G.R. No. A.M. No. MTJ-13-1823. March 19, 2014.
P/SR. INSP. TEDDY M. ROSQUETA, Complainant, vs. JUDGE JONATHAN A. ASUNCION, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, BRANCH 2, LAOAG CITY, Respondent.

FACTS

On April 25, 2008, police officers apprehended Fidel Refuerzo, who was found in possession of a DAEWOO 9mm pistol (serial no. BA 005280). Investigation revealed Refuerzo worked as an associate/bodyguard of respondent Judge Jonathan A. Asuncion and had no firearm license. The same firearm had been previously seized from Joseph Canlas during a buy-bust operation on August 23, 2005, led by complainant Police Sr. Insp. Teddy M. Rosqueta. A case for illegal possession of firearms (Criminal Case No. 34412) was filed against Canlas and assigned to Judge Asuncion’s court. On September 12, 2005, Sr. Insp. Rosqueta moved for the release of the firearm for ballistic examination, but Judge Asuncion denied the motion for lack of the public prosecutor’s conformity. On October 5, 2005, Judge Asuncion granted Canlas’s motion to quash and dismissed the case. On January 16, 2006, a motion was filed seeking turnover of the firearm to the Laoag City Prosecutor’s Office, but Judge Asuncion denied it for lack of merit.
After the firearm was recovered from Refuerzo in 2008, Sr. Insp. Rosqueta filed an administrative complaint, alleging Judge Asuncion committed grave misconduct by showing undue interest in the firearm, violating Supreme Court Circular No. 47-98 (requiring turnover of firearms used as evidence to the Firearms and Explosives Division after case termination), and allowing his bodyguard to possess it. Judge Asuncion explained he had instructed the clerk of court to place the firearm in his car’s trunk for intended turnover to the PNP Provincial Director, but he fell ill and, while his car was at a mechanic, his brother-in-law and Refuerzo accessed the car, leading to Refuerzo’s possession of the firearm.
Executive Judge Conrado A. Ragucos investigated and found that Judge Asuncion showed undue interest by denying the motions to withdraw the firearm, unnecessarily brought it home, and failed to comply with SC Circular No. 47-98, though there was no substantial evidence that Refuerzo was his bodyguard or that he directly delivered the firearm to Refuerzo. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) adopted these findings, noting Judge Asuncion had two opportunities to turnover the firearm after the case dismissal and his actions demonstrated special interest in it.

ISSUE

Whether Judge Asuncion took the firearm and gave it to Refuerzo, thereby violating the New Code of Judicial Conduct and making him guilty of gross misconduct.

RULING

Yes, Judge Asuncion is guilty of gross misconduct. The Court found his explanations not credible. The firearm, as unoffered evidence after the dismissal of Criminal Case No. 34412, should have been disposed of in accordance with SC Circular No. 47-98. Judge Asuncion’s denial of the motions to withdraw the firearm, his act of bringing it home, and the eventual possession by Refuerzo demonstrated undue interest and violated judicial conduct standards. His actions constituted gross misconduct, defined as a transgression of established rules involving wrongful intent or disregard of duty. The Court imposed a fine of P21,000.00 and ordered him to turnover the firearm to the Philippine National Police per SC Circular No. 47-98 within 10 days, unless already done, with a stern warning against repetition.