Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1975 > June 1975 Decisions > A.M. No. 276-MJ June 27, 1975 - HADJIRUL TAHIL v. CARLITO A. EISMA:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[A.M. No. 276-MJ. June 27, 1975.]

HADJIRUL TAHIL, Complainant, v. ATTY. CARLITO A. EISMA, Municipal Judge of Parang, Sulu, Respondent.

SYNOPSIS


Respondent was charged with dishonesty in not reporting regularly to his office contrary to the recitals of his daily time record. The investigating judge found that respondent’s attendance was regular, except on certain days when he marked himself absent, for which the corresponding deductions were made from his salary; that the filing of the complaint was ill-motivated because the complainant, despite his friendship with the respondent, did not obtain the results he desired in two cases brought before respondent’s court, namely: the approval of a bail bond and the dismissed of a criminal case against his nephew. A dismissal of the charge was recommended.

The Supreme Court adopted the recommendation but because it was found that respondent granted bail to the accused in a murder case upon the request of a congressman despite his belief that the evidence of guilt was strong, he was admonished to demonstrate a greater degree of competence, intellectual courage and independence in the discharge of his judicial duties.

Administrative charge dismissed.


SYLLABUS


1. JUDGES; CONDUCT; INDISCRIMINATE GRANT OF BAIL; ADMONITION. — A Judge’s act of granting bail to an accused charge with a capital offense at the request of a congressman despite his belief that the evidence of guilt against the accused is strong is reprehensible but in the absence of a specific charge and finding that there was abuse of discretion in the granting of the bail, there is no basis for the imposition of a fine. The judge is merely admonished to demonstrate a greater degree of competence, intellectual courage and independence in the discharge of his judicial duties, for only in that manner can he merit the judicial position that he occupies and the support and confidence of the people.

2. ID.; ADMINISTRATIVE CHARGE FOR DISHONESTY; DISMISSAL THEREOF WHERE FILING OF THE COMPLAINT WAS ILL-MOTIVATED. — Where the filing of the complaint was motivated by hatred, anger and revenge on the part of the complainant who was not accommodated by the respondent judge and where the acts complained of were found to be regular and judiciously done, a dismissal of the charge is called for.


R E S O L U T I O N


ANTONIO, J.:


Respondent Municipal Judge Carlito A. Eisma, of Parang, Sulu, is charged by complainant Hadjirul Tahil with dishonesty in not reporting regularly to his office, contrary to the recitals of his daily time record. In his "Investigation, Report and Recommendation" dated February 29, 1973, Judge Felix V. Barbers of the Court of First Instance of Sulu, Branch III, 16th Judicial District, who investigated the case, recommended the dismissal of the charge.

According to the findings of the Investigating Judge:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . respondent has been regularly reporting to his office except on certain days when he marked himself absent during which he explained, his salary was correspondingly deducted therefrom.

"The filing of this complaint, the respondent declared, is motivated by hatred, anger and revenge on the part of the complainant. This is occasioned by the fact, when complainant brought the bail bond of his nephew Bakkal Ilahal charged in Criminal Case No. 241-N before the Court of respondent, for approval of the latter. Because of the failure of the bondsmen to appear before him, respondent did not approve of the bail bond. Again on another occasion, complainant filed in the Court of respondent a motion to dismiss Criminal Case No. 372-N, wherein the same nephew of the complainant, Bakkal Ilahal, is also charged with the crime of illegal possession of firearms. A scrutiny of the motion to dismiss and its annexes, offered in evidence by respondent, will show that the same is based on documents merely certified to by the clerk of the counsel of Bakkal Ilahal. Respondent in his order denying this motion to dismiss ruled:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

‘After a thorough perusal and study of the issues involved in the motion to dismiss and the opposition thereto, the Court finds that the reasons of Lt. Rodialo Gumtang in his oral opposition are more logical and justifiable because the evidence upon which accused thru counsel relies in their motion to dismiss are documentary in nature and the Court is not in a position to accept this kind of evidence without confronting the persons who executed and prepared the documents in question. Furthermore, some of the documents presented by accused thru counsel are merely certified true copies, the validity and originality of which are subject to question.

‘Accused thru counsel can have all the opportunity to present all their evidence during the trial of the case, hence, to pass and decide upon the validity of the documents attached to the motion to dismiss is premature and the proper subject of a trial on the merits.

