Mamba v Gutierrez 009

A.M. No. MTJ-96-1110, 25 June 2001, Per Curiam.

Digested by Janelle Gomedoza • Law 126 – Evidence
Topic: Exclusions – Anti-Wiretapping Law

Petitioners: Cong. Manuel Mamba et al.

Respondent: Judge Garcia, MTC
Nature of the case: Administrative matter on conduct unbecoming of a judge

Bulatao was being extorted for money by a police officer and Judge Garcia in exchange for withdrawing
the complaint against him. He cooperated with the NBI for an entrapment operation of which he was
given a tape recorder to record the conversation. Court held that while Garcia is found guilty of serious
misconduct through other evidence, the taped conversation, even if done by a party privy to the
conversation, is inadmissible for being violative of the Anti-Wiretapping Law.

FACTS
 The case is a manifesto of the concerned citizens of Tuao, Cagayan denouncing certain actions of
Judge Garcia of MTC, Tuao, Cagayan in connection of his handling of a criminal case, People v
Bulatao.
 The matter was treated as an administrative complaint and was referred to Executive Judge
Beltran for investigation
 Complaint for illegal possession of firearms (PD No. 1866) was filed against Bulatao before the
sala of Judge Garcia.
 After the preliminary investigation (which was reset twice), Bulatao complained to the NBI that
P/Sr. Inspector Salvador demanded P30,000 from in consideration of withdrawing the complaint.
 The demand was reiterated by Salvador and Judge Garcia but the amount was later reduced to
P6,000 when Bulatao said he cannot afford it.
 NBI set out an entrapment operation for Salvador and Judge Garcia. NBI gave Bulatao 12 pcs of
P500 marked money.
o Bulatao met the NBI operatives at the house of Mamba, former representative of 3rd
District of Cagayan, to plan the entrapment.
o Bulatao was given a tape recorder to record the conversation
 The following day, while in court, Judge Garcia called Bulatao and asked him if he had the
money with him. When he answered in the affirmative, he and two officers (Santos and Poli),
representatives of Salvador, were led to the judge’s chambers.
 Garcia left them in his chambers as the judge proceeded to his sala. Bulatao handed the money to
Santos and Poli and left. Upon Bulatao’s signal, the NBI rushed to the chambers and arrested the
officers. 11 pcs of P500 bills were recovered1 .
o It was in the possession of Santos who was leaving the chambers with Poli.
 Exec. Judge Beltran was appointed to investigate the case. He made his recommendations finding
Garcia guilty of improper conduct. His statements showed that he relied on the taped
conversation between Bulatao and the 2 officers.
o According to Beltran, while the money cannot be determined to be intended for Garcia,
the fact that he allowed them to his chambers showed that he was privy to the transaction.

1 Not stated in the case where the last pc went

ISSUES & HOLDING
1. WON the Executive Judge was correct to use the taped conversation to determine his findings
against Judge Garcia? NO. It was in violation of R.A. No. 4200. However Garcia is guilty of
improper conduct based on substantial evidence.

RATIO
1. Exec. Judge Beltran cannot use the taped conversation as this is in violation of R.A. No. 4200.
a. The recording of the private conversation without consent of the parties contravenes R.A. No.
4200 (Anti-Wiretapping Law) and renders the same inadmissible in evidence.
 The law covers even those recorded by persons privy to the private communications.
Thus the contents of the tape recorder cannot be relied upon to determine the
culpability of Garcia.
b. In all other aspects however, the findings of Exec. Judge Beltran is in accordance with
evidence.
 Garcia is guilty of serious misconduct2 .
 For serious misconduct to warrant dismissal from service, there must be reliable
evidence showing that the judicial acts complained of were corrupt or inspired by
intention to violate the law.
 Elements:
1. Serious, important, weighty, momentous, and not trifling
2. Imply wrongful intention and not mere error of judgment
3. Have a direct relation to and be connected with performance of official duties
 Bribery was committed. Although the evidence may not be sufficient to support a
conviction in a criminal case, it is adequate for this administrative proceeding.
o In an administrative proceeding, only substantial evidence is required.
o Substantial evidence – relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to support a conclusion.
 Although the circumstances do not show conclusively that the judge was privy to the
crime of bribery, there is substantial evidence showing that he was at least an
accomplice who cooperated in the execution of the offense.
o Corroborated by NBI report and testimonies of 2 employees who were
disinterested witnesses
o Garcia willingly allowed his chambers to be used for consummation of the
illegal transaction. His action imply a wrongful intention to commit an
unlawful act while in the performance of his duties.

DISPOSITIVE
WHEREFORE, the Court finds Judge Garcia guilty of serious misconduct and accordingly orders his
DISMISSAL from the service…

2Conduct which affects a public officer’s performance of duties as such officer and not only his character as a
private individual