EN BANC
SPO2
JOSE B. YAP,
Complainant,
A.M.
No.
MTJ-02-1431
May 9, 2003
-versus-
JUDGE
AQUILINO A.
INOPIQUEZ, JR.,
Respondent.
D
E C I S I
O N
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
J.:
Before Us is the Administrative
Complaint filed by SPO2 Jose B. Yap of Matag-ob, Leyte Police Station
against
Judge Aquilino A. Inopiquez, Jr. of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court
(MCTC)
of Kananga-Matag-ob, same province, for grave abuse of authority and
acts
unbecoming a judge.chanrobles virtual law library
In his sworn affidavit-complaint
dated July 12, 1999, complainant alleged that on March 6, 1999
(Saturday),
pursuant to an alias arrest warrant, he arrested Antonio Laurente, Jr.,
the accused in Criminal Case No. 8458 for violation of B.P. Blg. 22,
pending
in the Metropolitan Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) at Ormoc City.cralaw:red
On the same day, March
6, respondent judge issued an Order of Release[1]
on the basis of a cash bond posted on March 8, 1999, as shown by the
corresponding
Official Receipt No. 9215725.[2]
Also on March 6, respondent
judge issued another Order of Release,[3]
this time based on a property bond. This bond was subscribed and
sworn to before him on March 10, 1999 (Wednesday) by bondsman Antonio
Laurente,
Sr. However, this date was changed to March 6.cralaw:red
Complainant claimed
that respondent judge issued the two (2) Orders of Release on March 6,
1999 although there was yet no cash bond or property bond, for actually
the cash bond was posted on March 8, while the property bond was filed
on March 10. Clearly, respondent judge ordered the release of the
accused prematurely. Complainant finally alleged that the accused
is the relative of respondent’s wife.cralaw:red
On October 27, 1999,
respondent judge filed his comment. He denied the charges,
asserting
that the relationship of his wife to the accused has no bearing to his
judicial duties of approving the bail and issuing the Order of
Release.
On March 6, 1999, when accused Laurente, Jr. was arrested, his brother
Silverio Laurente and one Salvador Almoroto went to respondent’s
residence
and presented O.R. No. 9215725 showing that on that date, a cash bond
was
posted with the office of respondent’s Clerk of Court Servando O.
Veloso,
Jr. The money in the amount of P18,000.00 belonged to
Almoroto.
Silverio Laurente also handed to respondent judge, for his signature,
the
Order of Release dated March 7, 1999 prepared by Clerk of Court
Veloso.
The latter placed the date March 7 instead of March 6 because he
thought
respondent judge would only be available on that date.cralaw:red
Also on the same day,
March 6, minutes after Silverio Laurente and Almoroto left, Antonio
Laurente,
Sr., accused’s father, and Court Interpreter Pedro M. Beltran
arrived.
Laurente, Sr. presented to respondent judge a property bond and an
Order
of Release, also dated March 6, 1999, both prepared by Beltran.
Respondent
judge told them that he had already approved the cash bond and signed
the
corresponding Order of Release. However, Laurente, Sr. pleaded to
him to approve the property bond in order that the money utilized as
cash
bond could be returned to Almoroto to avoid paying interest
thereon.
After examining the property bond, respondent judge approved the same
and
signed another Order of Release.chanrobles virtual law library
Respondent judge claimed
that O.R. No. 9215725 was actually issued to Almoroto on March 6 after
he had posted the cash bond that same day. Respondent judge
insisted though that it was Clerk of Court Veloso who altered the date
appearing thereon, from March 6 to March 8, 1999, since complainant
angrily
protested that Veloso should not issue an official receipt dated March
6, 1999 as it was a Saturday, a non-working day.cralaw:red
In our Resolution dated
March 21, 2001, we referred the instant case to Executive Judge
Fortunito
L. Madrona, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Ormoc City, for investigation,
report and recommendation.cralaw:red
In his Report and Recommendation
dated September 3, 2001, Executive Judge Madrona found that "there is
no
substantial basis in the claim of complainant about the alleged anomaly
in the issuance of two Orders of Release by the respondent judge."
