SECOND DIVISION
SPO4 NORBERTO
LOZADA
AND SPO1 CHARLIE CO SAM,
Complainants,
A.M.
No.
RTJ-02-1741
(Formerly OCA
I.P.I.
No. 02-1414-RTJ)
November 27, 2003
-versus-
LUIS J. ARRANZ,
PRESIDING
JUDGE,REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT,
BRANCH 11,
Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
PUNO,
J.:
When a judge
puts on his robes, he puts off his relations to any, and, like
Melchisedech,
becomes without pedigree.- Thomas Fuller
Before this Court is
an Administrative Complaint[1]
dated February 11, 2002 against the Honorable Luis J. Arranz, Presiding
Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 11, for gross
partiality,
gross misconduct, and gross ignorance of the law.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Complainants SPO4 Norberto
Lozada and SPO1 Charlie Co Sam of the Philippine National Police were
among
the arresting officers of accused Ruben Dy in Criminal Case No.
01-189495,
entitled People vs. Ruben Dy a.k.a. Lu Wentie for violation of Section
15, Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, in the sala of respondent judge.
Accused Ruben Dy was charged with illegally selling and delivering
3,169.597
grams of shabu to SPO1 Charlie Co Sam in a buy-bust operation.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Complainants allege
that during the presentation of evidence for the prosecution in the
above-entitled
case on December 5, 2001, SPO4 Norberto Lozada testified on direct
examination.
When asked to identify the original unmarked envelope containing the
marked
money handed by the poseur buyer to the accused, Atty. Joseph Miranda,
the defense counsel objected to the question. Respondent judge did not
rule on the objection, but he himself proceeded to interrogate the
witness.
Respondent judge allegedly confused the witness by ordering his clerk
to
get another unmarked legal-size envelope in substitution of the
original
unmarked legal-size envelope containing the buy-bust money. The
respondent
judge then showed it to the witness and asked him if it was the same
envelope
as the original. Since the substitute envelope was empty, the witness
said
he could not identify as it had no content.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Next, respondent judge
ordered his clerk to remove the contents (marked money) of the original
envelope, and asked complainant Lozada what he could say about it.
Confused,
the witness again failed to identify the unmarked original envelope as
it was empty.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Respondent judge continued
questioning the witness to find out if he could identify the original
unmarked
envelope. In the process, respondent judge repeatedly transferred the
marked
money from the original to the substitute envelope and vice versa. At
the
end, he confused the witness who could no longer identify which of the
two envelopes was the original.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The questioning went
as follows:[2]
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Court:
You remove
the
contents because I am going to ask him. I am showing to you that brown
envelope. What can you say about this brown envelope? To the witness:
A: None your honor.
Q: What do you
mean
by none? Is that not the envelope without any marking that was given to
Co Sam?
A: It is not, your
honor.
Q: Are you very
sure
that it is not the envelope without any marking that was given to Co
Sam?
A: Because there
is
no content already.
Q: If I put
something
here, would you be able to identify that this is the envelope that was
given to Co Sam, is that correct?
A: If I will see
the
contents of the envelope.
Q: I am showing to
you
the contents of the envelope. Is that not the envelope that you have
seen
at the time that it was given to Co Sam?
A: No, your honor.
The prosecutor
momentarily
took over the examination but the respondent judge again questioned the
witness:[3]
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Pros. Apolo:
Where is
this
envelope now which was handed by Co Sam to Ruben Dy?
Atty. Miranda:
Same
objection,
your honor.
Court:
No, the
question
can be answered. Where is this now? To the witness —
A: The brown
envelope
was recovered by SPO4 Danilo Gomez from the suspect.
Q: Was that the
only
thing that was recovered, the brown envelope alone?
A: The brown
envelope
contains the buy-bust money.
Q: That envelope
which
was shown to you by the Court is not the envelope that was recovered
because
it has no contents?
A: Yes, your honor.
Q: So, this is not
the
envelope which was given to Co Sam by the investigator because it has
no
contents?
A: Yes, your honor.
Q: If the court
tells
you that this is the same envelope that contains the buy-bust money,
will
you still insist that this is not the same envelope that was given to
Co
Sam?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A: Yes, this is
the
brown envelope.
Q: Because that is
what
the court told you — that it was the brown envelope that contains the
boodle
money and the genuine money.
A: I saw that the
buy-bust
money was retrieved from the brown envelope.
