EN BANC the mothers executed separate sworn

statements,[1] the NBI planned an

[A.M. No. MTJ-97-1120. February 21, entrapment. To accomplish this, it prepared
2000] the amount of P3,000.00 consisting of two
five-hundred peso bills and twenty
NATIONAL BUREAU OF onehundred peso bills. These bills were
INVESTIGATION, complainant, vs. individually marked "P-96-187, ATP/NMC,
JUDGE RAMON B. REYES, respondent. 12/3/96, FCD, NBI" using invisible ink and
dusted with yellow fluorescent powder.
[2]
DECISION  The NBI also enlisted the services of
Intelligence Agent Josephine Cabardo to
PER CURIAM: accompany the mothers to respondents
office, and who posed as the lender of the
money.
Before us is an administrative complaint for
malfeasance brought by the National
Bureau of Investigation against respondent On the appointed date, Dalangin, Cordero
Ramon B. Reyes, Presiding Judge of and Evangelista, together with Cabardo
Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC), appeared at respondents chambers. He
Mabini-Tingloy, Batangas. gave Evangelista a piece of yellow pad
paper on which to write a motion for
reconsideration to be filed with the Regional
The facts are: Xlaw
Trial Court.[3] Dalangin, on the other hand,
on instruction of respondent, entered the
On the evening of November 12, 1996, adjoining latrine and placed the envelope
barangay officials of Barangay Majuben, containing the marked money on top of a
Mabini, Batangas, arrested Reynaldo rag mop placed above the latrine.[4] On re-
Magday, Melvin Dalangin, Rex Cordero and entering the room, respondent told the
primo Evangelista, who were caught using women to leave the room on the pretext that
methamphetamine chloride, popularly he was feeling a little warm. The women
known as shabu, during a drug session. The exited, and a few moments later, after a pre-
four (4) were detained a t the local police arranged signal was given, the NBI
station and were charged of violating operatives entered respondents
Section 16, in relation to Section 27, of chambers. Sc
Article III of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6425,
otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs
A slight complication developed, however.
Act of 1972. The corresponding information,
The agents were unable to locate the
docketed as Criminal Case No. 1817, was
envelope. Ultraviolet testing on respondents
filed before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court
hands conducted by a forensic chemist
of Mabini-Tingloy, Batangas, presided over
yielded a negative result, although the rag
by respondent Judge Ramon B. Reyes.
mop handle showed traces of the yellow
fluorescent powder. Since the agents were
On November 20, 1996, Nenita Dalangin, not armed with a search warrant, they
Marina Cordero and Nelia Evangelista, the instead asked respondent to accompany
mothers of the last three (3) accused, them to the regional office. During the
approached respondent to plead for the questioning, respondent confessed that he
release of their sons. For the sum of had taken the envelope containing the
P240,000.00, respondent allegedly marked money using a handkerchief and
promised to dismiss the case against all the placed it inside his desk. Respondent
accused. Since the mothers did not have returned to his office with the agents and
sufficient means, the amount was eventually opened the uppermost left-hand drawer of
lowered to P15,000.00, and the pay-off was his table where the envelope was found.
scheduled on November 28, 1996. When tested with ultraviolet light, the money
However, respondent failed to report for inside the envelope was found to be that
work on the aforesaid date, so the previously marked and dusted by the NBI.
exchange was reset a week later to
December 5, 1996. Xsc
On December 9, 1996 an Information[5] was
filed before the Sandiganbayan charging
Three (3) days before the pay-off, on respondent for violating Section 3(e) of R.A.
December 2, 1996, Dalangin, Cordero and No. 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft
Evangelista reported the alleged extortion to and Corrupt Practices Act. Scmis
the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) at
its Regional Office in Batangas City. After
On January 20, 1997, the NBI referred the table drawer and handed it over to the
matter to us for appropriate action, via a NBI agents. Indeed, the bribe money
letter[6] coursed through the Office of the was in his possession when he gave it
Court Administrator. Prior thereto, on up to the NBI agents. Having been in
January 9, 1997, respondent filed a possession of the bribe money that
letter[7] resigning from his position, citing was given to him, there can no longer
health reasons. He filed another letter dated be any question as to his receipt of it.
January 15, 1997[8] requesting that he be By analogy the presumption in the rule
allowed to work at the Judiciary Planning of evidence "that a person found in
Development and Implementation Office possession of a thing taken in the
(JPDIO) pending action on his resignation doing of a recent wrongful act is the
and until his health improves. In due time, taker and the doer of the whole act x x
the Office of the Court Administrator sent a x" (Section 3-k, Rule 131, Revised
letter dated February 7, 1997[9] to Rules of Court), is applicable against
respondent directing him to submit his him. There can be no question any
comment on the report filed by complainant. more that respondent Judge is a bribe
Respondent complied, filing a letter dated taker in this case."[16]
February 17, 1997[10] whereby he alleged
that he was not accorded his rights during Consistent with his findings, he
custodial investigation under Section 2(b) of recommended that respondent be
R.A. No. 7438.[11] dismissed from service with forfeiture of
benefits and disqualification from re-
Thereafter, we issued a Resolution dated employment in the government including
April 28, 1997[12] referring the administrative government-owned or controlled
complaint to Executive Judge Mario Lopez corporations. He also recommended
of the Regional Trial Court of Batangas City respondents disbarment.Misspped
for investigation, report and
recommendation, and further directing him In view of the aforesaid recommendation,
to designate an Acting Presiding Judge in we issued a Resolution on April 20, 1999
the MCTC of Mabini-Tingloy. In the requiring respondent to show cause why he
meantime, we suspended respondent from should not be disbarred. He failed to comply
his office and withheld action on his within the period allowed him. Thus, in our
resignation and request to be detailed at the Resolution of September 14, 1999, we
JPDIO. He subsequently withdrew his imposed upon him a fine of P2,000.00
resignation,[13] which was duly noted per our payable within five (5) days from notice, or
Resolution of July 7, 1997. However, after imprisonment for five (5) days should he fail
Judge Lopez inhibited himself from the to pay the fine on time.
proceedings, citing close personal ties to
respondent,[14] we referred the matter to On October 1, 1999, respondent filed his
former Associate Justice Pedro A. Ramirez "Compliance /Motion for Reconsideration,"
of the Court of Appeals for investigation and wherein he reiterated the alleged
report.[15] infringement of his rights during custodial
investigation, as guaranteed by the
After reception of the parties respective Constitution and R.A. No. 7438. In addition,
evidence, the Investigating Justice rendered he averred that the private complainants
his Report dated August 12, 1998. The were guilty of instigation. The
Investigating Justice disbelieved compliance/motion was duly noted but the
respondents defense and ruled motion for reconsideration was denied.[17]
accordingly: Missc
Respondents account of the entrapment
"Respondent Judge never denied that differs. In his counter-affidavit filed before
the money that was placed by Nenita the Office of the Special Prosecutor, and
Dalangin on the floor mop atop the which the parties agreed would constitute
toilet bowl was the same money that respondents direct examination,[18] he
was taken by him from the drawer of claimed:
his table in his chamber and was
handed by him to the NBI agents. "3. On or about November 20, 1996,
Neither did he explain how the money three (3) women, who turned out to be
happened to be in the drawer of his Nenita Dalangin, Nenita Evangelista and
table in his chamber. It is clear, Marina Cordero, the mothers of the
however, that it was respondent Judge Accused in the above case, asked to
himself who took the money from his talk to me. Considering that Nelia
Evangelista was an acquaintance, I in consideration for the dismissal of the
agreed to talk with the women in my criminal complaint against their sons.
chambers. Inside my chambers is a Neither did they tell me that they were
toilet which I and the personnel of the coming back in the afternoon of said
Court and even lawyers and private date to any reasons whatsoever. I never
individuals use. The door to my could have agreed to dismiss the case
chambers could be seen from the against the sons of the three (3) women
outside through open jalusie [sic] and to receive money from the latter in
smoked glass windows on the walls consideration of said demand because I
dividing my chambers and the area already decided to endorse the case to
outside my chambers; the Provincial Prosecutor;Jospped

"4. The three (3) women pleaded to "7. On December 5, 1996, in the
me that I dismiss the criminal morning, the three women with another
complaint against their sons. However, woman, arrived in my chambers and
I told the women that I cannot accede again pleaded that I intercede in behalf
to their request. I suggested that they of their sons with the Office of the
secure the services of counsel to Provincial Prosecutor. The woman,
represent their sons in connection with who was with the three (3) mothers of
their case and have their children post the Accused, who was a complete
bail. When the women asked me how stranger to me was not introduced to
much was the bail for their children, I me. I considered it odd and suspicious
told the amount as provided for in the that the three (3) women would be
guidelines issued by the department of accompanied by another woman when,
Justice. I never suggested to the on the other two (2) occasions that they
women, and neither did I ever talked to me, they were not
demand, that they give me any accompanied by any other person at
amount in consideration for the all. However, I told the women that I
dismissal for [sic] the criminal cannot intercede for them in the Office
complaint against their sons; Spped of the Provincial Prosecutor. However, I
suggested to them to make inquiries
"5. On November 27, 1996, I signed a from the Office of the Provincial
1st Indorsement to the Provincial Prosecutor about the case of their sons
Prosecutor, hereto attached as Exhibit if the charges had already been filed
"2", endorsing the case to the latter against them with the court, for them
and transmitting the records of said (the three women) to prepare money
case, pursuant to Section 7, Rule 112 for the bail bonds of their sons. I
of the Rules of Court. On November suggested also that they write a letter
28, 1996, my Clerk of Court to the Provincial Prosecutor requesting
transmitted the records of the case to for his help for the release of their sons
the Provincial Prosecutor with a from detention after posting bail with
covering letter, hereto attached as this Court. The three (3) women then
Exhibit "3"; told me that they had the money for the
bail of their children and Nenita
"6. On November 27, 1996 in the Dalangin showed to me an envelope.
morning, the three (3) women saw me in The three (3) women then prepared the
my chambers and pleaded anew that I letter that I suggested. However, I went
dismiss the criminal complaint against out of my chambers and proceeded to
the children. However, I told the women the Office of the Clerk of Court for
that I cannot accede to their pleas. I told some official matters, leaving the four
them I had already signed earlier that (4) women in my chambers. When I
day an endorsement of the case to the returned to my chambers I saw the
Provincial Prosecutor and the transmittal three women had already prepared and
of the records against their sons to the signed the letter. Inexplicably, however,
Provincial Prosecutor. I suggested that the three (3) women, with their woman
they wait for the transmittal of the companion, stood up and placed the
records of the case to the Provincial envelope on my table and then
Prosecutor and for them to make their prepared to leave hurriedly. I was
representations with the Provincial perplexed by the odd behavior of the
Prosecutor in connection with said case. four (4) women. Ominously, when I
The three (3) women never made any glanced outside my chambers, I saw
offer on said occasion to give me money some male persons, who I later
learned, turned out to be NBI agents, in the toilet with the use of a
the premises of the court. Sensing that handkerchief and placed the money
the three (3) women, with their in the drawer of my table, for sure,
companion, were up to something they would have found the
wrong, I told the women to throw the handkerchief in my pocket and
envelope containing the money in the subjected the same for testing for
toilet trash. The three (3) women fluorescent powder. However, the
rsuhed to the toilet and came out NBI agents never did ask me to turn
immediately. The four (4) women then over to them my handkerchief. They
rushed out of my chambers. Suddenly, never submitted any handkerchief as
male persons, who later identified evidence in the Office of the
themselves as NBI agents, barged in to Ombudsdman in connection with their
my chambers and rushed to the toilet. complaint against me."[19]
When they emerged from the toilet,
they demanded that I go with them to We have reviewed the record and thereby
their office. I was shocked by the conclude that the charge of bribery against
sudden turn of events. Nevertheless, I respondent is well-substantiated.
agreed to the demand of the NBI Respondents disavowal of the events that
agents. I was tested for fluorescent transpired in his chambers cannot be given
powder but was found negative of credence. His assertion that his initial
fluorescent powder; meeting with the private complainants was
an accomodation borne out of a casual
"8. The NBI agents much later acquaintance with Nelia Evangelista fails to
demanded that I return with them to persuade us. The fact alone that he
my office and I agreed to their conferred privately with them in his
demand. When we arrived in my chambers merits reproof. Judges have been
chambers, one of the agents [sic]; admonished to refrain from conducting in-
chambers sessions in the absence of the
"9. At no time did I ever tell the NBI opposing party and his counsel.[20] We note
agents that I got the money from that these "private" sessions occurred twice,
inside the toilet with the use of a on November 20 and 27, 1996. Miso
handkerchief and placed the same in
the drawer in my table in the The testimony of Intelligence Agent
chambers. They did not open, right Josephine Cabardo, in particular, shreds
then and there, the drawer in my whatever credibility respondents proferred
table. It was only in the afternoon of defense has. Cabardo, a disinterested
that day when the NBI agents observer in addition to being a law
returned to my chambers, in my enforcement officer, corroborated the
company, when they took the money testimonies of the private complainants. She
in the drawer of my table. From the was a direct witness to the entrapment
time the NBI agents took me to their operation, and equally important,
office, I never left the NBI office. I respondent failed to present any reason
could not have placed the money in why her testimony should be disbelieved.
my drawer after I had left from my
office in the company of the NBI Nonetheless, respondent raises by way of
agents. The money found in the defense the alleged deprivation of his right
drawer of my table in my court to counsel during the investigation in the
chambers must have been the same NBI Regional Office. Suffice it to state,
money which the NBI men found in however, that the alleged infringement of
the toilet in my chambers and which the constitutional rights of the accused while
they took from the toilet. The money under custodial investigation is relevant and
which the NBI men took from the material only where an extrajudicial
toilet had been in the possession of confession or admission from the accused
the NBI men, all along until the becomes the basis of his conviction.[21] In
money was found in the drawer of my the case at bench, there is sufficient
table in my chambers. It is thus evidence on record, consisting principally of
impossible for me to have placed the the testimonies of the witnesses presented
money in the drawer of my table; by complainant, to warrant the imposition of
[and] Sppedjo the proper penalty on respondent.

"10. If as claimed by the NBI agents, I The Code of Judicial Conduct provides:
told them that I took the money from
 "CANON 2A JUDGE SHOULD Court condemns in the
AVOID IMPROPRIETY AND THE strongest possible terms the
APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY misconduct of respondent
IN ALL ACTIVITIES.Nexold Judge. It is this kind of gross
and flaunting misconduct on
Rule 2.01-A judge should so behave the part of those who are
at all times as to promote public charged with the
confidence in the integrity and responsibility of
impartiality of the judiciary." administering the law and
rendering justice that so
It is thus evident from the aforesaid quickly and surely corrodes
provisions that both the reality and the respect for law and the
the appearance must concur. As we courts without which
explained in Capuno v. Jaramillo, Jr.:[22] government cannot continue
and that tears apart the very
"xxx It bears repeating that integrity in bonds of our polity." Manikx
a judicial office is more than a virtue; it
is a necessity. xxx Hence, the role of The Investigating Justice likewise
the judiciary in bringing justice to recommends that respondent be disbarred.
conflicting interests in society cannot Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules
be overemphasized. As the visible of Court provides that a member of the bar
representation of law and justice, may be disbarred or suspended from his
judges are expected to conduct office as attorney on the following grounds:
themselves in a manner that would (1) deceit; (2) malpractice or other gross
enhance the respect and confidence misconduct in office; (3) grossly immoral
of our people in the judicial system. conduct; (4) conviction of a crime involving
They are particularly mandated not moral turpitude; (5) violation of the lawyers
only to uphold the integrity and oath; (6) wilful disobedience of any lawful
independence of the judiciary but also order of a superior court; and (7) wilfully
to avoid impropriety and the appearing as an attorney for a party without
appearance of impropriety in their authority. InThe Court Administrator v.
action. For judges sit as the Hermoso[26] and Bautista v. Guevarra,[27] we
embodiment of the peoples sense of decreed the disbarment of judges, apart
justice, their last recourse where all from their dismissal from service, who were
other institutions have failed." charged with bribery. The case at bar
should be no different. All lawyers who
Bribery is classified as a serious charge desire to practice their profession in this
punishable by, inter alia, dismissal from jurisdiction are required to take an oath of
service with forfeiture of benefits and office whereby they undertake, among other
disqualification from reinstatement or obligations, to "do no falsehood, nor
appointment to any public office including consent to the doing of any in court xxx
government-owned or controlled without any mental reservation or purpose
corporations.[23] In the case at bench, we of evasion."[28] The practice of law is a
find sufficient bases in the charge of privilege, and only those adjudged qualified
malfeasance in office against respondent. are permitted to do so. Respondents
On past occasions where we had the conduct falls short of the exacting standards
disagreeable task of disciplining mulcting demanded by the legal profession, such that
magistrates,[24] we did not hesitate to his malfeasance in office merits the ultimate
impose the penalty of dismissal. penalty, that of expulsion from our
Conformably, as he has demonstrated his esteemed brotherhood.
unsuitability to remain a member of the
bench, respondent is deservingly dismissed WHEREFORE, respondent Ramon B.
from service with all its attendant Reyes is hereby DISMISSED from the
consequences. For as we held in Haw Tay service, with forfeiture of all retirement
v. Singayao:[25] benefits and leave credits and with
prejudice to re-employment in any branch or
"xxx The acts of respondent instrumentality of the government, including
Judge in demanding and government-owned or controlled
receiving money from a corporations. Further, he is hereby
party-litigant before his court DISBARRED from the practice of law for
constitutes serious conduct unbecoming of a member of the
misconduct in office. This bar.
SO ORDERED. Maniks

Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno,

Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban,
Quisumbing, Purisima, Pardo, Gonzaga-
Reyes, Ynares-Santiago, and De Leon, Jr.,
JJ., concur.

Buena, J., on leave.