The Supreme Court (SC) ordered the dismissal of a judge in Roxas City, Oriental Mindoro after finding him guilty of directly soliciting bribes from lawyers, litigants, and even local elective officials in exchange for favorable decisions.
In an en banc decision, the SC found Edralin Reyes, presiding judge of Roxas City regional trial court (RTC) Branch 43, guilty of gross misconduct, among other corrupt practices following an investigation by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA).
As a consequence, Reyes would lose his retirement and other benefits, except accrued leave credits. He is also perpetually disqualified from re-employment in any branch or agency of the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations.
Additionally, he was ordered to pay a fine of P7,500 for simple misconduct, for 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.
Reyes’ pattern of unethical behavior was discovered in 2019 when Judge Josephine Carranzo, who was appointed as his substitute at Roxas City RTC Branch 39, returned an office-issued laptop he used to the SC Management Information Systems Office (MISO) for repair and replacement.
As a matter of protocol, the MISO examined the laptop and found a backup of iPhone messages, some of which showed that Reyes was engaged in corrupt practices. The OCA then hired a forensic expert to extract data from the laptop, resulting in the recovery of more incriminating information.
Three judicial audit teams were organized to conduct the investigation involving RTC branches 39, 41 and 43. The probe uncovered that Reyes solicited bribes, borrowed money, and received gifts from individuals with cases before his court.
The SC audit findings further revealed his irregularities in handling firearms-related cases and failure to turn over confiscated weapons to the authorities. Despite Reyes’ claims of privacy violations, the high court maintained that government-issued devices are subject to monitoring and regulation.
The SC emphasized that such devices are provided to facilitate official duties, not for personal use. “These circumstances convince this Court that Judge Reyes cannot successfully claim that the State unduly intruded into a personal matter,” the SC said in its decision.
The high court noted that an administrative investigation would have been conducted, and the judicial audit team would have found the incriminating information, even without the SMS/iMessage exchanges from the laptop.
“Thus, in the natural course of events, the evidence and information contained in the judicial audit team report would have reached this Court,” the SC added.
