WEE

Case No. 107

CANON 2: INTEGRITY
In Re Allegations made under oath at the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee Hearing held 26 September 2013
against Associate Justice Gregory Ong │ A.M. No. SB-14-21-J, 23 September 2014

FACTS:
1. In 2013, news broke about the “pork barrel scam” wherein the PDAF allotted to the members of HOR and
Senate was channeled through bogus foundations. In the investigation conducted by the Senate Blue
Ribbon Committee, Sandiganbayan Associate Justice Gregory Ong was mentioned to be involved by the
whistle-blowers who were former employees of the alleged mastermind, Janet Lim Napoles.
2. The following day, Rappler published an article showing a photograph of Sen. Jinggoy Estrada, together
with Napoles and Justice Ong. When interviewed, Justice Ong denied knowing Napoles and recalled that the
photograph was from one of the parties of Sen. Estrada. He admitted that given the ongoing controversy,
the picture gains a different context. Nevertheless, he exclaims that his service to the judiciary remains
untainted and denied that he was the one advising Napoles on legal strategies in connection with the
Kevlar cases where she was acquitted.
3. Respondent thus stands accused of gross misconduct, partiality and corruption or bribery during the
pendency of the Kevlar case, and impropriety on account of his dealing and socializing with Napoles after
her acquittal in the said case. Additionally, respondent failed to disclose in his letter to CJ Sereno that he
had actually visited Napoles at her office in 2012, as he vehemently denied having partied with or attended
any social event hosted by her.

ISSUE: Whether or not respondent is guilty of gross misconduct, dishonesty and impropriety thus violating the
Code of Judicial Conduct.

RULING: YES. Ong’s act of voluntarily meeting with Napoles at her office on two occasions was grossly improper
and violated Section 1, Canon 4 (Propriety) of the New Code of Judicial Conduct. A judge must not only be impartial
but must also appear to be impartial and that fraternizing with litigants tarnishes this appearance. The SC’s
previous pronouncements have enjoined judges to avoid association or socializing with persons who have pending
cases before their court. In the case of Caneda v. Alaan: "A judicial office traces a line around his official as well as
personal conduct, a price one has to pay for occupying an exalted position in the judiciary, beyond which he may
not freely venture. Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct enjoins a judge to avoid not just impropriety in the
performance of judicial duties but in all his activities whether in his public or private life. He must conduct himself
in a manner that gives no ground for reproach."

In this light, it does not matter that the case is no longer pending when improper acts were committed by the
judge. Because magistrates are under constant public scrutiny, the termination of a case will not deter
public criticisms for acts which may cast suspicion on its disposition or resolution. As to what transpired in
this case, respondent’s association with Napoles has unfortunately dragged the Judiciary into the “Pork Barrel”
controversy which initially involved only legislative and executive officials. Worse, Napoles’s much flaunted
“contact” in the judiciary is no less than a Justice of the Sandiganbayan, our special court tasked with hearing graft
cases. The Court cannot, by any stretch of indulgence and compassion, consider respondent’s transgression as a
simple misconduct. x x x Regrettably, the conduct of respondent gave cause for the public in general to doubt
the honesty and fairness of his participation in the Kevlar case and the integrity of our courts of justice.
Before this Court, even prior to the commencement of administrative investigation, respondent was less
than candid.

VERDICT: Sandiganbayan Associate Justice Gregory S. Ong is found GUILTY of GROSS MISCONDUCT, DISHONESTY
and IMPROPRIETY, all in violations of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary, for which he is
hereby DISMISSED from the service, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, if any,
and with prejudice to reemployment in any branch, agency or instrumentality of the government including
government-owned or -controlled corporations.

WEE
 Case No. 108
CANON 3: IMPARTIALITY [topic not discussed in the case]
People of the Philippines v. Hon. Lorenzo Veneracion │ G.R. No. 119987-88, 12 October 1995

FACTS:
1. Accused Lagunday and Lagarto were charged with a crime of Rape with Homicide of a young girl (Angel
Alquiza) whose lifeless body was found floating in the water wrapped in a sack and yellow table cloth tied
with a nylon cord. Thereafter, Accused Cordero and Baltazar were accused of the same crime before the
RTC presided by respondent judge. Lagunday had already died before trial ensued.
2. After trial and presentation of the evidence of the prosecution and the defense, the trial court rendered a
decision finding the defendants Lagarto and Cordero guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape
with Homicide and sentenced both accused with the “penalty of reclusion perpetua with all the accessories
provided for by law.”
3. Disagreeing with the sentence imposed, the City Prosecutor of Manila moved for reconsideration, praying
that the Decision be “modified in that the penalty of death be imposed” against Lagarto and Cordero, in
place of the original penalty (reclusion perpetua). Refusing to act on the merits of the said Motion for
Reconsideration, respondent Judge issued an Order denying the same for lack of jurisdiction for accused
have already complied with the legal requirements for the perfection of an appeal. Hence, the instant
petition.

ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion and in excess of jurisdiction
when he failed and/or refused to impose the mandatory penalty of death under RA 7659, after finding the accused
guilty of the crime of Rape with Homicide.

RULING: YES. Obedience to the rule of law forms the bedrock of our system of justice. A government of laws, not of
men excludes the exercise of broad discretionary powers by those acting under its authority. Under this system,
judges are guided by the Rule of Law, and ought "to protect and enforce it without fear or favor," resist
encroachments by governments, political parties, or even the interference of their own personal beliefs.

In the case at bench, respondent judge, after weighing the evidence of the prosecution and the defendant at
trial found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape with Homicide. Since the law
in force at the time of the commission of the crime for which respondent judge found the accused guilty
was Republic Act No. 7659, he was bound by its provisions. The law plainly and unequivocably provides that
"when by reason or on the occasion of rape, a homicide is committed, the penalty shall be death." The provision
leaves no room for the exercise of discretion on the part of the trial judge to impose a penalty under the
circumstances described, other than a sentence of death.

We are aware of the trial judge's misgivings in imposing the death sentence because of his religious convictions.
While this Court sympathizes with his predicament, it is its bounden duty to emphasize that a court of law is no
place for a protracted debate on the morality or propriety of the sentence, where the law itself provides for the
sentence of death as a penalty in specific and well-defined instances. The discomfort faced by those forced by law
to impose the death penalty is an ancient one, but it is a matter upon which judges have no choice. Courts are not
concerned with the wisdom, efficacy or morality of laws.

VERDICT: The instant petition is GRANTED. The case is hereby REMANDED to the RTC for the imposition of the
penalty of death upon private respondents in consonance with respondent judge's finding that the private
respondents in the instant case had committed the crime of Rape with Homicide, subject to automatic review by
this Court of the decision imposing the death penalty.