A.M. No. RTJ-04-1827; June 30, 2005
Atty. Friolo R. Icao, Jr., Chief, N.B.I., Pagadian District Office, complainant, vs. Hon. Reinerio B. Ramas, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Atty. Friolo R. Icao, Jr., Chief of the NBI Pagadian Office, filed an administrative complaint against respondent Judge Reinerio B. Ramas of the RTC, Branch 18, Pagadian City. The complaint alleged that the judge colluded with a public prosecutor to frustrate justice in Criminal Case Nos. 6515-2K2 and 6516-2K2, which arose from an NBI investigation. Specifically, complainant charged that the judge, motu proprio, deferred the accused’s arraignment to allow the filing of motions to quash, personally drafted the prosecutor’s “Comment to the Motions to Quash,” and made the prosecutor sign it. As purported evidence, complainant pointed out that the prosecutor’s comment and a subsequent court order appeared to have been drafted using the same typewriter.
Judge Ramas denied all allegations, asserting the complaint was baseless. The Supreme Court referred the case to Court of Appeals Justice Aurora Santiago-Lagman for investigation. After a careful review, Justice Lagman found the complaint devoid of merit, noting the complainant failed to present any corroborating evidence for his claims.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Reinerio B. Ramas is administratively liable for alleged collusion with a prosecutor to frustrate the ends of justice.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the administrative complaint for lack of merit. The Court emphasized that the quantum of evidence required in administrative proceedings is only a preponderance of evidence, meaning evidence that, as a whole, makes the fact sought to be proved more probable than not. In this case, the complainant failed to meet this burden.
The Court adopted the findings of the investigating justice, which highlighted the absence of any substantiating evidence. The complainant’s bare allegations were refuted by the defense counsels’ joint affidavit confirming they moved to defer arraignment. Furthermore, the complainant admitted he was not present at the arraignment, thus lacking personal knowledge of the proceedings. His claim regarding the use of the same typewriter for two documents remained a mere speculation, unsupported by any proof of the judge’s actual participation in drafting the prosecutor’s comment. Such speculation, without more, cannot establish any agreement or collusion. The Court upheld the disputable presumptions that a judge performed his duties regularly and is innocent of the charges unless proven otherwise. Consequently, with no preponderant evidence presented, the respondent judge could not be held administratively liable.