In Spouses Rodolfo and Sylvia Cabico v. Judge Evelyn L. Dimaculangan-Querijero, the Supreme Court addressed the serious misconduct of a trial court judge who dismissed a rape case based on the victim’s receipt of payment for civil liability and her supposed lack of interest in pursuing the criminal aspect. The Supreme Court ruled that the judge exhibited gross ignorance of the law and violated the Code of Judicial Conduct. The court underscored that criminal liability is not extinguished by the payment of civil liability, and an affidavit of desistance does not automatically warrant dismissal of a criminal case, particularly in rape cases reclassified as crimes against persons. The decision reinforces the principle that judges must maintain impartiality and a thorough understanding of the law to ensure justice is served.

Compromised Justice? Examining the Dismissal of a Rape Case

This case stemmed from an administrative complaint filed by spouses Rodolfo and Sylvia Cabico against Judge Evelyn L. Dimaculangan-Querijero of the Regional Trial Court of Cabanatuan City, Branch 26. The complainants, parents of a rape victim, alleged that Judge Dimaculangan-Querijero demonstrated ignorance of the law, abused her authority, and engaged in conduct unbecoming of a trial court judge. The crux of the complaint revolved around the judge’s dismissal of Criminal Case No. 10383-AF, a rape case involving their 17-year-old daughter, based on the premise that the accused had paid the civil liability and the victim purportedly showed no further interest in pursuing the criminal charges. This action, the complainants argued, was a grave miscarriage of justice.

The narrative unfolded with the hearing on October 12, 2001, where the complainants’ counsel declared no settlement would be pursued due to unresolved payment issues. Following this, Judge Dimaculangan-Querijero allegedly confronted Sylvia Cabico, demanding the return of the money received from the accused. Further, the complainants claimed they were pressured by the Clerk of Court, Atty. Fraizerwin Viterbo, to sign an Affidavit of Desistance, with warnings of the judge’s displeasure should they refuse. Despite their refusal, Judge Dimaculangan-Querijero issued an order dismissing the case against two of the three accused, citing the receipt of payments and the victim’s supposed lack of interest, leading to the immediate release of one of the accused from detention.

In response to the allegations, Judge Dimaculangan-Querijero contended that the complaint was instigated by a lawyer with a personal vendetta against her. She further argued that the victim had initially expressed disinterest in pursuing the penal aspect of the case after receiving payments from the accused. According to the Judge, she was merely trying to administer justice by allowing an amicable settlement. However, the Supreme Court found these explanations unpersuasive, highlighting the critical legal errors committed by the judge. A key issue was the judge’s blatant disregard for the fact that the payment of civil liability does not extinguish criminal liability, as stipulated in the Revised Penal Code.

Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code clearly outlines the circumstances under which criminal liability is totally extinguished, none of which include the settlement of civil liabilities. Furthermore, Article 94 specifies the conditions for partial extinction of criminal liability, which similarly do not encompass such settlements. In its decision, the Court quoted key provisions from the Revised Penal Code, emphasizing the exclusive grounds for extinguishing criminal liability. These articles underscore that criminal cases, especially those involving serious offenses like rape, cannot be dismissed merely based on the settlement of civil claims or an affidavit of desistance. In this instance, the judge’s actions ran counter to these fundamental principles, undermining the integrity of the judicial process.

The Court further clarified that even the victim’s affidavit of desistance could not justify the dismissal of the criminal case. Republic Act No. 8353, known as the “Anti-Rape Law of 1997,” reclassifies rape as a crime against persons, enabling public prosecutors to pursue cases even without the victim’s complaint.

Even if we consider the victim’s affidavit of desistance, still it would not justify the dismissal. By itself, an affidavit of desistance or pardon is not a ground for the dismissal of an action, once the action has been instituted in court.

Thus, once a rape case is filed in court, the victim loses the absolute privilege to decide whether the case should proceed.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court emphasized that Judge Dimaculangan-Querijero’s actions violated Canon 2, Rule 2.01 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which requires judges to promote public confidence in the judiciary’s integrity and impartiality. The Court found that the Judge displayed partiality in favor of the accused when she dismissed the case based on the civil liability payment and the victim’s purported disinterest, despite the victim’s refusal to sign the affidavit of desistance. This underscored a critical breach of ethical standards, leading the court to impose sanctions.

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Judge Dimaculangan-Querijero acted with gross ignorance of the law and violated the Code of Judicial Conduct by dismissing a rape case based on the settlement of civil liabilities and the victim’s supposed lack of interest in pursuing criminal charges.
Can a rape case be dismissed if the accused pays the victim’s civil liability?	No, the payment of civil liability does not extinguish criminal liability. The Revised Penal Code specifies exclusive grounds for the total and partial extinction of criminal liability, none of which include settling civil claims.
Does an affidavit of desistance from the victim automatically lead to the dismissal of a rape case?	No, an affidavit of desistance or pardon by itself is not a ground for dismissal once a case has been instituted in court. Under the Anti-Rape Law of 1997, rape is considered a crime against persons, allowing prosecutors to proceed even without the victim’s complaint.
What ethical standards apply to judges in handling cases?	Judges must adhere to the Code of Judicial Conduct, ensuring impartiality, integrity, and public confidence in the judiciary. This includes maintaining professional competence, being faithful to the law, and behaving in a manner that promotes respect for the legal system.
What was the Supreme Court’s ruling?	The Supreme Court found Judge Dimaculangan-Querijero liable for gross ignorance of the law and violating the Code of Judicial Conduct. She was fined P21,000 and sternly warned against repeating similar actions in the future.
What does “gross ignorance of the law” mean in this context?	Gross ignorance of the law refers to a judge’s failure to understand and apply basic legal principles, which demonstrates incompetence and erodes public confidence in the courts. In this case, it involved a fundamental misunderstanding of the grounds for dismissing criminal cases.
Why did the Supreme Court emphasize the Anti-Rape Law of 1997?	The Anti-Rape Law of 1997 reclassified rape as a crime against persons, enabling prosecutors to pursue cases even without the victim’s complaint. This reinforces the state’s interest in prosecuting such crimes, regardless of the victim’s personal wishes after the case has been filed.
How did the judge violate the Code of Judicial Conduct?	The judge violated the Code by displaying partiality towards the accused, dismissing the case based on civil liability payment and the victim’s purported disinterest, despite the victim’s initial refusal to sign an affidavit of desistance. She also violated procedural rules by dismissing the case before arraignment.

This case serves as a stark reminder of the critical role judges play in upholding the rule of law and maintaining the integrity of the judicial system. It reinforces the principle that judges must possess a thorough understanding of the law, adhere to ethical standards, and avoid actions that compromise the impartiality of the judiciary. The Supreme Court’s decision underscores that justice must not be compromised for expediency, and the rights of victims must be protected throughout the legal process.

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: SPOUSES RODOLFO AND SYLVIA CABICO, COMPLAINANTS, VS. JUDGE EVELYN L. DIMACULANGAN- QUERIJERO, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, CABANATUAN CITY, BRANCH 26, RESPONDENT., A.M. NO. RTJ-02-1735, April 27, 2007