A.M. No. RTJ-21-003. August 9, 2022. Anonymous Complaint against Hon. Jose S. Jacinto, Jr., Presiding Judge of Branch 45, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Jose, Occidental Mindoro.
FACTS

This case involves a Manifestation with Motion for judicial clemency filed by former Judge Jose S. Jacinto, Jr. In a prior resolution dated May 11, 2021, the Supreme Court found respondent judge administratively liable and ordered his dismissal from service. He was found guilty of 17 counts of gross ignorance of the law or procedure for his orders in drug-related criminal cases under Republic Act No. 9165 . Specifically, he committed accused persons to rehabilitation without the mandatory endorsement from the Dangerous Drugs Board and examination by a DOH-accredited physician, and he improperly transferred custody of other accused to the Parole and Probation Office, which is not a lawful detention facility for such offenses. Separately, he was found liable for gross misconduct for ordering the transfer of a prisoner from a national penitentiary to a local penal farm without Supreme Court approval and beyond necessity for a civil case.
In his plea for clemency, respondent judge admits his lapses with remorse. He cites his 39 years of service, his dedication to the judiciary, and personal hardships—including his wife’s fatal illness and his own health issues—which he claims affected his judgment during the period of his transgressions. He argues that the restoration of his forfeited retirement benefits is necessary to help fund his medical treatments. He submitted character testimonials from the local Integrated Bar of the Philippines chapter and a Municipal Social Welfare Office attesting to his compassion, fairness, and community service.

ISSUE

The central issue is whether respondent judge’s plea for judicial clemency and the restoration of his retirement benefits should be granted.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the motion for judicial clemency. The Court emphasized that pleas for clemency are evaluated on a case-to-case basis, balancing disciplinary purposes against an individual’s reformation and potential. The movant bears the burden of proving remorse, reformation, and rehabilitation through clear and convincing evidence. The Court, guided by established precedents like Re: Diaz, requires proof of at least five factors: acknowledgment of the infraction and sincere public apology, sufficient lapse of time from the offense and punishment, exemplary conduct and contribution to the community after dismissal, a showing that the plea is not a mere second chance but based on justice and mercy, and assurance that restoration will not damage the integrity of the judiciary.
The Court found respondent’s submission insufficient. While he acknowledged his errors, his plea focused primarily on his length of service, health, and financial need for benefits, rather than demonstrating concrete, post-dismissal acts of reformation or community service that restored his moral fitness. The character references, while noting past good conduct, did not substantiate rehabilitation after his dismissal. The personal hardships cited, while unfortunate, do not excuse the gross administrative offenses which eroded public confidence in the judiciary. The Court held that judicial clemency is not a right but an act of mercy granted only upon a compelling showing that it is merited. Respondent failed to meet the stringent criteria, and the paramount need to preserve public trust in the judicial system outweighed his personal circumstances.