465 Phil. 825; 101 OG No. 42, 7313 (October 17, 2005)
CORONA, J.:
FINDINGS: Respondent Judge violated Circular No. 39-97 dated June 19, 1997 when he issued the hold departure order against the complainant.Thus, the Court Administrator recommended :
The complainant was charged with Less Serious Physical Injuries before the First Municipal Circuit Trial Court in Bantayan, Cebu. Circular No. 39-97 mandates that hold departure order shall be issued in criminal cases within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts. Under the law, the penalty for the crime of Less Serious Physical Injuries is arresto mayor which is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the lower courts. Judges were furnished copies of the circular to avoid indiscriminate issuance of the hold departure order.
The allegation of the respondent that the issuance of the hold departure order is a matter of procedure to continue trial exposes his ignorance of the existence of the circular.
To his COMMENT to the letter-complaint, respondent attached two (2) informations for Violation of Section 5 (b), Article III, RA 7610, as amended filed with Branch 61, RTC, Bogo, Cebu against the complainant. These two (2) informations has (sic) no bearing at all in the administrative complaint that was filed against respondent for issuing the hold departure order illegally. Apparently, the purpose of the complainant in attaching to his comment the two (2) informations for Violation of Section 5 (b), Article III, RA 7610, as amended, instead of the information for Less Physical Injuries was to mislead the court. Trying to mislead the court is reprehensible, to say the least.
The allegation of the complainant that the original documents in the case file (sic) in the Office of the Clerk of Court were substituted with another documents was admitted by the respondent. He, however, stressed that he was not aware nor have (sic) knowledge of the substitution. The substitution and/or insertion of the Certificate to File Action and affidavits in the records of a case in the custody of the court is a very serious matter. The Clerk of Court, as custodian of court records, should be also made to explain. A formal investigation is necessary to ferret out the truth so that the circumstances how the substitution was made, and the persons responsible therefore (sic) should be identified.[3]
In a resolution dated February 19, 2001, this Court resolved to note the letter-complaint against Judge Jaca and refer the matter of substitution/insertion of affidavits to Judge Ildefonso Montilla of the Regional Trial Court of Bogo, Cebu for investigation. In the same resolution, the clerk of court and other personnel in the sala of Judge Jaca were likewise ordered investigated. Judge Montilla was directed to submit a report and recommendation within 60 days from receipt of the records. It turned out, however, that Judge Montilla had already retired from the service. Thus, the Court issued another resolution dated September 3, 2001, referring the case to Acting Presiding Judge Jesus S. de la Peña for investigation, report and recommendation within 90 days from receipt of the records.
- That the instant case be RE-DOCKETED as an administrative matter and respondent Judge be penalized to pay a FINE of P10,000.00, for ignorance of the law and misconduct for having issued the Hold Departure Order.
- That the matter of substitution/insertion of Certification to File Action and Affidavit in the records in the custody of the court be REFERRED to Judge Ildefonso Montilla, Presiding Judge of Branch 61, RTC, Bogo, Cebu for investigation, report and recommendation with a directive that the investigation be not limited to the Judge but also to include the Clerk of Court and other personnel of the court.[4]
Judge de la Peña recommended that: (a) respondent Judge Jaca be simply warned that a repetition of the same or similar act of issuing a hold-departure order shall be dealt with more severely in the future and (b) that the clerk of court be absolved from liability for insufficiency of evidence.
a) Judge Jaca merely misinterpreted Memorandum Circular No. 39-97 as far as the issuance of the hold departure order is concerned and while the issuance of such order brought some inconvenience on the part of complainant, the same was rectified when respondent judge set aside his previous order;b) complainant’s allegation that the original affidavit on file was replaced was unsubstantiated. On the contrary, the records of the criminal case against complainant were all intact; c) if there was a substitution/replacement of the subject affidavit, respondent judge could have found complainant guilty instead of dismissing the case.
A review of the records shows that no evidence was presented during the investigation to prove the alleged switching of affidavits and insertion of other documents in the records of the criminal case. In fact, complainant failed to appear during the investigation to substantiate his accusations. In the absence of proof, complainant’s bare assertions cannot overturn the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties by court officials and personnel.
1) respondent Judge Cornelio T. Jaca, Acting Presiding Judge of the 1st MCTC, Bantayan-Sta. Fe-Madredejos, Cebu, be penalized to pay a FINE of P5,000 for violation of Circular No. 39-97; and 2) the charges of falsification and replacement/insertion of affidavits and other documents on the records of Criminal Case No. BSM-97-2301 against the respondent judge be DISMISSED for insufficiency of evidence. The charge against the Clerk of Court should likewise be DISMISSED for insufficiency of evidence.[6]
Hold-departure orders shall be issued only in criminal cases within the exclusive jurisdiction of the regional trial courts.Clearly, criminal cases within the exclusive jurisdiction of first level courts, i.e., MeTCs, MTCs and MTCCs, do not fall within the ambit of the circular. It was therefore a mistake on the part of respondent judge to have issued one in the instant case. Indeed, it exposed his ignorance of the circular. The absence of malice, bad faith or malicious intent on his part is not sufficient to completely absolve him of liability.