Thus,
Executive Judge Madrona recommended the dismissal of the charges for
lack
of merit. Executive Judge Madrona further recommended that
respondent
judge be reprimanded for his failure to avoid the appearance of
impropriety
by exercising proper safeguards in the performance of his official
duties,
considering that accused Laurente, Jr. is his relative by
affinity.
On this point, Executive Judge Madrona was referring to respondent
judge’s
failure to observe Section 11, Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of
Criminal
Procedure, as amended, quoted as follows:
"Sec.
11.
Property bond, how posted. - A property bond is an undertaking
constituted
as lien on the real property given as security for the amount of the
bail.
Within ten (10) days after the approval of the bond, the accused shall
cause the annotation of the lien on the certificate of title on file
with
the Registry of Deeds if the land is registered, or if unregistered, in
the Registration Book on the space provided therefore, in the Registry
of Deeds for the province or city where the land lies, and on the
corresponding
tax declaration in the office of the provincial, city and municipal
assessor
concerned.chanrobles virtual law library
"Within the same
period,
the accused shall submit to the court his compliance
and his failure to do so shall be sufficient
cause
for the cancellation of the property bind and his re-arrest and
detention."
It appears that
respondent
judge did not require the accused to cause the annotation of the lien
(property
bond) in the Registration Book of the Registry of Deeds and on the
corresponding
tax declaration in the office of the provincial, city or municipal
assessor
concerned.
Executive Judge Madrona’s
recommendation to dismiss the charges is based on his findings quoted
as
follows:
"(12) On
this
particular factual issue of the real date of the official receipt for
the
cash bond, which the undersigned finds crucial in the overall
appreciation
of the herein complaint, it is the opinion of the undersigned that the
version of testimony of Mr. Veloso is credible. That is,
the
date of issuance of the official receipt was actually March 6, 1999 but
that he caused it to change to March 8, 1999 affixing thereon his
counter
initial for the reason, according to him, that when complainant went to
see him on March 8, he was protesting to him about the date, and to
avoid
further argument he did the alteration. For this indiscretion on
Veloso’s part, he should be made to answer administratively.
x
x x
"(14) In
short,
the whole complaint boils down to an appreciation of the factual issues
which have been substantially presented in the foregoing. As to
whether
there was really cash bond being posted on March 6, 1999 as could be
attested
to in the official receipt issued therefor and which could validate the
first Order of Release issued by the respondent judge - the undersigned
finds in the affirmative. It is the words of Mr. Veloso, the
Clerk
of Court who issued the official receipt for the cash, bond as against
the words of the complainant. In the absence of strong and
convincing
evidence to the contrary, the explanation of Mr. Veloso as regards his
official acts had to be given credence as one coming from one whose
official
duty is presumed to have been regularly performed. (Sec. 3 (m),
Rule
131, Rules of Court)chanrobles virtual law library
"(15) The
factual
issue surrounding the date of issuance of the official receipt for the
cash bond having been resolved, there is no substantial basis in the
claim
of complainant about alleged anomaly in the issuance of the two Orders
of Release by the respondent judge. Complainant’s
basis
is reduced only to mere suspicion."
On October 10, 2001,
this
Court referred Executive Judge Madrona’s Report and Recommendation to
the
Office of the Court Administrator (OCA).
In her Report dated
March 5, 2002, Deputy Court Administrator Zenaida N. Elepaño,
adopted
the findings of Executive Judge Madrona but recommended that:
1. The
complaint
against respondent judge be re-docketed as an administrative case and
that
he be ordered to pay a fine of Three Thousand Pesos (P3,000.00) for
giving
unwarranted favor to the accused who is a second cousin of his wife, by
approving the two (2) bail bonds and issuing the two (2) release orders;
2. Clerk of
Court
Servando O. Veloso, Jr. be directed to explain within thirty days from
notice why no disciplinary sanction should be imposed on him for: a)
altering
the date of the official receipt of the cash bond; and (b) failure to
cancel
the cash bond and the first Order of Release after the approval of the
property bond;
3. Interpreter
Pedro
M. Beltran be ordered to: (a) explain within thirty days from notice
why
he should not be administratively sanctioned for preparing and
processing
bail bonds without the authority of his presiding judge; and (b)
immediately
cease and desist from preparing and processing bail bonds unless duly
authorized.
