Case Summary (G.R. No. 221813)
Summary of Administrative Findings
The Supreme Court found Judge Jacinto guilty of 17 counts of gross ignorance of the law relating to his handling of criminal cases involving illegal drugs. Specifically, he improperly granted motions for rehabilitation and transferred the custody of accused persons without the necessary endorsements from the Dangerous Drugs Board or examinations by accredited physicians, violating Sections 54 and 57 of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165, the Comprehensive Drugs Act. He was also found guilty of gross misconduct for transferring a prisoner without the Supreme Court's approval, resulting in an eight-month unjustified custody transfer. Consequently, he was dismissed from service with forfeiture of retirement benefits and ordered to pay a fine of P30,000.
Motion for Judicial Clemency
In May 2022, Judge Jacinto filed a motion for judicial clemency, expressing remorse for his previous actions. He cited his long tenure of 39 years in the judiciary, personal struggles affecting his judgment, and his family’s financial situation as justifications for the restoration of his retirement benefits. He indicated that his health issues necessitated regular medical check-ups and asserted that he had waived his rights to inherit real properties from his deceased wife, relying on the expected restoration of his benefits.
Supporting Testimonials
To support his motion, Jacinto provided letters from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Occidental Mindoro Chapter and the Municipal Social Welfare and Development Office (MSWDO), lauding his past judicial conduct and character. They described him as compassionate, fair, and diligent in his duties, reinforcing his request for clemency based on perceived positive contributions to the local judiciary and community.
Legal Standards for Clemency
The Court noted that requests for judicial clemency are examined on a case-by-case basis and must be supported by evidence demonstrating remorse, reformation, and potential for future good service. The guidelines established in cases such as Re: Diaz and Re: Ong detail the necessary conditions for clemency, including proof of sincere repentance, the elapse of sufficient time since the imposition of penalties, and a demonstration of potential for productive engagement in the legal field.
Assessment of the Motion
The Court determined that Jacinto's motion did not meet the required five-year time frame necessary for reconsideration of his administrative penalties, nor did it present extraordinary reasons justifying an early request for clemen
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 221813)
Introduction
- This case involves an administrative complaint against Hon. Jose S. Jacinto, Jr., the presiding judge of Branch 45, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Jose, Occidental Mindoro.
- The Supreme Court issued a resolution addressing an anonymous complaint that resulted in findings of gross ignorance of the law and misconduct against the respondent.
Background of the Case
- The Supreme Court received a manifestation with a motion from former Judge Jose S. Jacinto, Jr., dated May 10, 2022, seeking judicial clemency.
- The Court had previously found him guilty of 17 counts of gross ignorance of the law relating to criminal cases involving illegal drugs, leading to his dismissal from service and forfeiture of retirement benefits, except for leave credits.
Findings of the Court
Gross Ignorance of the Law:
- The respondent was found guilty of issuing unwarranted orders in 17 criminal cases involving illegal drugs, specifically granting motions for rehabilitation without proper endorsements or examinations.
- His actions violated Sections 54 and 57 of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act.
- Transferring custody of accused individuals to the Provincial Parole and Probation Office was deemed inappropriate as it is not designated as a detention facility for such cases.
Gross Misconduct:
- In Civil Case No. 1792, the respondent transferred the custody of pri