[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
136 views1 page

Oca Pascual

The OCA investigated Judge Felomino Pascual based on a letter alleging corruption. The NBI investigation found the letter was fake but took a statement from a man whose case Judge Pascual handled. The man claimed Judge Pascual implied he should pay him $2,000. However, the Supreme Court ruled there was not enough evidence to convict Judge Pascual as he was not given a fair trial to confront witnesses and present his own evidence. Proper investigation and competent direct evidence is required to penalize a member of the judiciary.

Uploaded by

Francis Coronel Jr.
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
136 views1 page

Oca Pascual

The OCA investigated Judge Felomino Pascual based on a letter alleging corruption. The NBI investigation found the letter was fake but took a statement from a man whose case Judge Pascual handled. The man claimed Judge Pascual implied he should pay him $2,000. However, the Supreme Court ruled there was not enough evidence to convict Judge Pascual as he was not given a fair trial to confront witnesses and present his own evidence. Proper investigation and competent direct evidence is required to penalize a member of the judiciary.

Uploaded by

Francis Coronel Jr.
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

OFFICE OF COURT ADMINISTRATOR (OCA) V. HON.

FELOMINO PASCUAL

FACTS: One Ceferino Tigas wrote a letter, addressed to Office of Court Administrator of the Supreme
Court, charging that irregularities and corruption were being committed by the respondent Judge
Felomino Pascual, an MTC Judge.

The letter was referred to NBI for “discreet investigation” of respondent. NBI investigators proceeded to
Angat, Bulacan, in order to look for Ceferino Tigas, the letter writer but found out that it was a fictitious
character. Subsequently, they proceeded to the residence of one Candido Cruz, an accused in
respondent’s sala .

In his affidavit, Cruz declared that he was the accused in Criminal Case No. 2154, charged with the crime
of Frustrated Murder.  Respondent judge, after conducting the preliminary investigation of the case,
decided that the crime he committed was only physical injuries and so, respondent judge assumed
jurisdiction over the case.  

Cruz believed that he was made to understand by the respondent that, in view of his favorable action,
Cruz was to give to respondent the sum of P2,000.00.  Respondent judge is believed to be a drunkard
and, in all probability, would need money to serve his vice.

As a result of the NBI’s investigation, judge Pascual was referred to the Inquest Prosecutor of the Office
of the Special Prosecutor, Ombudsman, with the recommendation that he be charged and prosecuted for
Bribery as defined and penalized under Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines.

ISSUE: Whether or not the evidences presented against Judge Felomino Pascual were strong enough to
convict him.

RULING: No. The Supreme Court held that the respondent was not afforded right to open trial wherein
respondent can confront the witnesses against him and present evidence in his defense. Only bases for
the Report and Recommendation submitted consist of: The Complaint, the Answer, the Memorandum of
the respondent, and the transcript of stenographic notes of the hearing of the bribery case of respondent
judge at the Sandiganbayan.

Before any member of the Judiciary could be faulted, it should be only after due investigation and after
presentation of competent evidence derived from direct knowledge, especially since the charge is penal in
character.

You might also like