SC suspends Samar judge over failure to disclose pending terror case

The Supreme Court suspended a judge in Catbalogan, Samar, for six months without pay for serious dishonesty, after he failed to disclose a pending criminal case involving terrorism financing before his September 2024 appointment. 

The SC en banc, in a decision written by Chief Justice Alexander Gesmundo, warned the judge, Alfonso Cinco IV of Regional Trial Court Branch 29 in Catbalogan City, that a repeat of the offense would be treated more severely.

The High Tribunal stressed that judicial applicants have a continuing duty to inform the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) and the Office of the President of any matter affecting their fitness for office from application to appointment.

Judge Cinco was suspended after the Office of the Court Administrator filed an administrative complaint for taking his oath without disclosing a pending criminal case under the 2012 Terrorism Financing Prevention Act. 

The DOJ indicted him on May 10, 2024 – just three months before his August 30 appointment – but he allegedly did not disclose the case despite being shortlisted on August 2, 2023. 

He faces charges for allegedly funding the South-Eastern Front of the New People’s Army as a council member of the Community Empowerment Resources Network (CERNET). The case remains pending before the 74th branch of the Regional Trial Court in Cebu City.

In an October 1, 2024 resolution, the SC ordered Cinco to explain why he should not face disciplinary action. Cinco apologized, saying he was focused on his duties as a city prosecutor and filing his counter-affidavit and petition at that time. 

He also explained that he was not a CERNET officer when the alleged crime occurred and that the case lacked sufficient evidence for conviction.

The Judicial Integrity Board recommended finding him guilty of serious dishonesty but not for a crime involving moral turpitude. 

The Supreme Court upheld this, noting: “As it stands, there is no judgment of conviction yet against Judge Cinco. Thus, there is no proof that he indeed committed the crime charged. The requirement of proving an accused’s guilt by proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases is rooted in the presumption of innocence accorded to all by no less than the Constitution.”

“The mere finding of probable cause by the DOJ and the subsequent filing of the Information in Court does not ipso facto create substantial evidence to hold Judge Cinco administratively liable in this case,” it added.

But the SC en banc found Cinco liable over his failure to disclose the case to the JBC and Malacanang after his application and before his appointment. The High Court pointed out that he was aware of the complaint as early as August 10, 2023, and by May 14, 2024, had posted bail. 

“Thus, even before the release of his appointment on August 30, 2024, he was already bound by his undertaking to inform the JBC of such development,” the SC stated, noting he took his oath on September 2, 2024, without disclosure.

The SC cited a provision in the Rules of Court on penalties for serious dishonesty that include dismissal, suspension of up to one year, or a fine of up to P200,000. 

It, however, cited mitigating factors – Cinco’s first offense, long government service, clean record, and absence of bad faith – in imposing the six-month suspension.

Such factors, according to the SC, “may justify a less severe penalty than would otherwise be imposed for failure to disclose a matter material to one’s qualification for judicial office.” – Rappler.com