ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[A.M. No. OCA-IPI-99-800-RTJ. July 17, 2000]

WINNIE FLORENDO vs. JUDGE ARTURO M. BERNARDO

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUL 17 2000.

A.M. No. OCA-IPI-99-800-RTJ (Winnie Florendo vs. Judge Arturo M. Bernardo, Regional Trial Court, Branch 87, Gapan, Nueva Ecija.)

Complainant Winnie Florendo filed, on behalf of her daughter, Debra Ann Florendo Magsino, four cases of kidnapping and rape against one Francisco Ingal. The cases were assigned to the Regional Trial Court, Branch 87, Gapan, Nueva Ecija, of which respondent Judge Arturo M. Bernardo is the presiding judge. It appears, however, that, on March 26, 1999, respondent judge, at the instance of the offended party, dismissed the cases for "insufficiency of evidence."

Complainant charges respondent with palpable violation of the Constitution, serious misconduct and oppression, gross ignorance of the law, violation of Art. 204 of the Revised Penal Code (knowingly rendering an unjust judgment), and violation of R.A. No. 3019, �3(e) (causing undue injury) for having dismissed the cases. She contends that her daughter Debra Ann could not move for the dismissal of the cases because the prosecution of the cases was under the control of the public prosecutor who in fact had not yet rested his case and, therefore, respondent judge should not have dismissed the cases. Complainant prays that administrative sanctions be meted out against respondent judge.

In his comment, dated January 28, 2000, respondent judge says that he dismissed the cases because the prosecution was delaying the proceedings of the cases by constantly moving for postponement. He recalls that the offended party, Debra Ann, executed an affidavit of desistance, dated March 4, 1999, and refused to testify against the accused; that at the hearing on March 22, 1999, he had to order Debra Ann to take the witness stand because the public and private prosecutors inexplicably failed to present her despite her presence in court; and that in her testimony, Debra Ann made it clear that the affidavit of desistance had been voluntarily executed by her; that complainant Winnie Florendo was presented only after he had directed the prosecution to adduce evidence, otherwise, he would dismiss the cases for failure to prosecute; that at the hearing on March 26, 1999, when complainant was undergoing cross-examination, the prosecution again moved for a continuance claiming that she was already fatigued; that when asked whether he had other witnesses to present, the public prosecutor said he would still have to look for other witnesses; that at this juncture, Debra Ann stood up and moved for the dismissal of the cases, reiterating the statement in her affidavit of desistance that she voluntarily went with the accused, Francisco Ingal, because she loved him and that the person who raped her was her mother's lover, Rufo Abenido; and that the public prosecutor admitted that complainant's testimony did not constitute direct evidence of the crimes. Respondent judge says that two criminal cases for rape are in fact pending in his court against Rufo Abenido; that the cases were filed upon complaint of Debra Ann; and that on July 12, 1999, complainant Winnie Florendo was shot and killed.

The Office of the Court Administrator recommends that respondent judge "be severely reprimanded for ignorance of the law in dismissing Criminal Case Nos. 4593 to 4596 based on insufficiency of evidence before the prosecution had rested its case, in violation of Section 5, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future will be dealt with more severely."

However, there appears to be sufficient justification for respondent judge's dismissal of the cases even if the testimony of complainant was set to continue on April 7, 1999. The public prosecutor himself admitted that complainant's testimony did not constitute direct evidence of the alleged crimes. Indeed, the offended party, Debra Ann Florendo Magsino, filed an affidavit of desistance and testified that it was another man, Rufo Abenido, her mother's lover, and not the accused, Francisco Ingal, who had raped her. To proceed with the cases, therefore, would not serve any useful purpose.

In any event, it is settled that a judge cannot be held to account criminally, civilly, or administratively for a decision rendered by him in good faith. (Guerrero v. Villamor, 296 SCRA 88 (1998); Sancos v. Orlino, 296 SCRA 101 (1998)) A contrary rule would be nothing short of harassment and would make his job unbearable. (Flores v. Sumaijag, 290 SCRA 568 (1998))

WHEREFORE, the complaint against respondent Judge Arturo M. Bernardo, Regional Trial Court, Branch 87, Gapan, Nueva Ecija is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) TOMASITA B. MAGAY-DRIS

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE