FIRST
DIVISION
VIRGILIO CAÑETE,
Complainant,
A. M. No. MTJ-96-1111
[OCA-IPI No. 96-155-MTJ]
September 5, 1997
-versus-
JUDGE
MARCELO B. RABOSA, SR. [Retired]
and CLERK OF COURT FELY C. CARRIEDO,
Respondents.
R
E S O L U T I O N
BELLOSILLO, J.:
This is a
complaint filed by Virgilio Cañete,
Court Stenographer II, RTC-Br. 24, Ipil, Zamboanga del Sur, dated 28
November
1995, against Judge Marcelo Rabosa Sr., now retired, and Clerk of Court
Fely C. Carriedo, MCTC, Ipil-Tungawan, Zamboanga del Sur, charging them
with the unlawful taking of a .45-caliber pistol with 7 rounds of
ammunition
submitted as exhibit in Crim. Case No. 2044, "People v. Arturo Pilapel
and Herman Baate," for Illegal Possession of Firearm pending
preliminary
investigation in the Municipal Circuit Trial Court. The complaint
alleges
that on mere verbal order of respondent Judge, respondent Clerk of
Court
delivered to him allegedly for ballistics examination the .45-caliber
pistol
with 7 rounds of ammunition, and that months later respondent Judge had
the gun licensed in his name.
Respondent Judge
was not required to comment on
the complaint as he retired sometime in 1992 and no longer under the
administrative
supervision of the Court. It is believed that the case could have been
referred to the Provincial Prosecutor's Office for whatever legal
action
it would take it appearing that, if true, respondent Judge appropriated
to himself the firearm that was used as exhibit in his court.
In her comment respondent Carriedo claimed
that
she should not be held liable as the gun subject matter of the
complaint
was returned by respondent Judge by personally delivering it to the
Provincial
Prosecutor's Office. She submitted an acknowledgment receipt
purportedly
issued by respondent Judge relieving her from any liability with
respect
to the firearm.cralaw:red
An investigation
conducted by Deputy Court Administrator
Bernardo Abesamis revealed that in 1987 the gun was licensed in the
name
of respondent Judge. Although the firearm was supposedly returned in
July
1988, respondent Clerk of Court should have informed this Court of the
misappropriation, albeit temporary, particularly so that the Judge had
already retired. The Clerk of Court is the custodian of all records,
papers,
files, exhibits and public property committed to his charge.[1]
Viewing the offense charged as amounting to infidelity in the custody
of
court exhibits, Deputy Court Administrator Abesamis recommended in his
Memorandum of 28 November 1996 that respondent Clerk of Court be fined
in the amount of P5,000.00 with a stern warning to her against the
commission
of similar offenses. He also recommended that this IPI [Initial
Preliminary
Investigation] be accordingly docketed as an "Administrative Matter."
Court
Administrator Alfredo L. Benipayo while
approving the recommendation of DCA Abesamis reduced the recommended
fine
of P5,000.00 to P1,000.00 "in view of the circumstances and the extent
of the fine imposed in Art. 226 of the Revised Penal Code."[2]
We affirm the
accountability of Clerk of Court
Fely C. Carriedo. Under Sec. 7, Rule 136, of the Rules of Court, it is
her duty as Clerk of Court to safely keep all records, papers, files,
exhibits
and public property committed to her charge. Obviously, it was due to
her
negligence, if not acquiescence, that respondent Judge was able to
possess
the firearm and have it licensed in his name. She should not have
presumed
that the taking of the gun by respondent Judge was for ballistics
examination.
The irregularities attached to the taking of the disputed firearm
cannot
be considered rectified with the issuance by respondent Judge of a
certification
relieving her of her accountability. Respondent Clerk of Court should
have
known better the responsibilities of her office.cralaw:red
As regards the
penalty to be imposed on respondent,
we cannot sustain the fine of P1,000.00 as reduced by the Court
Administrator,
citing Art. 226 of the Revised Penal Code. Since this is not a criminal
but an administrative case, the Court may impose a much higher fine
than
that fixed in Art. 226, or suspend respondent for a reasonable period
or
even dismiss her, which certainly is much more serious than the mere
imposition
of a fine of P1,000.00.cralaw:red
We take this
opportunity to remind all Clerks
of Court to be more vigilant in the custody and safekeeping of court
exhibits,
particularly firearms and other weapons, as well as dangerous and
prohibited
drugs. The Court has been receiving reports that these are now the
favorite
object of thievery and robbery all over the country, resulting in the
failure
of the prosecutors to successfully bring the criminals to justice.
Worse,
the perpetrators go scot-free only to pursue further their nefarious
activities
with the use of these exhibits.cralaw:red
ACCORDINGLY,
acting on the Memorandum of DCA Abesamis,
this Court RESOLVES to docket this case, "IPI No. 96-155-MTJ," into a
formal
"Administrative Matter" and direct the Clerk of Court of this Court to
assign it an appropriate number. However, instead of the recommended
imposition
of fine, respondent Clerk of Court FELY C. CARRIEDO is suspended from
office
for a period of one (1) month without pay to commence immediately upon
service hereof with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or
similar
act in the future will be dealt with more severely.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Vitug, Kapunan
and Hermosisima Jr., JJ.,
concur.cralaw:red
_____________________________
Endnotes
[1]
Lloveras v. Sanchez, A. M. No. P-93-817, 18 January 1994, 229 SCRA 302;
Basco v. Gregorio, A. M. No. P-94-1026, 6 July 1995, 245 SCRA 614.
[2]
Art. 226. Removal, concealment or destruction of documents Any
public
officer who shall remove, destroy or conceal documents or papers
officially
entrusted to him, shall suffer:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
1. The penalty of
prision
mayor
and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos, whenever serious damage
shall
have been caused thereby to a third party or to the public interest.
2. The penalty of
prision
correccional
in its minimum and medium period and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos,
whenever the damage to a third party or to the public interest shall
not
have been serious.
In either case, the
additional
penalty of temporary special disqualification in its maximum period to
perpetual special disqualification shall be imposed. |