ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ A.M. No. OCA IPI No. 97-381-RTJ. March 8, 1999]

SULIBA, SR. vs. JUDGE MENDOZA

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAR 8, 1999.

A.M. No. OCA IPI No. 97-381-RTJ ( Francisco Suliba, Sr. v. Judge Jose Catral Mendoza, RTC, Branch 219, Quezon City.)

This is a complaint filed by Francisco Suliba, Sr. against Judge Jose Catral Mendoza of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 219 charging him with partiality for rendering a "one-sided decision" acquitting Reynaldo Abaya in a criminal case for the frustrated homicide of the complainant's son, Francisco Suliba, Jr. The younger Suliba was seriously injured when he tried to come to the rescue of his brother, Joseph Suliba, who is a policeman, as the latter was being attacked. The suspects, Reynaldo Abaya and Ricky Formon, were charged with two counts of frustrated homicide against the Suliba brothers. Abaya was acquitted on both counts. The other accused, Ricky Formon, was convicted in Criminal Case No. Q-93-43203, with respect to the injury of Francisco Suliba, Jr.

Respondent denies that in acquitting Reynaldo Abaya, he was motivated by bias. He claims he came to know Abaya only during the trial of the criminal cases. He alleges that he acquitted Abaya because of the failure of the prosecution to prove Abaya's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Respondent's comment follows:

1) PO3 JOSEPH SULIBA did not categorically state that he saw Abaya hack his brother, Francisco. When Joseph took the stand, he stated, among others, that Francisco was not able to help him because he (Francisco) was suddenly hacked by somebody whom he did not see, and that he assumed that it was Abaya who did it because he saw him and Formon together walking away the area.

Then he told the Court that Abaya was with him when he brought Francisco to the Philippine Orthopedic Center. Considering that, according to Joseph himself, Abaya helped bring Francisco to the hospital, he could not have walked away from the area where the incident happened or, even if he walked away, he returned to offer his assistance. As stated is the questioned decision, this is not typical of someone who us guilty.

It is significant to note that Joseph is known in the neighborhood as a policemen. For said reason, it took accused Abaya more than just the desire to make it appear that he did not participate in the hacking incident for him to stay put or to return just to help bring his alleged victim, Francisco, to the hospital.

2) Another witness was JAIME ORTIZ. While he categorically stated that Abaya hacked Francisco and that he overheard the latter utter, "Rey, why did you hack me?", a closer analysis of his accompanying statements reveals that he could not have possibly overheard the alleged utterance because Francisco left him and told him to stay behind which he did (TSN, October 25, 1994, p. 18; and January 10, 1995, p. 29).

3) The victim himself, FRANCISCO SULIBA, JR. testified and stated that it was accused Abaya who hacked him. Unfortunately, his testimony could not be relied upon . . . . Consider the following:

3.a) In the statement taken from Francisco on April 7, 1993 at St. Lukes's Hospital, when asked "kilala mong tumaga sa iyo?", he replied, "Opo, pag makikita ko sila." When asked, however, "Sa kanilang dalawa (referring to Ricky Formon and Reynaldo Abaya), sinong tumaga sa iyo?", he just looked at the two suspects but he just looked at the two suspects but did not say anything. The investigators noted that the victim was asked this question several times but he did not utter a single word until another point was asked. If he was really certain that it was Abaya who hacked him, why did he not pinpoint him at the earliest possible time and instead wait for the trial to commence before doing so?

3.b) Although, when he testified, he stated that it was Abaya who hacked him, the force of this assertion was watered down by his declaration, also in open court, that he was conscious and aware of the questions and the answers he gave when the statement was taken from him and this impressed upon the undersigned that even he himself was uncertain of the identity of his assailant. If he was conscious of the questions and the answers he gave , it cannot be said that he was just confused.

3.c) It is significant to note that Abaya is not a stranger to him since they were classmates in elementary and there are neighbors when the incident happened.

3.d) Also, Francisco stated that it is not true that accused Abaya helped in bringing him to the hospital (TSN, September 17, 1996, p. 9). He was, however, belied by his brother Joseph in this regard who claimed otherwise (TSN, August 1, 1994, p. 17).

