Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1981 > December 1981 Decisions > A.M. No. 1567-MJ December 28, 1981 - DANILO STA. MARIA v. ANASTACIO T. ZAMUCO:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[A.M. No. 1567-MJ. December 28, 1981.]

DANILO STA. MARIA, Complainant, v. HONORABLE ANASTACIO T. ZAMUCO, Municipal Judge of Bugallon, Pangasinan, Respondent.

SYNOPSIS


Respondent was charged for allegedly tampering, despite the objection of witness, certain statements offered during a preliminary examination by Patrolman Taoiñgan. In his Answer, he submitted that with the consent of the witness, who then gave the proper answers, he crossed out answers of the patrolman which he considered as hearsay and unresponsive. He explained that he acted without malice or evil intention in not accepting portions of the statement given and asserted that the patrolman entertained a grudge against him. The Executive Judge, to whom the matter was referred, recommended the dismissal of the case, the respondent having "acted with the best of intentions and without any malice whatsoever."cralaw virtua1aw library

Despite the respondent judge having reached the compulsory age of retirement on April 27, 1981, the Supreme Court deemed it proper to act on the matter to set guidelines for the conduct of occupants of the bench. It held that to preclude any semblance of plausibility to the charge of respondent failing to maintain an accurate and truthful account of proceedings in his court, he should just retain in the record whatever answer is given to any question asked. The original answers must not be altered, leaving him free to propound questions that would remove any doubt or uncertainty as to the nature of the answer given or in the alternative make it responsive.

Case dismissed but respondent admonished.


SYLLABUS


1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; SUPREME COURT; ADMINISTRATIVE SUPERVISION OVER LOWER COURTS; CONDUCT EXPECTED OF OCCUPANTS OF THE BENCH; PRUDENCE IN THE EXERCISE OF JUDGE’S PREROGATIVE TO ASK CLARIFICATORY QUESTIONS. — A judge should exercise great prudence in the exercise of his undoubted prerogative to ask clarificatory questions. It is especially important that to preclude any semblance of plausibility to the charge of his failing to maintain an accurate and truthful account of proceedings in his court, he should just retain in the record whatever answer is given to any question asked. The original answers must not be altered, leaving him free to propound questions that would remove any doubt or uncertainty as to the nature of the answer given or in the alternative make it responsive.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; COMPLAINTS AGAINST JUDGES; RESPONDENT JUDGE ADMONISHED FOR TAMPERING STATEMENTS OF A WITNESS; CASE AT BAR DISMISSED FOR BEING MOOT AND ACADEMIC. — The case against respondent Judge for the alleged tampering of certain statements offered during a preliminary examination is dismissed, his compulsory retirement making it moot and academic but an admonition should be spread on his record.


R E S O L U T I O N


FERNANDO, J.:


This administrative complaint against Municipal Judge Anastacio T. Zamuco of Bugallon, Pangasinan arose from the alleged tampering of certain statements offered during a preliminary examination. Complainant Danilo M. Sta. Maria of the Philippine Constabulary asserted that the testimony of a certain policeman of Bugallon, Alegrio Taoiñgan by name, was taken before one Sergeant Romeo Colet of the Philippine Constabulary. Thereafter, it was submitted to respondent Judge on February 1, 1977. A preliminary examination was then conducted by him, with Patrolman Taoiñgan being subjected to searching questions but with his adopting as his own the questions propounded by Sergeant Colet. There were certain answers though of Patrolman Taoiñgan he considered hearsay and unresponsive. Those he disregarded substituting different answers, despite the objection of the witness. Patrolman Taoiñgan then reported the matter to his immediate superior, who in turn referred it to Lieutenant Santa Maria. The result was the filing of this complaint.

In the answer of respondent Judge, he admitted that he did cross out answers of the policeman-witness for their being unresponsive and hearsay. He alleged though that what he did was with the consent of the witness, who then gave the proper answers. It was his submission that he acted without malice or evil intention in not accepting portions of the statement deemed by him hearsay and unresponsive. There was the assertion likewise that the patrolman entertained a grudge against him because he was the one who subscribed the statement of the complainant in a case filed against the patrolman.chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

The matter was then referred to Executive Judge Willelmo C. Fortun. The findings in his report was that respondent Judge "was acting with the best of intentions and without any malice, whatsoever." 1 He, therefore, recommended that the complaint against respondent Judge be dismissed citing Zabala v. Judge Pamaran 2 and Bondoc v. Judge de Guzman. 3

The records of the Office of the Court Administrator show that respondent Judge reached the compulsory age of retirement on April 27, 1981. Ordinarily, therefore, especially so in the light of the above recommendation, this case should be considered moot and academic. Nonetheless, under certain circumstances, this Court has deemed it proper and desirable to act on the matter by way of setting guidelines for the conduct of the occupants of the bench. While then, the report of Judge Fortun is accepted, it is still necessary to impress on respondent Judge that he could have exercised greater prudence in the exercise of his undoubted prerogative to ask clarificatory questions. It is especially important that to preclude any semblance of plausibility to the charge of his failing to maintain an accurate and truthful account of proceedings in his court, he should just retain in the record whatever answer is given to any question asked. The original answers must not be altered, leaving him free to propound questions that would remove any doubt or uncertainty as to the nature of the answer given or in the alternative make it responsive.

