The Supreme Court sacked Judge Edralin C. Reyes, presiding judge of Branch 43, Regional Trial Court of Roxas City, Oriental Mindoro for corruption after he “directly solicited bribes from lawyers, litigants, and even local elective officials in exchange for favorable actions.”
In a statement released by the court last March 3, 2024, it said that the SC, sitting en banc, found Judge Reyes guilty of gross misconduct and ordered his dismissal from service.
The Court also ordered the forfeiture of his retirement and other benefits, except accrued leave credits, and his perpetual disqualification from re-employment in any branch or agency of the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations.
The Court likewise ordered Reyes to pay a fine of P17,500 for simple misconduct over his negligence in supervising his court staff and ensuring proper and safe record- and evidence-keeping system in his court, “resulting in missing firearms, exhibits, and pieces of evidence that were in court custody.”
The disgraceful end to Reyes’ career started in December 2019 when the laptop issued to him by the SC as then acting presiding judge of Branch 39 broke down after he turned it over to his replacement judge, Judge Josephine Carranzo.
When Carranzo returned the laptop to the Management Information System Office (MISO) of the SC for repair and replacement, the MISO discovered “backup of iPhone messages, some of which showed that Reyes was engaged in corrupt practice(s).”
The discovery was reported to the OCA (Office of the Court Administrator) which then hired a forensic expert to extract the incriminating data from the laptop.
All the evidence pointed to the guilt of Reyes, the OCA Investigating Team concluded.
The investigating team also found that thru his private iPhone 6S, Reyes used it “to communicate and ask for bribes from several lawyers and private individuals, in exchange for favorable action on cases pending before him.”
“It became apparent that Reyes frequently conversed with Atty. Eduardo M. Magsino, Atty. Marlo E. Masangkay, Atty. Lysander Lascano Fetizanan, and Mayor Joselito Malabanan,” the SC statement said.
Specifically, Reyes: (1) borrowed money and asked for “pabaon” or pocket money from Atty. Magsino whenever Reyes attended seminars and trainings; (2) asked Atty. Masangkay to be his “dummy” in a transaction involving a 900-square-meter lot that Reyes owns; and (3) received money, a car, and guns from private practitioners in exchange for favorable action.
As a result, three judicial audit teams were organized to investigate Branches 39, 41, and 43 of the Oriental Mindoro RTC.
The audit confirmed that Reyes demanded and asked for bribes in exchange for orders or resolutions granting bail or its reduction, decisions of acquittal, orders granting motion to travel abroad, and orders allowing plea to a lesser offense.
The audit likewise revealed that the firearms in nine cases decided by Reyes involving violations of Republic Act No. 10591, or the Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunitions Act, were not turned over to the Philippine National Police.
The judicial audit teams surmised that Reyes and the lawyers he frequently conversed with may have kept the missing firearms after the cases were dismissed.
In a Memorandum to the Judicial Integrity Board (JIB), the OCA endorsed to the JIB the judicial audit teams’ report and the compliance of a telecom company on the Court’s Resolution requiring the telecom company to provide pertinent information on the ownership of the mobile phone numbers recovered from the subject laptop.
The company, Globe Philippines, confirmed that the mobile phone numbers retrieved from the laptop belong to Reyes, Attys. Magsino, Masangkay, and Fetizanan, and Mayor Malabanan. The JIB recommended that Reyes be directed to comment on the OCA Memorandum.
In his Comment, Reyes argued that the retrieval of his private mobile phone data from the laptop was “a brazen violation of his constitutional right to privacy of correspondence.”
He alleged that the messages recovered from his mobile phone were fake, altered, tampered, and unreliable because Judge Carranzo, who allegedly had an axe to grind against him, was in possession of the phone before it was turned over to the MISO. Reyes also asserted that the messages recovered from his laptop cannot be used because they were obtained in his absence and without his permission.
The Court, in determining Reyes’ administrative liability, emphasized that a government-issued computer, even if privately controlled, is subject to regulation and monitoring by the government employer.
For one, Reyes had no expectation of privacy for electronic communications stored in the subject laptop. The Court stressed that for judges and court employees, laptops and computers are provided to facilitate the courts’ function of adjudicating cases, and are not meant for private purposes.
In Reyes’ case, the SMS/iMessage correspondence were stored in the subject laptop and not in his private computer. Neither did it appear that the laptop was forcibly taken from him.
“These circumstances convince this Court that Judge Reyes cannot successfully claim that the State unduly intruded into a personal matter,” said the Court.
(FULL TEXT of A.M. No. RTJ-20-2579 (Office of the Court Administrator v. Judge Reyes, October 10, 2023) at: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/rtj-20-2579-office-of-the-court-administrator-vs-judge-edralin-c-reyes-presiding-judge-branch-43-regional-trial-court-roxas-city-oriental-mindoro/)
(Full text of the Separate Concurring Opinion of Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen at: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/rtj-20-2579-separate-concurring-opinion-saj-marvic-m-v-f-leonen/).