G.R. No. 1879 -MJ September 30, 1982
ROSALITO FAJARDO, complainant, vs. Municipal Judge GUALBERTO B. BACARRO, SR. of Tambulig, Zamboanga del Sur, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Rosalito Fajardo filed an administrative complaint for dishonesty against Municipal Judge Gualberto B. Bacarro, Sr. He alleged that in August 1974, his uncle, Vicente Fajardo, took his pig and gave it to the respondent judge. This was purportedly in exchange for the judge’s promise to dismiss a frustrated murder case pending against Vicente. The criminal case was subsequently dismissed by Judge Bacarro.
In his defense, Judge Bacarro vehemently denied the allegations, characterizing them as false and preposterous. He attributed the complaint to a rift with local police, stemming from his investigation into prisoner welfare. He argued that the dismissal of the criminal case was based on a motion filed by the private prosecutor, citing an amicable settlement where the accused paid the hospital expenses of the offended party. He further pointed out the complainant’s long delay in reporting the incident and the subsequent retraction of the accusation.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Gualberto B. Bacarro, Sr. should be held administratively liable for dishonesty and for improperly dismissing a criminal case for frustrated murder.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the charge of dishonesty for lack of merit but reprimanded the judge for his irregular judicial actuation. On the charge of dishonesty, the Court found no clear and convincing evidence to substantiate it. The testimony of the key witness, Vicente Fajardo, who allegedly gave the pig, was absent; he had even rejected the complainant’s report as unfounded. The complainant himself later executed an affidavit disowning his denunciation, explaining he was pressured into signing the initial statement. The four-year delay in reporting the incident further undermined the charge’s credibility.
However, the Court agreed with the Deputy Court Administrator that Judge Bacarro committed an irregularity in dismissing the criminal case for frustrated murder on the ground of amicable settlement. Citing Hibberd vs. Rohde & Mcmillan, the Court emphasized that crimes against public order and personal safety, such as frustrated murder, cannot be the subject of compromise to bar public prosecution. A judge’s duty is to administer the law, not to lend enforcement to agreements that pervert it. Therefore, while the dishonesty complaint was unsubstantiated, the judge was administratively sanctioned for using an improper legal ground to dismiss a serious criminal case.