464 Phil. 900
CALLEJO, SR., J.:
The complainants likewise charge the respondent judge of gross violation of the constitutional rights of the accused alleging, as follows:
- His decision in Criminal Case No. 14054-R . . . and in Criminal Cases Nos. 15776-R, 15777-R, 15778-R, 15779-R and 15780-R . . . show his complete ignorance of the Indeterminate Sentence Law;
- He continues to violate the provision of Section 3, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court by immediately imposing a fine of P500.00 on any lawyer who does not answer the first call, without giving the lawyer an opportunity to show cause why he should not be cited for contempt;
- He fined Atty. Miguel B. Liceralde P500.00 for allegedly being absent during a hearing when in fact he was present;
- He dismisses cases if the counsel or a litigant does not appear even for the first time, without giving the concerned party a chance to explain his absence;
- He limits the period of appeal in criminal cases. In a case handled by Atty. George Florendo, he rendered a decision convicting the accused. After the promulgation of the decision, he told the accused that he was giving him three (3) days only within which to file his notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals or to file an application for probation. He further declared that in case the accused files his notice of appeal, he will double his bail bond and immediately order his arrest;
- In the case of PEOPLE VS. ANGELINA MAMARIL, Criminal Case No. 16187-R for THEFT of the amount of Fourteen Thousand One Hundred Pesos (P14,100.00), the accused, who was seventeen (17) years old, pleaded GUILTY to FRUSTRATED THEFT with the consent of the Prosecution. In his decision, Judge Pamintuan imposed a penalty one degree lower than that which is imposed for Consummated Theft and ordered the accused to be recommitted to the DSWD Rehabilitation Center by virtue of her minority. However, he failed to reduce the penalty imposed by another degree by reason of said minority in accordance with the clear and explicit provision of Article 68 [2] of the Revised Penal Code. . .;
- In the case of PEOPLE VS. BENJIE GOSE, MARK JOSEPH OCHARAN, ET AL., Criminal Case No. 14935-R for Robbery, the respondent did the same thing.[2]
The complainants also claim that the respondent judge is arrogant in that:
- In PEOPLE VS. CEFERINO BANIQUED, Criminal Case No. 13949-R, for alleged violation of Section 3 [e] of RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) the respondent has yet to act on a motion for the preventive suspension of the accused filed way back in 1996 and which was reiterated after he took over the case in April 1998. The said incident was deemed submitted for resolution by then Acting Presiding Judge Joven F. Costales on December 2, 1997. When Judge Pamintuan took over, the prosecution reiterated the motion which, on August 18, 1998, he ordered as deemed submitted for the resolution of the court. For more than one (1) year, and as of date, Judge Pamintuan has not resolved the motion;
- In the case of SURLA VS. DIMLA, Civil Case No. 3322-R for Collection of Sum of Money, Judge Pamintuan dismissed the complaint because the plaintiff-witness arrived at about 8:32 in the morning or just two (2) minutes later, the counsel asked for reconsideration of the dismissal, manifesting that the witness was ready to testify. In the interest of justice and fair play, the adverse party even manifested his conformity to the reconsideration of the order of dismissal. However, Judge Pamintuan did not rule on the motion and simply considered the same submitted for resolution. For more than four (4) months, the respondent did not resolve the motion;
- He refused to furnish a copy of the decision to the accused, but when notice of appeal was filed, he directed the counsel for the accused to amend the notice to reflect receipt of the decision although no such decision was really received. This was done in, at least, two (2) instances, particularly, in People vs. Remedios Malapit, et al. (Criminal Cases Nos. 15320, 15323, 15327, 15570 and 15571) and in People vs. Alejandro Cas (Criminal Case No. 15306-R).[3]
The respondent judge is also allegedly guilty of violating the Code of Judicial Conduct, as follows:
- He waves at lawyers and tells them to approach his bench; if, by chance, a lawyer touches a portion of his bench he shouts at him and berates him saying he has not given him permission to touch his bench;
- He tells lawyers appearing before him to give priority to his court at the expense of their other court duties;
- He insults lawyers by means of harsh and intemperate words in the presence of litigants and the public;
