Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1981 > July 1981 Decisions > [A.M. No. 2380-CFI : July 31, 1981.] ROMULADO BAYLEN, Complainant, vs. HON. SANCHO INSERTO, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, Branch I, Iloilo City, Respondent.:




SECOND DIVISION

[A.M. No. 2380-CFI : July 31, 1981.]

ROMULADO BAYLEN, Complainant, vs. HON. SANCHO INSERTO, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, Branch I, Iloilo City, Respondent.

 

R E S O L U T I O N

 

DE CASTRO, J.:

 

This is an administrative case against Judge Sancho Inserto of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, Branch I, arising from a verified complaint dated December 21, 1979 filed by Romulado Baylen.

The complainant charged respondent herein with ignorance of the law. He alleged that respondent was oblivious of the provisions of Article 39 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 5465 and Act No. 4103, otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, when respondent rendered a decision in Criminal Case No. 2939, entitled “People vs. Romulado Baylen,”  chanroblesvirtualawlibrary(CA-G.R. No. 22130-CR) finding the accused therein guilty of the crime of estafa and sentencing him, in the absence of any mitigating or aggravating circumstance, “to suffer an imprisonment of one cranad(1) year and eight cranad(8) months of prision correccional, to indemnify Barrio Salacay in the municipality of Cabatuan, Iloilo in the sum of P1,135.00 with subsidiary imprisonment of one hundred and forty-one cranad(141) days in case of insolvency and to pay the costs of suit.”:onad

Under Article 39 of the Revised Penal Code, it is provided that:

“If the convict has no property with which to meet the fine mentioned in paragraph 3 of the next preceding article, he shall be subject to a subsidiary personal liability at the rate of one day for each eight cranad(8) pesos, subject to the following rules:

“If the principal penalty imposed be prision correccional or arresto and a fine, he shall remain under confinement until his time referred in the preceding paragraph is satisfied, but his subsidiary imprisonment shall not exceed one-third of the term of the sentence, and in no case shall it continue for more than one year, and no fraction or part of a day shall be counted against the prisoner cranad(As amended by RA 5465).”

On the other hand, Section 1 of Act No. 4103 as amended by Act No. 4225, otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law provides:

“Hereafter, in imposing a prison sentence for an offense punished by the Revised Penal Code, or its amendments, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence the maximum term of which shall be that which, in view of the attending circumstances, could be properly imposed under the rules of the said Code, and the minimum of which shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the code for the offense; . cra .”

Complainant likened respondent to a recidivist or habitual delinquent because the present complaint is a repetition of similar acts complained of in Administrative Matter No. 1098, entitled “Ajeno vs. Inserto,” 71 SCRA 166, where herein respondent was “admonished for not keeping abreast of the latest developments in the law and for not knowing that subsidiary imprisonment is now imposed only in case of a fine.” He prayed that respondent be dismissed for ignorance of the law and/or patent incompetence.

In his comment dated July 17, 1980 respondent admitted the errors in the imposition of the penalty in question and alleged that although he wanted to retrieve the case for proper correction, it was too late because he lost control and jurisdiction over the same upon perfection of the appeal. Respondent further alleged that in almost nine cranad(9) years as CFI Judge, only two cranad(2) of his decisions on criminal cases have been reversed, two cranad(2) orders set aside, and only one cranad(1) decision in a civil case has so far been reversed by the Appellate Courts; that during his tenure as CFI Judge, he contacted cranad(sic) heart ailment cranad(myocardial infraction); that his gall bladder was removed in 1965; that he suffered stroke twice, first in 1975 and second in 1978; that he has hypertension and diabetes and in 1978 both of his eyes were operated for cataract extraction; that in 1978 alone he was hospitalized five cranad(5) times; and that he applied for disability retirement in 1976 which was disapproved.

Respondent pleads that, considering that he is now 62 years old with 41 years of government service, 21 years of which were served in the judiciary, including 13 years as Municipal Judge of Kalibo, Aklan, with his failing eyesight, impaired memory and constant dizziness, he be allowed to retire as soon as possible so he may be able to benefit from the fruits of his labor.

