G.R. No. RTJ-95-1283. July 21, 1997.
Exec. Judge DAVID C. NAVAL, Naga City and DSWD Secretary CORAZON ALMA DE LEON, complainants, vs. JUDGE JOSE R. PANDAY, RTC, Branch 27, Naga City, JUDGE SIMON D. ENCINAS, RTC, Branch 51, Sorsogon and JUDGE RICA H. LACSON, MTC, Sorsogon, Sorsogon, respondents.

FACTS

This administrative case originated from letters by Executive Judge David C. Naval and DSWD Secretary Corazon Alma de Leon. Judge Naval informed the Office of the Court Administrator that Judge Jose R. Panday was a suspect in an alleged rape incident reported by local media. Judge Panday, in his comment, admitted being a respondent in a criminal complaint for rape filed by fifteen-year-old Cecile Buenafe but claimed innocence, alleging the complaint was intended to harass or extort money. Secretary de Leon’s letter confirmed the rape report, stated Cecile was under DSWD custody, and alleged that Judge Panday attempted to settle by offering P150,000 to Cecile’s father, Regino Buenafe. She further alleged that on October 16, 1994, Judges Simon D. Encinas and Rica H. Lacson pressured Cecile into signing an Affidavit of Desistance at the DSWD Center without the presence of a social worker. The Court treated these letters as an administrative matter. Subsequently, Cecile Buenafe and the DSWD filed a formal administrative complaint. The complaint charged Judge Panday with immorality, gross misconduct, conduct unbecoming a judge, abuse of judicial authority, deliberate obstruction of justice, partiality, ignorance of the law, and knowingly rendering an unjust judgment. It charged Judges Encinas and Lacson with gross misconduct, conduct unbecoming, abuse of judicial authority, and deliberate obstruction of justice for entering the DSWD Center and pressuring Cecile to sign the desistance affidavit. The Court referred the matter to Justice Romeo J. Callejo of the Court of Appeals for investigation and suspended Judge Panday pending investigation.
During the investigation, testimonies were presented. Cecile Buenafe testified that on July 20, 1994, she was raped by Roderic Odiamar at a beach resort. On July 24, 1994, her friend Estephen Florece brought her to a pension house in Tigaon where Judge Panday raped her. After the act, Estephen gave her P200. She later reported the incidents. Her father, Regino Buenafe, testified about being offered P150,000 by Judge Panday to settle the case and about being summoned by Judge Encinas, who, along with Judge Lacson, pressured Cecile to sign the affidavit at the DSWD Center. DSWD personnel confirmed the unauthorized entry of the judges and the signing under pressure. Judge Panday denied the rape allegations, presented alibi witnesses, and claimed the case was a fabrication. Judges Encinas and Lacson admitted going to the DSWD Center but claimed they merely facilitated a meeting for a possible amicable settlement at the request of Regino Buenafe and did not pressure Cecile.

ISSUE

The primary issues are: (1) Whether Judge Jose R. Panday is administratively liable for the charges of immorality, gross misconduct, conduct unbecoming a judge, abuse of authority, obstruction of justice, partiality, ignorance of the law, and knowingly rendering an unjust judgment; and (2) Whether Judges Simon D. Encinas and Rica H. Lacson are administratively liable for gross misconduct, conduct unbecoming, abuse of authority, and obstruction of justice for their actions concerning the Affidavit of Desistance.

RULING

The Court found Judge Jose R. Panday GUILTY of gross misconduct and ordered his DISMISSAL from service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and with prejudice to re-employment in any government branch or instrumentality. The Court found Judges Simon D. Encinas and Rica H. Lacson GUILTY of simple misconduct and ordered them to pay a FINE of P20,000 each, with a stern warning.
Regarding Judge Panday, the Court gave full credence to the testimony of Cecile Buenafe, which was found to be credible, candid, and consistent. Her testimony was corroborated by the medical findings of Dr. Belmonte, who concluded Cecile was suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder consistent with a rape victim. The Court rejected Judge Panday’s defenses of alibi and denial, noting the positive identification by the victim and the weak, uncorroborated nature of his alibi. The Court found that Judge Panday, by committing rape, engaged in gross misconduct and conduct grossly prejudicial to the best interest of the service, which constitutes a violation of the constitutional standard that a judge must possess proven competence, integrity, probity, and independence. His act was deemed so grave as to warrant dismissal. The Court also found substantiated the charge that he attempted to bribe the victim’s father with P150,000 to settle the criminal case, which further demonstrated his unfitness for judicial office. The other charges against him (e.g., regarding dismissal of another rape case) were deemed unnecessary to resolve given the gravity of the established offenses.
Regarding Judges Encinas and Lacson, the Court found their conduct improper. While they claimed their purpose was to explore an amicable settlement, the Court held that their act of proceeding to the DSWD Center without prior coordination with the social worker in charge, and their involvement in the signing of the Affidavit of Desistance by a minor rape victim under DSWD protective custody, constituted simple misconduct. Their actions displayed a lack of circumspection and prudence required of judges. However, the Court did not find clear evidence that they actively pressured or coerced Cecile, as their actions appeared to be more of an error in judgment rather than a deliberate intent to obstruct justice. Thus, they were held liable for simple misconduct and fined accordingly.