Q: Palitan mo
iyong
brown envelope. I am showing to you this brown envelope. Can you say
now
that it was the same brown envelope that was given to Co Sam?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A: Not unless I
can
see the buy-bust money inside it.
Q: You open it.
Interpreter:
Witness is
opening
the brown envelope and examining the contents thereof.
Q: What did you
see
inside?
A: The buy-bust
money.
Q: Is that now the
brown
envelope that contains the buy-bust money?
A: I cannot
recall,
your honor.
Q: You put that
boodle
money now inside this envelope. Can you now say that it was the same
envelope
given to Co Sam?
A: Yes, your honor.
Q: Why did you say
that?
A: Because of the
texture
of the envelope.
Q: What is the
texture
of the envelope?
A: The color is
already
faded.
Q: How did you
know
that it was the same brown envelope that was given to Co Sam?
A: I was present
during
the preparation of the brown envelope. I can still remember this brown
envelope although it has no marking.
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Complainants likewise
charge
that during the same hearing, the counsel for the accused moved to have
the substitute envelope marked in evidence. Respondent judge remarked,
"I know what you mean." After this cryptic statement, the said counsel
withdrew his motion to have the substitute envelope marked. Allegedly,
the remark of the respondent judge gave the impression that he has an
understanding
with the counsel for the accused on how to go about with the trial of
the
case. This exchange by respondent judge and counsel for the accused is
not reflected in the TSN.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Complainants further
allege that in the hearing of December 12, 2001, the respondent judge
compelled
the prosecution to present witness SPO1 Charlie Co Sam. Prosecutor
Raymunda
Apolo pleaded for a resetting of his testimony as she needed to file a
motion in relation to the December 5, 2001 hearing, the transcripts of
stenographic notes of which have yet to be completed by the court
stenographer.
In response to her plea, respondent judge allegedly ruled, "Present
your
witness now or else." Again, the remarks do not appear in the TSN.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Complainant SPO1 Charlie
Co Sam took the witness stand reluctantly. While the witness was on
direct
examination, respondent judge again interrupted and showed the witness
an envelope different from the original envelope which contained the
marked
money. Prosecutor Apolo manifested in open court that "another envelope
is being shown to the witness again."[4]
The witness was then asked to describe the original envelope. He said
that
the envelope had its left portion torn. When Prosecutor Apolo was about
to continue with the direct-examination, she noticed that counsel for
the
accused, Atty. Miranda, was hiding the original envelope under the
table
on his lap. She rebuked the counsel for his actuation. When the said
counsel
brought out the envelope, it already had cut portions on the left and
right
corners and a hole at its bottom. The prosecutor denounced the
tampering
of the envelope in open court but the complaint was merely noted by
respondent
judge. We quote the pertinent portion of the transcript of the
proceedings,
viz:[5]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
PROS. APOLO:
If that will
be
shown to you, will you be able to identify that legal size envelope
with
a cut on the left upper portion and which contains the marked money?
A (SPO1 C. Co Sam):
Yes, ma'am.
PROS. APOLO:
May we know
why
the defense counsel is hiding the marked money x
x
x.
ATTY. MIRANDA:
I'm not
hiding
the marked money.
PROS. APOLO:
On his lap?
He
is hiding the marked money on his lap. There's a trick being played on
the prosecution in this case.
ATTY. MIRANDA:
She is
insinuating
something, your Honor.
PROS. APOLO:
So why
should
he do it? So why should you cover the money on your lap?
ATTY. MIRANDA:
You should
have
objected (to) that in the first place.
PROS. APOLO:
So I am
objecting
to that. You are hiding the money on your lap.
ATTY. MIRANDA:
I'm not
hiding
the money. Why would I hide the money, it will not do any good.
PROS. APOLO:
You placed
it
on your lap.
ATTY. MIRANDA:
Is the
placing
of the money on my lap already hiding it?
PROS. APOLO:
Yes, of
course.
COURT:
Alright. The
Court
has observed that when that the envelope was retrieved from the defense
counsel when it was shown and placed on the table (sic). Show it to the
witness.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
PROS. APOLO:
I am showing
to
you Exhibit x x x It's already
12:00
o'clock, your Honor. We move for a continuance.
ATTY. MIRANDA:
We would
like
to proceed, your Honor, because this is vital to the case of the
defense.
