13-garcia vs dela pena

8/10/2019 13-Garcia vs Dela Pena

1/7

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

A.M. No. MTJ-92-687 February 9, 1994

EN!NEER E"AR"O C. ARC!A, complainant,vs.JU"E ME#JO$N "E #A PE%A, Mu&'(')a* C'r(u'+ Tr'a* Cour+, Ca'b'ra&-Cu*aba, #ey+e A(+'&Jue, Mu&'(')a* Tr'a* Cour+, Na/a*, #ey+e0, respondent.

R E S O # U T ! O N

PER CUR!AM

In a swornletter complaint1dated !une "#, "$$%, En&ineer Ed&ardo C. 'arcia char&ed !ud&e Mel(ohnde la Pe)a in his capacit* as actin& (ud&e of Municipal +rial Court of Naval, e*te with partialit*, abuse ofauthorit* and &rave abuse of discretion in connection with Crimimal Case No. %- for &rave oraldefamation which was filed a&ainst his wife, I&nacia '. 'arcia, a supervisin& nurse of Naval /istrict0ospital, b* respondent (ud&e1s brother, /r. Melencio de la Pe)a. Respondent (ud&e, while actin& as thepresidin& (ud&e of the M+C of Naval, e*te, is the incumbent presidin& (ud&e of the Municipal Circuit +rialCourt of CaibiranCulaba, e*te.

Complainant En&r. Ed&ardo C. 'arcia, husband of the accused in Criminal Case No. %-, claimed

that respondent (ud&e too2 co&ni3ance of the criminal case without the re4uisite certification from theupon +a&apa*apa5 that he should have inhibited himself from actin& on the case because privatecomplainant /r. Melencio B. de la Pe)a is his brother5 that he issued a warrant of arrest without theaccompan*in& cop* of the complaint and affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses5 that whencomplainant sou&ht the approval of the cash bail bond he posted for the provisional release of hiswife at %678 P.M. of !une #, "$$%, respondent (ud&e was not in his office, thus the 9rder of Releaseprepared b* the Cler2 of Court was brou&ht to respondent1s house b* Re* Morillo, a process server,for his si&nature at around %6-: P.M., but the* were informed that he left for 9rmoc Cit* then b* boatfor Cebu5 that at around 7688 P.M. he hired a pump boat and sent Basilio Borrina&a to Maripipi tohave the bail bond approved and &et the order of release from !ud&e /ulcisimo Pitao of M+C ofMaripipi but the latter e;plained in his letter that he cannot do so because he does not 2now whetheror not !ud&e de la Pe)a is on leave5 that the followin& mornin& of !une $, "$$%, the* learned thatrespondent (ud&e left the 9rder of Release with his wife, olita de la Pe)a, instead of leavin& it with

the Cler2 of Court5 that because of respondent (ud&e1s actuations, complainant1s wife was detainedat the municipal (ail for twent*


2/7

memorandum with the correspondin& evaluation and recommendation, dul* approved b* the CourtAdministrator.

Records show that /r. Melencio B. de la Pe)a filed on !une #, "$$% a complaint for &rave oraldefamation 2a&ainst I&nacia '. 'arcia with the Municipal +rial Court of Naval, e*te, doc2eted asCriminal Case No. %-. +he complaint for oral defamation arose from an incident which occurred on

April "$, "$$% in Naval, e*te. After the preliminar* e;amination was conducted, respondent !ud&eMel(ohn de la Pe)a issued on the same date a warrantfor the arrest of the accused I&nacia '. 'arcia.B* virtue of said warrant, ?P9> +eofanes Pacioles of the Philippine National Police arrested theaccused.4

9n the same da*, !une #, "$$%, En&r. Ed&ardo 'arcia, husband of the accused, posted the cashbail bond in the amount of P%,888.88 as fi;ed in the warrant of arrest for the provisional libert* of theaccused. +hereafter, herein complainant sou&ht at around %678 P.M. the approval of the cash bailbond and the 9rder of Release of the accused but respondent (ud&e was not in the office at thattime. Meantime, the accused remained under detention in the municipal (ail of Naval. It was onl* thefollowin& da*, !une $, "$$% at around "86"8 A.M. after complainant secured a cop* of the 9rder ofRelease3dated !une #, "$$% dul* si&ned b* respondent (ud&e that the accused was released fromdetention. Complainant was informed that before respondent (ud&e left for Cebu Cit*, he entrusted the

