A.M. No. RTJ-99-1453 - Sinnott vs. Barte

Case Summary (A.M. No. RTJ-99-1453)

Factual Background of the Underlying Criminal Cases

The records showed that Demetria Pedrano, a lay leader of the Roman Catholic Church in Barrio Laperian, left her home in Laperian to pay land taxes in Poblacion, San Miguel. Upon her return that afternoon, she was shot in the mouth by one of three men waiting at her residence. Basilia Pedrano, Demetria’s mother and an inhabitant of the house, was hacked to death. A seven-year-old niece, Lolita Pedrano Pingkian, survived by running away when the killings began.

Afterward, state prosecutors filed two murder charges against Nenito Gadonan for the killing of Demetria and Basilia. The criminal cases were raffled to the Regional Trial Court, Branch 29, presided over by respondent judge, Judge Recaredo P. Barte. On January 20, 1995, the trial court promulgated a joint decision acquitting Gadonan of two counts of murder on reasonable doubt.

Filing of the Administrative Complaint and the Alleged Basis for Bias

On March 29, 1995, the complainants filed a letter-complaint with the Office of the Court Administrator, Supreme Court, alleging bias and partiality in the conduct of the criminal trials and the resulting acquittal. They asserted that the evidence was overwhelming that Gadonan killed Basilia and Demetria, but respondent judge allegedly deliberately ignored or failed to give weight to such evidence. They attributed the alleged bias to respondent judge’s purported special personal relationship with a daughter of Gadonan, as well as to the fact that Gadonan’s other daughter had been respondent judge’s house helper.

The complainants prayed for a mistrial and a retrial of the criminal cases. The Supreme Court required respondent judge to file a comment on June 21, 1995, and on September 1, 1995 respondent submitted his comment.

Respondent Judge’s Comment and Defense

Respondent judge denied bias and partiality. He stated that he would have inhibited himself had complainants filed a motion asking him to inhibit. He emphasized that, from arraignment to promulgation, no inhibition motion had been filed. Respondent admitted that a daughter of Gadonan was once his house helper, but stated that she left his household before the criminal cases were raffled to him. He denied any special relationship with another daughter and described the allegations as wild rumors lacking testimony establishing their truth.

Respondent also argued that the administrative complaint was not the proper remedy to secure a retrial of the criminal cases. He further claimed that complainants or the prosecution failed to act within the period for filing motions and other remedies available while the cases were still pending, or during the time for filing a motion for reconsideration. He added that the prosecution failed to present vital witnesses or rebuttal evidence and did not propound clarificatory questions that would have proven guilt.

With respect to the eyewitness Lolita Pedrano Pingkian, respondent said he did not give credence to her testimony because of material inconsistencies. Respondent also alleged that the filing of the administrative case was not a proper substitute for other judicial remedies.

Additional Allegations and the NBI Disposition Report

On September 11, 1995, the Court received a letter from Fr. Sinnot alleging threats against his life, together with an affidavit of Vicente Gerebise, a process server. In his affidavit dated August 9, 1995, Gerebise claimed that, sometime in the final week of July 1995, respondent judge called him from Manila and asked him to look for hired killers to assassinate a foreign priest and other human rights activists who had filed the administrative case. Gerebise said respondent also called him again at 6:00 in the morning on August 9, 1995 and inquired whether he had found the hired killers. Gerebise admitted he did not refuse because respondent judge had been his former boss, but he stated that he did not comply with the request.

Thereafter, the Court requested the National Bureau of Investigation to conduct an investigation in view of the gravity of the administrative charges. The NBI Disposition Report dated March 24, 1997 reported that in July 1994, respondent judge, then executive judge of the Regional Trial Court of Zamboanga del Sur, was introduced to Richel Gadunan. The NBI reported that Richel submitted a sworn statement claiming that respondent, using power, money, and trickery, succeeded in making her sexual advances, and that an illicit relationship ensued. The NBI stated that Richel gave birth to a child in Pasay City General Hospital on May 16, 1996, and that the birth certificate indicated respondent judge was the father and that Richel married respondent judge in Pagadian City on June 13, 1994. The NBI procured the certified true copy of the birth certificate of Mary Ruth Gadunan Barte and found that no marriage certificate was filed with the civil registry of Pagadian City.

In conclusion, the NBI recommended that administrative charges for immorality and grave misconduct be filed, and it also considered disbarment. However, it found no proof that respondent judge had attempted to hire killers to assassinate Fr. Sinnot and other activists.

