This case involves an allegation that a Judge responsible for a trafficking in persons case acted improperly and in gross ignorance of the law.
The case was brought before the Court after a complaint was lodged before the Office of the Court Administrator by four police officers (the plaintiffs) that were assigned with the Criminal Investigation and Detection Division (CIDD). The complaint alleged that on “August 9, 2004, Gus Abelgas of ABS-CBN's “Private Eye” TV program accompanied one Ernesto Cruz to Camp Crame, Quezon City to file a complaint involving Cruz's minor daughter who was allegedly recruited in Malabon, Metro Manila to work in a KTV bar in Pinamalayan, Oriental Mindoro.” The next day, 10 August 2004, the complainants, as CIDD officers and agents, conducted a rescue operation accompanied by Ernesto Cruz, Gus Abelgas and other ABS-CBN TV crew members who took footage of the operation. The CIDD team was able to rescue five young girls from the house of a man who claimed that another man had brought the women to him for safekeeping. As a result of the rescue operation, a complaint for violation of Republic Act (RA) 9208 (Anti-Human Trafficking Act) was subsequently filed before the City Prosecutor's Office of Malabon against the man, his recruiter wife and another person. Thereafter, the rescued minors were brought and turned over to the Department of Social Welfare and Development. Later, the corresponding Information was filed and warrants of arrest with no bail recommended were then issued against the suspects.
Several weeks after these events, Judge Hernandez issued a warrant of arrest for charges of grave coercion and qualified trespass against Abelgas, Cruz and the CIDD team who conducted the rescue operation. The complaint filed by the plaintiffs against Judge Hernandez alleged that the rescued girls were taken by the suspected traffickers, among others, to a beach resort where they were threatened and coerced into signing a retraction of their complaint as well as signing a complaint against the plaintiffs for grave coercion and qualified trespass. The plaintiffs alleged that Judge Hernandez arrived at the said beach resort and conferred with the suspects in relation to the retraction of the complaint and filing of the new one. It was submitted that this followed by a drinking session and “entertainment”. At trial the Judge “vehemently denied” these accusations.
1st Instance:
Court: Supreme Court (First Division)
Location: Manila
Date of decision: 8 June 2007
Reference: P/Supt. Alejandro Gutierrez, PCI Antonio Ricafort, SPO4 Richardo G. Ong, and SPO1 Arnulfo Medenilla vs. Judge Godofredo G. Hernandez, Sr., A.M. No. MTJ-06-1628, 8 June 2007
The Supreme Court First Division found Judge Herandez guilty of gross ignorance of the law and ruled that he had committed an error when he immediately issued an arrest warrant without conducting a preliminary investigation on the case. The Court also stressed that although Hernandez had the power to issue an arrest warrant he could not issue it indiscriminately. The Court held that
“when the law is sufficiently basic, a judge owes it to his office to know and to simply apply it. Anything less would be constitutive of gross ignorance of the law. Newly appointed judges are required to have a working knowledge of the Rules of Court before they assume their judicial post. And after years of service in the judiciary, judges are expected to have become already conversant with the Rules, which they apply and rely on everyday in court. Years of service in the bench simply negate any notion that a judge could be grossly ignorant of procedural laws. It is thus completely inexcusable for the respondent who had been with the judiciary for the last twelve (12) years to have acted the way he did in this case.”
The Court noted that Judge Hernandez “vehemently denied” his purported participation in a drinking spree with the suspects and any sort of imputation that he coerced and manipulated the parties. The Court also acknowledged the lack of evidence on this point but did not come to any decisive conclusion in relation to the accusations.
It was ordered that the now retired judge pay a PHP20,000 (USD460) fine, which would be deducted from his benefits.
Supreme Court (First Division)
1st Instance: P/Supt. Alejandro Gutierrez, PCI Antonio Ricafort, SPO4 Richardo G. Ong, and SPO1 Arnulfo Medenilla vs. Judge Godofredo G. Hernandez, Sr., A.M. No. MTJ-06-1628, 8 June 2007
This case is significant for the fact that it involves allegations of purported corruption by a Judge responsible for a trafficking in persons case. Whilst these allegations were never substantiated it does highlight the potential link between trafficking in persons and corruption, particularly the involvement of criminal justice actors. For further research on this issue see, UNODC, Issue Paper: The Role of Corruption in Trafficking in Persons (2011), available at < http://www.unodc.org/documents/human-trafficking/2011/Issue_Paper_-_The_Role_of_Corruption_in_Trafficking_in_Persons.pdf>