In Administrative Matter No. 1098-CFI, entitled “Ludovico Ajeno vs. Hon. Sancho Inserto,” supra, herein respondent was charged with ignorance of the same Article 39 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by RA No. 5465 for sentencing complainant therein “to suffer an imprisonment of four cranad(4) months of arresto mayor, to indemnify Solomon Banagua, Jr. in the sum of P200.00 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay the cost of the suit.” In said case, We stated that non-payment of the indemnity can not subject the accused to subsidiary imprisonment because under the amendment introduced to Article 39 of the Revised Penal Code by Republic Act No. 5465, it is only for non-payment of the fine that the accused may be required to serve subsidiary imprisonment. Since it was respondent’s first violation of the norm of judicial conduct during his service in the government, We admonished him to be more cautious in the application of the law to cases submitted to him for decision with warning that a repetition of the same will be severely dealt with.

In the present case, respondent repeated the same error by imposing upon complainant the subsidiary imprisonment of one hundred and forty-one cranad(141) days in case of his insolvency to pay the indemnity of P1,135.00 to the offended party in the criminal case filed against him. As already stated, the imposition of subsidiary imprisonment can be made only in case of non-payment of the fine.

Furthermore, respondent did not apply Act No. 4103 as amended by Act No. 4225, otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law. Respondent imposed a penalty without determining two cranad(2) penalties, referred to in the said law as the “maximum” and “minimum” terms. As we have said in Administrative Matter No. 1553-CFI cranad(Re: Penalty Imposed by Judge Teofilo Guadiz, Jr., CFI, Branch V, Nueva Ecija, in Criminal Case No. 604, entitled, “People of the Philippines versus Froilan Maglaya”), promulgated on September 12, 1980:

“The need for specifying the minimum and maximum periods of the indeterminate sentence is to prevent the unnecessary and excessive deprivation of liberty and economic usefulness of the accused, since he may be exempted from serving the entire sentence, depending upon his behavior and his physical, mental and moral record. The requirement of imposing an indeterminate sentence in all criminal offenses, whether punished by the Revised Penal Code or by special laws, with definite minimum and maximum terms, as the Court deems proper within the legal range of the penalty specified by the law must, therefore, be deemed mandatory.”

Except the indivisible penalties, all the other penalties prescribed in the Revised Penal Code, have minimum and maximum periods for easy determination of the indeterminate sentence to be imposed, in terms of specific number of years, months and days both in its minimum and maximum periods.

It bears repeating, but with greater emphasis, what We said in the first case of the respondent, “Ajeno vs. Inserto”, supra, that “when respondent accepted his position he owed it to the dignity of the court, to the legal profession and to the public, to know the very law he is supposed to apply in a given controversy. Even in the remaining years of his stay in the judiciary he should keep abreast with the changes in the law and with the latest decisions and precedents. Although a judge is nearing retirement he should not relax in his study of law and court decisions. Service in the judiciary means a continuous study and research on the law from beginning to end.” In the instant case, respondent’s ignorance of the law as charged, has been demonstrated more glaringly for having also failed to apply the Indeterminate Sentence Law, in addition to mis-applying the subsidiary provisions of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.

WHEREFORE, in view of all foregoing, We find and hold respondent Judge Sancho Inserto GUILTY as charged. Accordingly, a fine equivalent to his actual salary for two cranad(2) months is imposed upon him, with the stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar offense or shortcoming will be punished with extreme severity.

SO ORDERED.

Barredo cranad(Chairman), Aquino, Concepcion Jr. and Abad Santos, JJ., concur.

 




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. : www.chanroblesprofessionalreview.com
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online : www.chanroblescpareviewonline.com
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man : www.chanroblesbar.com/memoryman





