Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=40442:a-m-nos-mtj-99-1191-amp-rtj-99-1437-august-31,-2000-federico-s-calilung-v-wilfredo-s-suriaga&amp;catid=1396&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 02:05:31+00:00

Document:
FEDERICO S. CALILUNG, Complainant, v. JUDGE WILFREDO S. SURIAGA, MTC, Angeles City, Respondent.
FEDERICO S. CALILUNG, Complainant, v. JUDGE PHILBERT I. ITURRALDE, RTC, Branch 58, Angeles City, Respondent.
2.	While the case was still pending with him, Judge Suriaga approached Calilung soliciting the amount of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) in exchange for a favorable decision in Civil Case No. 98-116.
3.	Calilung haggled with the judge and requested that the amount be lowered to Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00) as that was all he could afford, to which Judge Suriaga agreed.
4.	Sometime thereafter in November 1998, Calilung delivered the money to Judge Suriaga at the latter’s residence at Regina Street, Sta. Maria Village II, Balibago, Angeles City.
6.	Emiliano Joven eventually appealed the decision to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) sometime in January 1999, which appeal, now docketed as Civil Case No. 9314, was raffled to Branch 58 in Angeles City which was presided by respondent Judge Philbert Iturralde.
7.	Thereafter, Judge Suriaga again approached Calilung and informed him that there will be no problem with the appeal, because Judge Iturralde assured him of a favorable decision in consideration of the amount of Two Hundred Fifty Thousand (P250,000.00) Pesos.
8.	Calilung made it appear that he agreed to Judge Suriaga’s proposal. The latter then directed Calilung to prepare and deliver the money to him on Monday, April 9, 1999, at Judge Suriaga’s residence.
Upon the receipt of the complaint, the NBI agents immediately proceeded to Angeles City for the surveillance and casing of the target area as well as to physically identify the subjects (Suriaga and Ituralde).
On April 18, 1999, the NBI agents prepared the money provided by Mr. Calilung to be used in the operation. It amounted to two hundred fifty thousand pesos (250,000.00) in two hundred fifty (250) one thousand peso (P1,000.00) bills. The NBI agents look down the serial numbers of the money 4 and forwarded the same to the NBI-Forensic Chemistry Division for fluorescent powder dusting together with a brown envelope with initials "JCG" and the date.
It was agreed that Supervising Agent Julma Dizon-Dapilos (SA Dapilos) of the NBI-ACADED would act as the baby-sitter of Mr. Calulung’s two-year old son, Marco. The NBI agents acted as back-up to SA Dapilos.
On the appointed date, the NBI agents stationed themselves along Katherine Street (near the house of Judge Suriaga). They waited for the warning signal of SA Dapilos. The signal came at around 3:00 p.m. When the NBI agents moved in, they found the envelope containing the marked money in Judge Suriaga’s possession. Mr. Calilung also turned over to them the recording machine containing his conversation with Judge Suriaga as well as the latter’s phone conversation with Judge Ituralde.
The NBI agents immediately proceeded to their Regional Office in San Fernando where they conducted a forensic/laboratory examination of the dorsal palmar and dorsal portion of Judge Suriaga’s hands to determine the presence of fluorescent powder. The examination yielded a positive result. Consequently, they brought Judge Suriaga to the NBI Office for further interrogation after which he was booked, photographed and fingerprinted. Judge Suriaga did not however give any written testimony invoking his Constitutional rights.
Thereafter, in a Joint Review Action dated 21 April 1999, 10 Graft Investigating Officer II Germain G. Lim recommended "that the subject Informations and the Resolutions dated 20 April 1999 rendered by the Department of Justice, National Prosecution Service, Manila be AFFIRMED and APPROVED en toto, finding the existence of probable cause against" Judge Suriaga as charged. On even date, this Joint Review Action was referred to the Office of the Ombudsman. 11 Likewise on the same day, an Information docketed as Criminal Case No. 25244 12 was filed before the Sandiganbayan accusing Judge Wilfredo Samson Suriaga of the crime of Corruption of a Public Official, defined and penalized under Article 212 of the Revised Penal Code.
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), to which the cases were subsequently referred for evaluation and report, found the evidence sufficient to support the charges against respondent judges and recommended that: 1.] they be treated and docketed as a regular administrative matter; 2.] Judge Suriaga be required to answer the complaint dated April 16, 1999 as well as the criminal charges against him within ten (10) days from notice; 3.] Judge Iturralde be likewise required to answer the complaint dated April 16, 1999 within ten (10) days from notice; 4.] thereafter, the case be referred to an Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals or a consultant of the OCA for immediate investigation, report and recommendation; 5.] Judge Suriaga be placed immediately under suspension pending the resolution of the investigation and criminal charges against him; 6.] Judge Iturralde be likewise placed under suspension and until final orders from the Court; and 7.] the Court Administrator and/or the Spouses Calilung be authorized to institute criminal proceedings against Judge Iturralde.
Supervising Agent Julma Dizon-Dapilos, who acted as yaya of complainant’s two year old son, testified that she executed the affidavit, Exhibit C, 112 the authenticity of which was stipulated upon by the parties. 113 She corroborated the testimony of the Calilung spouses about respondent Judge Suriaga’s conversation with respondent Judge Iturralde over the telephone.
On the basis of the foregoing evidence, the Investigator recommended the dismissal of both respondents with the forfeiture of benefits except accrued leaves.
The Court agrees with the foregoing findings and conclusion of Justice Ramirez. The culpability of respondent Judge Suriaga for serious misconduct has been established not just by substantial evidence which suffices in an administrative investigation 167 but by an overwhelming preponderance thereof. The testimony of Supervising Agent Julma Dizon-Dapilos who posed as yaya of complainant’s two-year old son during the entrapment operation demolishes whatever credibility respondent’s proffered defense has. Dizon-Dapilos, a disinterested observer in addition to being a law enforcement officer corroborated the testimony of the complainant and his wife. She was a direct witness to the entrapment operation and, equally important, respondent judge failed to present any reason why her testimony should be disbelieved.
CANON 2 — A JUDGE SHOULD AVOID IMPROPRIETY AND THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY IN ALL ACTIVITIES.
Rule 2.01 — A judge should so behave at all times as to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
. . . The acts of respondent Judge in demanding and receiving money from a party-litigant before his court constitutes serious misconduct in office. This court condemns in the strongest possible terms the misconduct of respondent Judge. It is this kind of gross and flaunting misconduct on the part of those who are charged with the responsibility of administering the law and rendering justice that so quickly and surely corrodes the respect for the law and the courts without which government cannot continue and that tears apart the very bonds of our polity.
A judge should personify judicial integrity and exemplify honest public service. The personal behavior of a judge, both in the performance of official duties and in private life should he above suspicion.
Respondent judge miserably failed to measure up to stringent judicial standards. 187 Complainant has sufficiently established the corrupt acts of respondent judge . . . He received a bribe . . . He has no place in the Judiciary. 188 He dishonored the judicial robe he wore. His acts could even be criminal in nature. 189 We have unhesitatingly removed from office judges and court employees for less serious transgressions. 190 We removed a deputy sheriff from office for asking a bribe of only P1,500.00. 191 we have no reason to depart from this ruling. Respondent judge’s acts of corruption clearly show his unfitness to remain any minute longer in his judicial robe.
Perforce, the penalty of dismissal from the service is the most appropriate penalty under the circumstances for respondent Judge Suriaga’s malfeasance in office.
As regards the case against Judge Iturralde, complainants capitalized on a telephone conversation that allegedly transpired in the house of Judge Suriaga on April 19, 1999, the date the latter was entrapped and arrested. There being no sufficient showing at this time to establish the culpability of Judge Iturralde the case against him should be referred back to the Office of the Court Administrator for further investigation as to his participation in the anomalous transactions complained of. In the meantime, in order to enable Judge Iturralde to perform his functions, this Court lifts his suspension pending the proceedings against him.
