A.M. No. 00-7-09-CA; December 19, 2001
In Re: Derogatory News Items Charging Court of Appeals Associate Justice Demetrio G. Demetria with Interference on Behalf of a Suspected Drug Queen

FACTS

This administrative case stemmed from allegations that respondent Court of Appeals Associate Justice Demetrio G. Demetria interfered in a criminal case against suspected drug queen Yu Yuk Lai. The Court, in a Decision dated March 27, 2001, found respondent guilty of violating the Code of Judicial Conduct for interceding on behalf of the accused. He was dismissed from service with forfeiture of all benefits and with prejudice to future government employment. Respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration, a Manifestation and Motion for Oral Argument, and a subsequent Letter, collectively seeking reconsideration of the penalty and maintaining his innocence.
The factual findings, as established by the Court-appointed investigator, Retired Justice Carolina C. Griño-Aquino, revealed that on July 18, 2000, after a hearing on a Motion for Inhibition against Judge Manuel T. Muro, respondent Justice, accompanied by Go Teng Kok and a lawyer, visited the office of State Prosecutor Pablo C. Formaran III. There, respondent counseled the prosecutor to withdraw his inhibition motion, describing its basis as “not strong,” and asked if he could help Go Teng Kok. Later that same day, respondent called Chief State Prosecutor Jovencito R. Zuño to request that SP Formaran III be instructed to withdraw the motion so Judge Muro could issue an order in Yu Yuk Lai’s case.

ISSUE

Whether the Motion for Reconsideration should be granted, considering respondent’s arguments that his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt and that the penalty of dismissal is too harsh.

RULING

The Court denied the Motion for Reconsideration, upholding its finding of guilt and the penalty of dismissal, albeit with the modification that respondent’s accrued leave credits be released. The Court affirmed that the evidence against respondent was clear, overwhelming, and established his culpability beyond reasonable doubt. The investigator’s conclusions were based on a competent assessment of the evidence, including the positive and credible testimonies of the prosecutors, who were found to have no motive to falsify charges. Respondent’s denial was deemed a self-serving assertion insufficient to overcome this evidence.
The Court rejected respondent’s argument that the Ombudsman’s prior dismissal of a related criminal case for insufficiency of evidence should exculpate him, noting that the standards of proof in administrative and criminal proceedings differ. The administrative charge required only substantial evidence, which was amply met. The Court emphasized that a judge’s interference in a pending case, especially one involving a suspected drug queen, severely undermines judicial integrity and public confidence. The penalty of dismissal was deemed appropriate to preserve the judiciary’s independence. The request for oral argument was denied for lack of merit, as the written pleadings and records sufficiently addressed the issues.