Scribd
Upload
28 views

MAMBA V GARCIA

1) On August 23, 1996, a complaint was filed against Renato Bulatao for illegal possession of firearms. Judge Dominador L. Garcia was assigned to oversee the preliminary investigation but failed to appear multiple times. 2) Bulatao later complained to the NBI that the arresting officer and Judge Garcia had demanded $30,000 then $6,000 to drop the criminal case. The NBI set up an entrapment operation where Bulatao recorded conversations while handing over marked bills. 3) The Investigating Judge relied on the tape recordings but the Supreme Court held this was improper under anti-wiretapping laws. However, other findings were consistent

Uploaded by

clarkquinnvalorant1
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
28 views

MAMBA V GARCIA

1) On August 23, 1996, a complaint was filed against Renato Bulatao for illegal possession of firearms. Judge Dominador L. Garcia was assigned to oversee the preliminary investigation but failed to appear multiple times. 2) Bulatao later complained to the NBI that the arresting officer and Judge Garcia had demanded $30,000 then $6,000 to drop the criminal case. The NBI set up an entrapment operation where Bulatao recorded conversations while handing over marked bills. 3) The Investigating Judge relied on the tape recordings but the Supreme Court held this was improper under anti-wiretapping laws. However, other findings were consistent

Uploaded by

clarkquinnvalorant1
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

MAMBA v.

GARCIA

Facts:

On August 23, 1996, a complaint for violation of Presidential Decree No.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 of the Municipal Trial Court, Tuao, Cagayan. Respondent set the preliminary investigation, but the
same was subsequently postponed and reset as respondent was not present, although the complaining officers
appeared in court. Later, the preliminary investigation was again reset. On the day before the new date of preliminary
investigation, the accused, Renato Bulatao, complained to the NBI that at the first scheduled preliminary investigation,
the arresting officer demanded P30,000.00 from him in consideration of the withdrawal of the criminal case against him.
According to Bulatao, the demand was reiterated by Salvador and respondent judge. As Bulatao told them that he could
not afford it, the amount was reduced toP6,000.00. Based on Bulatao’s report, the NBI set out to entrap Salvador and
respondent judge.

Bulatao was given a tape recorder to record his conversation with whoever will receive the money. After handing the
money to the police officers, Bulatao went out of respondent's chambers. Upon his signal, the NBI operatives waiting
outside respondent's court then rushed to the judge's chambers and arrested the two police officers after recovering
marked bills in their possession. After the matter was referred by this Court to the Executive Judge for investigation, the
latter scheduled several hearings for the reception of evidence for the respondent. The records show that hearings were
set on different dates, but respondent did not appear despite due notice. Accordingly, he was deemed to have waived
the right to present evidence and the case was submitted for decision. Hence only his counter-affidavit was considered,
in which respondent claimed that it was Bulatao who asked permission to talk to the two police officers.

Issue:

Whether the investigating judge’s reliance on the taped conversation is proper?

Held:

The Investigating Judge's reliance on the tape-recorded conversation between Bulatao and the two police officers is
erroneous. The recording of private conversations without the consent of the parties contravenes the provisions of Rep.
Act. No. 4200, otherwise known as the Anti-Wire Tapping Law, and renders the same inadmissible in evidence in any
proceeding. In all other respects, however, the findings of the Investigating Judge are in accordance with the evidence.
We hold, however, that respondent judge is guilty not just of improper conduct but of serious misconduct. Serious
misconduct is such conduct which affects a public officer's performance of his duties as such officer and not only that
which affects his character as a private individual.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy