Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1974 > July 1974 Decisions > A.M. No. 120-MJ July 23, 1974 - FABIAN GARDONES v. ANDRES MA. DELGADO:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[A.M. No. 120-MJ. July 23, 1974.]

ATTY. FABIAN GARDONES, Complainant, v. MUNICIPAL JUDGE ANDRES MA. DELGADO, Respondent.


D E C I S I O N


MAKASIAR, J.:


Charges were filed against respondent municipal judge Andres Ma. Delgado of Don Carlos, Bukidnon, by Atty. Fabian Gardones and by the Department of Justice.

I


Atty. Gardones charges the respondent with gross ignorance of the law and grave abuse of official authority in that the respondent municipal judge caused his arrest for an alleged direct contempt without hearing, by reason of which he was confined in the municipal jail of Don Carlos from 6:30 in the evening of September 8, 1969 until 11:00 o’clock in the morning of September 9, 1969.

It appears that complainant Atty. Gardones failed to obey the subpoena issued by the respondent requiring him to appear in the morning of September 8, 1969 as a witness in the preliminary examination of a criminal case of homicide through reckless imprudence, which subpoena was duly received by complainant; and that during the said preliminary examination complainant repeatedly drove his jeepney back and forth along the road fronting the court session hall between the hours of 10:00 and 11:00 in the morning of September 8, 1969, and repeatedly blew its horn, interrupting for at least three times the preliminary examination then being conducted by the Respondent. In his order dated September 8, 1969, respondent judge found complainant Gardones guilty of direct contempt for: (1) having failed to obey the subpoena directing him to appear in court; and (2) having driven his jeep to and fro along the highway fronting the municipal building which tended "directly to impede, obstruct and delay the administration of justice" (Exh. D attached to complaint).

The failure to obey subpoena constitutes indirect, not direct, contempt, for which the complainant could not be adjudged guilty without hearing him or without due process of law. The respondent judge therefore gravely erred in so ordering the arrest of the complainant for such indirect contempt without giving him his day in court, which is grave abuse of authority and gross ignorance of the law. While it is true that the complainant committed direct contempt for having disturbed t he preliminary examination then being conducted by the respondent judge by repeatedly driving his jeep and honking its horn in the vicinity of the court session hall, for which the complainant was ordered arrested and confined in jail, the respondent should have issued a separate order for such direct contempt, and another order requiring complainant to show cause why he should not be punished for disobedience to its process, to give the complainant a chance to explain his failure to appear as witness.

II


The other charge against the respondent is embodied in the letter of then Undersecretary of Justice Efren I. Plana, dated September 4, 1972 addressed to the respondent which reads thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Before us are two orders issued by you on January 7, 1972 and November 18, 1970, respectively, in Criminal Case No. 207, entitled ‘People of the Philippines v. Abelardo Uba-ub,’ for illegal possession of counterfeit bills, and Criminal Case No. 137, captioned ‘People of the Philippines v. Sebastian Baiña, Leoncio Genesi, Juanito Parcon and Cirilo Cuenza,’ for estafa. The orders aforesaid, handed down after you had conducted the second state of the preliminary investigation required by the Rules of Court, decreed the dismissal, with costs de oficio, of the criminal cases in question and the immediate release of the accused therein, if in custody, supposedly upon the ground that the prosecution had failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

"It must be noted at the outset that, as charged in the complaint filed by Chief of Police Amancio P. Tira, which complaint was copied and adverted to in your order of dismissal, the accused Abelardo Uba-ub in Criminal Case No. 207, was indicted for illegal possession of counterfeit bills. It must be observed, too, that as found by you in your order of dismissal, the said accused was, in fact, caught in possession of the subject counterfeit bills. In the context of these circumstances, we are at a loss as to how you could have seen your way clear into dismissing the case against accused Uba-ub supposedly on the ground that the prosecution had failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that Uba-ub did pass or utter the counterfeit bills in question.

