Mamba vs.

Garcia
June 25, 2001| Per Curiam | Statutory Rules of Exclusion
PETITIONER: Cong. Manuel N. Mamba, M.D., Atty. Francisco N. Mamba, Jr., Hon. Guillermo Sumigad, etc.
RESPONDENT: Judge Dominador L. Garcia, MTC Tuao, Cagayan
SUMMARY: Police Inspector Salvador asked Bulatao to give him P6,000, initially P30,000, in exchange
for the withdrawal of a complaint for illegal possession of firearms filed against the latter. The case was
raffled to Judge Garcia. Bulatao reported to this to the NBI. NBI set out to entrap Salvador and Judge
Garcia, and gave Bulatao a tape recorder. During the entrapment, it was discovered that Judge Garcia
allowed representatives of Salvador and Bulatao to fulfill their settlement inside his chambers. SC
found that although the tape-recoreded conversation is not admissible in evidence, the NBI report and
testimonies of MTC personnel prove that Judge Garcia cooperated with Salvador and the 2 police officers
in the consummation of the crime of bribery.
DOCTRINE: The Anti-Wiretapping Law covers even those conversations recorded by persons privy to the
private communications. Violation of the Anti-Wiretapping Law renders evidence inadmissible.
FACTS:
1. On August 23, 1996, a complaint for violation of
PD 1866 (illegal possession of firearms) was filed
against a certain Renato Bulatao by the Cagayan
Provincial Police Command before the sala of
respondent Judge Dominador L. Garcia.

2. On September 4, 1996, Judge Garcia postponed

the preliminary investigation because Bulatao was
not present. The complaining officer, P/Sr. Inspector
Danny Salvador, however, was present at that time.
The preliminary investigation was reset again on
October 30, 1996.

3. On October 29, 1996, Renato Bulatao complained

to the NBI that at the scheduled preliminary
investigation on Septebmer 4, 1996, Salvador
demanded P30,000 from him in consideration of the
withdrawal of the case against him. According to
Bulatao, this demand was reiterated by Salvador
and Judge Garcia on October 23, 1996. The amount
was reduced to P6,000 when Bulatao told them he
could not afford P30,000.

4. NBI set out to entrap Salvador and Judge Garcia.

They gave Bulatao 12 pieces of P500 marked bills
amounting to P6,000. Accordingly, Bulatao met the
NBI operatives in the house of Francisco Mamba,
Sr., former representative of the 3rd District of
Cagayan, where the entrapment was planned. NBI
gave Bulatao a tape recorder to record his
conversation with whoever will receive the money.

6. During the scheduled preliminary investigation

(October 30), Bulatao went to the MTC. Judge
Garcia called him and 2 representatives of Salvador,
and they went inside the office of the MTC court
personnel. Inside, Judge Garcia asked Bulatao if he
had the money. When Bulatao affirmed that he had
the money, the judge took them to his chambers
and left them there as he proceeded to his sala.

7. Upon Bulataos signal, the NBI operatives waiting

outside Judge Garcias court rushed to the judges
chambers and arrested the 2 police officers,
recovering 11 pieces of P500 marked bills.

8. An administrative complaint was filed against

Judge Garcia. The complaint was in the form of a
resolution dated November 4, 1996, adopted at an
assembly led by Rep. Mamba. The complaint was
referred to Executive Judge Orlando Beltran, Jr. of
RTC Tuao for investigation, report, and
recommendation.

9. Several hearings were set but Judge Garcia failed

to attend despite due notice. He was deemed to
have waived the right to present evidence and the
case was submitted for decision. Only Judge
Garcias counter-affidavit was considered, in which
he claimed that it was Bulatao who asked
permission to talk to the 2 police officers.

10. Executive Judge Beltran found Judge Garcia

guilty of improper conduct. He found that Judge
Garcia violated the duty of every judge to uphold
the integrity of the judiciary and to avoid
impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in
all activities. However, the investigating judge
considered the tape-recorded conversation in
arriving at his decision.

ISSUE: W/N the tape-recorded conversation among

Judge Garcia, Bulatao and the 2 police officers is
admissible and not contrary to the Anti-Wiretapping
Law NO.

RULING: Court ordered Judge Garcias DISMISSAL

from service.

RATIO:
1. The Anti-Wiretapping Law covers even those
conversations recorded by persons privy to the
private communications, as in this case. Thus, the
contents of the tape recorder cannot be relied upon
to determine the culpability of the judge.

2. However, the Court acknowledged that the

investigating judges findings are in accordance
with evidence. Judge Garcia was found to be guilty
not just improper conduct but of serious
misconduct.

3. Given the report of the NBI and testimonies of 2

employees of the MTC, it was clear that the crime of
bribery was committed by Salvador, and that Judge
Garcia knowingly and voluntarily cooperated with
Salvador in consummating the crime.1 Judge Garcia
willingly allowed his chambers to be used for the
consummation of the illegal transaction.

1 To constitute bribery, it must be shown that: (1) the offender is a public officer
within the scope of Article 203 of the Revised Penal Code; (2) the offender
accepts an offer or a promise or receives a gift or present by himself or through
another; (3) such offer or promise is accepted, or gift received by the public
officer (a) with a view to committing some crime; (b) in consideration of the
execution of an act which does not constitute a crime, but which is unjust; or (c)
to refraim from doing something which it is his official duty to do; and (4) the act
which he agrees to perform is connected with the performance of his official
duties.

4. Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct enjoins

judges to avoid not only impropriety but even the
appearance of impropriety in all their conduct. This
includes not taking an undue interestin the
settlement of criminal cases pending before them
as this may compromise the integrity and
impartiality of their office.

5. Judge Garcia was also previously convicted in 2

administrative cases one for palpable ignorance
resulting in the denial of due process, and one for
deliberately delaying his decision in a civil case and
falsifying certificates of service.