‘WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing consideration, this Court denies the motion to dismiss of accused and orders that this case be set for trial on April 15, 1971. Let copy of this order be issued to the parties with the warning that no postponements shall be entertained.

‘SO ORDERED.’

"Without going to the merits of the abovementioned two cases, this Court finds that respondent acted judiciously on the matter. His disapproval of the bail bond without the bondsmen appearing before him in the first case (murder) is correct, because as the approving officer be must satisfy himself that those who made the undertaking to bail the accused are the same persons whose names appear on the bail bond and whose signatures are affixed thereto, otherwise, if only for the sake of friendship to accommodate the complainant, would make the bond a useless scrap of paper, and which respondent can be held responsible.

"A scrutiny of the bail bond (Exhibit 1) which we believe is the original thereof, the same is not even signed by the principal, who is the accused to be bailed. Neither has it been shown that the current taxes of the real properties offered as bond had been paid. The receipts of payment or a certificate of the municipal treasurer to this effect is not even attached, which are requirements to be accomplished pursuant to existing circulars of the Department of Justice.

"As to the order denying the motion to dismiss in the other case (illegal possession of firearm), this Court finds and is convinced that respondent acted legally. A scrutiny of the motion to dismiss and the grounds thereof, are grounds that could be taken and proven during the trial on the merits of the case. Respondent not having been satisfied with the documents annexed to the motion which are purely certified copies made by the clerk of the accused’s counsel, respondent acted correctly and legally.

"On this score, complainant has all the reasons to be angry at respondent taking into consideration their previous friendship, and now respondent has failed to accommodate him as hereinabove described. A lot of persons, because of friendly relations they have with judicial authorities, consider that when their wishes are not complied with or accommodated in cases pending before the courts of which they have an interest, it is the end of such friendship and to their eyes the judge is not a friend but a foe. Their nearsightedness on these matters could be like a poison to their mental faculties so that they would like the judge who failed to accommodate them, face their wrath and displeasure. Complainant became wrathful, but wrath must be properly channeled or it may work out a grave injustice. But, certainly, a judge in the exercise of his judicial function, does not see whether one is a friend or foe, whether one is influential or not, but rather, whether he acts within the law he is to apply, whether his actuations are prescribed by the rules of court and whether he has acted judiciously.

"As to the alleged falsification of the respondent of his daily time record and the allegation that he only reports to his office during Mondays and Thursdays, do not find credibility, and naturally should not be given weight."cralaw virtua1aw library

It appears, however, that in the aforementioned Criminal Case No. 241-N for murder, respondent admitted having granted bail to the accused upon the request of a congressman, despite his belief that the evidence of guilt against the accused was strong. On the basis of this admission, the Judicial, Consultant recommends that the respondent Judge, "be fined in an amount equivalent to his salary for one (1) month and warned that a repetition of such a breach of integrity will be dealt with more sternly."cralaw virtua1aw library

Under the Constitution, all persons shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, except those charged with capital offenses when evidence of guilt is strong. The discretion of the court to grant bail in a capital offense, before conviction, must be based upon the Court’s determination as to whether or not the evidence of guilt is strong. This discretion may only be exercised after the evidence is submitted at the summary hearing conducted pursuant to Section 7 of Rule 114 of the Rules.

Respondent’s admission that he granted bail because of the request of a congressman, despite his belief that the evidence of guilt against the accused is strong, is indeed reprehensible. But it is not clear from the record whether or not a summary hearing was conducted by respondent Judge in Criminal Case No. 241-N for the purpose of bail and, on the basis of his appreciation of the evidence submitted, granted bail to the accused. Moreover, respondent was not specifically charged and investigated in this regard, and in the absence of any specific finding that respondent gravely abused his discretion in granting bail to the accused in said case, this Court has no basis to impose a fine upon Respondent.

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the charge against respondent is DISMISSED. Considering his admission, however, he is hereby admonished to demonstrate a greater degree of competence, intellectual courage and independence in the discharge of his judicial duties, for only in that manner can he merit the judicial position that he occupies and the support and confidence of the people.

