ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™   
Main Index ChanRobles LawTube - Social Network Chan Robles Virtual Law Library Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Supreme Court Jurisprudence

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE


ChanRobles Intellectual Property | www.debtkollect.com

politics.chanrobles.com

ChanRobles™ LawTube

laws.chanrobles.com

jurisprudence.chanrobles.com

Congratulations to the FIRST BATCH OF SUCCESSFUL ChanRobles Internet Bar Review Passers!

LIST OF THE 2 TOPNOTCHERS AND 137 SUCCESSFUL ChanRobles Internet Bar Review Passers in the 2011 Bar Exams!

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

google search for chanrobles.com Search for www.chanrobles.com


United States Supreme Court Jurisprudence



Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

SECOND DIVISION

A.M. No. 502-MJ June 30, 1977

SALVADOR VELOSO, Complainant, vs. MUNICIPAL JUDGE GODOFREDO CARMONA of Socorro, Oriental Mindoro, Respondent.

R E S O L U T I O N

 

AQUINO, J.: chanrobles virtual law library

Marceliano Rivera, Jr. was charged by the chief of police with slight physical injuries in the municipal court of Pola, Oriental Mindoro in a complaint dated June 18, 1973. The offended party was Salvador Veloso (Criminal Case No. 2584). Rivera voluntarily surrendered to the chief of police on July 30, 1973. He posted a "character bond" for his release.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Godofredo L. Carmona, the incumbent municipal judge of the neighboring town of Socorro (he is a native of Pola) and the acting municipal judge of Pola, heard the case. At the hearing scheduled on August 18, 1973 Rivera did not appear. His bond was cancelled. The hearing was reset for August 28, 1973. According to Judge Carmona, Veloso was notified of that hearing through his father and he (the judge) even wrote him a letter to apprise him of that hearing.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Rivera, assisted by a counsel de oficio appeared at the hearing scheduled on August 28. Veloso was not present. In view of Veloso's absence, the chief of police asked for postponement. Rivera's counsel objected. He was arraigned. He pleaded guilty. When Veloso arrived in court at ten o'clock that morning, he was informed that the case was already terminated.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

On that same morning, Judge Carmona signed a decision, convicting Rivera of slight physical injuries and imposing upon him a fine of twenty-five pesos and the penalty of public censure, "without costs". No civil liability was adjudged. The mitigating circumstances of plea of guilt and voluntary surrender to the authorities were appreciated in Rivera's favor. Rivera paid the fine on that same date, August 28.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

That decision provoked Veloso to file on September 3 an administrative complaint against Judge Carmona. Veloso alleged that on the date of the trial, respondent judge reproached him for not assenting to Rivera's offer of compromise: Veloso was surprised as to why only a fine was imposed on Rivera, considering that the latter never appeared at the trial and he was not even arrested when he failed to appear at the scheduled hearing. Veloso said that the judge did not answer his inquiries and that he was not given a copy of the decision and he was not shown any document confirming that Rivera had pleaded guilty and had paid the fine.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The Judicial Consultant observed that respondent should have ordered the arrest of the accused upon his failure to appear at the trial despite due notice of his bondsmen.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

It may further be observed that respondent Judge should have made a finding as to the civil liability of the accused considering the allegation in the complaint that the offended party suffered "contusion with abrasions on the left cheek and left axillary fold, which injuries will require medical treatment from 7 to 9 days barring complication." chanrobles virtual law library

As to Veloso's gripe that he was not given a copy of the decision, it should be noted that the chief of police, as the representative of the prosecution, was furnished with a copy of the decision.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The foregoing facts do not warrant any disciplinary action against the respondent.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

WHEREFORE, the complaint is dismissed but the respondent is warned and admonished to be more careful in the performance of his duties so that his integrity and fairness will be above suspicion. Let a copy of this resolution be attached to his personal record.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

SO ORDERED.

Fernando, Barredo, Antonio and Concepcion Jr., JJ., concur.


ChanRobles™ LawTube

FEATURED DECISIONScralaw




google search for chanrobles.comSearch for www.chanrobles.com

cralaw


QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

 

  Copyright©1998-2011 ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
 
RED