9rder of Release to his wife, olita de la Pe)a, whose whereabouts, however, were un2nown in theafternoon of !une #, "$$% despite efforts b* the Cler2 of Court to loo2 for her.6+he dela* in the release ofhis wife from detention b* one da* because the 9rder of Release could not be obtained as respondent

(ud&e left for Cebu Cit* despite proper postin& of the cash bond of P%,888.88 for her provisional libert* onthe same da* of her arrest on !une #, "$$%, prompted complainant to file on !ul* %%, "$$% thisadministrative case a&ainst respondent (ud&e.

Earlier, or on !ul* ":, "$$%, a complaint containin& the same char&es was filed b* complainant withthe 9ffice of the 9mbudsman $. 7

In his comment, respondent (ud&e stated that he is adoptin& hiscounteraffidavit and memorandum filed with the 9mbudsman as part of his comment, wherein he

asserted that the certification to file action from the upon +a&apa*apa was not necessar* for thecourt to ac4uire (urisdiction over Criminal Case No. %- because the imposable penalt* of thecrime of &rave oral defamation


3/7

+he Court a&rees with respondent (ud&e that the certification to file an action re4uired underPresidential /ecree No. "-8# is not necessar* in the prosecution for &rave oral defamation8for thesame is be*ond the covera&e of said atarun&an Pambaran&a* aw.9But, the char&e of partialit*, abuseof authorit* and &rave abuse of discretion as re&ards respondent (ud&e1s ta2in& co&ni3ance of thecriminal case despite the fact that private complainant is his brother a relative within the second de&reeof consan&uinit* in violation of the rule on compulsor* dis4ualification of (ud&es under ?ection ", Rule

"> of the Rules of Court is a different matter.

+he Court, in this re&ard, will not hesitate to e;ercise its full disciplinar* powers in the instant casewhere the violation is so patent and the same has caused &rave in(ustice to a part* in a criminalcase. +he facts manifestin& respondent1s partialit* are patent in the records.

?ection ", Rule "> of the Rules of Court provides, thus6

?ec.". Disqualification of judges. No (ud&e or (udicial officer shall sit in an* case inwhich he, or his wife or child, is pecuniaril* interested as heir, le&atee, creditor orotherwise, or in which he is related to either party within the sixth degree ofconsanguinity or affinity, or to counsel within the fourth de&ree, computed accordin&to the rules of the civil law, or in which he has been e;ecutor administrator, &uardian,trustee or counsel, or in which he was presided in an* inferior court when his rulin&or decision is the sub(ect of review, without the written consent of all parties ininterest, si&ned b* them and entered upon the record.

A (ud&e ma*, in the e;ercise of his sound discretion, dis4ualif* himself from sittin& ina case, for (ust or valid reasons other than those mentioned above.


4/7

secure an order for her provisional libert* upon proper postin& of a bail bond on the same da* of herarrest. As a conse4uence, the accused spent her ni&ht in the municipal (ail of Naval until thefollowin& mornin& of !une $, "$$% after spendin& almost %8 hours in (ail.

+o ma2e matters even worse, the e;cuse &iven b* respondent (ud&e that he left the dul* si&nedorder of release with his wife instead of the Cler2 of Court before he left for Cebu e;posed his total

disre&ard of, or indifference to, or even i&norance of, the procedure prescribed b* law. Respondent(ud&e1s actuation is un4uestionabl* not sanctioned b* the Rules of Court. It is conduct pre(udicial tothe ri&hts of the accused. Reali3in& perhaps that he has violated ?ection ", Rule "> of the Rules ofCourt and Rule >."% par. of the Code of !udicial Conduct, 1respondent (ud&e belatedl*issued an order inhibitin& himself from the case on !une "-, "$$%, or seven , Canon % of the Code of !udicial Conduct whichprovides6 A (ud&e shall not allow famil*, social, or other relationships to influence (udicial conduct or

(ud&ment. +he presti&e of (udicial office shall not be used or lent to advance the private interests ofothers, nor conve* or permit others to conve* the impression that the* are in a special position toinfluence the (ud&e.

Respondent (ud&e in the instant case tainted the ima&e of the (udiciar* to which he owes fealt* andthe obli&ation to 2eep it at all times unsullied and worth* of the people1s trust. As this Court has hadoccasion to declare6 As public servants, (ud&es are appointed to the (udiciar* to serve as the visiblerepresentation of the law, and more importantl*, of (ustice. Drom them, the people draw their will andawareness to obe* the law. 14If (ud&es, who have sworn to obe* and uphold the Constitution, shallconduct themselves as respondent did, in wanton disre&ard and violation of the ri&hts of the accused,then the people, especiall* those who have had recourse to them shall lose all their respect and hi&hre&ard for the members of the Bench and the (udiciar* itself shall lose the hi&h moral &round from which itdraws its power and stren&th to compel obedience to the laws.

orth* of note is the fact that respondent (ud&e had been previousl* char&ed in A.M. No. R7#M+!


5/7

misconduct, violation of the Canons of !udicial Ethics, and conduct pre(udicial to the best interest of theservice, amon& others. +he Court observed, thus6

. . . Dor one, she deliberatel* disre&arded ?ection ", Rule "> of the Revised Rulesof Court which pertinentl* provides in part6 . . . and Rule >."% of theCode of !udicial Conduct which reads6 . . . considerin& that $8-, is her brotherinlaw, bein& the husband of her *oun&est sister and,therefore, her will not affect the resolution of this case which basicall* relates to the power of the ?upreme Court under

Article @III, ?ection : of the "$# Constitution to e;ercise administrative supervision over all courts andcourt personnel, from the Presidin& !ustice of the Court of Appeals down to the lowest municipal trialcourt cler2. B* virtue of this power, it is onl* the ?upreme Court that can oversee the (ud&es and courtpersonnel1s compliance with all laws and pertinent rules and ta2e proper administrative action a&ainstthem, in the event that the* commit an* violation thereof. No other branch of &overnment ma* intrude intothis power without runnin& afoul of the doctrine of separation of powers. 17

ACC9R/IN'F, respondent !ud&e Mel(ohn de la Pe)a


6/7

7 Entr* No. 87-, /ate6 !une #, "$$%, +ime6 "7-- 0, E;tract Entr* of PoliceBlotter, Rollo, p. "7.

- Rollo, p. #.

: 0bid, p. 7>.

Rollo, pp. >:>.

# 'rave oral defamation is punishable under Article >-# of the Revised Penal Codeb* arresto mayorin its ma;imum period toprision correccionalin its minimum period8 da*s, or a fine e;ceedin&P%88.88.

"8 Gmale2 v. @illalu3, '.R. No. >>-8#, Ma* %-, "$>, -" ?CRA #75 'eotina v.'on3ale3, '.R. No. %:>"8, ?eptember >8, "$", 7" ?CRA ::.

"" /el Castillo v. !avelona, et al., '.R. No. ":7%, ?eptember %$, "$:%, : ?CRA"7:5 'utierre3 v. 0on. ?antos, et al., '.R. No. "-#%7, Ma* >8, "$:", % ?CRA %7$.

"% Pimentel v. ?alan&a, '.R. No. %$>7, ?eptember "#, "$:, %" ?CRA ":8.

"> Canon >, rule >."%, Code of !udicial Conduct provides6

Rule >."%. A (ud&e should ta2e no part in a proceedin& where the (ud&e1simpartialit* mi&ht reasonable be 4uestioned. +hese cases include, amon& others,proceedin&s where6

;;; ;;; ;;;


7/7

;;; ;;; ;;;

"7 /e la Pa3 v. Inutan, A.M. No. %8"M!, !une >8, "$-, :7 ?CRA -78.

"- Att*. Manuel +. Gbarra v. !ud&e u3viminda M. Mapalad, A.M. No. M+!$":%%,March %%, "$$>.

": Rollo, pp. :>::.

" Bonifacio ?an3 Maceda v. 0on. 9mbudsman Conrado M. @as4ue3, et al., '.R.No. "8%#", April %%, "$$>.

13-garcia vs dela pena

Documents