In the same Report,
Deputy
Court Administrator Elepaño stated that respondent judge was
previously
adjudged guilty of abuse of authority and gross ignorance of the law
and
fined in the amount of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) and suspended
without pay for three months.[4]chanrobles virtual law library
On May 28, 2002, we
issued a Resolution approving respondent judge’s application for
optional
retirement in A.M. No. 10822-RET but directing that his retirement
benefits
be withheld pending the resolution of the instant case.cralaw:red
On April 24, 2002, we
resolved to (a) re-docket the case as a regular administrative matter;
(b) direct Clerk of Court Veloso and Interpreter Beltran to submit
their
explanations as recommended by the OCA; and (c) require the parties to
manifest, within twenty (20) days from notice, whether they are
submitting
the case for decision on the basis of the pleadings.cralaw:red
On July 22, 2002, respondent
judge filed his Manifestation that he is willing to have the case so
decided.
To date, or after almost one year, complainant has not yet submitted
the
required manifestation. Therefore, he is deemed to have agreed
that
the case be decided on the basis of the pleadings.cralaw:red
Clerk of Court Veloso
and Interpreter Beltran submitted the required explanations.cralaw:red
Clerk of Court Veloso
explains that he altered the date of O.R. No. 9215725 from March 6 to
March
8, 1999 after complainant went to his office and inquired why it was
dated
March 6 (Saturday), a non-working day. Veloso stated that there
was
nothing wrong in rendering service on a Saturday. However,
complainant
refused to listen and continued to berate him. To avoid further
arguments,
he superimposed "8" over "6". He altered the date, believing
there
was nothing irregular in doing so because the cash bond had already
been
released to the bondsman and substituted with a property bond.cralaw:red
Beltran states that
he has been assisting litigants in the preparation of bail bonds with
the
knowledge of respondent judge and Clerk of Court Veloso. He does
not charge fees for this service because he believes that as a court
employee,
it is his duty to assist anyone who seeks his help. Upon receipt
of our April 24, 2002 Resolution, he immediately ceased assisting any
litigant
in the preparation of bail bonds. He now earnestly seeks the
compassion
and understanding of this Court.cralaw:red
On January 10, 2003,
Deputy Court Administrator Elepaño, submitted a Report
reiterating
her recommendation that respondent judge be fined in the amount of
Three
Thousand Pesos (P3,000.00) and recommending further that Clerk of Court
Veloso and Interpreter Beltran be fined in the amount of One Thousand
Pesos
(P1,000.00), each, with a warning that a repetition of the same acts
shall
be dealt with more severely.chanrobles virtual law library
The sole issue for our
resolution is whether respondent judge ordered the release of accused
Antonio
Laurente, Jr. although the cash or property bond for his temporary
liberty
had not yet been posted and approved.cralaw:red
Section 14, Rule 114
of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, as amended, provides that
if
the accused is arrested in a province, city or municipality other than
where the case is pending, bail may be filed with any RTC of said
place,
or, if no judge thereof is available, with any metropolitan trial
judge,
municipal trial judge or municipal circuit trial judge therein.cralaw:red
Criminal Case No. 9458
against Antonio Laurente, Jr. was filed with the MTCC of Ormoc
City
but he was arrested in Matag-ob, Leyte. Since there was no RTC in
Matag-ob, respondent judge, as Presiding Judge of MCTC,
Kananga-Matag-ob,
was then authorized under Rule 114 to approve the bail of Antonio
Laurente,
Jr. and order his release.cralaw:red
Complainant contends
that the cash bond of P18,000.00 was posted by Almoroto not on March 6,
1999, when the accused was released, but on March 8, 1999 as shown by
the
corresponding O.R. No. 9215725.[5]
To justify the issuance
of the Order of Release on March 6, respondent judge would want us to
believe
that O.R. No. 9215725 was issued on March 6, not March 8, 1999, the
date
appearing thereon. In fact, he insisted that it was Clerk of
Court
Veloso who altered the date of the O.R. from March 6 to March 8.
It can be readily discerned that respondent judge, in order to cover up
his misdeed, even laid the blame on his Clerk of Court who, out of
apparent
loyalty to him, admitted having changed the date in order to make it
appear
that the cash bond was posted on March 6. Clerk of Court Veloso’s
pretext that he gave in to complainant’s demand "to avoid further
arguments"
is too flimsy and unworthy of belief.cralaw:red
Relative to the property
bond, respondent judge maintains that it was filed also on the same
day,
March 6, minutes after Almoroto posted the cash bond.
Consequently,
he issued the corresponding Order of Release also on March 6.chanrobles virtual law library
We observe that the
property bond was subscribed and sworn to by bondsman Antonio Laurente,
Sr. before respondent judge on March 10, 1999 (Wednesday).
However,
very clear to the naked eye is that "6" was superimposed on "10th" (day
of March) to make it appear that the bail was accomplished and filed on
March 6. The jurat positively shows that the property bond, in
lieu
of the cash bond, was filed, not on March 6, but on
March
10, 1999, or four (4) days after respondent judge issued his second
Order
of Release on March 6, 1999.cralaw:red
It is a basic rule of
evidence that between documentary and oral evidence, the former carries
more weight.[6]
The cash bond was posted on March 8 (Monday), not on March 6, 1999, as
shown by O.R. No. 9215725. The property bond, in substitution of
the cash bond, was filed, not on March 6, but on March 10 (Wednesday),
as shown by the jurat. Both Orders of Release were
issued
on March 6 (Saturday). Therefore, there is no doubt that
respondent
judge ordered the release of the accused despite the fact that there
was
yet no bail filed and approved for his provisional liberty.cralaw:red
That respondent judge
issued the release orders prematurely is not difficult to
understand.
He admitted that accused Antonio Laurente, Jr. is his wife’s
relative.
And in his desire to help the accused and please his wife, he would
even
involve his Clerk of Court and Interpreter. Considering the facts
of this case, it is safe to conclude that they were constrained to
comply
with his instructions. Hence, they should have been spared from
any
administrative sanction.cralaw:red
Section 3, Rule 114
of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, as amended, provides that
an
accused may only be released on bail after the corresponding cash or
property
bond has been properly posted. Respondent judge violated this
Rule
when he issued the two Orders of Release on March 6, 1999 in favor of
accused
Antonio Laurente, Jr. despite the fact that the corresponding cash or
property
bond was posted only thereafter, or on March 8 and March 10, 1999,
respectively.cralaw:red
Moreover, records show
that upon approval of the property bond filed after the release of the
accused, respondent judge failed to order the cancellation of the cash
bond. Neither did he require the accused, within ten (10) days
from
the approval of the bond, to cause the annotation of the bail as lien
in
the Registration Book of the Registry of Deeds and on the corresponding
tax declaration in the office of the provincial, city or municipal
assessor
concerned, pursuant to Section 11, Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of
Criminal
Procedure, as amended, quoted earlier.chanrobles virtual law library
We have held that the
exacting standards of conduct demanded from judges are designed to
promote
public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.[7]
When
the judge himself becomes a transgressor of any law which he is sworn
to
apply, he places his office in disrepute, encourages disrespect for the
law and impairs public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary
itself.[8]
This Court cannot countenance such act as it erodes the public’s trust
in the judiciary.cralaw:red
In the instant case,
respondent not only failed to perform his judicial duties in accordance
with the rules, he acted in bad faith. Despite the fact that he
ordered
the release of a person lawfully arrested even before he had posted
bail,
he tried to hide his culpability by altering the dates of the cash bond
and property bond. His actuations constitute gross misconduct
which
merits sanctions even if he already retired[9]
on January 1, 2002.[10]
In Canson vs. Garchitorena,[11]
this Court explained the concept of gross misconduct, thus:
"Misconduct is defined
as any unlawful conduct on the part of a person concerned in the
administration
of justice prejudicial to the rights of parties or to the right
determination
of the cause (Black’s Law Dictionary, Fourth Ed., p. 1150).
It generally means wrongful, improper, unlawful conduct motivated by a
premeditated, obstinate or intentional purpose (Words and Phrases, Vol.
27, p. 466, citing Sewell vs. Sharp, La App. 102 So 2d 259,
261).
The term, however, does not necessarily imply corruption or criminal
intent
(Ibid., citing State Ex Rel Asbaugh v. Bahr, 40 N.E. 2d 677, 680, 68
Ohio
App. 308). On the other hand, the term ‘gross’ connotes something
"out of all measure; beyond allowance; not to be excused; flagrant;
shameful"
(Black’s Law Dictionary, Fourth Ed., p. 832).chanrobles virtual law library
"For administrative
liability to attach it must be established that the respondent was
moved
by bad faith, dishonesty, hatred or some other like motive (Atty.
Antonio
T. Guerrero v. Hon. Adriano Villamor, AM No. RTJ-90-483; George Carlos
v. Hon. Adriano Villamor, AM No. RTJ-90-617, 25 September
1998).
As defined -
‘Bad faith does not
simply connote bad judgment or negligence; it imputes a dishonest
purpose
or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of a wrong; a breach of a
sworn
duty through some motive or intent or ill-will; it partakes of the
nature
of fraud (Spiegel v. Beacon Participation, 8 NE 2nd Series, 895, 1007).
It contemplates a state of mind affirmatively operating with furtive
design
or some motive of self-interest or ill will for ulterior purposes (Air
France v. Carrascoso, 18 SCRA 155, 166-167). Evident bad faith connotes
a manifest deliberate intent on the part of the accused to do wrong or
cause damage (Llorente, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, 287 SCRA 382 [1998],
citing
Marcelo v. Sandiganbayan, 185 SCRA 346 [1990]).’"chanrobles virtual law library
Gross misconduct under
Section 8(3), Rule 140 of the Revised Rules of Court, as amended, is
classified
as a serious charge punishable by any of the sanctions provided under
Section
11 of the same Rule, thus:
"Sec. 11. Sanctions.
- A. If the respondent is guilty of a serious charge, any of the
following
sanctions may be imposed:
"1. Dismissal from the
service, forfeiture of all or part of the benefits as the Court may
determine,
and disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any public
office,
including government-owned or controlled corporations; Provided,
however,
that the forfeiture of benefits shall in no case include accrued leave
benefits;
"2. Suspension from
office without salary and other benefits for more than three (3) but
not
exceeding six (6) months; or
"3. A fine of more than
P20,000.00 but not exceeding P40,000.00."
WHEREFORE, Judge AQUILINO
A. INOPIQUEZ, JR. is declared GUILTY of GROSS MISCONDUCT and is FINED
in
the amount of THIRTY THOUSAND PESOS (P30,000.00) to be deducted from
his
retirement benefits.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Davide, Jr., C.J.,
Bellosillo,
Puno, Vitug, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Carpio,
Austria-Martinez,
Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., and Azcuna, JJ., concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo at 95.chanrobles virtual law library
[2]
Annex "D" of the petition, id. at 6.chanrobles virtual law library
[3]
Annex "E" of Sworn Affidavit-Complaint dated July 12, 1999 of SPO2 Jose
B. Yap, id. at 6-A.
[4]
Siawan vs. Judge Inopiquez, A.M. No. MTJ-95-1056, May 21, 2001, 358
SCRA
10.
[5]
Annex "D" of the petition, supra.chanrobles virtual law library
[6]
Romago Electric Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 125947, June
8,
2000, 333 SCRA 291, 302 citing Ereñeta vs. Bezore, 54 SCRA 13
(1973)
and Soriano vs. Compañia General de Tabacos de Filipinas, 18
SCRA
999 (1966); Government Service Insurance System vs. Court of Appeals,
G.R.
No. 52080, May 28, 1993, 222 SCRA 685, 696 citing Marvel Building
Corporation
vs. David, 94 Phil. 376 (1954).
[7]
Vedaña vs. Judge Valencia, 356 Phil. 317, 329 (1998).
[8]
Id. at 331.chanrobles virtual law library
[9]
Liwanag vs. Judge Lustre, 365 Phil. 496, 510 (1999).chanrobles virtual law library
[10]
S.C. Resolution dated May 28, 2002, A.M. No. 10822-RET.chanrobles virtual law library
[11]
SB-99-9-J, July 28, 1999, 311 SCRA 268 cited in Tan Tiac Chiong vs.
Hon.
Rodrigo V. Cosico, A.M. No. CA-02-33, July 31, 2002, Jerusalino V.
Araos
vs. Judge Rosalina L. Luna-Pison, A.M. No. RTJ-02-1677, February 28,
2002
and Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation vs. Rilloraza, G.R. No.
141141, June 25, 2001, 359 SCRA 525. |