Judge in De Lima case found guilty of neglect of duty

Former Sen. Leila De Lima —File photo/Senate PRIB

MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court has found Muntinlupa Regional Trial Court Judge Romeo Buenaventura guilty of simple misconduct and neglect of duty in handling the high-profile drug case against former Sen. Leila de Lima.

In a resolution issued on Nov. 13, 2024, the high court’s First Division imposed a fine of P36,000 on Buenaventura—P18,000 for simple misconduct, constituting a violation of the New Code of Judicial Conduct, and another P18,000 for simple neglect of duty in the performance or nonperformance of official functions.

“Respondent Romeo Buenaventura is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same offense or the commission of a similar act shall be dealt with more severely,” the high tribunal said.

READ:

Court acquits former Senator Leila De Lima 

De Lima elated over win in 2nd drug case but says fight for justice far from over

Leila de Lima case: 2024 brings justice, freedom

The case stemmed from an administrative complaint filed by lawyers Teddy Esteban Rigoroso and Rolly Francis Peoro, De Lima’s legal counsels, who alleged that Buenaventura violated judicial ethics and caused undue delay in ruling on their client’s motion for bail in Criminal Case No. 17-167, wherein she was accused of illegal drug trading.

De Lima’s motion for bail in that case was filed on Dec. 14, 2020, and took three years to be resolved, on June 7, 2023, under Buenaventura’s watch.

Conflict of interest

State prosecutors had accused De Lima of conspiring with Franklin Bucayu; Bucayu’s staff member, Wilfredo Elli; the late New Bilibid Prison (NBP) inmate Jaybee Sebastian; police informant Jose Adrian Dera; and De Lima’s former aides Ronnie Dayan and Joenel Sanchez of drug dealing in the national penitentiary for her 2016 senatorial campaign funds.

Criminal Case No. 17-167 was one of three drug cases against De Lima that were eventually dismissed by different Muntinlupa courts in 2021, 2023 and 2024. Before the final case was resolved, De Lima, a former justice secretary, was granted bail in November 2023 and released from detention.

Rigoroso and Peoro, in their complaint against Buenaventura, said he should have immediately recused himself due to conflict of interest, considering that his brother, lawyer Emmanuel Buenaventura, had played a “direct and important role in the preparation of evidence” leading to De Lima’s prosecution.

Emmanuel Buenaventura served as legal adviser to the late Rep. Reynaldo Umali, the former chair of the House of Representatives committee on justice, which led the 2016 inquiry into the proliferation of drug trading inside NBP.

The testimonies of resource persons in the hearings, including NBP convicts, formed the basis for three original conspiracy-to-commit-drug-trading cases filed against De Lima and her coaccused.

Brother’s actions

In separate motions for inhibition, Dayan, Sanchez and Bucayu said that Emmanuel admitted in a television interview on Nov. 25, 2016, that he assisted Dayan in the execution of his affidavit while Dayan was being held in the interview room of the House of Representatives.

Buenaventura voluntarily inhibited himself from further hearing De Lima’s remaining drug case but insisted he was not privy to his brother’s previous actions as a lawyer.

In sanctioning Romeo Buenaventura, the Supreme Court adopted the findings and recommendations of the Judicial Integrity Board (JIB), which said that Emmanuel Buenaventura’s ties with Dayan during the 2016 congressional hearing made him answerable under Canon 4, Section 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct.

The provision states that “judges shall not participate in the determination of a case in which any member of their family represents a litigant or is associated in any manner with the case.”

“Like the JIB, we are unconvinced that the respondent had no inkling of his brother’s association with Dayan, as the congressional hearings in 2016 were much publicized,” the Supreme Court said.

Pandemic

As for the three-year delay in resolving De Lima’s motion for bail, Buenaventura attributed it to work suspensions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

However, the Supreme Court rejected this argument, pointing out that videoconferencing hearings had been available since January 2021.

“Respondent therefore had sufficient means at his disposal to resolve the motion for bail. Given the summary nature of bail proceedings, it was imperative for the respondent to resolve the motion in the most expeditious manner possible,” the high court said.

Read Next