EN BANC

[A.M. No. MTJ-96-1110. June 25, 2001.]

CONG. MANUEL N. MAMBA, M.D. ATTY. FRANCISCO N.

MAMBA, JR., HON. GUILLERMO SUMIGAD, HON. CALIXTO
GENOVEZA, HON. MARTIN SORIANO, HON. LOURDES
FAUSTO, HON. LORENZO FERMIN, HON. ADORACION
RAQUINIO, HON. LEONIDES FAUSTO, HON. DIOGENES
BALIGOD, HON. LORETO MABBORANG, HON. PETER SY,
HON. NICCOLO MAMBA, LORETO MAMBA, JUAN TAGUBA,
DOMINGO CAMARAT, SEVERINO BUCAYU, CASIANO
CHAVENTE, ILLUMINADO BALIGOD, FELICIANO SERRANO,
TEOFILO URMA, REMIGIO DE LA CRUZ, ABELARDO BAUIT,
MARIANO MIRANDA, JR., ROMULO SERAFICA, CARLOS
MANANGUIT, ERNESTO FERMIN, ROGELIO FERNANDEZ,
ERNESTO CENABRE, TRINIDAD BALUNSAT, MIGUEL PASON,
GIL BALORAN, DOMINGO CALLUENG, BERNARDO BENITO,
JUAN TURINGAN, MARCELINO CORPUZ, IGNACIO PASCUA,
JR., LEONIDES FAUSTO, TEODORICO PASTOR, DOMINADOR
CORSINO, GENEROSO AGLAUA, ZACARIAS MAGGAY, SIMEON
BENZON, PATRICIO TAGUIAM, LUCAS TAGUINOD, MA.
GLORIA G. BALIGOD, LAURO N. FAUSTO, EDGAR AGGABAO,
RODOLFO CARDENAS, TERESITA ESPINOSA, PACIFICO C.
BINULUAN, ROGELIO SORIANO, ARTURO MAMBA, DR.
EXSUPERIO YUAGA, VIVIAN DE GUZMAN, EX-CONG.
FRANCISCO K. MAMBA, CRISTINA MAMBA, EDWIN LIU,
PABLO DANGA, ALICE LOA, VICENTE TOLENTINO,
NUMERIANO MACAPULAY, ROLLY SEDANO , complainants, vs.
JUDGE DOMINADOR L. GARCIA, MTC, TUAO, CAGAYAN ,
respondent.

Raymundo P. Guzman for complainants.

SYNOPSIS

Criminal Case No. 399 (illegal possession of firearms) was filed against
Renato Bulatao with respondent Judge's sala. During the preliminary
investigation, P/Sr. Inspector Salvador demanded from accused P30,000,
later reduced to P6,000, for the withdrawal of the case. On the day of the
entrapment, a tape recorder provided by the National Bureau of
Investigation recorded the conversation among the parties. Respondent
asked Bulatao if he had the money and when he received an affirmative
response took accused and the two policemen, Poli and Santos, to his
chambers. He told them to receive whatever Bulatao would give them and
then left. After the two policemen received the marked money from the
accused, Poli told the accused "to take care of the judge." The executive
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com
 judge relied on the tape recorded conversation and found respondent knew
of the pay-off being made and was willing to abide by the deal provided he
would be "taken care of."
The recording of private conversations without the consent of all the
parties contravenes the provisions of R.A. 4200, otherwise known as Anti-
Wire Tapping Law and the contents of the tape recorder is inadmissible in
evidence.
The taking of undue interest in the settlement of criminal cases
pending before them and allowing the use of his chambers for the
consummation of illegal transactions implies a wrongful intention to commit
an unlawful act in the performance of official duties and constitutes serious
misconduct. Respondent, who was previously been convicted in two
administrative cases for palpable ignorance of Rule 114, Section 8 and of
deliberately delaying his decision in a civil case and falsifying certificates of
services, was dismissed from the service.

SYLLABUS

1. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; ADMISSIBILITY; ANTI-WIRE TAPPING

LAW; TAPE-RECORDED CONVERSATION, INADMISSIBLE. — 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. The law covers even those
recorded by persons privy to the private communications, as in this case.
Thus, the contents of the tape recorder cannot be relied upon to determine
the culpability of respondent judge.
2. JUDICIAL ETHICS; SERIOUS MISCONDUCT, CONSTRUED. — 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. For serious misconduct to warrant a dismissal from the
service, there must be reliable evidence showing that the judicial acts
complained of were corrupt or inspired by an intention to violate the law. It
must (1) be serious, important, weighty, momentary, and not trifling; (2)
imply wrongful intention and not mere error of judgment; and (3) have a
direct relation to and be connected with the performance of his official
duties.
3. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE REQUIRED
IN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS. — The standards of integrity required of
members of the Bench are not satisfied by conduct which merely allows one
to escape the penalties of the criminal law. In an administrative proceeding,
such as this case, only substantial evidence, or that amount of relevant
evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion, is required. DCScaT

4. CRIMINAL LAW; BRIBERY; ELEMENTS. — To constitute bribery, the

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com
 following must be shown: (1) the offender is a public officer within the scope
of Art. 203; (2) the offender accepts an offer or a promise or receives a gift
or present by himself or through another; (3) such offer or promise is
accepted, or gift received by the public officer, (a) with a view to committing
some crime; (b) in consideration of the execution of an act which does not
constitute a crime, but which is unjust; or (c) to refrain from doing something
which it is his official duty to do; and (4) the act which he agrees to perform
is connected with the performance of his official duties.
5. ID.; ID.; CASE AT BAR. — From the records, it is evident that P/Sr.
Inspector Salvador, a public officer, solicited money from Bulatao in
consideration of the withdrawal of the case against the latter. The former
categorically told the latter that he would withdraw the criminal case against
Bulatao if Bulatao gives him P30,000.00, which was later lowered to
P6,000.00. The fact that two of his men came for the preliminary
investigation and, without hesitation, followed respondent judge to his
chambers after hearing that Bulatao had the money, bears out Bulatao's
allegations. Although these circumstances do not show conclusively that
respondent judge was privy to the crime of bribery, there is substantial
evidence showing that he was at least an accomplice to the crime who
cooperated in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts.
The . . . circumstances, as corroborated by the report of the NBI and the
testimonies of two employees of the MTC, who were disinterested witnesses,
show that respondent judge knowingly and voluntarily cooperated with P/Sr.
Inspector Salvador in consummating the crime.
6. JUDICIAL ETHICS; CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT; VIOLATED BY
JUDGE'S UNDUE INTEREST IN SETTLEMENT OF CRIMINAL CASE PENDING
PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION IN HIS SALA. — Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial
Conduct enjoins judges to avoid not only impropriety but even the
appearance of impropriety in all their conduct. This includes not taking an
undue interest in the settlement of criminal cases pending before them as
this may compromise the integrity and impartiality of their office. As the
visible representation of the law and of justice, their conduct must be above
reproach and suspicion. By acting as an accomplice to P/Sr. Inspector
Salvador, respondent judge violated not only the law but also the Code of
Judicial Conduct.
7. ID.; JUDGES' CONDUCT DURING PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION IS
WITHIN THE DISCIPLINARY POWER OF THE COURT. — Nor does the fact that
respondent committed misconduct during a preliminary investigation, which
is non-judicial in character, exempt him from the disciplinary power of this
Court as the conduct of a preliminary investigation is only an addition to his
judicial functions.
8. ID.; ID.; SERIOUS MISCONDUCT; CASE AT BAR. — Respondent
judge was previously convicted in two administrative cases filed before this
Court. In A.M. No. MTJ-91-616, entitled " Clodualdo Escobar vs. Garcia," the
Court, in a resolution dated September 1, 1992, found respondent guilty of
palpable ignorance of Rule 114, section 8 resulting in the denial of due
process to the prosecution in a criminal case. Respondent was fined an
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com
 amount equivalent to 15 days salary with warning that a repetition of the
same would be dealt with more severely. In another case, A.M. No. MTJ-95-
1049, entitled "Eloisa Bernardo v. Garcia," the Court, in a resolution dated
June 28, 1995, found respondent guilty of deliberately delaying his decision
in a civil case and falsifying certificates of service. He was reprimanded and
ordered to pay a fine of P5,000.00 with warning that a repetition of the same
or similar acts will be dealt with more severely. . . [T]he Court finds
respondent Judge Dominador L. Garcia guilty of serious misconduct and
accordingly orders his DISMISSAL from the service and the forfeiture of his
leave credits and retirement benefits, with prejudice to reemployment in any
branch of the government or any of its agencies or instrumentalities,
including government-owned and controlled corporations.

DECISION

PER CURIAM : p

This is a "resolution," which is more accurately a manifesto or a

petition of concerned citizens of Tuao, Cagayan, denouncing certain acts of
Judge Dominador L. Garcia, Municipal Trial Court, Tuao, Cagayan, in
connection with his handling of Criminal Case No. 399, entitled " People vs.
Renato Bulatao ." The complainants are the then Representative of the Third
District of Cagayan, the mayor and vice-mayor, ten (10) members of the
Sangguniang Bayan, thirty-two (32) barrio captains, ten (10) LGU
department heads of Tuao, Cagayan, and eight (8) heads of non-
governmental organizations or NGOs in the municipality of Tuao.
The "resolution," dated November 4, 1996, was presented to this
Court. It was adopted at an assembly led by Rep. Manuel N. Mamba which
picketed the municipal trial court on that day. 1 The "resolution" was treated
as an administrative complaint and respondent Judge Dominador L. Garcia
was required to answer. The matter was referred to Executive Judge Orlando
D. Beltran, Jr. of the Regional Trial Court of Tuao, Cagayan, for investigation,
report, and recommendation. 2
Thereafter, an investigation was held during which the affidavits and
sworn statements of NBI Special Investigator Ablezer Rivera, the joint
affidavit of NBI agents, Raul A. Ancheta and Paul D. Rivera, the sworn
statement of the accused in Criminal Case No. 699, Renato Bulatao, and the
testimonies of Abner P. Cardenas, clerk of court, MTC, Tuao, Cagayan and
Tomas Latauan, Jr., interpreter of the same court, were presented. The gist
of the evidence for the complainants is as follows:
On August 23, 1996, a complaint for violation ofPresidential 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. 3 Respondent set the preliminary investigation on September 4,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com
 1996, but the same was subsequently postponed and reset to October 23,
1996 as respondent was not present, although the complaining officer, P/Sr.
Inspector Danny F. Salvador, appeared in court. On October 23, 1996, the
preliminary investigation was again reset to October 30, 1996. On October
29, 1996, the accused, Renato Bulatao, complained to the NBI that at the
scheduled preliminary investigation on September 4, 1996, P/Sr. Inspector
Salvador 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 on October 23, 1996. As
Bulatao told them that he could not afford it, the amount was reduced to
P6,000.00.
Based on Bulatao's report, the NBI set out to entrap Salvador and
respondent judge. The NBI gave Bulatao 12 pieces of P500.00 marked bills
amounting to P6,000.00, which the latter would give to Salvador and
respondent the next day. 4
Accordingly, at about 7 o'clock in the morning of the following day,
October 30, Bulatao met the NBI operatives in the house of Francisco
Mamba, Sr., former representative of the 3rd District of Cagayan, where the
entrapment was planned. Bulatao was given a tape recorder to record his
conversation with whoever will receive the money. At 9 a.m., Bulatao went to
the Municipal Trial Court and waited for his case to be called. At 10:30 a.m.,
respondent went out of his chambers and talked to SPO2 Jonathan Santos
and SPO4 Carlos Poli, representatives of P/Sr. Inspector Salvador in the
preliminary investigation. Respondent then called Bulatao and led him and
the two police officers to the office of the MTC court personnel. Inside,
respondent asked Bulatao if he had the money with him. When he answered
in the affirmative, respondent took them to his chambers and left them there
as he proceeded to his sala. 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 11 pieces of
P500.00 marked bills in their possession. 5
After the matter was referred by this Court to Executive Judge Orlando
Beltran 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 (December 10, 1997, January 30, 1998, February
10, 1998, March 3, 1998, March 10, 1998, September 10, 1998, October 9,
1998, November 11, 1998, January 5, 1999, February 9, 1999, March 4,
1999, and April 5, 1999), 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. He denied that he took the three
to his chambers. 6
On the basis of these facts, the Investigating Judge made the following
recommendation:

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com

 "The foregoing facts indisputably show that the respondent Judge
allowed the use of his chambers by the two (2) police officers SPOII
Jonathan Santos and SPOIV Carlos Poli and Renato Bulatao, the
accused in the criminal case for illegal possession of firearms, so that
they could talk about the "settlement" of Bulatao's case which was
then pending preliminary investigation by the respondent Judge.
Although the two (2) witnesses, Abner Cardenas and Tomas Latauan,
Jr., claimed that they did not hear the subject of the conversation
between Bulatao, on one hand, and the two (2) policemen and the
respondent Judge Dominador L. Garcia, on the other, before the three
first-named persons went inside the chambers of the respondent Judge,
it is not difficult to conclude that they must have talked about the
criminal case of Bulatao and its "settlement." For if the subject-matter
of their conversation were other than said "settlement" there appears
no reason or purpose to allow the policemen and the accused to go
inside the judge's chambers and there to continue their conversation.
Simply stated, the respondent judge allowed the two (2) policemen and
the accused Renato Bulatao to use his chambers so that they could
consummate the arrangements for the dismissal of the case,
particularly the payment of the sum of money being demanded as
consideration for such dismissal. TEAICc

"In this connection, the undersigned Investigating Judge cannot

help but refer to the taped conversation between the two (2)
policemen and Renato Bulatao inside the chamber of the respondent
Judge. A portion of the translated dialogue between Poli and Bulatao,
which was in Ilocano, tends to show that the P6,000.00 pay-off handed
by Bulatao to the policemen was not intended for the respondent Judge
but solely for the policemen and their superior, P/Sr. Inspector
Salvador. However, it is not easy to disregard the implication obvious
from the said conversation that the respondent Judge was privy to the
entire transaction. SPOIV Poli pointedly told Bulatao 'to take care of the
Judge' which implies that the Judge knew of the pay-off being made and
was willing to abide by the "deal" provided he would be "taken care of
by Bulatao.
"Such acts of the respondent Judge are improper, to say the
least. He, therefore, violated the duty of every Judge to uphold the
integrity of the judiciary and to avoid impropriety and the appearance
of impropriety in all activities. (Mortel vs. Leido, Jr. 44 SCAD 567). It
cannot be over-emphasized that a judge's official conduct should be
free from the appearance of impropriety, and his personal behavior,
not only upon the bench and in the performance of official duties but
also in his every day life, should be beyond reproach. (Marcos, Sr. vs.
Arcangel, 72 SCAD 1). Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct enjoins
judges to avoid not just impropriety in their conduct but even the mere
appearance of impropriety. This is true not only in the performance of
their official duties but in all their activities, including their private life.
They must conduct themselves in such a manner that they give no
ground for reproach. (Pedro San Juan vs. Judge Lore V. Bagalsera , RTC,
BR. 23, Naga City, A. M. No. RTJ-97-1395, December 22, 1997). In this
case, the acts of the respondent judge were clearly improper as he
facilitated, if not participated in, the obviously unauthorized/illegal
transaction between the two (2) police officers and the accused Renato
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com
 Bulatao for the settlement/dismissal of the latter's criminal case, in
consideration of a sum of money, particularly since the offense charged
against Bulatao is a grievous one and that it is one which is not
allowed by law to be compromised.
"In view of all the foregoing, the undersigned Investigating Judge
respectfully recommends that the respondent Judge Dominador L.
Garcia be found guilty of improper conduct and be punished
accordingly. 7 "

