The Supreme Court of the Philippines affirmed the dismissal of Court of Appeals Associate Justice Demetrio G. Demetria for violating the Code of Judicial Conduct. The Court found Justice Demetria guilty of interfering in a drug trafficking case by attempting to influence the prosecution to withdraw a motion against a judge suspected of partiality. This decision underscores the judiciary’s commitment to maintaining impartiality and public trust by holding judges accountable for actions that compromise the integrity of the legal process.

When Friendship Clouds Judgment: A Justice’s Intervention in a Drug Queen’s Case

This case arose from news reports alleging that Court of Appeals Associate Justice Demetrio G. Demetria had improperly intervened on behalf of Yu Yuk Lai, a suspected drug queen. These reports prompted an investigation into whether Justice Demetria had violated the Code of Judicial Conduct by using his influence to affect the outcome of Yu Yuk Lai’s case. The central question was whether Justice Demetria’s actions constituted an improper attempt to influence a legal proceeding, thereby compromising the impartiality and integrity of the judiciary.

The investigation revealed that Justice Demetria, accompanied by Atty. Reinerio Paas and Go Teng Kok, visited State Prosecutor Pablo C. Formaran III, who was handling Yu Yuk Lai’s case. Go Teng Kok pleaded with SP Formaran III to withdraw his motion to inhibit Judge Muro, who was perceived to be partial towards Yu Yuk Lai. Justice Demetria inquired about the case’s status and suggested it was “dangerous” to base the inhibition of a judge on an anonymous letter. Later, Justice Demetria called Chief State Prosecutor Jovencito R. Zuño, requesting him to instruct SP Formaran III to withdraw the motion. This call was particularly damaging, as CSP Zuño testified that Justice Demetria specifically asked him to have the motion withdrawn so that Judge Muro could issue an order.

The Supreme Court emphasized that members of the judiciary must conduct themselves with the highest standards of honor, probity, fairness, prudence, and discretion. They must avoid not only actual impropriety but also the appearance of impropriety. The Court quoted Rule 2.04 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which mandates that a judge must “refrain from influencing in any manner the outcome of litigation or dispute pending before another court or administrative agency.” The slightest form of interference is unacceptable, as it diminishes public confidence in the judicial system.

Justice Demetria denied interceding for Yu Yuk Lai, claiming his visit to the DOJ was to “visit old friends” and his meeting with Go Teng Kok was accidental. He argued that his request for SP Formaran III to “do something to help Go Teng Kok” did not specify what kind of help and could have been within legal bounds. However, the Court found these explanations unconvincing. The Court noted inconsistencies in Justice Demetria’s statements and the testimonies of his witnesses. For instance, his initial compliance report did not mention that his primary purpose was to see Secretary Artemio Tuquero, and his witnesses contradicted his claim of visiting several officials in the DOJ.

The Court highlighted the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, CSP Zuño and SP Formaran III, whose testimonies were consistent with the circumstances of the case. The Court found CSP Zuño’s testimony particularly compelling:

“Pakisabi mo nga kay State Prosecutor Formaran na iwithdraw na iyong kanyang Motion to Inhibit para naman makagawa ng Order si Judge Muro.”

This statement, the Court reasoned, clearly indicated Justice Demetria’s intention to influence the case. The Court further noted that Justice Demetria’s position as a Justice of the Court of Appeals and former Undersecretary of the DOJ gave him a moral ascendancy over CSP Zuño, making his request particularly influential.

The Supreme Court rejected Justice Demetria’s argument that he did not know Yu Yuk Lai or Go Teng Kok, stating that his close friendship with Atty. Paas, Go Teng Kok’s lawyer, was sufficient for him to intercede. The Court emphasized that the conduct of those involved in the justice system must be above suspicion, and Justice Demetria failed to meet this standard. The Court cited several precedents to support its decision, including Jereos, Jr. v. Reblando, Sr., which states that the behavior of everyone connected with the dispensation of justice must be characterized by propriety and must be above suspicion.

The Court concluded that Justice Demetria’s actions undermined the integrity of the judiciary and eroded public trust in the legal system. The decision serves as a stern reminder that judges must uphold the highest ethical standards and avoid any conduct that could compromise the impartiality of the courts. The Court’s ruling reinforces the principle that judicial office demands moral righteousness and uprightness, and those who fail to meet these standards have no place in the judiciary.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Court of Appeals Justice Demetrio G. Demetria improperly interfered in a drug trafficking case, violating the Code of Judicial Conduct by attempting to influence the prosecution.
What specific action led to Justice Demetria’s dismissal?	Justice Demetria was dismissed for attempting to influence State Prosecutor Pablo C. Formaran III to withdraw a motion to inhibit a judge suspected of partiality in a drug queen’s case. He also called Chief State Prosecutor Jovencito R. Zuño to request the withdrawal of the motion.
What is Rule 2.04 of the Code of Judicial Conduct?	Rule 2.04 of the Code of Judicial Conduct states that a judge must “refrain from influencing in any manner the outcome of litigation or dispute pending before another court or administrative agency.”
Why did the Court consider Justice Demetria’s actions as interference?	The Court considered his actions as interference because he used his position to influence the prosecutor’s decision regarding the motion to inhibit, thereby compromising the impartiality of the proceedings.
Did Justice Demetria admit to interceding in the case?	No, Justice Demetria denied interceding and claimed his visit to the DOJ was to see friends. However, the Court found his explanations and the testimonies of his witnesses unconvincing and inconsistent.
What was the significance of Justice Demetria’s call to CSP Zuño?	The call was significant because CSP Zuño testified that Justice Demetria specifically asked him to have the motion withdrawn, indicating a clear intent to influence the case’s outcome.
What standard of conduct is expected of members of the judiciary?	Members of the judiciary are expected to conduct themselves with the highest standards of honor, probity, fairness, prudence, and discretion, avoiding not only actual impropriety but also the appearance of impropriety.
What was the final ruling in the case?	The Supreme Court found Justice Demetrio G. Demetria guilty of violating Rule 2.04 of the Code of Judicial Conduct and ordered his dismissal from the service with forfeiture of all benefits.

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case reaffirms the importance of judicial integrity and the need for judges to maintain impartiality in all their actions. This ruling serves as a crucial precedent for upholding the public’s trust in the Philippine judicial system and ensuring that justice is administered fairly and without undue influence.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: IN RE: DEMETRIA, A.M. No. 00-7-09-CA, March 27, 2001