THIRD DIVISION
ONOFRE M. MARANAN,ASSISTANT PROVINCIAL
PROSECUTOR, CAVITE CITY,
Complainant,
A.M.
No.
P-03-1733
(formerly A.M.
OCA
IPI No. 00-906-P)
November 18, 2003
-versus-
NECITAS A.
ESPINELI,
COURT STENOGRAPHER III,
REGIONAL
TRIAL
COURT,
BRANCH 23, TRECE
MARTIRES CITY,
Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
J.:
Before us is the
Verified Complaint for an act unbecoming an employee dated January 20,
2000 filed by Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Onofre M. Maranan,
charging
Necitas A. Espineli, Court Stenographer III and OIC-Clerk of Court,[1]
Regional Trial Court, Branch 23, Trece Martires City. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Complainant alleged
in his Complaint that he is the prosecutor in Criminal Case No.
TM-1709,
entitled "People of the Philippines vs. Eliseo Alarca y Nuestro," for
violation
of Section 16, Article III, Republic
Act No. 6425,[2]
as amended, pending before the sala of then Executive Judge Jose J.
Parentela,
Jr. (now deceased), Regional Trial Court, Branch 23, Trece Martires
City.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On January 7, 2000,
Executive Judge Parentela, acting on the "Motion For Bail" and
"Supplemental
Petition For Admission To Bail" filed by accused's counsel, Atty.
Gerardo
Wilfredo I. Alberto, as well as complainant's opposition thereto,
issued
an Order setting the incidents for hearing on January 14, 2000 at 9:00
o'clock in the morning, and directing the parties to appear "for the
actual
weighing of the shabu in question and to bring with them the weighing
scale
x x x, with the understanding that no further postponement
will be entertained by this court."[3]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
However, on January
14, 2000, no hearing was conducted because both the public prosecutor
and
the defense counsel failed to appear for unknown reason.[4]
Nonetheless, according to the complainant, he was surprised that
respondent,
without any authority, re-scheduled the weighing on January 25, 2000.cralaw:red
Respondent, in her comment,
denied that it was she who re-scheduled the weighing of the shabu on
January
25, 2000 but the trial court, as shown by its Order dated January 14,
2000.[5]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Subsequently, both parties
manifested that they are submitting this administrative case for
decision
on the basis of the pleadings/records already filed.cralaw:red
Deputy Court Administrator
(DCA) Jose P. Perez, in his Report, sustained complainant's claim that
respondent "acted beyond the scope of her authority." Thus, he
recommended
that this case be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter and
that
respondent be suspended for five (5) days without pay.cralaw:red
The Complaint is bereft
of merit. The record shows that on January 14, 2000, Executive Judge
Jose
J. Parentela, Jr. issued the following Order in Criminal Case No.
TM-1709,
thus:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"ORDER
"When this case
was
called for hearing, the public prosecutor and counsel for the accused
failed
to appear for unknown reason, although the Order of the Court dated
January
7, 2000 states that the hearing for today is intransferrable in
character.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"In the interest
of
compassionate justice, reset the hearing to January 25, 2000 at 9:00
o'clock
in the morning, that definitely, no further postponement will be
granted
by the Court.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"SO ORDERED.
"Trece Martires
City,
January 14, 2000."
It must be recalled
that
on January 7, 2000, Executive Judge Parentela issued an Order setting
the
hearing of the motion for bail on January 14, 2000 and directing the
"actual
weighing of the shabu in question." However, both parties, for unknown
reason, failed to appear. The above quoted Order reset the hearing on
January
25, 2000. Obviously, in the light of the previous order dated January
14,
2000, the weighing of the shabu was to be done during the hearing as
reset
on January 25, 2000.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Clearly, it was the
trial court, not the respondent, which re-scheduled the weighing of the
subject shabu on January 25, 2000.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, the instant
complaint against respondent Necitas A. Espineli is hereby DISMISSED
for
lack of merit.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Vitug, Corona and Carpio
Morales, JJ., concur.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Respondent was designated as OIC-Clerk of Court from November 2, 1998
until
March 31, 2000, Rollo at 19.
[2]
The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Rollo at 11.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Order dated January 14, 2000, Id. at 10.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
Comment, 4th paragraph, Rollo at 20.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred |