ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[OCA IPI No. 03-1470-MTJ.
PASCUA vs. PLATA
SECOND DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this
Court dated
OCA IPI No. 03-1470-MTJ (Jesus Pascua vs. Judge Ruben R. Plata, MTCC, Branch 1, Santiago City , Isabela.)
RESOLUTION
Considering the Report dated
... Indorsed to this Office by the Hon. Hilario G. Davide, Jr., Chief Justice, is a SWORN AFFIDAVIT-COMPLAINT dated 20 June 2003 (with enclosures) of Jesus Pascua charging respondent Judge Ruben R. Plata, MTCC, Branch 1, Santiago City, Isabela with Violation of R.A. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) and Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility relative to Criminal Case No. 1-4789 entitled "People vs. Jesus Pascua," for Perjury.
Complainant is the accused in the above-cited case. He alleges that before the warrant of arrest against him was signed by respondent Judge, he was called in his residence by one Danilo Lagman who informed him that Judge Plata wanted to talk to him regarding the said warrant. Immediately, he proceeded to the office of respondent. Inside his chambers, respondent showed him the warrant and told him "MAGHANAP KA NG PAMPIYANSA MO NGAYON DIN. KUNG HINDI PIPIRMAHAN KO na ITO AT HUHULIHIN KA NA NG PULIS PARA IKULONG. BUMALIK KA DITO KUNG MAY MAHANAPAN KANG PAMPIYANSA."
On
Complainant claims that after the subject case was dismissed and he tried to withdraw his cash bond, the cashier handed to him the amount of P1,000.00. When he informed the cashier that the cash bond he posted with Judge Plata was P6,000.00, the cashier told him to go to the office of Judge Plata. As instructed, he saw Judge Plata who told him, "OH KUNIN MO NA SA KAHERO ANG PIYANSA MO."
When he went back to the cashier to withdraw his cash bond, he was surprised when he saw the official receipt bearing the amount of P1,000.00. He asked the cashier if there was another receipt, the latter told him that there was none. Further, he was advised by the cashier to just receive the P1,000.00 and complain again to the respondent Judge. He decided not to return and instead went home very frustrated because the money he used was only loaned from an Indian National at a high interest.
In his COMMENT dated
Respondent narrates the antecedent facts of the case, as follows:
1.������ Criminal Case No. 1-4789 entitled "People vs. Jesus Pascua" for Perjury was raffled to his sala on 14 February 2002 (Annex "1");
2.������ After conducting the
preliminary examination, he found probable cause against the
accused-complainant and issued a warrant of arrest against the accused on
3.������ Per Police Blotter of Santiago City Police Headquarters, the accused was arrested by elements of the PNP Santiago City on 02 March 2003 (Annex "3");
4.������ On
5.������ Mr. Ruma explained to Mrs. Pascua that she has the option to post cash bond, property bond or surety bond. Mrs. Pascua requested that she be allowed to talk to respondent Judge so that she could request for a reduction of the bail;
6.������ After Mrs. Pascua has explained to respondent that she could not afford to post P6,000,00 cash bond, respondent, for humanitarian consideration, approved in principle to reduce the bailbond to 40%. Accordingly, he instructed Mrs. Pascua to file a Motion for Reduction of Bail so that he could act on it officially;
7.������ After filing the motion in court, Mrs. Pascua came back and pleaded to the respondent for further reduction of the bond to P1,000.00 because that was the only amount she was able to raise;
8.������ After verifying that the accused has signed the motion as well as the other requirements, respondent approved the same at around 10:00 a.m. or 10:30 a.m. of 04 March 2002. Per the Return dated 07 March 2002 of SPO4 Hernando J. Mendoza, Warrant and Subpoena Section, PNP Headquarters, Santiago City, the accused, Jesus Pascua, was released from their custody on 04 March 2002 (Annex "6" - "6-a");
9.������ On
10.���� On
11.���� The subject case is
still pending trial. In fact, the
prosecution is scheduled to present its initial evidence on
Respondent brands as gross misrepresentation complainant's claim
that he was fetched from his house by Danilo Lagman on
He denies that he personally received from the complainant the
alleged bailbond of P6,000.00 in his chambers on
Respondent judge informs this Office that the signature "Jesus Pascua" in the instant complaint is far different from the true and genuine signature of Jesus Pascua appearing in the documents attached to the record of the subject case, Criminal Case No. 1-4789. It is vary clear that whoever instigated the filing of the complaint only uses the name of Jesus Pascua as the latter himself denies ever filing the present complaint (Annex "12-d").
Lastly, he claims that the complaint is an act of vengeance of some misguided personnel of MTCC-Branch 2 in connivance with some OCC-Cashier's Office personnel who were suspended by the Supreme Court for illegal gambling during office hours.
EVALUATION: There is merit in the respondent's posture that
the person who signed the complaint as Jesus Pascua is an impostor
impersonating the real Jesus Pascua who is the accused in Criminal Case No.
1-4789. The signature "Jesus Pascua" in the complaint is very much
different from the genuine signatures of Jesus Pascua affixed on
pleadings/documents forming part of the record of the above-cited criminal
case, to wit: Motion to Reduce Bailbond dated March 4, 2002 (Annex
"5", respondent's comment), Order of Release of even date (Annex
"6") and Subpoena dated September 9, 2003 (Annex "9").
Moreover, in his letter dated
What further demonstrates the falsity of the complaint is the allegation that Jesus Pascua posted his bailbond "on March 4, 2000 between 5:00 to 6:00 o'clock (sic) in the evening," contrary to what appears in the record that the Information for Perjury against the accused Jesus Pascua was filed only on February 14, 2002 (Annex "2"); that the warrant of arrest was issued on February 26, 2002 and the accused was ordered released on March 4, 2002 (Annex "6").
Finally, the affidavit-complaint contains bare allegations of illegal acts attributed to the respondent judge devoid of any whit of evidence to support them.
RECOMMENDATION: Respectfully submitted for the consideration of the Honorable Court is our recommendation that the instant administrative case against Judge Ruben R. Plata be DISMISSED for being a sham and for lack of merit.
and finding the evaluation and recommendation thereon to be in accord with law and the facts of the case, the Court hereby approves and adopts the same.
WHEREFORE, the instant administrative complaint against Judge Ruben R. Plata is hereby DISMISSED .
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