Referral for Investigation and Reception of Evidence

On July 1, 1998, the Supreme Court referred the case to Associate Justice Marina L. Buzon of the Court of Appeals for investigation, report, and recommendation. On October 12, 1998, the Court denied Associate Justice Buzon’s motion to inhibit and denied respondent’s motions relating to disqualification, access to complainants’ evidence, and resetting of the proceedings. The Court authorized Associate Justice Buzon to designate the executive judge, Regional Trial Court, Pagadian City, to receive complainants’ evidence.

On July 19, 1999, the Supreme Court denied respondent’s motion to resume investigation in Manila and directed that reception of evidence continue in Pagadian City, with dispatch, to avoid undue expense. On April 10, 2000, the investigating justice reported that on March 10, 2000, she had received the record, including transcripts and documentary evidence forwarded by the executive judge of the Regional Trial Court, Pagadian City.

Testimonies were taken in Pagadian City from Ricardo Pajardo, Virginia Pestanas, Vicente Gerebise, Fr. Michael Sinnott, and Larry Dominguez. Ricardo Pajardo testified that respondent judge’s wife occasionally visited respondent’s office and recounted an incident on February 9, 1995 when Mrs. Barte allegedly demanded confirmation of a reported affair and scolded staff using derogatory language. Virginia Pestanas testified about letters received from Richel Gadunan and, after the criminal trial, about revelations from respondent’s staff concerning the relationship between respondent and Gadunan’s daughter. Vicente Gerebise testified that Richel was his neighbor and that he carried letters exchanged between respondent and Richel. Fr. Michael Sinnot testified that respondent judge and his wife approached him on two occasions seeking withdrawal of the administrative complaint, and Fr. Sinnot also stated that respondent offered to help file firearms-related charges against Gadonan. The NBI agent, Larry Dominguez, testified that Richel admitted the sexual relationship and claimed that they were married with a child, and that Richel provided letters written under the pseudonym Nards Jiz. Dominguez confirmed Richel’s birth certificate details with civil registries and reported that no marriage record was found in Pagadian City. Richel failed to appear when subpoenaed to testify.

Respondent judge, for his part, testified in the Court of Appeals regarding his appointment, assignments, the duration and dates of the criminal trials, and the manner by which the cases were submitted for decision. He also stated that during the criminal proceedings, no motion for his inhibition or other relevant motions were filed before promulgation. He further testified that he retired from judicial service on September 3, 1998 upon reaching the age of seventy.

The Court’s Assessment of Administrative Proof and Substantial Evidence

The Supreme Court treated the administrative complaint as an action in which complainants bore the burden of proving the allegations by substantial evidence. The Court defined substantial evidence as the relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. It then examined the record to determine whether complainants established the specific charges of bias and partiality and whether the evidence supported other findings relevant to judicial discipline.

The Court found that substantial evidence supported the allegation that respondent judge had sexual relations with a woman other than his wife. It found that respondent was married and a member of the judiciary. It emphasized that the NBI obtained a certified true copy of the birth certificate of the child born to Richel Gadunan, showing that the child, Mary Ruth Gadunan Barte, was born on May 16, 1996 at the Pasay City General Hospital, and that respondent judge was indicated as the father. The Court noted that respondent did not deny the relationship after learning of the NBI results, and instead attacked the moral integrity of the NBI investigator.

The Court also considered the letters obtained from Richel identified as being in respondent’s handwriting, and testimony from a former employee that letters were delivered by respondent between respondent and Richel. The Court acknowledged that Richel did not testify in the administrative hearing because she failed to appear after being subpoenaed. It explained that while affidavits alone may be self-serving and should generally be supported by testimonial evidence subject to cross-examination, it would be unrealistic to require Richel to testify against her lover while she still depended on him for financial support for her child. The Court reasoned that respondent’s i

Case Syllabus (A.M. No. RTJ-99-1453)

The case involved an administrative complaint against Judge Recaredo P. Barte of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 29, Zamboanga del Sur for bias and partiality.
The complaint targeted the judge’s acquittal of Nenito Gadonan, the accused in a double murder case decided in the judge’s sala.
The Supreme Court resolved the administrative liability of the respondent judge without revisiting the correctness of the acquittal judgment on the merits.

Parties and Procedural Posture

The complainants were Erlinda Pedrano Pingkian, Rosita Pedrano Lopez, Alfredo Pedrano, Gaspar Pedrano, Antonio Pedrano, Carino Pedrano, Fr. Michael Sinnot, SSC, Corazon Mendoza, and Virginia Baling Pestanas.
The respondent was Judge Recaredo P. Barte, presiding judge of RTC Branch 29, Zamboanga del Sur.
The complainants filed a letter-complaint with the Office of the Court Administrator, Supreme Court on March 29, 1995.
The Supreme Court required the respondent to file a comment on June 21, 1995, and the respondent complied on September 1, 1995.
After submission of additional allegations and evidence, the Court ordered further proceedings by referring the case to an Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals for investigation, report, and recommendation.
The Court received and considered evidence through hearings conducted in Pagadian City after issuance of procedural orders directing reception of evidence and dispatch in the investigation.
The investigating justice ultimately recommended dismissal for insufficiency of evidence, but the Court reached a contrary conclusion on the basis of the record.

Key Factual Allegations

The underlying criminal case arose from the early morning shooting of Demetria Pedrano and the hacking to death of Basilia Pedrano, mother of Demetria, at their residence in Barrio Laperian, Zamboanga del Sur.
A third victim, Lolita Pedrano Pingkian, survived by fleeing when the killings began.
State prosecutors filed two murder charges against Nenito Gadonan for the killings of Demetria and Basilia, and the cases were raffled to RTC Branch 29 presided by the respondent.
On January 20, 1995, the trial court promulgated a joint decision acquitting Gadonan on reasonable doubt in both cases (Criminal Case Nos. 0474 and 0475).
The complainants alleged that the acquittal resulted from the respondent’s bias and partiality, anchored on a purported special personal relationship with a daughter of Gadonan and that another daughter was the judge’s former house helper.
The complainants argued that the judge should have inhibited himself due to the alleged personal relationship and asked for a mistrial and retrial of the criminal cases.
Respondent denied bias and asserted that no motion to inhibit was filed from arraignment through promulgation.
Respondent also claimed that he suffered from a sexually debilitating disease affecting his ability to have erection or reach orgasm, and he challenged the administrative complaint as an improper vehicle for retrial.

Evidence and Investigation Highlights

After the Supreme Court received the complaint and respondent’s comment, Fr. Sinnott reported alleged threats and attached an affidavit of Vicente Gerebise, a former process server.
In his affidavit dated August 9, 1995, Vicente A. Gerebise alleged that in July and again on August 9, 1995, respondent asked him to look for hired killers to assassinate a foreign priest and other human rights activists who filed the administrative case.
The affidavit admitted that Gerebise did not refuse the request because respondent was his former boss, though Gerebise stated he did not comply.
National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) investigation later produced findings relevant to the respondent’s moral character and conduct.
The NBI reported that respondent, while executive judge, had been introduced to Richel Gadunan in July 1994, and Richel submitted a sworn statement alleging that respondent succeeded in making sexual advances on her using power, money, and trickery.
The NBI reported that Richel gave birth in Pasay City General Hospital on May 16, 1996, and the birth certificate indicated respondent as the father and that Richel claimed a marriage occurred on June 13, 1994 in Pagadian City.
The NBI found no marriage certificate filed with the civil registry of Pagadian City and recommended administrative charges for immorality and grave misconduct, and a separate petition for disbarment, but it found no proof of an attempt to hire killers.
The Court conducted reception of evidence in Pagadian City, where witnesses testified on events and communications involving the respondent and Richel and on respondent’s alleged approach to dissuade prosecution of the administrative case.

Witness Testimony Themes

Ricardo Pajardo, a sheriff in the respondent’s court, testified that Mrs. Barte, respondent’s wife, occasionally went to the office of respondent and, on February 9, 1995, confronted respondent’s staff about alleged rumors of an affair.
Virginia Pestanas, a human rights worker, testified she received letters allegedly from Richel Gadunan requesting respondent’s meeting and asking respondent to buy medicine.
Pestanas further testified that, after the criminal trial, she informed Fr. Michael Sinnott about the relationship between respondent and a daughter of Gadonan as revealed to her by a staff member.
Vicente Gerebise testified that he was a neighbor of Richel and delivered letters between Richel and respondent twice a week, though he did not claim knowledge of the exact status of the relationship.
Fr. Michael Sinnott testified that, on two occasions, respondent and his wife approached him to convince him to withdraw the administrative complaint, and respondent allegedly offered assistance related to charging Gadonan with illegal possession of firearms.
Larry Dominguez, an NBI special agent, testified that Richel admitted a sexual relationship with respondent and that they had a chil