865 Phil. 8
INTING, J.:
May 23, 2011 – Information was filed. Accused were under detention.Further, respondent Judge stressed that on October 12, 2012, he suffered a stroke that paralyzed the left side of his body. He was confined at the Medical City Hospital, Ortigas Center, Metro Manila for about a month. When he was discharged, his doctors advised him to adhere to a strict regimen of medication and diet, and to undergo a series of prescribed physical therapy to regain the use of his left limbs. Due to his continuous physical therapy sessions, he had to take numerous leaves of absence from work. Upon his request by midyear of 2014, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) appointed an assisting judge to Branch 10 to hear pending cases.
June 14, 2011 – Both accused were present but the arraignment was postponed and reset to June 21, 201[1], because their retained counsel, Atty. Richard Zarate was absent. Accused declined services of counsel-de-oficio from the Public Attorneys Office.
June 21, 2011 – Accused were arraigned and pleaded Not Guilty. Pre-trial was set on July 18, 2011. Accused, through counsel, filed a motion to reduce the recommended bail bond from P40,000.00 to P5,000.00. The court deferred the hearing on the motion and directed the prosecution to file a written comment and/or an opposition to the motion.
June 28, 2011 – Prosecutor Winston Suaking filed a "Comment" for the reduction of bond that ended with the statement: "we submit the incident to the sound discretion of the Honorable Court."
July 18, 2011 – The motion was heard. The court set the bail bond at P10,000 each.
August 24, 2011 – Pretrial was cancelled due to the absence of defense counsel.
September 28, 2011 – Pretrial was cancelled as both accused were absent due to a passing typhoon (Pedring). It was manifested by defense counsel that the accused (who resided in Itogon – some 20 kilometers from La Trinidad) probably could not attend due to the inclement weather that made the roads impassable or too risky to traverse.
October 26, 2011 – Pretrial was cancelled.. Prosecution requested and was given time to conduct a reinvestigation to determine the total amount of lumber allegedly to have been illegally cut and to include the identities and true names of two more accused who were not named in the original information.
December 6, 2011 – Pretrial was cancelled. Atty. Zarate was again absent and fined P500.00
December 6, 2011 – Motion to amend the Information was filed
February 7, 2012 – Amended Information was admitted.
March 13, 2012 – Pretrial was finally conducted and terminated. The prosecution requested and was granted eight (8) trial dates to present its evidence to wit: June 18, 25; July 16, 23, 30; and August 6, 13, 20, 2012 all at 8:30 in the morning.
June 25, 2012 – Initial trial hearing.. Frederick Farres was presented and testified. After his testimony, prosecution prayed for continuance.
July 23, 2012 – Prosecution had no witness to present; the accused and defense counsel were also absent[.]
July 30, 2012 – The court allowed the second prosecution witness, Orwen Trazo, to be presented and testify despite the absence of the accused and their counsel.
August 6, 2012 – Atty. Zarate was again absent and fined P500. He was warned that should he fail to attend the next scheduled hearing, the accused shall be deemed to have waived the right to cross-examine the second prosecution witness.
August 13, 2012 – Atty. Zarate cross examined the witness Orwen Trazo[.]
September 3, 2012 – SPO1 Balaso and PO3 E. Bocalan were presented as additional prosecution witnesses[.]
(October 12, 2012 – Presiding judge suffered severe stroke that paralyzed the left side of his body. He was confined at the Medical City Hospital, Ortigas center, Metro Manila. He was confined there for about a month. When he was discharged, his doctors advised him to adhere to a strict regimen of medication and diet and to undergo a series of prescribed physical therapy to regain the use of his left limbs. Due to his continuous physical therapy sessions, he had to take numerous leaves of absence from work.)
October 17, 2012 – No hearing.. Judge on leave.
November 27, 2013 – Accused and counsel were not in court. Atty. Zarate was fined P500[.]
February 12, 2014 – Judge on leave[.]
June 16, 2014 – Judge on leave[.]
Nov. 26, 2014 – Both accused were in court but Atty. Zarate was not in court. Hearing cancelled.