- He impresses to the lawyers and parties’ litigants that he is a convicting judge. He boasts that since he sat as judge all his decisions in criminal cases except two (2) were convictions;
- He berates the lowly security guards in the Justice Hall of Baguio City every time they fail to salute him;
- He insults litigants who want to settle their cases for allegedly wasting his time;
- He insults doctors and other expert witnesses who cannot appear because of previous commitments;
- In one occasion, he interrupted Atty. Federico J. Mandapat, Jr., in the course of his cross-examination of a witness and told him: “that is not the way to cross-examine, ask questions only that are answerable by yes or no.” Atty. Mandapat explained that he was laying the basis for his succeeding questions. The respondent curtly replied that he was giving him only ten (10) minutes to conduct his cross-examination, to which Atty. Mandapat countered by telling the respondent that it was tantamount to obstruction of justice and violation of the right of the accused to cross-examine a witness being presented against him.[4]
The respondent judge is allegedly guilty of oppressive conduct committed as follows:
- He is discourteous to lawyers, especially the new and inexperienced;
- He tells the client in the presence of the lawyer to engage the services of another lawyer because his lawyer does not know anything or he does not deserve to be paid (Atty. Joris Karl Dacawi);
- He verbally assaults lawyers;
- He does not give even a little respect to old lawyers;
- He insulted in open court retired Court of Appeals Justice Sixto Domondon because he came to court late once. For such act, he was even admonished by the Honorable Supreme Court for his unbecoming conduct towards a former Justice of the Court of Appeals, yet, his arrogance continues unabated and is more manifest, apparently in defiance to the admonition he received.[5]
Finally, the respondent judge is allegedly guilty of corruption:
- He unreasonably limits the presentation of evidence to the detriment of party-litigants;
- He scolds and insults lawyers who stand up and walk while propounding questions to witnesses. He pursues a strategy of assault and appeasement. He verbally assaults lawyers, and if they re-act, he tries to appease some of them in an effort to get them to his side;
- He directed Atty. Reynaldo U. Agranzamendez (immediate past President of the IBP Baguio-Benguet Chapter) to stand up, in lieu of the accused who jumped bail, during the promulgation of the decision in absentia. Atty. Agranzamendez acting as de oficio counsel requested that he be allowed to sit down because the people in court might think that he was the accused but the judge in utter disregard of elementary courtesy that befits a lawyer did not budge. Instead, he berated Atty. Agranzamendez and told him to “shut up and don’t argue with the court”. When Atty. Agranzamendez got tired during the reading of the long decision, he slightly leaned to his side. When the Judge noticed this, he shouted at him and told him to stand up properly. This he did in the presence of lawyers and litigants who could only look at Atty. Agranzamendez with sympathy and compassion;
- He cited Atty. Nicasio M. Aliping, Jr., for contempt for not appearing as a witness in one case before his sala. When Atty. Aliping learned about this, he explained to the judge that he was not notified of the date of hearing and presented records clearly showing that indeed he was not notified. Atty. Aliping prayed that the order be lifted and set aside. The judge refused and told Atty. Aliping that it was a different matter. To this day, the order citing him for contempt has not been lifted;
- In one case where Atty. Cirilo Cawed is the private complainant, the latter executed an affidavit of desistance praying, among others, for the dismissal of the case. The respondent did not act on it and instead issued an order threatening his arrest if he will not appear before him and explain.[6]
Respondent had a certain EUFEMIO M. GULA, his long-time “bodyguard”, appointed as driver assigned to his branch despite his knowledge that Mr. Gula has no driver’s license, and worse, he does not know how to drive. This supposed driver draws his salary from the City of Baguio. The driver fills up the required itinerary forms, which indicate that he supposedly drives for the respondent from Baguio City to Manila and back, but the truth is that they commute by bus. It is a certain WILLIAM DANNANG, personnel from the maintenance department of the Baguio City Justice Hall, who actually drives for the respondent.[7]In his Comment, the respondent judge vehemently denies the charges hurled against him.