PROS. APOLO:
To the
witness
—
I am showing to
you
the legal size brown envelope with a cut on the left upper portion at
the
opening of the envelope containing the marked money on the cellophane
with
ten bundles of marked money, with the marking DPIU on the right upper
portion
of the ten genuine P1,000.00 bills. Will you please go over that object
and tell the Honorable Court if that is the very same marked money you
brought in Court on December 5, 2001?
A: This is the one
I
left in Court.
ATTY. MIRANDA:
May we just make
of
record, your Honor, that the cut is not only on the left side of the
envelope
but also on the right side. I am pointing it out to the Court, your
Honor,
there's also a cut on the right side and furthermore, there's also a
hole
at the bottom portion of this envelope.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
PROS. APOLO:
Anyway, your
Honor,
this is not a case of selling envelope. This is a case of selling three
(3) kilos of shabu, a regulated drug.
ATTY. MIRANDA:
May I just remind
the
prosecutor that this is x x x
PROS. APOLO:
Yes, this is not a
case
of selling envelope.
ATTY. MIRANDA:
This is nothing
but
proof beyond reasonable doubt.
PROS. APOLO:
To the witness —
Who gave you that
envelope
with the marked money inside it, marked as Exhibits E to E-11?
A: It was my
commanding
officer who gave this brown envelope containing the boodle money.
Q: What did you do
after
you received that marked money in an envelope marked as Exhibits E to
E-11?
A: We brought the
envelope
to the operation at Condeza.
Q: What time did
you
arrive at Condesa corner Nueva on February 3, 2001?
A: We arrived at
the
place more or less 1:30 p.m.
PROS. APOLO:
May we move for a
continuance,
your Honor.
COURT:
Order. (pls. see
record)
During that same
hearing,
complainants allege that the counsel for the accused shouted derogatory
remarks against Prosecutor Apolo, degrading her stature as officer of
the
court. The remarks were ignored by respondent judge. We quote a part of
the harsh exchange of words between the prosecutor and defense counsel,
viz:[6]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
ATTY. MIRANDA:
We prepared for an
information
for which an offense was committed allegedly on February 2, 2001. Here
comes the prosecution claiming that the offense was committed on
February
3, 2001. This involves, for us, your Honor, please, a substantial
amendment
of information.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
PROS. APOLO:
What is the
defense
of the accused, your Honor? The counsel did not state what is the
defense
of the accused — that he was not arrested on February 3?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
ATTY. MIRANDA:
You prove your
case.
PROS. APOLO:
We are proving our
case.
ATTY. MIRANDA:
You prove your
case.
That is a matter of our defense.
PROS. APOLO:
We are proving our
case.
ATTY. MIRANDA:
You prove your
case.
PROS. APOLO:
We are proving our
case.
In fact, we have already presented evidence to that effect.
ATTY. MIRANDA:
Until now you have
not
yet proven your evidence.
PROS. APOLO:
Because you are
suppressing
the evidence.
ATTY. MIRANDA:
That is your
problem.
PROS. APOLO:
That's also your
problem.
ATTY. MIRANDA:
That is your
problem.
You do your job.
PROS. APOLO:
You do your job,
too,
because I am doing my job.
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Furthermore,
complainants
charge that the decisions of respondent judge show a pattern of
acquitting
those accused of selling large quantities of shabu. They enumerated the
following cases:[7]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
1. On
November
28, 2001, respondent judge acquitted the accused in People vs. Imelda
Gatchalian,
docketed as Criminal Case No. 00-181157 for violation of Sec. 15, Rep.
Act No. 6425, as amended, involving 898 grams of shabu;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
2. On December 18,
2001,
respondent judge acquitted the accused in People vs. Tin Yeung Pai
a.k.a.
"Sonny Leung y Tin Paz," docketed as Criminal Case No. 00-179525 for
violation
of Sec. 15, Rep. Act No. 6425, as amended, involving 232.4779 grams of
shabu;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
3. In Criminal
Case
No. 01-183839, entitled People vs. Juve Ong and Lan Chua for violation
of Sec. 15, Rep. Act No. 6425, as amended, involving 430.4723 grams of
shabu, respondent judge granted the petition for bail of both accused.
The latter jumped bail and could not be located; and
4. In Criminal
Cases
Nos. 01-195069 and 00-186643, entitled People vs. Kevin Chang and
People
vs. Loe Lim, respectively, for violation of Sec. 15, Rep. Act No. 6425,
as amended, involving more than 200 grams of shabu, respondent judge
granted
the motion for quantitative examination of shabu. Consequently, accused
Loe Lim was granted bail after such re-examination of shabu because it
resulted to its lessened quantity.
On December 12, 2001,
complainants
moved to inhibit respondent judge from further conducting the trial of
Criminal Case. No. 01-189495.[8]
This motion was granted per Order[9]
dated March 14, 2002.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On January 17, 2002,
Assistant City Prosecutor Raymunda A. Cruz-Apolo filed a Manifestation
and Motion to Correct Transcript of Stenographic Notes taken on
December
12, 2001[10]
alleging some deletions and omissions in said transcript, as enumerated
in the Complaint filed by SPO4 Norberto Lozada & SPO1 Charlie Co
Sam.
In the Manifestation/Comment[11]
dated March 11, 2002, by Court Stenographer Cynthia C. Cambil, she
admitted
that there were deletions in the TSN, as compared with the
recorded/taped
proceedings. She said that they were not deliberately nor maliciously
done.
They were, allegedly, intended to hasten her work.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
This Court, in its Resolution[12]
dated December 11, 2002 referred the administrative complaint to the
Court
of Appeals for investigation, report and recommendation. The Honorable
Jose L. Sabio, Jr., Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals, was
designated
Administrative Investigator of the case at bar. In his Report dated May
22, 2003, he found respondent judge liable for serious misconduct and
manifest
partiality, and recommended that he be ordered to pay a fine of
TWENTY-FIVE
THOUSAND PESOS (P25,000.00), with a stern warning that a repetition of
the same or similar offense in the future will be dealt with more
severely.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We agree.cralaw:red
The over-intrusive questioning
of the prosecution witnesses by the respondent judge was improper.
Judges
should avoid abruptly interrupting the direct examination of witnesses.
It should be borne in mind that parties to a case carefully plan the
direct
examination of their witnesses. More often than not, cases are won or
lost
on the basis of the clarity and consistency of the testimonies of
witnesses
adduced in the direct examination. Seldom are cases won or lost due to
the brilliance of cross examination of witnesses. Lawyers should
therefore
be given ample latitude in the direct examination of their witnesses
for
these testimonies can make or break their cases. In the case at bar,
the
prosecution witnesses have not even completed their direct testimony
when
the respondent judge abruptly butted in, bombarded them with tricky
questions
and in the process threw their testimonies in haywire. Rule 3.06 of the
Code of Judicial Conduct provides:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
While a
judge
may, to promote justice, prevent waste of time or clear up some
obscurity,
properly intervene in the presentation of evidence during the trial, it
should always be borne in mind that undue interference may prevent the
proper presentation of the cause or the ascertainment of the truth.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The timing of the
questions
was bad enough but worse still was the nature of the questions
propounded
by respondent judge. The questions tending to erode the credibility of
the star witnesses for the prosecution were more proper to be
propounded
by the counsel for the accused in cross examination. It ought to be
self
evident that the questions that may be propounded by a judge to
witnesses
are limited, in scope and in shape for they should have no other
purpose
but to clarify, to promote justice, or prevent waste of time.[13]
It must be done sparingly and with great circumspect. The questions
should
tend to tilt the scales of justice in favor of one party over another.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The reason for the
rule
is obvious. A judge must not only be impartial, but must also appear
impartial.
If he propounds questions to witnesses for some purpose other than to
clarify
some obscure point, to achieve justice or to prevent waste of time, he
will appear as biased against or partial in favor of a party.[14]
In the case at bar, the questioning by the respondent judge cannot but
give the impression that he was favoring the accused by creating a
doubt
in the prosecution's evidence. To say the least, the respondent judge
was
neither cautious nor circumspect.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
To be sure, the
conduct
of the trial by the respondent judge renders his impartiality highly
suspect.
In the course of the direct examination of SPO1 Co Sam, Prosecutor
Apolo
noticed that the original envelope containing the marked money was
missing
from the prosecution's table. She later saw it hidden under the table
of
the defense, and on the lap of the counsel for the accused, Atty.