Feb. 18, 2015 – Hearing was cancelled as Atty. Zarate was not in court[7]
The reduction of the bail bond from P40,000.00 to P100,000.00 alone does not make or prove that respondent was biased or hostile against complainants. |
The recommended bail proposed by the Benguet Provincial Prosecutors Office for violations under PD 705 ((The Revised Forestry Code of the Philippines) has uniformly and consistently been set at P40,000.00 regardless of the volume and the value of the forest products involved. The prosecution manifested that it usually does not object to a fifty percent reduction provided that the bond be in cash. In this particular case, the accused requested that bail be reduced from P40,000.00 to P5,000.00. During the hearing on the motion, Atty. Zarate presented the accused; the accused manifested that [he] could not raise the bail amount of P40,000.00; they were in their early twenties, unemployed, were dependent and still living with their parents who were permanent residents of Itogon.[13] (Underscoring supplied.)Needless to state, Prosecutor Suaking of the Benguet Prosecution Office, Atty. Andrada of the DENR, and complainants were present during the hearing on the motion, but none of them made a counter manifestation to or a refutation of the grounds offered for the reduction of bail.[14] After a short discussion on the matter, respondent Judge stated that the bail was set at P10,000.00. Respondent Judge asked the prosecution whether there were objections to the amount, but Prosecutor Suaking stated that he was submitting the incident "to the sound discretion of the court." Consequently, there being no objection, the bail was set at P10,000.00 for each of the accused.[15]
The respondent Judge is found liable for violation of Supreme Court rules, directives and circulars. |
To insure speedy disposition of cases, the following guidelines must be faithfully observed:The aforecited circulars enshrine the fundamentals set forth in the Canons of Judicial Ethics which mandate that judges must be punctual in the performance of their judicial functions.[17] Likewise, these circulars give emphasis to the importance of the time of litigants, witnesses, and attorneys, so that if the judge is not punctual in the performance of his duties, he already sets a bad example to the bar and accordingly, affects the administration of justice.[18]
I. The session hours of all Regional Trial Courts, Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall be from 8:30 A.M. to noon and from 2:00 P.M. to 4:30 P.M., from Monday to Friday. The hours in the morning shall be devoted to the conduct of trial, while the hours in the afternoon shall be utilized or (1) the conduct of pre-trial Conferences; (2) writing or decisions, resolutions or orders; or (3) the continuation of trial on the merits, whenever rendered necessary, as may be required by the Rules of Court, statutes, or circulars in specified cases.xxx xxx xxx
II. Judges must be punctual at all times.xxx xxx xxx
IV. There should be strict adherence to the policy on avoiding postponements and needless delay.xxx xxx xxx
VI. All trial judges must strictly comply with Circular No. 38-98, entitled "Implementing the Provisions of Republic Act No. 8493" ("An Act to Ensure a Speedy Trial of All Cases Before the Sandiganbayan, Regional Trial Court, Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Municipal Trial Court and Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Appropriating Funds Therefor, and for Other Purposes") issued by the Honorable Chief Justice Andres R. Narvasa on 11 August 1998 and which took effect on 15 September 1998.[16]
The Court has time and again admonished judges to be prompt in the performance of their solemn duty as dispenser of justice, since undue delays erode the people's faith in the judicial system. Delay not only reinforces the belief of the people that the wheels of justice grind ever so slowly, but invites suspicion, however unfair, of ulterior motives on the part of the judge. The raison d'ëtre of courts lies not only in properly dispensing justice but also in being able to do so seasonably.[22]Further, respondent Judge ascribes the delay in resolving Criminal Case No. 11-CR-8444 to his failing health that he suffered a stroke that paralyzed the left side of his body which required him follow a strict regimen of medication and diet, and subjected him to a series of physical therapy. As a necessary consequence, he had to take numerous leaves of absence from work.
In case of poor health, the Judge concerned needs only to ask this Court for an extension of time to decide/resolve cases/incidents, as soon as it becomes clear to him that there would be delay in his disposition thereof. The Court notes that Judge Mondragon made no such request. Also, if his health problems had indeed severely impaired his ability to decide cases, Judge Mondragon could have retired voluntarily instead of remaining at his post to the detriment of the litigants and the public.[24]As to the imposition of the penalty to be imposed upon the erring respondent Judge, this Court adopts the OCA's recommendation that a violation of Supreme Court rules, directives and circulars is a less serious charge punishable by suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one nor more than three months, or a fine of more than P100,000.00 but not exceeding P20,000.00.[25]