On his alleged violation of the constitutional rights of the accused, the respondent judge counters:
- Criminal Cases Nos. 15776-R to 15780-R, entitled “People of the Philippines vs. Danilo Dumez, et al.” are now pending appeal before the Court of Appeals. . . Whether or not the decision of the Respondent Judge in the aforecited cases is correct will be a matter only the appellate [court] can decide. The perceived errors in the imposition of the penalty imposed should be addressed in the Accused-Appellants’ brief. Assuming arguendo that the Respondent Judge erred in applying the [I]ndeterminate [S]entence [L]aw, which of course he denies, the proper remedy would have been Appeal, and not to file Administrative Case against the Judge;
- In Criminal Case No. 14054-R entitled “People vs. Polic-ew,” Respondent Judge submits the same argument . . . ;
- In Criminal Case No. 16187-R entitled “People vs. Mamaril” and Criminal Case No. 14935 entitled “People vs. Gose,” the decisions of the Respondent Judge had become final and executory without the Counsels appealing. Had the Counsels appealed their cases, or at least Moved for Reconsideration, they could have properly raised the mitigating circumstances, which they claim were not appreciated by the Respondent Judge. Again the remedy is not the filing of administrative case against the Judge;
- The Administrative Case against the Respondent Judge in A.M. No. RTJ-99-1483 was resolved by the Supreme Court in a Decision dated September 17, 1999 and received by the Respondent Judge on October 4, 1999. Respondent Judge has FIFTEEN (15) DAYS to file a Motion for Reconsideration, which he will comply with. Suffice it to say that in this case, the Respondent Judge believed, as he believes in good faith that he had no cogent reason to inhibit himself from the case . . .;
- The imposition of fines for tardiness or non-appearance in scheduled cases is inherent upon any court as part of its disciplining authority. The remedy would have been to seek reconsideration and not an Administrative Case. The Court has never collected on the fine, provided the reasons cited in the reconsideration are meritorious. The Complainants cite the case of Atty. Miguel Liceralde. Said lawyer was never fined by the Respondent Judge. The fact is, as of date, the Respondent Judge never issued a writ of execution for the collection of fines from lawyers. . . There were only four (4) instances when fines were paid by lawyers who volunteered to pay the fine on their own without filing a motion for reconsideration. . .;
5. The dismissal of the case for failure of the parties or counsel to appear in their scheduled hearings is so provided by the Rules. Again the remedy is a motion for reconsideration and not an administrative case on petty grounds. . .;
- Atty. George Florendo who is not even a signatory to this Petition is mentioned, albeitly [sic] without his consent regarding “People vs. Joseph Santos,” Criminal Case No. 15171-R for Illegal Possession of Marijuana where he appears for the accused. Nowhere in the records does it show that he limited the fifteen (15) day period to appeal.[8]
Anent the charge that he is arrogant, the respondent judge declares:
- In Criminal Case No. 13949-R, “People vs. Baniqued” for Violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019, which was inherited by the Respondent Judge, he submits that no violation was ever made as the complainants would want to imply. Complainants wanted the accused preventively suspended. The defense insisted that the entire prosecution evidence first be heard, as a pre-suspension hearing which was granted by the respondent judge’s predecessor, Hon. Joven Costales, and by the respondent judge himself. Thereafter, despite the opposition of the Accused to the preventive suspension, an order was issued on September 2, 1999. The move for suspension was complicated by the incomplete prosecution evidence as well as the constant absence of the Manila-based private prosecutor. The Court has given wide latitude to the accused and he has no cause to complain;
- Civil Case No. 3322-R entitled “Surla vs. Dimla” for Sum of Money, is a continuing attempt by the Complainants to mislead the Supreme Court. This case had been dismissed and the dismissal has become final and executory. The case was earlier dismissed for failure to prosecute on the part of the Plaintiff for failure to appear during the scheduled hearings of the case, but a Motion for Reconsideration was filed and granted by the Respondent Judge. Several postponements at the instance of the plaintiff were tolerably allowed but then again the plaintiff failed to appear during the scheduled hearing. The Respondent Judge dismissed the case on the same grounds. No motion for reconsideration was filed and the decision became final. Clearly no fault can be attributed to the Respondent Judge;
- Respondent Judge denies refusing to furnish copies of the decision to the accused in Criminal Cases Nos. 15321-R, 15323-R, 15327-R, 15770-R and 15771-R entitled “People vs. Malapit, et al.” as these are matters of public record available and accessible to the public. He could not and never will prevent or obstruct any litigant, much more a lawyer to access of records pertaining to a case;
- Respondent Judge denies directing the defense counsel to amend his Notice of Appeal to allegedly reflect receipt of the decision in Criminal Case No. 15306-R entitled “People vs. Alejandro Cas,” as such an action will gain him nothing. The Manifestation of Apology by the concerned defense counsel says it all.[9]
On the charge of violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct, the respondent judge states:
- The pettiness of the charges (3A to G) are completely wasteful of the Supreme Court’s precious time as they are bereft of the specifics and are mere general allegations;
- As to 3H involving Atty. Federico Mandapat, said defense counsel together with Atty. Juan Alberto and Prosecutor Raymond Tabangin were requested to approach the bench. Atty. Mandapat was advised by the respondent judge to ask questions answerable by yes or no as it was observed that he was repeating questions asked on direct examination. Certainly, the court can advise counsel on how to conduct proper cross-examination so as not to tax the time of both the court and the witnesses. When the Respondent Judge said ten minutes, he was referring to the time left for him to conduct the cross-examination on that trial day, as there were other ready cases. It was not limiting his time to cross-examine the witness, as the records would show that the next trial date, Atty. Mandapat was allowed to his heart’s content to continue the cross-examination.[10]
As to his alleged oppressive conduct, the respondent judge states as follows:
- Respondent Judge denies 4A to D on his non-support for new lawyers. The fact is he encourages old practitioners to help new lawyers and he announces this in open court as a matter of policy. . . ;
- Atty. Primitivo Jularbal, 72 years old, a former Professor in the College of Law of Saint Louis University and a long time distinguished practitioner in the City of Baguio, and Atty. Juan Valdez, 70 years old, former City Legal Officer of Mayors Luis L. Lardizabal and Mauricio G. Domogan can affirm the respect, deference and dignified treatment he habitually accord these senior lawyers;
- As to the case of former Justice Sixto Domondon for which the Respondent Judge was admonished by the Supreme Court, your Respondent Judge was barely one month in office when he asked the former justice, whom he did not know at that time to come on time for his hearings. Said justice was more than forty-five (45) minutes late for the pre-trial conference and Respondent Judge applied the rule on him, like he did to all lawyers.[11]
Regarding the charge of corruption against him, the respondent judge asserts that:
- Respondent Judge denies 5A and B as they are mere general statements without basis in fact and in law;
- In the case of Atty. Reynaldo U. Agranzamendez, as defense counsel in Criminal Case No. 7304-R, entitled “People vs. Liwayway Cruz,” he required said counsel in the absence of the accused to rise as a matter of procedure during the promulgation of decisions. This is by way of proper decorum and discipline, which the Respondent Judge submits as part of the inherent power of the court. The allegation that the Respondent Judge berated Atty. Agranzamendez and told him to “shut up” is a patent lie. The Respondent Judge recalls asking him politely not to argue with the Court, on matters like standing up to show decorum and respect to the judicial processes . . .;
- Atty. Nicasio Aliping was never cited for contempt, contrary to what the complainants want to impress. No order was ever issued by the Court to the effect . . .;
- Atty. Cirilo Cawed, who is not a signatory to the complaint, is the private complainant in Criminal Cases No. 13535-R entitled “People vs. Licayayo” for Estafa. Despite several orders for him to appear in the scheduled hearings, he refused, ignored and neglected the same. He was warned that his continued defiance would constrain the court to order his arrest. The Respondent Judge submits that it is the rule and practice and even the responsibility, and duty of the court to summon the complaining witness who executed an Affidavit of Desistance to determine the authenticity or genuineness of the affidavit. The Respondent Judge should not be condemned for ensuring the integrity of affidavits submitted in court.[12]
The respondent judge prays that the administrative complaint against him be dismissed for lack of merit.