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. 8
The law covers even those recorded by persons privy to the private
communications, as in this case. 9 Thus, the contents of the tape recorder
cannot be relied upon to determine the culpability of respondent judge.
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. For serious misconduct to warrant a
dismissal from the service, there must be reliable evidence showing that the
judicial acts complained of were corrupt or inspired by an intention to violate
the law. It must (1) be serious, important, weighty, momentary, and not
trifling; (2) imply wrongful intention and not mere error of judgment; and (3)
have a direct relation to and be connected with the performance of his
official duties. 10
In the case at bar, it is clear that the crime of bribery was committed.
Although the evidence may not be sufficient to support a conviction in a
criminal case, it is adequate for the purpose of these proceedings. The
standards of integrity required of members of the Bench are not satisfied by
conduct which merely allows one to escape the penalties of the criminal law.
11 In an administrative proceeding, such as this case, only substantial
evidence, or that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind
might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, is required. 12
To constitute bribery, the following must be shown: (1) the offender is
a public officer within the scope of Art. 203; (2) the offender accepts an offer
or a promise or receives a gift or present by himself or through another; (3)
such offer or promise is accepted, or gift received by the public officer, (a)
with a view to committing some crime; (b) in consideration of the execution
of an act which does not constitute a crime, but which is unjust; or (c) to
refrain from doing something which it is his official duty to do; and (4) the
act which he agrees to perform is connected with the performance of his
official duties. 13 From the records, it is evident that P/Sr. Inspector Salvador,
a public officer, solicited money from Bulatao in consideration of the
withdrawal of the case against the latter. The former categorically told the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com
 latter that he would withdraw the criminal case against Bulatao if Bulatao
gives him P30,000.00, which was later lowered to P6,000.00. The fact that
two of his men came for the preliminary investigation and, without
hesitation, followed respondent judge to his chambers after hearing that
Bulatao had the money, bears out Bulatao's allegations. Although these
circumstances do not show conclusively that respondent judge was privy to
the crime of bribery, there is substantial evidence showing that he was at
least an accomplice to the crime who cooperated in the execution of the
offense by previous or simultaneous acts. 14 The following circumstances, as
corroborated by the report of the NBI and the testimonies of two employees
of the MTC, who were disinterested witnesses, show that respondent judge
knowingly and voluntarily cooperated with P/Sr. Inspector Salvador in
consummating the crime:
(1) On the day of the entrapment, respondent judge asked Bulatao
if he had the money, and when he received an affirmative answer, he took
Bulatao and the two police officers to his chambers told the police officers to
receive whatever Bulatao would give them, 15 and then left; and
(2) When Bulatao left respondent's chambers and gave the signal to
the NBI operatives waiting outside, the marked bills were found by the
agents in the possession of SPO2 Jonathan Santos, as the latter was leaving
the chambers of respondent judge with SPO4 Carlos Poli. As the
Investigating Judge observed, respondent willingly allowed his chambers to
be used for the consummation of the illegal transaction. The actions of
respondent implies a wrongful intention to commit an unlawful act while in
the performance of his official duties.
Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct enjoins judges to avoid not
only impropriety but even the appearance of impropriety in all their conduct.
This includes not taking an undue interest in the settlement of criminal
cases pending before them as this may compromise the integrity and
impartiality of their office. 16 As the visible representation of the law and of
justice, their conduct must be above reproach and suspicion. 17 By acting as
an accomplice to P/Sr. Inspector Salvador, respondent judge violated not
only the law but also the Code of Judicial Conduct.
Nor does the fact that respondent committed misconduct during a
preliminary investigation, which is non-judicial in character, exempt him from
the disciplinary power of this Court as the conduct of a preliminary
investigation is only an addition to his judicial functions. 18
I n Cabrera vs. Pajares, 19 where the payment of the money to
respondent judge in his chambers was witnessed by an NBI agent, this Court
ordered his dismissal from the service. Likewise, in Court Administrator vs.
Hermoso, 20 where the judge received money from a party to a case pending
before his sala and was entrapped by an NBI agent, this Court ordered his
dismissal. In addition, the erring judge is liable to the forfeiture of his leave
credits and retirement benefits and his dismissal shall be with prejudice to
reemployment in any branch of the government or any of its agencies or
instrumentalities, including government-owned and controlled corporations,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com
 as provided by Section 9, Rule 14 of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book
V of Executive Order No. 292 (Administrative Code of 1987) and our current
rulings. 21
Respondent judge was previously convicted in two administrative
cases filed before this Court. In A.M. No. MTJ-91-616, entitled " Clodualdo
Escobar vs. Garcia," the Court, in a resolution dated September 1, 1992,
found respondent guilty of palpable ignorance of Rule 114, Section 8
resulting in the denial of due process to the prosecution in a criminal case.
Respondent was fined an amount equivalent to 15 days salary with warning
that a repetition of the same would be dealt with more severely. In another
case, A.M. No. MTJ-95-1049, entitled " Eloisa Bernardo v. Garcia," the Court,
in a resolution dated June 28, 1995, found respondent guilty of deliberately
delaying his decision in a civil case and falsifying certificates of service. He
was reprimanded and ordered to pay a fine of P5,000.00 with warning that a
repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Judge Dominador L. Garcia
guilty of serious misconduct and accordingly orders his DISMISSAL from the
service and the forfeiture of his leave credits and retirement benefits, with
prejudice to reemployment in any branch of the government or any of its
agencies or instrumentalities, including government-owned and controlled
corporations. SDIACca

SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza,
Panganiban,Quisumbing, Pardo, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes, Ynares-Santiago, De
Leon Jr., and Sandoval-Gutierrez, JJ., concur.

Footnotes
1. Rollo , pp. 34-44.
2. Id., p. 143.
3. Id., p. 24.
4. Id., pp. 57-59, 65.
5. Id., pp. 63-64, 66-68.
6. Id., p. 122
7. Id., pp. 247-248.
8. "SECTION 1. It shall be unlawful for any person, not being authorized by
all the parties to any private communication or spoken word, to tap any wire
or cable, or by using any other device or arrangement, to secretly overhear,
intercept, or record such communication or spoken word by using a device
commonly known as a dictaphone or dictograph or detectaphone or walkie-
talkie or tape recorder, or however otherwise described. (Italics ours).
"xxx xxx xxx

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com

 "SECTION 4. Any communication or spoken word, or the existence,
contents, substance, purport, or meaning of the same or any part thereof, or
any information therein contained, obtained or secured by any person in
violation of the preceding sections of this Act shall not be admissible in
evidence in any judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative or administrative hearing
or investigation. (Italics ours)."
9. Ramirez vs. Court of Appeals, 248 SCRA 590 (1995).
10. Manuel vs. Calimag, Jr., 307 SCRA 657 (1999).
11. Centrum Agri-business Realty Corporation vs. Katalbas-Moscardon, 247
SCRA 147 (1995).
12. Lorenza vs. Encomienda, 302 SCRA 632 (1999); Liwanag vs. Lustre, 306
SCRA 55 (1999); REVISED RULES OF EVIDENCE, Rule 133, Sec. 5.
13. L.B. Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Criminal Law, vol. 2, pp. 366-367 (14th
ed., 1998).
14. Revised Penal Code, Art. 18.
15. Rollo , p. 132.
16. Ferrer vs. Maramba , 290 SCRA 44 (1998), Code of Judicial Conduct, Rule
2.01.
17. Cabrera vs. Pajares, 142 SCRA 127 (1986); Quiz vs. Castano, 107 SCRA 196
(1981); Montemayor vs. Collado, 107 SCRA 258 (1981).
18. Radomes vs. Jakosalem , 320 SCRA 445 (1999).
19. 142 SCRA 127 (1986).

20. 150 SCRA 269 (1987).

21. National Bureau of Investigation vs. Reyes, 326 SCRA 109 (2000); Nazareno
vs. Almario , 268 SCRA 657 (1997); Tabao vs. Espina, 257 SCRA 298 (1996);
Centrum Agri-Business Realty Corporation vs. Katalbas-Moscardon, 247 SCRA
145 (1995); Lee vs. Abastillas , 234 SCRA 29 (1994); Imbing vs. Tiongson, 229
SCRA 690 (1994).

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com