July-1981 Jurisprudence                 

  • [A.M. No. 2440-CFI : July 25, 1981.] IGLESIA NI CRISTO, Complainant, vs. JUDGE LEOPOLDO B. GIRONELLA, COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF ABRA, Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. L-27402 : July 25, 1981.] GUARDIANSHIP OF THE INCOMPETENT LEONORA NAVARRO AND THE MINORS ADOLFO YUSON AND OTHERS, ELDEGARDES YUSON DE PUA, Judicial Guardian-Appellant, vs. JUSTINIANO SAN AGUSTIN, Movant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. L-37425 : July 25, 1981.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. LITO REVOTOC y BELARMINO, SATURNINO DIAZ y RESQUED and FREDDIE DE VERA y SEBASTIAN, Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. L-49028 : July 25, 1981.] FRANCISCA ALCAIDE, TITO VICERA and IGNACIO PALCON, Petitioners, vs. HONORABLE EUFROCINIO S. DELA MERCED, MUNICIPAL JUDGE PEDRO J. CALLEJO JR. and CESARIO BENEDITO, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. 49634-36 : July 25, 1981.] BENJAMIN V. GUIANG and NATIVIDAD H. GUIANG; AURELIO B. HIQUIANA and PASTORA O. HIQUIANA, Petitioners, vs. FILOMENO C. KINTANAR and CORAZON B. KINTANAR; CORA ANN B. KINTANAR, CORA LOU B. KINTANAR, FIL ROGER B. KINTANAR, Private Respondents, and Hon. Judge SERGIO APOSTOL, Quezon City Court of First Instance, Branch XVI, Quezon City, Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. 49634-36 : July 25, 1981.] BENJAMIN V. GUIANG and NATIVIDAD H. GUIANG; AURELIO B. HIQUIANA and PASTORA O. HIQUIANA, Petitioners, vs. FILOMENO C. KINTANAR and CORAZON B. KINTANAR; CORA ANN B. KINTANAR, CORA LOU B. KINTANAR, FIL ROGER B. KINTANAR, Private Respondents, and Hon. Judge SERGIO APOSTOL, Quezon City Court of First Instance, Branch XVI, Quezon City, Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. L-51363 : July 25, 1981.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. FEDERICO CUISON Y PRESTOZA, Accused-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-51785 : July 25, 1981.] THE HONORABLE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF RIZAL, BRANCH IX, QUEZON CITY, and ELENA ONG ESCUTIN, Petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and FELIX ONG, Respondents. GAN HENG, Intervenor.

  • [G.R. No. 52488 : July 25, 1981.] ORTIGAS & COMPANY, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and MAXIMO F. BELMONTE, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-31705 : July 27, 1981.] MARCELO D. MENDIOLA, Petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, MAXIMO VITUG, PRAGMACIO VITUG, CONCORDIA KABILING and MARIA FAJARDO, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-50031-32 : July 27, 1981.] CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, ISIDRO E. FERNANDEZ, and JESUS R. JAYME, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-27331 : July 30, 1981.] ELISEO ALIMPOOS, CIRIACA ALIMPOOS, SGT. MILLARDO M. PATES, PEDRO BACLAY, CATALINO YAMILO, RAFAEL CAPANGPANGAN, DALMACIO YGOT and EUFROCINA ESTORES, Petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, HONORABLE JUDGE MONTANO A. ORTIZ, REYNALDO MOSQUITO and MATILDE ABASTILLAS MOSQUITO, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-28373 : July 30, 1981.] JOSEFINA RODRIGUEZ, accompanied by her husband RAMON DE LA RAMA, and LETICIA RODRIGUEZ, accompanied by her husband PORFIRIO BLANCAFLOR, Petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS and ANITA RODRIGUEZ, accompanied by her husband ROSENDO DE LA RAMA; CAROLINA RODRIGUEZ, accompanied by her husband ISIDRO LACSON and MARIA VICTORIA RODRIGUEZ, accompanied by her husband EUSEBIO LOPEZ, Respondents. [G.R. No. L-30252 : July 30, 1981.] ANITA RODRIGUEZ, accompanied by her husband ROSENDO DE LA RAMA; CAROLINA RODRIGUEZ, accompanied by her husband ISIDRO LACSON; and MARIA VICTORIA RODRIGUEZ, accompanied by her husband EUSEBIO LOPEZ, Petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, JOSEFINA RODRIGUEZ, accompanied by her husband RAMON DE LA RAMA; and LETICIA RODRIGUEZ, accompanied by her husband PORFIRIO BLANCAFLOR, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-45640 : July 30, 1981.] FELOMINO RAMIREZ and RUSTICO VALDEZ, Petitioners, vs. HON. ILDEFONSO BLEZA, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Oriental Mindoro, HON. ZACARIAS V. GARCIA, Municipal Judge of Bongabong, Oriental Mindoro, PABLO QUIJOL, ABEDIANO GAANAN, and DR. CONSTANCIO BONDAL, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-50065 : July 30, 1981.] PERSHING TAN QUETO, Petitioner-Appellant, vs. CARMELITO, RUFO, HERACLEO and ELENA, all surnamed CANDONGO, and VICENTE CALIMPONG, representing deceased wife, BENITA CANDONGO, Respondents-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. L-52431 : July 30, 1981.] RODOLFO FARIÑAS, Petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and ANTONIO F. LAZO, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-55398 : July 30, 1981.] REGINA STA. ROMANA VDA. DE ALCANTARA, Petitioner, vs. HONORABLE CORONA IBAY SOMERA in her capacity as Presiding Judge, Court of First Instance of La Union cranad(Balaoan), JOAQUIN STA. ROMANA and JOSE DELA PEÑA, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-55629 : July 30, 1981.] MAGDALENA RAMO, NARCISO ALBARRACIN, ANTONIO DUMLAO and NORMA RICAFORT, Petitioners, vs. INOCENCIA ELEFAÑO and HON. AUXENCIO C. DACUYCUY, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of Branch IV, Court of First Instance of Leyte, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-56028 : July 30, 1981.] NILO A. MALANYAON, Petitioner-Appellant, vs. HON. ESTEBAN M. LISING, as Judge of the CFI of Camarines Sur, Br. VI, and CESARIO GOLETA, as Municipal Treasurer of Bula, Camarines Sur, Respondents-Appellees.