- As a public officer, he is ready to face all kinds of charges as an inherent “risk” that comes with the territory. It hurts him; however, to be accused of the baseless charge of Graft and Corruption, for he values his honor and his name, presumably like the Complainants themselves;
It is a matter of public and judicial knowledge that courts have no employment item for drivers. On this point alone, how could Respondent Judge appoint a driver as alleged in the complaint? Had the Complainants asked or in the least conducted a thorough investigation, they would have discovered that in the RTC, Baguio City, Branch 3, there was a vacant item for City-paid Utility Worker. In 1988, the RTC Clerk of Court, Atty. Delilah G. Muñoz, made a project proposal to the City Government of Baguio for the revival of item. . .Almost a year later, the City Government approved the request, and it was Mayor Mauricio G. Domogan who appointed Mr. Eufemio Gula to the position and not the Respondent Judge. The item approved was for a driver and not as Utility Worker. A correction was sought and again Mayor Mauricio G. Domogan and the City Council of Baguio approved the amendment for the appointment of Utility Worker and not as Driver. . . Mr. Eufemio Gula is not a Court-paid Employee and performs his duty as a utility worker paid by the City Government of Baguio. He has no driver’s license, as he did not apply as a driver. The respondent judge did not appoint Gula and no judiciary funds were used for his pay. Neither did the respondent judge screen his qualification as to whether or not it conforms to the minimum criteria set by the city for the item -utility worker.[13]
Considering the seriousness of the charges against the respondent judge, the OCA recommended that an investigation be conducted thereon. In the Resolution of December 8, 1999, the Court referred the instant case, together with OCA IPI No. 99-832-RTJ (Mr. Galo R. Reyes vs. Judge Fernando Vil Pamintuan), to the Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeals for immediate raffle among the incumbent appellate court justices.[15]
- RTJ-99-1450 “Justice Sixto Domondon vs. Judge Fernando Vil Pamintuan” – Respondent was REPRIMANDED by the Court on June 14, 1999;
- RTJ-99-1483 “Lauro Gacayan vs. Judge Fernando Vil Pamintuan” – Respondent was FINED P10,000.00 and REPRIMANDED for Violation of Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct and Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Ethics which amount to grave misconduct, conduct unbecoming an officer of the Judiciary and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and WARNED that a repetition of the foregoing or similar transgressions shall be dealt with more severely;
- OCA IPI No. 99-808-RTJ – The instant case under consideration;
- OCA IPI No. 99-832-RTJ – “Mr. Galo R. Reyes vs. Judge Fernando Vil Pamintuan” for willful violation of the Rules of Court and incompetence. Awaiting comment of the respondent judge.[14]
Decision in Criminal Case No. 11363-R is marked as Exhibit “D”;Arrogance, Oppression
Decision in Criminal Case No. 15108-R is marked as Exhibit “E”;
Decision in Criminal Case No. 15544-R is marked as Exhibit “F”;
Decision in Criminal Case No. 3200-R is marked as Exhibit “G”;
Decision in Criminal Case No. 7703-R is marked as Exhibit “H”;
Decision in Criminal Case No. 13646-R is marked as Exhibit “I”;
Decision in Criminal Case No. 14054-R is marked as Exhibit “J”;
Decision in Criminal Case No. 14524-R is marked as Exhibit “K”;
Decision in Criminal Case No. 15600-R is marked as Exhibit “L”;
Decision in Criminal Case No. 14776-R is marked as Exhibit “M”;
Decision in Criminal Case No. 15932-R is marked as Exhibit “N”;
Decision in Criminal Case No. 15653-R is marked as Exhibit “O”;
Decision in Criminal Case No. 13379-R is marked as Exhibit “P”;
Decision in Criminal Case No. 13367-R is marked as Exhibit “Q”;
Decision in Criminal Case No. 14929-R is marked as Exhibit “R”;
Decision in Criminal Case No. 7304-R is marked as Exhibit “S”; and,
Decision in Criminal Case No. 14925-R is marked as Exhibit “T”.[21]
On the basis of the foregoing evaluation on the evidence presented by both the complainants and the respondent, undersigned Investigating Justice recommends, for Gross Ignorance of the Law, Gross Violation of the Constitutional Rights of the Accused, Arrogance, Oppressive Conduct and Violations of the Canons of Judicial Ethics that respondent Judge Fernando Vil Pamintuan be meted the severest of administrative penalties, that is, he should be stripped of his robe.