WHEREFORE, the case against respondent Judge is dismissed, his compulsory retirement making it moot and academic. Let an admonition, however, be spread on his record.

Aquino, Abad Santos, De Castro, Ericta, and Escolin, JJ., concur.

Barredo, J., took no part.

Concepcion Jr., J., is on leave.

Endnotes:



1. Report, 6.

2. Adm. Case No. 200-J, June 10, 1971, 39 SCRA 430.

3. Adm. Case No. 279-J, May 30, 1974, 57 SCRA 135.




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






December-1981 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 58345 December 9, 1981 - FBA AIRCRAFT v. SEGUNDO ZOSA

  • A.M. No. 2162-MJ December 14, 1981 - AGUILAR INTEGRATED NATIONAL POLICE v. ANASTACIO ZAMUCO

  • A.M. No. P-2266-A December 14, 1981 - LORENZA M. DE LABACO v. NORBERTO O. PARALE

  • A.M. No. P-2443 December 14, 1981 - R.M. SALAZAR JR. CONSTRUCTION, INC. v. RODOLFO M. ESPINELI

  • G.R. No. L-27810 December 14, 1981 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. CONSOLIDATED TERMINALS, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-28102 December 14, 1981 - ELIAS L. PENACO v. ZOILO H. RUAYA

  • G.R. No. L-30621 December 14, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE ORPILLA

  • G.R. No. L-31403 December 14, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JACOBITO MARQUEZ

  • G.R. No. L-31694 December 14, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONARDO D. ROSALES

  • G.R. No. L-31871 December 14, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CEFERINO T. MEDRANA

  • G.R. No. L-32944 December 14, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODRIGO C. MENDOZA

  • G.R. No. L-33609 December 14, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JESUS G. RUIZ

  • G.R. No. L-36554 December 14, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOVITO AGUEL

  • G.R. Nos. L-41493 & L-41494 December 14, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEODORO VILLAMOR

  • G.R. No. L-42900 December 14, 1981 - RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORP. v. GUARDSON LOOD

  • G.R. No. L-46371 December 14, 1981 - AMPARO SANTOS v. FELISA DE LA FUENTE SAMSON

  • G.R. No. L-48605 December 14, 1981 - DOMNA N. VILLAVERT v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-51539 December 14, 1981 - SUMMIT GUARANTY & INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-52196 December 14, 1981 - CONTINENTAL CEMENT CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-53406 December 14, 1981 - NATIONAL UNION OF BANK EMPLOYEES v. MINISTER OF LABOR

  • G.R. No. L-54335 December 14, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMMANUEL V. FELIPE

  • G.R. No. L-56314 December 14, 1981 - ANITA M. SEARES v. HAROLD M. HERNANDO

  • G.R. No. L-57205 December 14, 1981 - ADORACION F. VDA. DE DANAN v. FELIPE V. BUENCAMINO

  • G.R. No. 56704 December 18, 1981 - PETROPHIL CORPORATION v. BLAS OPLE

  • A.M. No. 543-MC December 19, 1981 - ANGELA L. DAILAY-PAPA v. BEN ALMORA

  • A.M. No. 2026 December 19, 1981 - NENITA DE VERA SUROZA v. REYNALDO P. HONRADO

  • A.M. No. P-2529 December 19, 1981 - VICENTE TO v. ALFREDO DISTOR

  • G.R. No. L-31429 December 19, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROSCOE G. DABAN

  • G.R. No. L-36315 December 19, 1981 - JOSE W. DIOKNO v. JUAN PONCE ENRILE

  • G.R. Nos. L-39121 & L-39122 December 19, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JACINTO PARCON, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-48907 & 49035 December 19, 1981 - SEVERINO TAJONERA v. BERNANDO LAMAROZA

  • G.R. No. 50180 December 19, 1981 - FRANCISCA RICO REYES v. MINISTER OF LABOR

  • G.R. No. L-55273-83 December 19, 1981 - GAUDENCIO RAYO, ET AL. v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF BULACAN

  • G.R. No. 55954 December 19, 1981 - FERMIN CASOCOT v. CIPRIANO V. VAMENTA, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-56443 December 19, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NAPOLEON D. VILLANUEVA

  • A.C. No. 924 December 28, 1981 - RENATO M. CORONADO v. ANGEL S. HUERTAS

  • A.M. No. 1567-MJ December 28, 1981 - DANILO STA. MARIA v. ANASTACIO T. ZAMUCO

  • G.R. No. L-26540 December 28, 1981 - MUTUAL PAPER INC. v. EASTERN SCOTT PAPER COMPANY