SC clears Nazario, 2 others of graft raps

The Supreme Court has dismissed for lack of merit the administrative case filed against Sandiganbayan Presiding Justice Minita Chico-Nazario and two other justices for an alleged erroneous decision and accepting a P5-million bribe.

The decision was dated Feb. 13, three days after President Arroyo announced the appointment of Nazario as the 15th justice of the Supreme Court. The appointment, however, has yet to be implemented for reasons known only to Malacañang.

Nazario, along with Sandiganbayan Associate Justices Ma. Christina Cortez-Estrada and Rodolfo Palattao, was charged for gross and culpable violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees by a certain Leonides Cortes on July 28, 2003.

Cortes filed the complaint before the Office of the Court Administrator after the Sandiganbayan’s Fifth Division dismissed the graft case he filed against Dolores Reyes, municipal treasurer of Samal, Bataan and Pastor Vichauco, provincial treasurer of Balanga, Bataan.

Cortes claimed the local officials illegally sold his land in a public auction. The case was initially filed before the Office of the Ombudsman before it was elevated to the Sandiganbayan.

Cortes claimed the anti-graft court "irregularly" terminated the case without giving the prosecution the chance to cross-examine.

He also accused the justices of accepting bribe money amounting to P5 million from the defense.

In an 11-page decision penned by Associate Justice Romeo Callejo Sr., the Supreme Court en banc said Cortes failed to substantiate his claims of corruption. "Charges based on mere suspicion and speculation cannot be given credence," the court said.

"The court will not shirk from its responsibility of imposing discipline upon its magistrates, but neither will it hesitate to shield them from unfounded suits that serve to disrupt rather (than) promote the orderly administration of justice," the court said.

Cortes questioned the decision made by the respondent justices that "he slept on his rights," in failing to redeem his property within the one-year period prescribed by law.

He argued that there was no need for him to redeem his property since the auction made was not registered at the Register of Deeds and the Bataan provincial government.

The Supreme Court ruled Cortes has lost his rights and claims over the property since he failed to file a protest with regard to the assessment of the taxes due.

The court also noted the Sandiganbayan justices were correct in their decision that Cortes slept on his rights to redeem the property within the one-year prescriptive period.

"The Court has to be shown acts or conduct of the judge clearly indicative of arbitrariness or prejudice before the latter can be branded the stigma of being biased and partial," the court said.

"Thus, unless he is shown to have acted in bad faith or with deliberate intent to do an injustice, not every error or mistake that a judge commits in the performance of his duties renders him liable," the court added.

The high tribunal stressed that the Sandiganbayan justices "cannot be subjected to any liability – civil, criminal or administrative – for any of his official acts, no matter how erroneous, as long as he acts in good faith," the court said.

The high tribunal also held that Cortes should have exhausted all judicial recourse such as filing a motion for reconsideration, or an appeal, before filing an administrative complaint against the three Sandiganbayan justices.