IN VIEW THEREOF, recommendation is hereby made that respondent Judge Fernando Vil Pamintuan be dismissed from the service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and privileges with prejudice to reinstatement to re-employment in any branch of the government or its corporation for Gross Ignorance of the Law, Gross Violation of the Constitutional Rights of the Accused, Arrogance, Oppressive Conduct, and Violations of the Canons of Judicial Ethics.[39]
The application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law in the imposition of penalties in crimes punishable by the Revised Penal Code is a basic precept. The respondent judge’s repeated misapplication thereof in quite a number of criminal cases he had rendered constitutes gross ignorance of the law. As this Court has consistently ruled, “a judge is presumed to know the law and when the law is so elementary, not to be aware of it constitutes gross ignorance of the law.”[41] Indeed, judges are duty bound to have more than a cursory acquaintance with laws and jurisprudence. Failure to follow basic legal commands constitutes gross ignorance of the law from which no one may be excused, not even a judge.[42]
- People vs. Rose Dalmacio, et. al.
Crim. Case No. 11363-R, for
Theft (Exhibit “D”)
The amount stolen was P10,000.00. Under Art. 309, Par. 2 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty imposable is prision correccional in its medium and maximum period. However, the sentence imposed by Respondent Judge was from four (4) years, nine (9) months and eleven (11) days as minimum, to six (6) years, as maximum. Worse, he imposed subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency when no fine was imposed as penalty.- People vs. Joel Ramos, et al.
Crim. Case No. 15108-R,
for Robbery With Violence
(Exhibit “E”)
As found by respondent, the provision applicable is Article 294, Par. 5 of the Revised Penal Code which provides a penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its medium period. However, he imposed upon the accused imprisonment from six (6) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to eight (8) years, as maximum. Again, he disregarded Article 39 of the Revised Penal Code and imposed subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.- People vs. Manuel Carino
Crim. Case No. 15544-R, for
Frustrated Homicide (Exhibit “F”)
The accused pleaded guilty to Attempted Homicide and thus, the imposable penalty is prision correccional (Art. 51 in rel. to Art. 249, RPC). Respondent, however, imposed the penalty of four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day, as minimum, to six (6) years, as maximum. Notably, it was imposed in its maximum period without any finding of aggravating circumstance.- People vs. German Abarquez,
et al. Crim. Case No. 3200,
for Robbery (Exhibit “G”)
As found by respondent, the penalty imposable is prision mayor. However, what he imposed was imprisonment from ten (10) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to twelve (12) years, as maximum. Again, the penalty imposed is in its maximum period without any express finding of aggravating circumstance.- People vs. Rolando Tawanna, et. al.
Crim. Case No. 7703-R, for Frustrated
Homicide (Exhibit “H”)
The penalty imposed is prision correccional (Art. 50 in rel. to Art. 249, RPC) but respondent sentenced all accused to ten (10) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to twelve (12) years, as maximum, without any express finding of aggravating circumstance.- People vs. Jose Tamo, et. al.
Crim. Case No. 13646-R, for
Frustrated Murder (Exhibit “I”)
The imposable penalty is prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal in its medium period (Art. 50 in rel. to Art. 248, RPC) but the penalty imposed by respondent was fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months, as maximum.- People vs. Bernardo Polic-ew
Crim. Case No. 14054-R, for
Frustrated Murder (Exhibit “J”)
The penalty imposable is prision mayor (Art. 50 in rel. to Art. 249, RPC) but respondent fixed the sentence at eleven (11) years, four (4) months and one (1) day, as minimum, to twelve (12) years, as maximum. Note that the penalty is in the maximum period without any express finding of aggravating circumstance.- People vs. Johnson Simsim
Crim. Case No. 14524-R, for
Attempted Rape (Exhibit “K”)
It being in its attempted stage, the penalty imposable is prision mayor. However, the penalty imposed by respondent was ten (10) years and one (1) (sic), as minimum, to twelve (12) years, as maximum.- People vs. Moses Polic-ew
Crim. Case No. 15600-R, for
Malversation of Public
Property (Exhibit “L”)
As found by respondent, accused violated Par. 2 of Art. 217, RPC, which provides a penalty of prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods. However, what he imposed was seven (7) years, four (4) months and one (1) day, as minimum, to eight (8) years, as maximum.- People vs. Renato Bernal
Crim. Case No. 14776-R, for
Homicide (Exhibit “M”)
The imposable penalty for Homicide is reclusion temporal. Again, in complete disregard of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, respondent imposed fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months, as maximum.- People vs. John Baliling
Crim. Case No. 15932-R,
for Frustrated Homicide
(Exhibit “N”)
The offense charged is punishable by prision mayor. However, respondent imposed eight (8) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to ten (10) years, as maximum.- People vs. Melchor Bawalan, et al.
Crim. Case No. 15653-R, for
Robbery with Violence (Exhibit “O”)
The offense charged is punishable under Par. 5, Art. 294, RPC, which provides a penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its medium period. However, respondent imposed eight (8) years and one (1) (sic) as minimum, to ten years, as maximum.- People vs. Paul Afiagan
Crim. Case No. 13379-R, for
Frustrated Homicide (Exhibit “P”)
Accused pleaded guilty to Attempted Homicide punishable with imprisonment of prision correccional, but respondent fixed the penalty at four (4) years, two (2) months, and one (1) day, as minimum, to six (6) years, as maximum.- People vs. Edwin Longaquit, et. al.
Crim. Case No. 13367-R, for
Frustrated Homicide (Exhibit “Q”)
The offense charged is punishable by imprisonment of prision mayor. Respondent imposed eight (8) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to ten (10) years, maximum.- People vs. Joseph Samir Kairuz, et al.
Crim. Case No. 14929-R, for Estafa
(Exhibit “R”)
The amount involved was P90,000.00. Under the first paragraph of Art. 315 of the Revised Penal Code, the imposable penalty is prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period, plus one year for every P10,000.00 since the amount involved exceeds P22,000.00. The sentence imposed by respondent, however, is twelve (12) years, eight (8) months, and twenty (21) days, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, as maximum. Note that aside from not applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum of the penalty he imposed is beyond the penalty imposable under the law.- People vs. Liwayway Cruz
Crim. Case No. 7304-R,
for Estafa (Exhibit “S”)
The amount involved is P29,470.00. Hence, pursuant to Art. 315, Par. 1, Revised Penal Code, the imposable penalty is prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period. The penalty imposed by respondent was six (6) years, eight (8) months and twenty (21) days, as minimum, to eight (8) years, as maximum.- People vs. Benjie Gose, et al.;
Crim. Case No. 149935-R, for
Robbery (Exhibit T”)The penalty imposable is prision mayor there being no evidence that accused carried arms during the robbery (Art. 299, RPC). Respondent, however, imposed a sentence of six (6) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to eight (8) years, as maximum. Note, too, that he imposed the same penalty upon accused Mark Joseph Ocharan despite his findings that he was a minor during the commission of the crime. Minority is a privilege mitigating circumstance and thus, accused Ocharan’s penalty should have been lowered by one degree.[40]
. . . Competence is a mark of a good judge. When a judge displays an utter lack of familiarity with the rules, he erodes the public’s confidence in the competence of our courts. Such is gross ignorance of the law. Having accepted the exalted position of a judge, he owes the public and the court the duty to be proficient in the law.[44]The respondent judge has utterly failed to live up to the standard of competence required of him. His erroneous application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law committed not just once or twice but in at least seventeen (17) instances is a compelling evidence of his gross ignorance of the law.
Rule 1.02. – A judge should administer justice impartially and without delay.SC Administrative Circular No. 13-87 enjoins that:
Rule 3.05. – A judge shall dispose of the court’s business promptly and decide cases within the required periods.
Further, SC Administrative Circular No. 1-88 reads:
- Judges shall observe scrupulously the periods prescribed by Article VIII, Section 15 of the Constitution for the adjudication and resolution of all cases or matters submitted in their courts. Thus, all cases or matters must be decided or resolved within twelve months from dates of submission by all lower collegiate courts while all other lower courts are given a period of three months to do so. . .
6.1. All Presiding Judges must endeavor to act promptly on all motions and interlocutory matters pending before their courts . . .Conformably with the foregoing mandate, this Court has pronounced –
The office of a judge exists for one solemn end – to promote the ends of justice by administering it speedily and impartially. The judge as the person presiding over that court is the visible representation of the law and justice. Failure to resolve cases submitted for decision within the period fixed by law constitutes violation of the constitutional right of the parties to a speedy disposition of their cases.[45]The unreasonable delay of the respondent judge in resolving the motions submitted for his resolution clearly constituted a violation of the parties’ constitutional right to a speedy disposition of their cases.