The records of the Philippine Orthopedic Center disclose that indeed Reynaldo Abaya was in the hospital when Francisco was brought there. The Admitting Section's Logbook (Exh. 7) shows that Abaya arrived there at 11:05 o'clock in the evening and that Joseph and Francisco, at 11:30 o'clock. If the exact arrival times are not the same, it must be due probably to the times the items were entered in the logbook.

What finally convinced the undersigned that he could not really send accused Abaya behind bars were Francisco's statements on rebuttal. His replies on cross-examination were not very helpful in erasing the doubts that were already lingering in the mind of the undersigned. Hereunder are excerpts of both his direct and rebuttal testimonies demonstrating the serious inaccuracies in his recollection of the incident. In his direct testimony, he stated the following:

. . . that at around 11:00 o'clock of April 5, 1933, he was with Jaime Ortiz in front of the house when his brother, Joseph Suliva, arrived looking for food and when he could not find one, he (Joseph) went to the bakery, about 6 meters away, to have some snack; that from where they were, he saw a woman approach his brother to seek his help in preventing Periquet and his father, Mang Pedro, from entering the house of Abaya; that his brother was able to pacify them and returned to finish his snack (first part of the commotion); that he saw Periquet and Mang Pedro going back to the house of Abaya and he noticed the same woman seeking again his brother's help; that upon reaching the house of Abaya, his brother was hit by Mang Pedro; that when he saw the attack on his brother, he noticed Abaya under the basketball court with a bolo; that he moved to help his brother but when he was already near where they were, his head was hit by Abaya with the bolo (second part of the commotion);

when he was presented for rebuttal, however, he narrated the following on cross-examination:

. . .that he was sleeping during the first part of the commotion so he did not know that before the trouble started, somebody had summoned his brother to pacify a certain Periquet; that when he was sleeping, somebody knocked on the door ("kimalampag lang sa pinto") between 11:00 and 12:00 midnight; that he and Ortiz then went out to the street and saw his brother in front of the house of Abaya, being called by a woman; that then his brother went with her and pacified the group of Reynaldo Abaya, Ricky Bendana but but he did not see that part; that during the second time; he saw his brother pacify the persons involved and even fire a warning shot; that he went to the basketball court to ascertain if it was really his brother who was involved; that he did not see what was happening to his brother because even before he could get near the crowds he was already hacked;

It is clear in his first aforequoted testimony that he was very much awake when the first part of the incident happened, not sleeping as he claimed on rebuttal. He also stated in his direct that during the first part of the commotion he saw a woman approached his brother to seek his help, but, on rebuttal, he declared that he did not know that somebody summoned his brother for help because he was sleeping. Next, he recounted (in his direct) that Periquet and Mang Pedro went back to the house of Abaya and when his brother Joseph followed them after he was again summoned by the rebuttal, however, he narrated that he did not see what was happening to his brother because even before he could get near the crowd he was already hacked.

The foregoing discrepancies engendered in the mind of the undersigned serious doubts as to the culpability of the accused, which doubts, as called for by the principles of criminal law, he resolved in favor of the accused.

The Office of the Court Administrator, to which the complaint in this case was referred for evaluation, recommends that the complaint against respondent be dismissed for lack of merit. The Court finds the recommendation to be well taken.

Indeed, to warrant disciplinary action against a judge, it must be shown that his decision or order is so unjust as to be contrary to law or evidence and that the judge rendered it with conscious and deliberate intent to do an injustice. (Contreras v. Solis, 260 SCRA 572 (1996); Gonzales v. Bersamin, 254 SCRA 652 (1996)) In the case at bat, there us no such showing. On the contrary, respondent judge has satisfactory explained his decision, respondent judge considered the law and evidence. There us nothing therein which suggests that he took into account extraneous matters, much less that he acted with partiality towards Reynaldo Abaya.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court RESOLVED to DISMISS the complaint against respondent Judge Jose Catral Mendoza of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 219, for lack of merit.

Very truly yours,

TOMASITA M. DRIS

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE