had handed it over to the agents.

The Court further invoked the evidentiary presumption under Section 3-k, Rule 131, Revised Rules of Court, which presumes that a person found in possession of a thing taken in the doing of a recent wrongful act is the taker and the doer of the whole act. Applying that logic to respondent’s possession of the bribe money, the Court concluded that there was no longer any serious question that respondent was a bribe taker in the case.

In assessing respondent’s alternative narrative, the Court found his claim of harmless private meetings unpersuasive. It emphasized that judges should refrain from conducting in-chambers sessions in the absence of the opposing party and counsel. It considered the private sessions that occurred on November 20 and 27, 1996 to merit reproof because respondent conferred privately with the mothers in his chambers.

Finally, the Court placed weight on Agent Cabardo’s testimony. It described Cabardo as a law enforcement officer and also as a disinterested observer, and it held that her testimony “shreds” whatever credibility respondent sought to establish through his defense. The Court noted that respondent offered no reason why Cabardo should not be believed.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court grounded its disciplinary ruling on the Code of Judicial Conduct, particularly the requirement that a judge avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities and behave so as to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the ju

Case Syllabus (A.M. No. MTJ-97-1120)

The National Bureau of Investigation filed an administrative complaint for malfeasance in office against respondent Ramon B. Reyes, then Presiding Judge of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC), Mabini-Tingloy, Batangas.
The Court ultimately dismissed respondent from the service with forfeiture of retirement benefits and leave credits and disbarred him from the practice of law.
The case stemmed from a bribery entrapment involving shabu case detainees’ mothers and the marked money used in the operation.

Parties and Procedural Posture

The complainant was the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), acting as the initiating agency for the administrative complaint.
The respondent was Judge Ramon B. Reyes, an MCTC presiding judge.
The Court treated the matter as an administrative case for malfeasance and conducted proceedings after referral for investigation and report.
The Court suspended respondent from office during the pendency of the administrative case and withheld action on his resignation and request to be detailed elsewhere.
The Court received an investigation report from a delegated investigating justice after an inhibiting circumstance involving a prior investigator.
The Court later issued a resolution requiring respondent to show cause why he should not be disbarred, and when he failed to comply, the Court imposed a fine and conditional imprisonment for nonpayment.
Respondent later filed a compliance/motion for reconsideration, but the Court proceeded after finding the charge well substantiated.
The final resolution resulted in dismissal and disbarment for conduct unbecoming of a member of the bar.

Key Factual Allegations

On November 12, 1996, barangay officials arrested four individuals—Reynaldo Magday, Melvin Dalangin, Rex Cordero, and primo Evangelista—for a drug session involving methamphetamine chloride or shabu.
The four accused were detained at the local police station and were charged under Section 16, in relation to Section 27, of Article III of R.A. No. 6425 (the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972).
The criminal case, Criminal Case No. 1817, was filed before the MCTC of Mabini-Tingloy, Batangas, presided over by respondent.
On November 20, 1996, three mothers of the accused—Nenita Dalangin, Marina Cordero, and Nelia Evangelista—approached respondent to plead for the release of their sons.
Respondent allegedly promised to dismiss the case against all accused for P240,000.00, which was later reduced to P15,000.00, with a scheduled payoff on November 28, 1996.
Respondent allegedly failed to report on November 28, 1996, and the exchange was reset to December 5, 1996.
Three days before the reset date, on December 2, 1996, the mothers reported the extortion to the NBI Regional Office in Batangas City.
After separate sworn statements, the NBI planned an entrapment by preparing marked money and arranging a role for an NBI intelligence agent.
The NBI prepared P3,000.00 consisting of two five-hundred peso bills and twenty-one hundred peso bills and marked each bill with specific identifying notations using invisible ink and dusted the bills with yellow fluorescent powder.
The NBI enlisted intelligence agent Josephine Cabardo to accompany the mothers and pose as the lender of the money.
On the appointed date, the mothers and Cabardo entered respondent’s chambers, where respondent directed a setup that led to the placement of the envelope containing marked money inside the chambers.
Respondent later told the mothers to leave and, after a pre-arranged signal, NBI operatives entered to recover the envelope but initially failed to locate it.
Ultraviolet testing on respondent’s hands yielded a negative result for fluorescent powder, but the rag mop handle showed traces of the yellow fluorescent powder.
Because the NBI operatives did not have a search warrant, they asked respondent to accompany them to the NBI Regional Office for questioning.
During questioning, respondent allegedly confessed that he took the envelope containing the marked money using a handkerchief and placed it inside his desk.
The marked envelope was later found in the uppermost left-hand drawer of respondent’s table, and ultraviolet testing confirmed that the money matched the previously marked and dusted bills.
On December 9, 1996, an Information was filed before the Sandiganbayan charging respondent with violating Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 (the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act).
On the administrative side, the Court treated the bribery entrapment as evidence of malfeasance in office and conduct unbecoming of a member of the bar.

Entrapment Mechanics

The NBI marked bills with identifiers and used invisible ink and yellow fluorescent powder to create forensic traceability.
Cabardo accompanied the mothers and served as a participant meant to corroborate the scheme and facilitate a controlled delivery.
The NBI operatives planned the scene so that the marked money would be placed in respondent’s chamber areas before the signal to enter.
Respondent instructed one of the mothers, and the envelope containing marked money was placed on a rag mop above the toilet latrine in respondent’s chambers.
Respondent then directed the women to exit on the pretext that he was warm.
NBI operatives entered after the pre-arranged signal but encountered a difficulty because the envelope could not be immediately located.
Forensic observation showed traces on the rag mop handle even though respondent’s hands tested negative for fluorescent powder at the time of initial recovery attempts.
The operation then shifted to a lawful-cooperation pathway by requesting respondent to accompany operatives to the Regional Office due to the absence of a search warrant.
The NBI operatives later recovered the envelope from respondent’s desk drawer and confirmed the marking through ultraviolet testing.
The operational narrative relied on the recovery and testing of marked bills and respondent’s confession during questioning.

Respondent’s Defenses

Respondent denied the essential circumstances surrounding receipt and disposition of the bribe money during his chambers encounter.
Respondent claimed that the mothers’ meeting with him was an accommodation based on his familiarity with Nelia Evangelista.
Respondent asserted that he never demanded or suggested any amount in consideration for dismissal of the case.
Respondent alleged that he advised the mothers to secure counsel and to pursue bail in accordance with guidelines.
Respondent stated that he had already signed an endorsement to the Provincial Prosecutor on November 27, 1996, and had transmitted the records, making it a