1.	Rollo, vol. 1, Annex B.
2.	Rollo, vol. 1, Annex A.
3.	Rollo, vol. 1, Annex C.
4.	Ibid., Annexes D to D-32.
8.	Id., Annexes H and I.
14.	TSN, 17 August 1999, p. 18.
26.	Id., pp. 25, 26.
31.	Id., pp. 28, 29.
34.	Id., pp. 30, 31.
35.	Id., pp. 32, 33.
41.	Id., pp. 36, 37.
44.	Id., pp. 37, 38.
45.	Id., pp. 38, 39.
46.	TSN, 27 August 1999, p. 4.
63.	Id., pp. 10, 11.
65.	Id., pp. 12, 13.
78.	Id., pp. 20, 21.
81.	Id., pp. 21, 22.
85.	Id., pp. 23, 24.
92.	Id., pp. 27, 28.
102.	Id., pp. 31, 32.
104.	Id., pp. 32, 33.
110.	TSN, 10 September 1999, p. 20.
112.	TSN, 17 September 1999, pp. 10, 21.
114.	Exhibits H, I & J; TSN, 11 October 1999, p. 18.
127.	Id., pp. 16, 17.
129.	Id., pp. 17, 18.
135.	Id., pp. 18, 19.
136.	Id., pp. 19, 20.
146.	TSN, 15 October 1999.
147.	TSN, 5 November 1999 p. 11.
150.	TSN, 5 November 1999, pp. 12-13.
153.	Id., pp. 14, 15.
163.	Id., pp. 20, 21.
164.	Id., pp. 29, 30.
165.	Citing NISA v. Tablang, 199 SCRA 766 .
166.	Ortigas & Co., Ltd. v. Velasco, 277 SCRA 34 .
167.	Section 5, Rule 133, Rules of Court.
168.	Apiag v. Cantero, 268 SCRA 47 .
169.	Panganiban v. Guerrero, Jr., 242 SCRA 11 .
170.	Benalfre J. Galang v. Judge Abelardo H. Santos, A.M. No. MTJ-99-1197, 26 May 1999, 307 SCRA 582, citing Nazareno v. Almario, 268 SCRA 657 .
171.	Dawa v. Judge De Asa, 292 SCRA 703 .
172.	Marces, Jr. v. Arcangel, 258 SCRA 503 .
173.	Abundo v. Judge Gregorio E. Manio, Jr., A.M. No. RTJ-98-1416, 6 August 1999, 312 SCRA 1.
174.	Garcia v. Dela Peña, 229 SCRA 766 .
175.	Chan v. Agcaoili, 233 SCRA 331 .
176.	Magdalena M. Huggland v. Judge Jose C. Lantin, A.M. No. MTJ-98-1153, 29 February 2000, p. 16.
177.	A.M. No. MTJ-97-1120, 21 February 2000, pp. 10-11.
178.	Section 3 in relation to Section 10A; Rule 140, Revised Rules of Court.
179.	E.g. Quiz v. Castano, 107 SCRA 196 ; OCA v. Gaticales, 208 SCRA ; OCA v. Antonia, 241 SCRA 331 ; Zarate v. Romanillos, 242 SCRA 593 .
180.	154 SCRA 107 .
181.	A.M. No. RTJ-99-1448, 6 April 2000, pp. 11-12.
182.	Rule 1.01, Code of Judicial Conduct.
183.	Canon 31, Canons of Judicial Ethics.
184.	Palang v. Zosa, 58 SCRA 776, 778 .
185.	Dysico v. Dacumos, 262 SCRA 275, 283 .
186.	295 SCRA 1, 15 .
187.	Garciano v. Sebastian, 231 SCRA 588, 612-613 .
188.	Concerned Employees of the RTC of Dagupan City v. Judge Erma Falloran-Aliposa, A.M. No. RTC-99-1446, 9 March 2000; Ortigas & Co. Ltd. v. Velasco 277 SCRA 34 .
189.	Article 210, Revised Penal Code.
190.	Liban v. Villacete, 237 SCRA 397 ; Castanos v. Escana 251 SCRA 174, 178 .
191.	Chua v. Nuestro, 190 SCRA 422 .
192.	Canon 2, Code of Judicial Conduct.
193.	Victoria R. Nabhan v. Judge Eric Cameron, MTC, Calumpit, Bulacan, A.M. No. MTJ-98-1164, 4 February 2000, p. 7, citing Spouses Lorena v. Judge Adolfo Encomienda, 302 SCRA 632 .

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.