15. CORTES vs AGCAOILI, A.M. No. RTJ-98-1414.

August 20, 1998

- the Office of the Court Administrator received from Cortes a sworn letter-complaint
addressed to Chief Justice accusing Judge Agcaoili of corruption, abuse of authority and
ignorance of the law which he controverted in his comment on the complaint. In the report
and recommendation of the Investigating Justice, it was stated that Respondent Judge
be found guilty of violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 2, Rule 2.01 of the Code of
Judicial Conduct for failure to comply with the rulings of the Supreme Court in the
issuance of the order granting bail to accused Eddie Roldan, Jr. charged [with] murder;
for ordering the release of the confiscated narra flitches and lumber to Jimmy Abad,
contrary to the rulings of the Supreme Court and applicable laws; and, for eating and
drinking with litigants and a person who expected to secure a favorable order from him,
with a stern warning that respondent judge will be dealt with more severely upon repetition
of similar acts.

ISSUE: Whether or not, Justice Agcaoili failed to comply with the provisions of the Code
of Judicial Conduct.

HELD: Yes. It was established that respondent judge failed to epitomize competence. To
be able to render substantial justice and to maintain public confidence in the legal system,
judges are expected to keep abreast of all laws and prevailing jurisprudence, consistent
with the standard that magistrates must be the embodiments of competence, integrity and
independence. The respondent judge had no authority to order the release of the
confiscated forest products to a person who had derived his title from another who had
no license, permit or authority to possess the same. Clearly, respondents Order
disregarded, and was oblivious to, an elementary provision of the Revised Forestry Code.
Indeed, everyone, especially a judge, is presumed to know the law. When the law is so
elementary, not to be aware of it constitutes gross ignorance of the law. Judges are
expected to exhibit more than just cursory acquaintance with statutes and procedural
rules. They must know the laws and apply them properly in all good faith. Judicial
competence requires no less.
The Order issued by Judge Agcaoili, granting bail in the amount of P30,000, could
not be given any semblance of validity. Said Order was defective in form and substance,
as it had no recital of any
evidence presented by the prosecution. Neither was the grant justified. The petition for
bail alleged that the accused was ill and suffered brain injuries which he had sustained in
a vehicular accident on April 20, 1993. Yet, no supporting document or medical
examination was submitted to prove said contention.
No position exacts a greater demand on [the] moral righteousness and uprightness
of an individual than a seat in the judiciary. A magistrate of the law must comport himself
at all times in such a manner that his conduct, official or otherwise, can bear the most
searching scrutiny of the public that looks up to him as the epitome of integrity and justice.
For this reason, we cannot overemphasize the edicts of the Code of Judicial Conduct. A
judge should, however, in pending or prospective litigation before him be scrupulously
careful to avoid such action as may reasonably tend to waken the suspicion that his social
or business relations or friendships constitute an element in determining his judicial
course. A judge is not only required to be impartial; he must appear to be impartial.
Fraternizing with litigants tarnishes this appearance.

16. Alejo vs People, G.R. No. 173360, March 28, 2008

FACTS:
The Real Estate Preservation Economic Welfare Center (REPEWC) controls
smaller units, one of which is Task Force Sagip Likas Yaman (TFSLY). Being the
commanding officer of the REPEWC and the task force commander of the TFSLY, Lt.
Col. Pacifico Alejo, the petitioner was involved in the anti-illegal logging campaign.
On June 1992, there were 46 logs, measuring about 10 to 12 meters, stockpiled
at Atate Detachment which was primarily created to confiscate illegally-transported logs.
On the same day, the Detachment Commander was notified that petitioner instructed him
to load the confiscated lumber into a 6x6 truck driven to the residence of the petitioner
and unloaded the said logs in the presence of the petitioner, his wife and mother-in-law,
which was denied by the petitioner and asserted that the prosecution witnesses were just
pressured or intimidated by people in the military’s higher echelon, hence testified against
him.
Petitioner claims that the prosecution failed to present any documentary evidence
showing that the confiscated logs actually existed and were included in the inventory of
the DENR as confiscated logs and insists that the audit or inventory of confiscated logs
under the possession and custody of the TFSLY is crucial to the case and in the absence
thereof, the charge of malversation must fail. He adds that the prosecution’s failure to
establish that there were indeed confiscated logs could mean acquittal. If indeed these
logs exist, it cannot be considered vested with public character absent proper
documentation of confiscation pursuant to the MOA. Since the logs were not vested with
public character, he said he cannot be considered as an "accountable officer" within the
purview of Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code.

ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner is guilty of malversation of public property.

HELD: The elements of malversation of public property, essential to the conviction

of an accused under the above penal provision, are: offender is a public officer, who has
the custody or control of the property by reason of the duties of his office and the property
is a public property for which he is accountable; and he appropriated, took,
misappropriated or consented to, or through abandonment or negligence, permitted
another person to take them.
It is beyond dispute that petitioner, during the time relative to the case, was a public
officer, as he was then the Commanding Officer of the REPEWC, and the Task Force
Commander of the TFSLY. Under the MOA, it is the Task Force Commander of the
TFSLY, which has the duty to accept custody of confiscated logs and other forest mineral
products hence, petitioner had control and custody over the confiscated forest products
that were placed within the Atate Detachment, as affirmed by the Chief Legal Counsel of
DENR. He had the obligation to safeguard and account for the same.
The confiscated logs are considered public property since the same were
impressed with public attributes or character for which the public officer was accountable.
While these logs were not strictly government property, they are of the nature of public
property. Article 222 of the Revised Penal Code states that private property seized or
deposited by public authority may be the object of malversation.
An accountable public officer may be convicted of malversation even if there is no
direct evidence of misappropriation, and the only evidence is that there is a shortage in
his accounts which he has not been able to explain satisfactorily. Inventory or audit of the
confiscated logs under the custody of the TFSLY is not necessary, since the prosecution
was able to prove all the elements of the crime charged. There is no requirement under
the law that for one to be convicted of malversation of public property, such property must
first be inventoried or audited.
The prosecution sufficiently established that petitioner had custody of the subject
logs of which he is accountable and he appropriated the same for his own benefit.
Unmistakably, petitioner malversed public property.