478 Phil. 248
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
On motion of Mrs. Macias, the scheduled hearings of the immorality complaint in November 2001 were reset to her suggested dates, January 28 – 31, 2002. The January 2002 scheduled hearings were, on motion of the parties, reset to March 11 – 14, 2002.
- Mrs. Margie Corpus Macias, complainant herein;
- Roel Mutia, a resident of Brgy. Sta. Filomena, Dipolog City;
- Shem B. Tabatabo, a resident of Poblacion West, Municipality of Salug, Zamboanga del Norte;
- Aniceto A. Zozobrado, a resident of Taway, Ipil, Zamboanga del Norte;
- Ruben Perater, a resident of Taway, Ipil, Zamboanga del Norte;
- Zacarias “Tata” A. Cordova, a resident of Taway, Ipil, Zamboanga del Norte;
- Marictibert Corpus Macias, son of complainant and respondent and a resident of Cagayan de Oro City; and
- Others. (Emphasis supplied)
On March 4, 2003, the undersigned received an urgent manifestation and motion from the counsel of the complainant, Atty. Reynaldo S. Llego, alleging that the complaint is detained at the Municipal Jail of Salug, Zamboanga del Norte in connection with a criminal case pending before Judge Macias in which the bail recommended for his provisional liberty isJustice Buzon continues:
P200,000.00; that the complainant is a poor man and his relatives and friends are trying their best to secure and post the bail bond for his temporary liberty; and that it is impossible for the complainant to attend the hearing of this case on the scheduled dates as set in the Order dated January 29, 2003. The complainant then prayed that the hearing of this case be re-scheduled to at least one month from March 10, 2003.
At the scheduled hearing on March 10, 2003, only respondents and their counsels appeared. They interposed no objection to the resetting of the hearing in this case. In an Order of even date, the presentation of the evidence for the complainant was reset on May 19, 20 and 21, 2003 and that for the respondents on May 22 and 23, 2003, all at 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m., with warning that no further postponement shall be entertained.
On May 7, 2003, the undersigned received an Affidavit (Rollo, pp. 109-114) executed on April 25, 2003 by complainant Dialo, who is allegedly detained at the Zamboanga del Norte Correctional Rehabilitation and Correction Center, Barangay Sicayab, Dipolog City, declaring as follows:
The Affidavit is accompanied by a letter dated April 25, 2003 (Ibid., 127) of complainant Dialo stating that he did not authorize the filing of a complaint against respondents; that he did not know the contents of the complaint because only the last page thereof was presented to him for his signature upon the instigation of Attys. Reynaldo and Remedios Llego and Margie Corpus Macias, the estranged wife of Judge Macias, and he was told that it would help Mrs. Macias in destroying her husband; that he did not engage the services of Attys. Reynaldo and Remedios Llego, as he has no money to pay them, nor did he authorize them to appear and represent him in any case; and that he is asking for the dismissal/withdrawal of the complaint and that Attys. Reynaldo and Remedios Llego enjoined from representing him as his lawyers. The complainant further alleged that his affidavit and letter were read and translated to him in the Visayan dialect, which he understands, and that he affixed his left thumbmark thereon because he lost his right hand sometime in January, 2003.
- I DO NOT KNOW WHAT WAS CONTAINED IN THE AFFIDAVIT DATED JANUARY 31, 2002. IT WAS NOT READ NOR TRANSLATED TO ME. I DID NOT UNDERSTAND IT.
- I DO NOT ALSO KNOW WHAT WAS CONTAINED IN THE COMPLAINT DATED MARCH 16, 2002, WHICH WAS THE BASIS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CASE NO. OCA IPI NO. 02-1439-RTJ AGAINST RTC JUDGE MARIANO JOAQUIN S. MACIAS AND CAMILO BANDIVAS. IT WAS NOT READ NOR TRANSLATED TO ME. I DID NOT UNDERSTAND IT.
- THE AFFIDAVIT AND COMPLAINT WERE MADE AT THE INSTIGATION, INDUCEMENT AND OFFER OF FINANCIAL FAVOR BY MARGIE CORPUS MACIAS TO ME TO DESTROY HER HUSBAND, RTC JUDGE MARIANO JOAQUIN MACIAS.”
At the schedule (sic) hearings for the presentation of the evidence for the complainant on May 19, 20 and 21, 2003, only respondents and their counsels appeared. In view thereof, respondents moved that the complainant be deemed to have waived his right to present evidence in support of his complaint and that the case be dismissed. In an Order dated May 22, 2003, the complainant was deemed to have waived the presentation of his evidence and the case was considered submitted for resolution. (Underscoring supplied)
In administrative proceedings, the complainant has the burden of proving, by substantial evidence, the allegations in the complaint (Lorena v. Encomienda, 302 SCRA 632, 641). The basic rule that mere allegation is not evidence cannot be disregarded (GSIS v. Court of Appeals, 296 SCRA 514, 531). This is particularly true in the instant case where complainant Dialo denied knowledge of the contents of the affidavit dated January 31, 2002 and the complaint dated March 16, 2002, as the same were not read nor translated to him, considering that he could hardly read and understand English. Dialo likewise stated that he has no complaint against respondents because he knows that what happened to him was substantially due to his fault and very suspicious actuations.Accordingly, Justice Buzon recommends the dismissal of the case for failure of complainant to prove the allegations in his complaint.
Thus, the absence of Engracio Simyunn Dialo, Jr., Atty. Reynaldo S. Llego and their witnesses at the hearing scheduled on May 19, 20 and 21, 2003 amounted to a waiver of their right to present evidence in support of the complaint against respondents and evinced a lack of interest to prosecute the same. (Underscoring supplied)
. . . [W]ithdrawal of a complaint or subsequent desistance by the complainant in an administrative case does not necessarily warrant its dismissal. Administrative actions cannot depend on the will or pleasure of the complainant who may, for reasons of his own, condone what may be detestable. Neither can the Court be bound by the unilateral act of the complainant in a matter relating to its disciplinary power. The Court does not dismiss administrative cases against members of the Bench merely on the basis of withdrawal of the charges. Desistance cannot divest the Court of its jurisdiction to investigate and decide the complaint against the respondent. To be sure, public interest is at stake in the conduct and actuations of officials and employees of the judiciary. And the program and efforts of this Court in improving the delivery of justice to the people should not be frustrated and put to naught by private arrangements between the parties.In the case at bar, complainant did not show up to either affirm on the witness stand the contents of his Affidavit of disavowal of the allegations of the complaint prepared for him by Atty. Llego or prove the same. In any event, there are facts which are admitted and/or not refuted by respondent judge which do not warrant the complaint’s dismissal.
3:00 PM - One Judge Mariano Macias y Sinquillo 61 yrs. Old, married, res of Sindangan, Zamboanga del Norte, accompanied by sheriff Camilo Bandinas personally appeared to this office and requested police assistance.And while respondent judge may not indeed have known that complainant was going to testify against him in the immorality case, complainant not having been in the list of witnesses submitted by Mrs. Macias in the immorality complaint, respondent was well aware that Mutia, who was in the company of complainant in the same boat ride taken by respondent judge (and who was also arrested and detained by the Pasay City Police), was in the said list of witnesses. Respondent’s disclaimer then that he could not have committed “obstruction of justice” does not readily persuade.
Reportee disclosed that he is subject of assassination by two-hired killer coming from Dipolog City, Zamboanga del Norte on board Philtranco Bus with body number 184.
Reportee further states that he will attend court hearing on March 11,12,13 and 14 at the Court of Appeals, Mla and the assassins might take advantage of this opportune time to do their job. Hence, reportee requested this office for the arrest of the suspects upon arrival at Philtranco Terminal tonight. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
SEC. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. – A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:was present. But not one of these circumstances was present. To begin with, the alleged would-be victim of assassination – respondent judge – was not even, by his claim, in Pasay where the warantless arrest was effected.
In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) hereof, the person arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or jail, and he shall be proceeded against in accordance with Rule 112, Section 7,
- When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;
- When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it; and
- When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.