The Supreme Court has dismissed a court stenographer who solicited money from the mother of an accused in exchange for the dismissal of the criminal case.
In a Decision penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez, the Supreme Court En Banc adopted the recommendation by the Judicial Integrity Board (JIB) finding Nemia Alma Y. Almanoche (Almanoche), Court Stenographer III of Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 10, Malaybalay City, Bukidnon guilty of serous dishonesty, and ordered her dismissal from service.
In 2018, Presiding Judge Ma. Theresa A. Camannong (Judge Camannong) of Branch 9, RTC, Malaybalay City, Bukidnon, reported to Acting Presiding Judge Eldred D. Cole (Judge Cole) of the alleged corrupt practices involving Almanoche.
Judge Camannong learned from a court legal researcher that Almanoche had solicited PHP 20,000 from a certain Jean Baguio (Baguio) allegedly in exchange for the dismissal of the criminal case against Baguio’s two sons pending before Judge Camannong. Almanoche allegedly told Baguio that the amount was for the “judge, the fiscal and the PAO.”
Judge Camannong then called Baguio, together with the prosecutor and the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) lawyer handling the case, to the Judge’s chambers, where Baguio narrated that she came to know of Almanoche through the aunt of another co-accused in the same case. Baguio claimed that Almanoche asked for a total of PHP 20,000 so the latter could “take care of the Prosecutor, the Judge and the PAO.” Baguio gave Almanoche PHP 1,000 and promised to pay the balance later.
On April 30, 2018, Baguio went to the Hall of Justice with the private complainant in the criminal case, who executed an Affidavit of Desistance before the prosecutor. At the same meeting, Baguio mentioned the agreement she had with Almanoche.
Executive Judge Isobel G. Barroso (Judge Barroso) of the RTC in Malabalay City, upon the Court’s order to investigate the matter, reported to the JIB that Almanoche was guilty of serious misconduct. However, the recommended penalty was reduced to suspension for one month without pay, taking into consideration Almanoche’s service in the judiciary for more than 20 years; that this was her first offense; and that she did not receive the money she asked from Baguio.
The JIB agreed with Judge Barroso’s findings and found Almanoche guilty of serious dishonesty. It disagreed, however, on the recommended penalty, holding that a grave offense such as serious dishonesty cannot be mitigated by the employee’s length of service or the fact that she is a first-time offender. Thus, the JIB recommended that Almanoche be meted the penalty of dismissal.
In adopting the JIB’s recommendation, the Court stressed that to gain the public’s trust and confidence in the Judiciary, all its employees must ensure that their conduct exemplifies competence, honesty, and integrity.
Almanoche, however, committed serious dishonesty by demanding money from Baguio to be given and shared by the trial Judge, the Prosecutor, and the PAO Lawyer whose collective acts will allegedly ensure the speedy acquittal of her sons. She is thus unfit and unworthy to stay in the Judiciary, held the Court.
Almanoche failed to comply with the standards that should have governed her life as a public servant. By soliciting money from Baguio, Almanoche affected the honor and integrity of the Judiciary and the people’s trust and confidence in it. Worse, she created the impression that decisions can be bought, said the Court.
Thus, consistent with jurisprudence, the Court ruled that no less than the penalty of dismissal is proper since those serving in the Judiciary must carry the burden and duty of preserving public faith in the courts and justice system by maintaining high ethical standards.
The Court, however, clarified the pronouncement made by the JIB that a grave offense cannot be mitigated by the length of service or the fact that it is a first-time offense.
Under Section 20 of Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, which governs the discipline of officials, employees, and personnel of the Judiciary, the appreciation of aggravating or mitigating circumstances may still be applied to grave offenses as it is the penalty, not the gravity of the offense, that is taken into consideration.
However, in the case of Almanoche, the Court ruled that the mitigating factors considered by Judge Barroso nevertheless cannot be applied since personnel in the Judiciary must adhere to high ethical standards to preserve the courts’ good name and standing. Any conduct, act, or omission on the part of those who would violate the norm of public accountability and diminish or even just tend to diminish the faith of the people in the Judiciary cannot be countenanced, stressed the Court.
The Supreme Court Public Information Office will upload a copy of the ruling in A.M. No. P-19-3923 (Office of the Court Administrator v. Almanoche) once it receives the same from the Office of the Clerk of Court En Banc. (Courtesy of the Supreme Court Public Information Office)