  • [A.M. No. P-1176 : July 31, 1981.] DR. SY TIAN TIN, Complainant, vs. ROLANDO MACAPUGAY, Deputy Sheriff of the Court of First Instance of Malolos, Bulacan, Respondent.

  • [A.C. No. 1377 : July 31, 1981.] DORIS R. RADAZA, Complainant, vs. ROBERTO T. TEJANO, Respondent.

  • [A.M. No. 2040-MJ : July 31, 1981.] ALEJANDRA G. LEGASPI, Complainant, vs. HON. GIDEON DE PEDRO, Circuit Municipal Judge of Ibajay-Nabas, Ibajay, Aklan, Respondent.

  • [A.M. No. P-2108 : July 31, 1981.] BENJAMIN BARRERA, Petitioner, vs. MARTY DESACADA, Respondent.

  • [A.M. No. 2380-CFI : July 31, 1981.] ROMULADO BAYLEN, Complainant, vs. HON. SANCHO INSERTO, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, Branch I, Iloilo City, Respondent.

  • [A.M. No. 2428-CFI : July 31, 1981.] JESUS O. TUAZON, Petitioner, vs. HON. ELVIRO L. PERALTA, Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. L-26274 : July 31, 1981.] ALPHA INSURANCE AND SURETY CO., INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. ESPERANZA C. REYES, ARTURO R. REYES and DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Defendants-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. L-30051 : July 31, 1981.] NATIONAL WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE AUTHORITY, Petitioner, vs. NATIONAL WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE AUTHORITY SUPERVISORS ASSOCIATION AND COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, Respondents.

  • [G.R. Nos. L-30722-25 : July 31, 1981.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. CONRADO SAN MIGUEL, JESUS BUENAVENTURA, GONZALO PEREZ, ALIPIO PEREZ, RICARDO PEREZ and RAUL MENDOZA, Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. L-31605 : July 31, 1981.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. PANFILO BLAS, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. L-36162 : July 31, 1981.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. PAULITO GARCIA and PABLO CANONIGO, Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. L-37641 : July 31, 1981.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ANTONIO AGBOT, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. L-37836 : July 31, 1981.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. CLAUDIO BULAONG and FONSO LAURECIO, Accused-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. L-38652 : July 31, 1981.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. CRISTITUTO LARIOSA alias “Totot”, Accused-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-44371 : July 31, 1981.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. VITALIANO CIRIA @ Mano, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. L-46558 : July 31, 1981.] PHILIPPINE AIR LINES, INC., Petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS and JESUS V. SAMSON, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-47847 : July 31, 1981.] DIRECTOR OF LANDS, Petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and MANUELA PASTOR, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. 50044 : July 31, 1981.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ALEJANDRO PEREZ y LANA, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. L-50320 : July 31, 1981.] PHILIPPINE APPAREL WORKERS UNION, Petitioners, vs. THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and PHILIPPINE APPAREL, INC., Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-51218 : July 31, 1981.] MARY DE V. FRAUENDORFF, Petitioner, vs. JUDGE JOSE R. CASTRO, Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Quezon City Branch IX, ZODIAC PHARMACEUTICAL CO., INC. & SAMTOP INVESTMENT & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-51414 : July 31, 1981.] PAQUITO G. BALASABAS, Petitioner, vs. HON. GREGORIO U. AQUILIZAN, Judge of the Court of Agrarian Relations, Cotabato City, Respondent.