Miranda,
who turned out to have surreptitiously taken it and appeared to have
tampered
with it. He was rebuked by Prosecutor Apolo and was forced to bring out
the envelope which then exhibited cut portions on the left and right
corners
and a hole at its bottom. This was immediately denounced in open court
by Prosecutor Apolo, but the same was merely nonchalantly noted by the
respondent judge.[15]
The reprehensible act was clearly designed to discredit the testimony
of
and confuse the prosecution witness SPO1 Charlie Co Sam then on the
witness
stand trying to describe the original envelope. But the defense counsel
was not even asked to explain his act yet tampering of evidence inside
the court room and in the presence of the judge constitutes direct
contempt.[16]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Respondent judge's
appearance
of impropriety was further tainted when he compelled the Prosecutor to
present SPO1 Co Sam. The Prosecutor had a good reason to plead that the
presentation of the witness be reset to another date. She explained
that
she had a motion to file in connection with the December 5, 2001
hearing
the transcript of which has not been completed. For no justifiable
reason,
respondent judge denied the prosecutor's motion.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Likewise, respondent
judge's control of the proceedings leaves much to be desired. He should
have immediately admonished both counsels and brought order in the
court
during their heated argument over the issue of tampering of evidence.[17]
Allowing the counsels to exchange invectives and to shout at each other
in open room and in respondent's presence is an affront on the
integrity
of the court.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On the other hand, we
agree with the investigating justice that the reference by the
complainants
to the cases of People vs. Gatchalian, docketed as Criminal Case No.
00-181157,
People vs. Tin Yeung Pai a.k.a. "Sonny Leung y Tin Paz," docketed as
Criminal
Case No. 00-179525, People vs. Juve Ong and Lan Chua, Criminal Case No.
01-183839, People vs. Kevin Chang and People vs. Loe Lim or Criminal
Cases
Nos. 01-195069 and 00-186643, respectively, is irrelevant and has no
material
bearing on the case at bar. The five (5) drug cases involving shabu
cited
by complainants where respondent acquitted or issued an order favorable
to the accused are not enough sample from which one could conclude a
pattern
of acquitting violators of Rep. Act No. 6425, as amended, on the part
of
the respondent judge. Moreover, the correctness of the resolutions of
the
respondent judge in said cases are at worst, arguable.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Lastly, we agree with
the investigating justice that the Order subsequently issued by
respondent
judge inhibiting himself from hearing the subject criminal case does
not
render the instant complaint moot and academic, nor will it erase any
penalty
that may be imposed upon him for violation of his duty as a member of
the
judiciary.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
IN VIEW THEREOF, respondent
Luis J. Arranz, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Manila,
Branch 11 is found GUILTY of gross misconduct, and is hereby ordered to
pay a fine of TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P25,000.00), with a stern
warning
that a repetition of the same or similar offense in the future will be
dealt with more severely.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Quisumbing,
Austria-Martinez,
Callejo, Sr. and Tinga, JJ.,
concur.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo, pp. 1–69.
[2]
Exhibit "6," Rollo, pp. 19–20; TSN, 05 December 2001, pp. 32–33.
[3]
Id. at 20–24; TSN, 05 December 2001, pp. 33–37.
[4]
Exhibit "7," Rollo, p. 46; TSN, 12 December 2001, p. 21.
[5]
Exhibit "7," Rollo, pp. 47–49; TSN, 12 December 2001, pp. 22–24.
[6]
Exhibit "7," Rollo, pp. 33–34; TSN, 12 December 2001, pp. 5–6.
[7]
Complaint; Rollo, pp. 5–6.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
Rollo, pp. 50–53.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
Id., pp. 335–336.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
Id., pp. 113–116.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]
Id., pp. 131–132.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[12]
Id., p. 103.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[13]
Canon 14, Canons of Judicial Ethics. Interference in conduct of trial
x x
x
x x
x
x x x.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
He should avoid interruptions of counsel in their arguments except to
clarify
his mind as to their positions, and he should not be tempted to an
unnecessary
display of learning or a premature judgment.
[14]
Ernesto Pineda, Legal and Judicial Ethics, pp. 363–364.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[15]
Rollo, pp. 201–205; TSN, 06 February 2003, pp. 28–32.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[16]
Rollo, pp. 262–272; TSN, 07 February 2003, pp. 27–37; Section 1, Rule
71,
1997 Rules of Court.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[17]
Rule 3.03, Code of Judicial Conduct. A judge shall maintain order and
proper
decorum in the court.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred |