BASIC LEGAL ETHICS | JUDICIAL CONDUCT

TITLE:

[A.M. No. RTJ-11-2289 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 11-3656-RTJ), 15 February 2022]

IN RE: ANONYMOUS LETTER DATED 12 AUGUST 2010, COMPLAINING AGAINST

JUDGE OFELIA T. PINTO, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 60, ANGELES CITY,
PAMPANGA

PONENTE:

Associate Justice Perlas-Bernabe

FACTS OF THE CASE:

This case arose from an anonymous letter-complaint charging Judge Ofelia T.

Pinto (Judge Pinto), Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 60, Angeles
City, Pampanga with Dishonesty, Violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act,
Gross Misconduct in violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct, and Knowingly
Rendering an Unjust Judgment.

The charged was based on Judge Pinto’s act of granting the motion to reopen
Criminal Case No. 91-937 filed by a convicted accused despite the finality of the
decision in said case.

Judge Pinto claimed that the outright denial of the motion to reopen the case was
improper because it would violate the accused’s opportunity to be heard, considering
the presence of exculpatory evidence and the lack of objections by the public prosecutor
and the private complainant. Further, she alleged that, even if the granting of the
motion was erroneous, it was done in the exercise of her adjudicatory functions which
cannot be made the subject of disciplinary action.

On 2 October 2012, the Court rendered a Decision, dismissing Judge Pinto from
service, after having been found guilty of Gross Ignorance of the Law.

On 1 August 2020, Judge Pinto filed a letter appealing for judicial clemency,
praying that she be allowed to receive her retirement benefits “in the interest of justice
and for compassionate and humanitarian reasons”.

1 University of Caloocan City- College of Law

 BASIC LEGAL ETHICS | JUDICIAL CONDUCT

ISSUE/S:

1. Whether or not Judge Pinto is guilty of violation of Canon 1 of the Code of

Judicial Conduct.

2. Whether or not Judge Pinto deserves a judicial clemency.

RECOMMENDATION OF THE OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR:

The OCA observed that Judge Pinto misapplied the law despite the clear
wordings of Section 24, Rule 119 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. The
OCA also found that Judge Pinto subsequently disregarded the final and executory
decision of the CA, a higher court, when she dismissed the criminal case against the
accused-movant.

RULING AND RATIO DECIDENDI:

1. Canon 1 of the Code of Judicial Conduct

"To be able to render substantial justice and maintain public confidence in the
legal system, judges should be embodiments of competence, integrity and
independence." Judges are also "expected to exhibit more than just a cursory
acquaintance with statutes and procedural rules and to apply them properly in all good
faith". Judges are "likewise expected to demonstrate mastery of the principles of law,
keep abreast of prevailing jurisprudence, and discharge their duties in accordance
therewith."

Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Judicial Conduct provides that a judge
should be the embodiment of competence, integrity, and independence.

In the case at hand, Judge Pinto had no jurisdiction to entertain the motion filed
by the accused-movant to reopen Criminal Case No. 91-937 because the CA’s decision,
which affirmed the accused-movant’s conviction, had become final and executory.
Likewise, Judge Pinto ought to know her place in the judicial ladder.

WHEREFORE, Judge Ofelia Pinto is guilty of violating Canon 1 of the Code of

Judicial Conduct. Considering that respondent is not a first-time offender and taking

2 University of Caloocan City- College of Law

 BASIC LEGAL ETHICS | JUDICIAL CONDUCT

into account respondent’s less serious violations as aggravating circumstances, the

Court imposes the penalty of dismissal from service.

2. Judicial Clemency

The Supreme Court denies the petition for the reason that the respondent still
fails to exhibit remorse for her past misdeeds.

It was held that the judicial clemency is an act of mercy removing any
disqualification from the erring official. It is well-settled that judicial clemency “is not a
privilege or a right that can be availed of at any time. The Court will only grant it in
meritorious cases. Proof of reformation and a showing of potential and promise are
considered as indispensable requirements to the grant of judicial clemency.

The Court’s first duty in resolving clemency cases is to thoroughly sift through
the petition and ascertain whether or not there is proof of a prima facie showing that
would merit the clemency prayed for.

In the instant case, Judge Pinto showed a genuine remorse and repentance.
Likewise, evidence attached by petitioner prima facie contain details of her
participation in different socio-civic activities.

WHEREFORE, the Court found prima facie merit in the instant Plea for Judicial
Clemency. The case was referred to the OCA for the conduct of fact-finding.

3 University of Caloocan City- College of Law