G.R. No. RTJ-88-246 July 19, 1990
VICENTE C. BUENAVISTA, JR., complainant, vs. JUDGE MARCELO G. GARCIA, Regional Trial Court, Branch 51, Puerto Princesa, Palawan, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Vicente C. Buenavista, Jr., father of an 11-year-old rape victim, filed an administrative complaint against Judge Marcelo G. Garcia for gross ignorance of the law and knowingly rendering an unjust order. The complaint stemmed from the judge’s handling of two rape cases (Crim. Cases Nos. 6744 and 6745) against Samuel Ledesma. Despite a prior judicial recommendation of no bail, Judge Garcia admitted the accused to bail on June 22, 1987. Subsequently, on July 25, 1988, the victim was kidnapped by the same accused. A day after the kidnapping, the victim executed an affidavit of desistance, notarized by a fiscal, claiming her rape complaints were filed against her will. Based on this affidavit, the accused’s counsel filed a motion to dismiss, which Judge Garcia granted on August 5, 1988, without notice to the complainant.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Marcelo G. Garcia is administratively liable for his actions in granting bail, dismissing the rape cases based on a minor’s affidavit of desistance, and his overall conduct in the proceedings.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found Judge Garcia guilty of serious misconduct, gross ignorance of the law, and knowingly rendering an unjust order, warranting his dismissal. The legal logic is clear and multi-faceted. First, his grant of bail contravened the established rule that rape is a capital offense where bail is not a matter of right, especially given the prior judicial recommendation against it. Second, his dismissal of the cases based solely on the affidavit of desistance executed by an 11-year-old victim demonstrated gross ignorance. A minor of such age is legally incompetent to validly execute such an affidavit, and the circumstances—its execution a day after her kidnapping—should have alerted a reasonable judge to potential coercion, rendering the dismissal unjust. Third, his admission of brokering a compromise for the criminal cases revealed further ignorance, as criminal liability for rape is not subject to compromise, and such intervention is grossly improper for a judge. Collectively, these acts violated the Code of Judicial Conduct, eroding public confidence in judicial competence and integrity. The penalty of dismissal is the administrative equivalent of the perpetual disqualification prescribed for knowingly rendering an unjust judgment under criminal law.