ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[A.M. OCA IPI No. 03-1743-RTJ.� October 18, 2004]
DELNA vs. BAGUNDANG
SECOND DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated OCT 18 2004 .
A.M. OCA IPI No. 03-1743-RTJ (Aladin K. Delna v. Judge Ismael G. Bagundang, Regional Trial Court, Br. 15, Cotabato City.).
Considering the Report of the Office of the Court Administrator dated June 4, 2004, to wit:
1. LETTER-COMPLAINT dated 25 April 2003 together with some annexes, of Mr. Aladin K. Delna charging Judge Bagundang, herein respondent with Gross Ignorance of the Law and Incompetence relative to Criminal Case No. 556 entitled "People of the Philippines vs. Ustadz Sukor Mantiao" (sic) for Arson.
The complainant relates that he filed before the sala of respondent a criminal case for Arson with Multiple Murder and Attempted Murder (sic). This resulted in the arrest and detention of one Ustadz Sukor Mantiao aka Commander Dua. In claiming mistaken identity to the Arrest, the respondent granted the Motion for Reinvestigation filed by the accused detainee. Relative thereto, Provincial Prosecutor Salik Panda through 2nd Prosecutor Enok Dimaraw filed an Urgent Motion to Release the Accused. This was followed by the release from incarceration of the accused detainee by virtue of the respondent's Order. The release Order he claimed had the following irregularities, to wit:
First, the Order to Release is fatally defective for non-compliance with the three (3)-day notice under Rule 15 of the Rules of Court.
Second, the Order to Release is (sic) issued with Grave Abuse of Discretion by solely relying on the findings and recommendations of the Office of the Prosecutor.
2. COMMENT dated 25 July 2003 of respondent.
Briefly, respondent narrates the following facts:
A criminal case was raffled before his sala entitled "People of the Philippines vs. Ustadz Sukor Mantiao (sic) (aka Commander or aka Ustadz Ibrahim Abdullah) et al."
Acting on the accused detainee's Motion for Reinvestigation to clarify the issue of mistaken identity, he remanded the records of the case to the Office of the Prosecutor for its appropriate action. This Office, he noted, has jurisdiction and control over criminal proceedings including service of notice to complainant before reinvestigation, the appreciation of affidavits as well as receipts of controverting evidence during investigation.
In the case of People vs. Montesa, Jr., 24S SCRA 641, Venus vs. Desierto, 298 SCRA 196, the Supreme Court ruled that:
"When a judge grants a motion for reinvestigation, he is deemed to have deferred to the authority of the prosecution arm of the government to consider the so-called new relevant and material evidence and to determine whether the information it had filed should stand, and he should accordingly wait for a final resolution of the incident."
Good faith, competence, exercise and regularity in the findings and recommendation of the Office of the Prosecutor were the bases on which he caused the Order to Release the accused detainee. He clarified that the defect in the service of notice may be dispensed with when the issue involved is the liberty of the accused detainee.
In view of this, he prayed that his comment be noted and put on record together with the dismissal of this complaint.
EVALUATION: The issue for resolution is whether or not respondent is guilty of Gross Ignorance of the Law and Incompetence.
The first issue. Did respondent fail to observe the three (3)-day notice that would fatally affect his order to release accused detainee?
The respondent explained that when the issue involves the deprivation of liberty of the accused detainee, service of notice may be dispensed with this explanation is misleading. A reading of the provision of Rule 15 of the Rules of Court does not mention that notice of hearing to a Motion may be dispensed with. The provisions of Secs. 5 and 6 of Rule 15 of the Rules of Court, state that:
"Sec. 5. Notice of hearing. - The notice of hearing shall be addressed to all parties concerned, and shall specify the time and date of the hearing which must not be later than ten (10) days after the filing of the motion."
"Sec. 6. Proof of service necessary. - No written motion set for hearing shall be acted upon by the court without proof of service thereof."
As culled from the Joint Comments of the Provincial Prosecutor's Office, Cotabato City, the purpose of the reinvestigation is solely to give the movant a chance to substantiate his claim that indeed he is not the same person Ustadz Sukor Mantiao alias Cmdr. Dua. This claim was affirmed both by Mr. Hadji Abdullah Oma and Mr. Samao K. Uyag in their respective Sworn Affidavits. To show proof and to establish movant's claim, records for the government were re-examined and re-evaluated. The record shows that the name of movant was neither mentioned nor included in the complaint or information to establish his identity. In finding that there was no sufficient evidence in pointing to movant as the same person in the complaint, a report to move for the dropping of the case is proper.
The second issue. Did respondent, in solely relying on the findings and recommendation of the Office of the Prosecutor when he issued the Order to Release amount to Grave Abuse of Discretion?
As pointed out by respondent, the record of the case was remanded to the Office of the Prosecutor for reinvestigation to settle the issue of mistaken identity of the movant.
The respondent's reliance on the recommendation of the Office of the Prosecutor is justified under the circumstances. The presumption of regularity in the performance of duty cannot be overcome by mere allegations absent any proof.
RECOMMENDATION: Respectfully submitted for the consideration of the Honorable Court with the recommendation that the complaint of Mr. Aladin K. Delna against Judge Ismael G. Bagundang, Regional Trial Court, Branch 15, Cotabato City, for Gross Ignorance of the Law and Incompetence relative to Criminal Case No. 556 entitled "People of the Philippines vs. Ustadz Sukor Mantiao" for Arson, be dismissed for lack of merit.
We fully agree with the Court Administrator.
As a matter of policy, in the absence of fraud, dishonesty or corruption, the acts of a judge in his judicial capacity are not subject to disciplinary action even though such acts are erroneous. [1] cralaw The Court has to be shown acts or conduct of the judge clearly indicative of arbitrariness or prejudice before the latter can be branded the stigma of being biased and partial. [2] cralaw Furthermore, if the complainant fails to prove the allegations in the complaint by substantial evidence, the presumption that the respondent has regularly performed his duties will prevail. [3] cralaw
The Court will not shirk from its responsibility of imposing discipline upon employees, but neither will it hesitate to shield them from unfounded suits that serve to disrupt rather than promote the orderly administration of justice. [4] cralaw
WHEREFORE, the administrative complaint against Judge Ismael G. Bagundang is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
Very truly yours,
LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
By:
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Asst. Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Casta�os v. Esca�o.Jr:, 251 SCRA 174 (1995).
[2] cralaw Abdula v. Guiani, 326 SCRA 1 (2000).
[3] cralaw See Urgent Appeal/Petition for Immediate Suspension & Dismissal of Judge Emilio B. Legaspi. Regional Trial Court, Iloilo City, Br. 22, 405 SCRA 514 (2003).
[4] cralaw Balsamo v. Suan, 411 SCRA 189 (2003)
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