Fernando (Chairman), Barredo, Aquino and Concepcion, Jr., 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






June-1975 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.M. No. 145 CFI June 11, 1975 - VICENTE A. CASTRO v. VICENTE P. BULLECER

  • A.C. No. 223-J June 11, 1975 - ROMEO S. PEREZ v. CARLOS ABIERA

  • G.R. No. L-25650 June 11, 1975 - ISIDORA L. CABALIW, ET AL. v. SOTERO SADORRA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-31225 June 11, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PABLO SAMONTE, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-31284 June 11, 1975 - SEVEN-UP BOTTLING COMPANY, INC. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 207-MJ June 19, 1975 - PRISCA B. ARAZA v. JUANITO C. REYES

  • G.R. No. L-26183 June 19, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANGEL N. SARMIENTO

  • G.R. No. L-32281 June 19, 1975 - PEDRO ERMAC v. CENON MEDELO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-37630 June 19, 1975 - CATALINO LACIFICAR v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24971 June 20, 1975 - GREGORIO TAN, JR. v. MALCOLM G. SARMIENTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39254 June 20, 1975 - CENON C. SOLIS, ET AL. v. JAIME R. AGLORO

  • A.M. No. 276-MJ June 27, 1975 - HADJIRUL TAHIL v. CARLITO A. EISMA

  • A.M. No. 667 MJ June 27, 1975 - PAULINO B. INTING v. GERTRUDES F. BERNALDEZ

  • G.R. No. L-23419 June 27, 1975 - BEJAMIN SEBIAL v. ROBERTA SEBIAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26358 June 27, 1975 - DONATO LOPEZ, JR. v. CFI OF MANILA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-30037 June 27, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO DE LA VICTORIA

  • G.R. No. L-30050 June 27, 1975 - CESAR B. VILLANUEVA v. NUMERIANO G. ESTENZO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-31447 June 27, 1975 - AURELIO R. BANZON v. FEDERICO L. CABATO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-33138-39 June 27, 1975 - BATANGAS LAGUNA TAYABAS BUS COMPANY, INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38532 June 27, 1975 - ANTIPOLO HIGHWAY LINES, INC., ET AL. v. AMADO G. INCIONG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38826 June 27, 1975 - TEOTIMO ALAURIN, ET AL. v. JOSE NEPOMUCENO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39247 June 27, 1975 - IN RE: FELIX BALANAY, JR. v. ANTONIO M. MARTINEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-39423 & L-39684 June 27, 1975 - JUAN C. PIMENTEL, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39800 June 27, 1975 - ROMEO N. HERNANDEZ v. JOSE C. COLAYCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-40415 June 27, 1975 - PEDRO E. GAHOL v. FRANCISCO MAT. RIODIQUE

  • G.R. No. L-40624 June 27, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO B. NEPOMUCENO

  • G.R. No. L-40683 June 27, 1975 - ARTURO SAMONTE, ET AL. v. FAUSTINO SAMONTE, ET AL., ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 201 MJ June 30, 1975 - CECILIA A. DE LA PAZ v. SANTIAGO INUTAN

  • A.M. No. 222-MJ June 30, 1975 - SANTIAGO PALADIN v. ARTURO V. MIRALLES

  • A.M. No. 267 MJ June 30, 1975 - RAFAEL SALCEDO v. DAVID ALFECHE, JR.

  • G.R. Nos. L-22805 & L-27858 June 30, 1975 - WONDER MECHANICAL ENGINEERING CORPORATION v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25649 June 30, 1975 - ASSOCIATED LABOR UNION, ET AL. v. CENTRAL AZUCARERA DE LA CARLOTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25965 June 30, 1975 - AMERICAN RUBBER COMPANY v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-26502 June 30, 1975 - ROSARIO M. PONCE ENRILE v. ALFONSO PONCE ENRILE

  • G.R. No. L-27044 & L-27452 June 30, 1975 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. ENGINEERING EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLY COMPANY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28773 June 30, 1975 - FRANCISCO ORTIGAS, JR. v. LUFTHANSA GERMAN AIRLINES

  • G.R. No. L-29837 June 30, 1975 - STA. ANA HARDWARE & CO. v. "Y" SHIPPING CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. L-30489 June 30, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERTO MACASO

  • G.R. No. L-31953 June 30, 1975 - REYNALDO ALARAS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-33641 June 30, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NICASIO EDAÑO

  • G.R. No. L-37106 June 30, 1975 - JOSE M. LONTOC v. GREGORIO G. PINEDA

  • G.R. No. L-37844 June 30, 1975 - PATRICIO ALCANTARA, JR. v. CASTRENCE C. VELOSO

  • G.R. No. L-38701 June 30, 1975 - BAYER PHILIPPINES INC., ET AL. v. ENRIQUE A. AGANA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39046 June 30, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELANIO ANIN, ET AL.