SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Search for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

BELLOSILLO, J., dissenting:

After reviewing the records, I am inclined to sustain the findings and conclusion of Mr. Justice Fidel P. Purisima, Senior Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals, who recommends that except for the charge that respondent Judge interfered in the mediation conference between the Marces and Caas families before the Lupon Tagapayapa all other charges against respondent should be dismissed for insufficiency of evidence, if not for lack of merit. Mr. Justice Purisima recommends that respondent be only admonished but sternly warned that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.

The majority concludes that "[t]he report of the Investigating Justice fails to consider other serious allegations in the complaint, of which there is also sufficient evidence in the record, to wit: (1) That respondent judge caused the issuance of alias warrants of arrest by requesting another judge, before whom the case against the complaint was pending, to issue the warrants; and (2) That the arrest of the members of the Marces family on January 2, 1991 would not have been made without the intervention of respondent judge." ¹cräläwvirtualibräry

With due respect, I find nothing irregular in the letter of respondent to Judge Edipolo Sarabia of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Davao City, Br. 3, for the issuance of an alias warrant against herein complainant. We cannot ignore the fact that the accused was the subject of a lapsed warrant of arrest because he made himself scarce and could not be located. It was only when he was spotted in the vicinity after his unexplained absence that respondent, in a manner of speaking, reminded Judge Sarabia in a letter that "[i]f these cases (Cr. Cases Nos. 9-C-M, 10-C-M & 11-C-M) are still pending, please issue another alias warrants as the accused is now in town." Respondent was the Executive Judge of Davao City exercising administrative supervision over the MTCC judge. The letter then of respondent Executive Judge could neither be considered an order much less a command to issue the alias warrants. Certainly, as the highest judicial official in the area, it was his duty not only to remind Judge Sarabia to exercise his official function but also to inform the proper authorities of the presence in town of a fugitive from justice against whom warrants had been issued but could not earlier be served. Respondent judge thus was so minded to preface his letter with "[i]f these cases (Cr. Case Nos. 9-C-M, 10-C-M & 11-C-M) are still pending." Indeed it was up to Judge Sarabia to study the situation and issue the corresponding alias warrants if justified. Quite apparently, respondent Judge under the circumstances was merely alerting Judge Sarabia of the presence of the accused. There is nothing in the record which shows that respondent commanded Judge Sarabia to issue the alias warrants.

Likewise do I find it difficult to ascribe fault on respondent judge for the supposed illegal arrest of the members of the family of the complainant on 2 January 1991. The record indicates that respondent judge merely introduced Mr. Caas to Metrodiscom Commander Col. Nelson Estares who ordered and effected the arrest of the members of the Marces family. Thus it was Col. Estares who caused the arrest, not respondent Judge. As borne by the records, which the majority quotes, the only participation of respondent Judge was that he introduced Mr. Caas to Col. Estares. Nothing more. Whether respondent judge threatened, persuaded, or merely requested Col. Estares to order the arrest of the Marceses is simply belied by the records.

The majority gives considerable weight to the allegation of complainant that "it would have been impossible for the Caas family to procure complainant's arrest and that of members of the family by the Davao Metrodiscom were it not for the intervention of respondent judge." ² The allegation however is self-serving.

Indeed, the claim of Wilfredo Caas that he had to seek the help of respondent judge because even after three (3) days the police still had not made a report on the incident on December 29, 1990 cannot justify the intervention of respondent in the quarrel between the members of the family of complainant and members of the Caas family. However, still there is nothing on record which shows that respondent caused the arrest of the Marces family and in fact intervened in the quarrel between the two (2) families.

True "a judge's official conduct should be free from appearance of impropriety, and his personal behavior, not only upon the bench and in the performance of official duties, but also in everyday life, should be beyond reproach." ³ But, "while this Court may slightly bend backwards if only to avoid suspicion of partiality and cliquism to a brother in the profession, it must also step forward and take the lead to defend him against unsubstantiated tirades which put to shame and disgrace not only the magistrate on trial but the entire judicial system as well." ⁴ Let us not shatter his hopes and dreams of attaining a respectable place in the judicial hierarchy. We must be deliberate and circumspect in imposing sanctions against judges lest we penalize them for upholding the law and rendering justice to all.

In fine, I affirm the conclusion of Mr. Justice Purisima that "[e]qually anemic of evidentiary support is the charge that the respondent judge influenced the prosecutors and police authorities of Davao City to harass the family of complainant." ⁵cräläwvirtualibräry

Accordingly, I can only vote for the admonition of respondent Judge with a stern warning however that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.