"Considering the above circumstances, and considering moreover that the dismissal of both criminal cases, with costs de oficio, for alleged failure of the prosecution to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt could only have been ordered after trial on the merits, and the preliminary investigation conducted by you was not a trial on the merits, as in fact it was not even a part of it, you are hereby directed to explain, within five (5) days from receipt of this communication, why you dismissed the case against accused Uba-ub for lack of evidence that he passed or circulated the counterfeit bills, when the charge against him was for illegal possession of counterfeit bills and he was in fact caught in possession of said bills, and why you dismissed the said two cases with costs de oficio allegedly on the ground that the prosecution had failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt despite the fact that you had not tried both cases on the merits. Failure on your part to so explain within the period alloted will constrain us to take administrative action against you."cralaw virtua1aw library

The questioned order in Criminal Case No. 207 issued by respondent judge on January 7, 1972 explains why this criminal ease for illegal possession of counterfeit bills was dismissed by him for failure of the prosecution "to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt," after conducting only the second stage of the preliminary investigation which is not a trial on the merits. Therein, respondent stated that, from the testimony of two policemen as prosecution witnesses, the accused was responsible for the distribution of ten-peso counterfeit paper bills to his co-members of the Kibatang Farmers Union in payment of his account; that this was reported to the chief of police by the barrio captain of Barrio Kibatang; that the two policemen went to Barrio Kibatang and succeeded in confiscate ten-peso counterfeit paper bills from the persons to whom the accused paid said bills; that upon being informed by the policemen that the paper bills he paid to his co-members in the Kibatang Farmers Union and those still in his possession were counterfeit, the accused told the policemen that was the first time he came to know that the paper bills were fake; that the accused voluntarily surrendered all the paper bills in his possessions stating that he had no knowledge that the paper bills were fake when the said paper bills were paid to him by his friend, one Manuel of Cagayan de Oro City; that the accused likewise recovered the other paper bills he paid to his co-members of the Kibatang Farmers Union and surrendered the same to the policemen; and that the testimony of the two policemen corroborated the statement of the accused himself. As a consequence, respondent opined that the accused believed in good faith that the paper bills paid to him were genuine and that he had no intention to circulate counterfeit bills when he paid the same to his co-members in the Kibatang Farmers Union. WE have no reason to disagree with the conclusion of respondent judge that the accused in said Criminal Case No. 207 possessed the counterfeit bills in good faith without knowing that they were counterfeit and without the least intention of circulating the same as such counterfeit bills.

Respondent’s statement in his order dated January 7, 1972 in Criminal Case No. 207 and in his order dated November 18, 1970 in Criminal Case No. 137 for estafa that "the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt," for which reason he dismissed the two cases, should by considered as meaning that the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case against the accused in both cases, since the proceeding he conducted in the two cases was merely the second stage of the preliminary investigation and not a trial on the merits. The use of imprecise language should not be taken against respondent when the meaning intended thereby is clear.

The violation by respondent of the constitutional right to due process of law of complainant Atty. Gardones as heretofore stated is at once gross ignorance of the law and a grave abuse of official authority, for which the penalty of suspension from office should be meted out to respondent, considering that the right transgressed is basic in our constitutional system.

WHEREFORE, RESPONDENT ANDRES MA. DELGADO, MUNICIPAL JUDGE OF DON CARLOS, BUKIDNON, IS HEREBY SUSPENDED FROM OFFICE FOR SIX MONTHS.

Makalintal, C.J., Zaldivar, Castro, Fernando, Teehankee, Barredo, Antonio, Esguerra, Fernandez, Muñoz Palma and Aquino, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






July-1974 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.M. No. 395-MJ July 11, 1974 - DOROTEO BUTIAL, ET AL. v. EUSTAQUIO C. PALMA

  • G.R. No. L-24294 July 15, 1974 - DONALD BAER v. TITO V. TIZON

  • G.R. No. L-37606 July 15, 1974 - LEONARDO AVILA v. AUDITOR GENERAL

  • A.M. No. 13-MJ July 18, 1974 - MARIA AIDA JAKOSALEM v. PRECIOSO B. CORDOVEZ

  • A.M. No. 144-CFI July 18, 1914

    RUFINA BENDESULA v. ALFREDO C. LAYA

  • G.R. No. L-30038 July 18, 1974 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOAQUIN VELEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-30918 July 18, 1974 - ANNIE SAND, ET AL. v. ABAD SANTOS EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION

  • G.R. No. L-37068 July 18, 1974 - EULALIA ALFONSO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 91-MJ and No. 319-MJ July 23, 1974 - ANTONIO ABIBUAG v. SEVERINO B. ESTONINA

  • A.M. No. 120-MJ July 23, 1974 - FABIAN GARDONES v. ANDRES MA. DELGADO

  • A.C. No. 1034 July 23, 1974 - LUIS ARBOLEDA v. EDUARDO GATCHALIAN

  • G.R. No. L-24112 July 23, 1974 - ONG SHIAO KONG v. DIRECTOR OF PATENTS

  • G.R. No. L-38129 July 23, 1974 - BOARD OF ADMINISTRATORS, ET AL. v. MARIANO V. AGCAOILI

  • G.R. No. L-38768 July 23, 1974 - ORBIT TRANSPORTATION COMPANY v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 944 July 25, 1974 - FLORA NARIDO v. JAIME S. LINSANGAN

  • G.R. No. L-24426 July 25, 1974 - ROSALINA Z. TIONGCO v. GUILLERMO DE LA MERCED

  • G.R. No. L-25843 July 25, 1974 - MELCHORA CABANAS v. FRANCISCO PILAPIL

  • G.R. No. L-32265 July 25, 1974 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO A. RAMOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-33817 July 25, 1974 - IN RE: PETITION OF ROSAURO JOSE TIONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-34974 July 25, 1974 - P. A. ALMIRA, ET AL. v. B. F. GOODRICH PHILIPPINES, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-37885 July 26, 1974 - LORENZO SUMAGUI, ET AL. v. JACINTA FLORES VDA. DE YATCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38332 July 26, 1974 - LETICIA B. BELMONTE v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 1288 July 29, 1974 - FLORAIDA BANARES v. ROSALINO C. BARICAN

  • G.R. No. L-34095 July 29, 1974 - ANECITO DUMALAGAN, ET AL. v. GAUDIOSO PALANGPANGAN, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. (11-MJ) 498-MJ July 31, 1974 - LUISA GAMELONG, ET AL. v. SILVESTRE TAYSON

  • A.M. No. 508-MJ July 31, 1974 - PEDRO ALMAZAN v. DELFIN ROSARIO, ET AL.

  • UDK-1737 (C.A.-G.R. No. 44976-R July 31, 1974 - CORNELIO ANTIQUERA v. VICENTE M. TUPASI

  • G.R. No. L-24248 July 31, 1974 - ANTONIO TUASON, JR. v. JOSE B. LINGAD

  • G.R. No. L-26374 July 31, 1974 - J. M. TUASON & CO., INC. v. FELIX V. MAKASIAR

  • G.R. No. L-27895 July 31, 1914

    JOSE Y. AREVALO, ET AL. v. MARIANO V. BENEDICTO

  • G.R. No. L-28174 July 31, 1974 - EDUVIGES BELTRAN ESPIRITU, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28812 July 31, 1974 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SILVERIO LUNA

  • G.R. Nos. L-29207 & L-29222 July 31, 1974 - VIGAN ELECTRIC LIGHT CO., INC., ET AL. v. LODIVICO D. ARCIAGA

  • G.R. No. L-30051 July 31, 1974 - NATIONAL WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE AUTHORITY v. NWSA SUPERVISORS ASSOCIATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-33304 July 31, 1974 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICTOR ABLETES, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-33643 and L-33644 July 31, 1974 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BERNARDO MANZANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-33926 July 31, 1974 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO GONZALES

  • G.R. No. L-34433 July 31, 1974 - VICENTA OLIVEROS-TORRE v. FLORES BAYOT

  • G.R. No. L-35607 July 31, 1974 - JOHN U. OSMOND v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-36703 July 31, 1974 - GOTARDO FLORDELIS, ET AL. v. HERACLEO CASTILLO

  • G.R. No. L-37599 July 31, 1974 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORENTINO COPRO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38256 July 31, 1974 - OCTAVIO A. KALALO v. EMILIO V. SALAS

  • G.R. No. L-38568 July 31, 1974 - MELECIA M. MACABUHAY, ET AL. v. JUAN L. MANUEL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38871 July 31, 1974 - JUANITO MADARANG v. REYNALDO B. HONRADO