The behavior of the respondent judge towards Atty. Mandapat, i.e. berating the latter in his cross-examination for repeating the questions already asked during the direct examination, betrayed his impatience in the conduct of the hearing. A display of petulance and impatience in the conduct of trial is a norm of behavior incompatible with the needful attitude and sobriety of a good judge.[47]
- Arrogance
When he tried to limit the cross examination by Atty. Fernando Manapat Jr., who was representing the accused in People vs. Andrada, of the prosecution witness to ten (10) minutes with an advice of not repeating questions that were already asked during the direct examination;- Arrogance and Oppression
Atty. J[o]ris Karl B. Dacaw[i], a young lawyer, who became the beneficiary of respondent’s arrogance and oppressive conduct on 11 March 1999. On said date, Atty. Dacaw[i], as plaintiff’s lawyer, moved for the cancellation of the hearing of the case entitled “Alejo Cabre[r]os vs. Susie Edralin” alleging although his witness Alejo Cabre[r]os was present, said witness however was not feeling well. This simple manifestation caught the ire of respondent judge who instantaneously ordered Alejo Cabre[r]os to stand and told him not to pay his lawyer his attorneys fees because he did not do anything for that day;- Oppression and Violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct
- Atty. Reynaldo U. Agranzamendez, while appearing as counsel de oficio for Liwayway Cruz in Criminal Case No. 7304-R, for estafa last 29 July 1999, was extremely embarrassed when he was ordered by respondent judge to stand in behalf of accused, who was then absent despite due notice, and face the Clerk of Court during the reading of the full text of the decision when said case was called for promulgation. Accordingly, Atty. Agranzamendez asked respondent judge to allow him to take his seat as there were several people inside the courtroom who, being unmindful of the rules might think that he was the accused. But his pleas, however, got respondent mad, for instead of allowing him to sit down, respondent instead banged his gavel and told Atty. Agranzamendez not to argue with the court and to stand straight as he leaned over avoid the glances of the Clerk of Court.
.. - Evidence on hand also reveals respondent’s casual disregard of procedural rules, that is, when he promulgated a decision that has yet to be released as shown in the case of People vs. Malapit, et al., docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 15320-R, 15323-R, 15[327]-R and 15571-R and in People vs. Cas, docketed as Criminal Case No. 15306-R.[46]
Rule 3.04. – A judge should be patient, attentive, and courteous to lawyers, especially the inexperienced, to litigants, witnesses, and others appearing before the court. A judge should avoid unconsciously falling into the attitude of mind that the litigants are made for the courts, instead of the courts for the litigants.Apropos, this Court has held:
. . . A judge should be courteous both in his conduct and in his language especially to those appearing before him. He can hold counsels to a proper appreciation of their duties to the court, their clients, and the public without being petty, arbitrary, overbearing, or tyrannical. He should refrain from conduct that demeans his office and remember always that courtesy begets courtesy. Above all, he must conduct himself in such a manner that he gives no reason for reproach.[48]Clearly, the respondent judge has failed to observe courtesy and civility to the lawyers as well as to the litigants who appeared before him.
In the Malapit case:What is even more reprehensible were the respondent judge’s directives to Atty. Lagdao to delete the phrase “copies of which the Honorable Court has yet to release” from the notices of appeal otherwise he (the respondent judge) would not act thereon. This conduct of the respondent judge was utterly unbecoming a magistrate and violated the following canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct:
. . . hereby gives notice that she is appealing to the Supreme Court decision of the honorable Court promulgated on 18 September 1999, copies of which the honorable Court has yet to release despite the fact that the reglementary period for filing a motion for reconsideration or a notice of appeal is about to expire. . .
In the Cas case:
. . . hereby gives notice that she is appealing to the court of appeals the decision of the honorable Court promulgated on 22 June 1999, a copy of which the Honorable Court has yet to release.. .[49]
CANON 1 - A JUDGE SHOULD UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDICIARYOn Graft and Corruption
Rule 1.01. – A judge should be the embodiment of competence, integrity, and independence.
CANON 2 - A JUDGE SHOULD AVOID IMPROPRIETY AND APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY IN ALL ACTIVITIES
Rule 2.01. - A judge should so behave at all times as to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
CANON 3 - A JUDGE SHOULD PERFORM OFFICAL DUTIES HONESTLY, AND WITH IMPARTIALITY AND DILIGENCE
Rule 3.01. - A judge shall be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence.