Thus, Investigating Justice Dy-Liacco Flores recommended:

This finding is made with full awareness of the recent Supreme Court ruling on quantum of evidence required in the cases at bench. In the 7 August 2007 case of Alquizar v. Carpio, et al., the Supreme Court pronounced that:

x x x. In administrative or disciplinary proceedings, the burden of proving the allegations in the complaint rests on the complainant. While substantial evidence would ordinarily suffice to support a finding of guilt, the rule is a bit different where the proceedings involve judges charged with grave offense. Administrative proceedings against judges are, by nature, highly penal in character and are to be governed by the rules applicable to criminal cases. The quantum of proof required to support the administrative charges or to establish the ground/s for the removal of a judicial officer should thus be more than substantial; they must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. To borrow from Reyes v. Mangino:

Inasmuch as what is imputed against respondent Judge connotes a misconduct so grave that, if proven, would entail dismissal from the bench, the quantum of proof required should be more than substantial.

It is doctrinal that the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal law does not mean such a degree of proof as to exclude the possibility of error and produce absolute certainty. Only moral certainty is required or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind. The evidence adduced here overwhelmingly established moral certainty that respondent judge raped and sexually harassed complainant Mesdames Tan and Villafranca on separate and repeated occasions.

EN BANC

A.M. No. RTJ-06-1982 December 14, 2007
(Formerly A.M. No. 05-12-757-RTC)

SHERLITA O. TAN, complainant,
vs.
JUDGE REXEL M. PACURIBOT, Regional Trial Court, Branch 27, Gingoog City, respondent.

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

A.M. No. RTJ-06-1983 December 14, 2007
(Formerly A.M. No. 05-12-757-RTC)

JOHANNA M. VILLAFRANCA, complainant,
vs.
JUDGE REXEL M. PACURIBOT, Regional Trial Court, Branch 27, Gingoog City, respondent.

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

ANONYMOUS LETTER-WRITERS, complainant,
vs.
JUDGE REXEL M. PACURIBOT, Regional Trial Court, Branch 27, Gingoog City, respondent.