ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[A.M. OCA IPI No. 03-1840-RTJ. October 20, 2004]

TRINIDAD vs. BELLO

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated OCT 20 2004 .

A.M. OCA IPI No. 03-1840-RTJ (Lolita B. Trinidad vs. Judge Silvestre H. Bello, Jr., RTC, Branch 128, Caloocan City.)

R E S O L U T I O N

For resolution is the administrative complaint filed by complainant Lolita B. Trinidad against respondent Judge Silvestre H. Bello, Jr., of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 128, Caloocan City for:

(a)����������� Taking cognizance of Criminal Case No. C-62869 and insisting on trying the case despite the fact that the same is not within the territorial jurisdiction of his court;

(b)����������� Arbitrary detention;

(c)����������� Failure to recognize her rights under Sections 1, 14(1) and 16, Article III of the Constitution;

(d)����������� Failure to recognize her rights under Sections 1(a), (c) and (h), Rule 115 of the Rules of Court;

(e)����������� Malicious delay in the administration of justice;

(f) Gross negligence in the performance of his judicial functions;

(g)����������� Knowingly and intentionally violating his oath of office where he swore to protect and uphold the Constitution; and

(h)����������� Grave abuse of discretion.

Complainant is one of the accused in Criminal Case No. 62868 and Criminal Case No. C-62869, both entitled "People of the Philippines vs. Lolita Trinidad y Bartolome, Abundio Aguba a.k.a. Abon, and Cynthia Campbell y Guerra" for estafa and illegal recruitment (large scale and syndicated), respectively, pending before the sala of respondent. Complainant's co-accused, Aguba and Campbell, remain at large.

Complainant narrates that on June 19, 2001, State Prosecutor Philip I. Kimpo filed two informations against her with the RTC of Caloocan City. On June 22, 2001, Branch 128 received the same. On August 15, 2001, complainant was transferred from the PNP-STAG in Camp Crame, Quezon City to the Caloocan City Jail pursuant to a commitment order issued by respondent.

On September 12, 2001, complainant was arraigned and a plea of "Not Guilty" was entered for her. The trial of her cases was scheduled on November 14, 21 and 28, 2001 but, according to complainant, no trial took place during said dates.

On August 6, 2002, complainant, with the assistance of her attorney-in-fact, Mr. Pascual Memorando, filed a "Motion for Provisional Dismissal of the Case," questioning the existence of probable cause to indict her for illegal recruitment and invoking the equal protection of the laws. Complainant prayed for the provisional dismissal of the cases and her release from confinement until such time as her co-accused can be presented in court and their participation in the offenses are proven. She contends that respondent did not act on her "Motion for Provisional Dismissal of the Case." Moreover, respondent harassed and punished Mr. Memorando when he declared him in contempt of court and committed him to the Caloocan City Jail for filing said motion and representing her in court when he was not a member of the bar.

Complainant adds that on September 18, 2002, having no lawyer to protect her constitutional rights, she was constrained to write a personal letter to respondent about her observations on the cases. She pointed out therein that Lorna Lucero has no legal personality to file a complaint against her since she was merely the financier of her family members, and that the transaction of her co-accused Campbell with one of the private complainants was consummated in the United States. Accordingly, she opined that the RTC of Caloocan City has no jurisdiction over the case as well as the person of Campbell, and prayed that the name of Campbell be stricken from the record of Criminal Case No. C-62869. In the alternative, complainant asked that she be allowed to post bail contending that the evidence of guilt against her was not strong. Complainant claims that respondent did not act on her letter.

On January 6, 2003, complainant wrote an "Open Letter to the Court," this time to bring to respondent's attention the constitutional guarantees on due process of law and presumption of innocence. Averring that these guarantees constituted "newly discovered evidence," complainant narrated how they were allegedly violated. She had hoped to enlighten respondent to dismiss her cases but respondent nonetheless insisted on proceeding with her cases.

Complainant states that on February 10, 2003, the public prosecutor recalled private complainant Marjorie Santos to the witness stand to correct her false testimony during her direct examination on November 25, 2002. Complainant expresses concern that if a false testimony can be corrected without objection from the defense and with the permission of the court, what are her chances of being acquitted if the three officers of the court were colluding to railroad her case.

On February 27, 2003, complainant served "Judicial Notice" upon respondent as to the existence and territorial extent of states but the same was also allegedly not acted upon.

Complainant also makes issue that on April 18, 2003, no hearing of her case took place due to the absence of respondent. Similarly, on August 5, 2003, neither respondent, the personnel of the court nor the counsel for the parties were in the courtroom. Complainant points out that she earlier filed an "Ex Parte Manifestation," which she requested to be submitted for consideration on August 5, 2003. For complainant, respondent was evading his duty to act on the merits of her manifestation.

Complainant then charges respondent with manifest injustice by delaying the administration of justice. She claims that respondent took cognizance of her case on June 22, 2001. Initial trial was held on November 25, 2002. However, up until the filing of this administrative complaint on August 15, 2003, two years, two months and twenty-three days had already passed contrary to the provisions on continuous trial.

Commenting on the administrative complaint, respondent denies the charges of complainant.

Respondent maintains that the RTC of Caloocan City has jurisdiction over the case since the allegations in the information indicate that the essential elements of illegal recruitment and estafa took place within the territorial jurisdiction of said court. Moreover, as shown by the Resolution dated May 18, 2001 of State Prosecutor Kimpo and the letter dated December 10, 2000 of then PNP Director General Panfilo M. Lacson, complainant was caught in flagrante delicto receiving marked money inside the Jollibee Basement Area at Ever Gotesco Grand Central in Caloocan City following the entrapment operation on December 9, 2000 of the Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Task Force (PAOCTF).

As to the charge of arbitrary detention, respondent explains that complainant was charged with a non-bailable offense. The Resolution dated May 18, 2001 of State Prosecutor Kimpo further states that after complainant was arrested by the PAOCTF, she voluntarily executed a waiver of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code. Respondent adds that the offense of arbitrary detention is properly addressed to the detaining officer, of which respondent is not.

Respondent belies the claims that he failed to recognize the rights of complainant as an accused. He recounts that complainant was afforded the opportunity to engage a counsel of her own choice and representation by the Public Attorney's Office (PAO) when she manifested such preference. The pre-trial and trial of the cases were then reset to December 3, 4, 10 and 11, 2001 to give counsel de oficio ample time to study the same. Subsequently, the pre-trial was postponed three more times due to ongoing negotiations with the complaining witnesses for the settlement of the civil aspect of the cases. Respondent points out that he also accommodated the requests of complainant to be initially assisted by her attorney-in-fact, to subpoena documents necessary for her defense, and to seek medical attention and hospitalization.

Respondent dismisses the claim of complainant that he maliciously delayed the administration of justice and that he was grossly negligent in the performance of his duties. He asserts that he judiciously exercised his duties, and that he promptly issued orders for the immediate arrest of her co-accused. After the arraignment of complainant, pre-trial and trial were scheduled for November 14, 21 and 28, 2001. In the meantime, however, complainant sent him letters dated October 21, 2001 and November 10, 2001 concerning her predicament and desire to settle her obligations with the complaining witnesses. With the appointment of PAO as counsel de oficio, the hearings scheduled on November 21 and 28, 2001 were reset to December 3, 4, 10 and 11, 2001 to give PAO sufficient time to study the cases. Subsequent hearing dates, with the exception of those for January 30, 2002 and April 15, 2002, were likewise cancelled in view of the manifestations of complainant that there were on-going negotiations for the settlement of the civil aspect.

Respondent further narrates with the termination of the pre-trial, continuous trial was set for August 6, 12, 13 and 14, 2002. On August 6, 2002, Mr. Memorando, the attorney-in-fact of complainant, was declared in contempt of court for falsely representing himself as a lawyer. On August 12, 2002, Atty. Francisco Sanchez manifested that he was no longer willing to handle the cases of complainant and requested time to cause the appointment of another lawyer. Respondent was also informed that the parties failed to reach a settlement. Thus, the hearings scheduled for August 13 and 14, 2002 were cancelled and postponed to September 18, 2002. On this date, however, trial was deferred to November 18, 19, 25 and 26 and December 2, 2002. On November 18, 2002, the hearing was postponed to November 25 and 26, 2002 since the RTC was requested by the city government to host the flag raising ceremony, which was followed by a dialogue between the first and second level courts and the city mayor. On November 25, 2002, Marjorie Santos began giving her testimony. Her cross-examination was set for January 13 and 14, 2003 but was rescheduled to February 10 and 11, 2003 on account of her illness. Respondent also explains the reasons behind the cancellation of the following hearings:

• On February 11, 2003 , respondent was on emergency leave and the hearing was reset to April 28, 2003 ;
• On April 28, 2003 , the public prosecutor assigned to the court of respondent attended a seminar and the hearing was postponed to August 5, 2003 ;
• On August 5, 2003 , respondent attended a seminar for judges and the hearing was rescheduled to August 11, 2003 ; and
• On August 20, 2003 , witness Marjorie Santos was unavailable and the proceedings were deferred to August 25, 2003 .

Respondent concludes that he has not violated his oath of office and has not committed any grave abuse of discretion.

On December 12, 2003, complainant, with the assistance of Mr. Memorando, filed in this case a petition asking that she be granted provisional liberty during the pendency of this administrative complaint against respondent.

The Court finds no sufficient cause to render respondent administratively liable.

Complainant faults respondent for assuming jurisdiction over her cases but failed to specify the basis for her claim. It may only be inferred from the personal letter and "Judicial Notice" of complainant that she questions the jurisdiction of the RTC of Caloocan City because one of the transactions of her co-accused Campbell was consummated in the United States, outside the territorial jurisdiction of the court presided by respondent. In any event, the propriety of respondent's assumption of jurisdiction over the cases of complainant is a judicial matter that should be properly ventilated in an appropriate proceeding, not in an administrative complaint.

The charge of arbitrary detention is likewise unsubstantiated. The Court can only surmise that this charge was brought on by complainant's continued detention. As pointed out by respondent, however, following the arrest of complainant, she remained in custody on account of the "Request for Preliminary Investigation and Waiver of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code" executed by her on December 10, 2000, and that complainant is accused of a non-bailable offense.

There is also no merit in the allegation of complainant that respondent failed to recognize her rights under the Constitution and the Rules of Court, particularly her rights to due process, to be presumed innocent, to be present and represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings, and to a speedy trial.

As with her other allegations, complainant has not adduced facts constituting violation of due process. Neither has she shown that she was not allowed to be present during the proceedings or to representation by counsel. On the contrary, respondent demonstrated that complainant was afforded the opportunity to secure the services of counsel de parte and upon her request, representation by the PAO.

The basis for complainant's claim that respondent failed to recognize her right to be presumed innocent is likewise not apparent. The Court can again only surmise that this claim relates to complainant's protest in her "Motion for Provisional Dismissal of the Case" as to the applicability to her of State Prosecutor Kimpo's finding that the transaction of Campbell and a certain Richard de Castro gives the presumption that Campbell is engaged in illegal recruitment. It may be noted that such finding, whether valid or not, was made by State Prosecutor Kimpo and not by respondent. There is even no indication that respondent has prematurely passed judgment on the guilt or innocence of complainant.

Complainant's charge that her right to a speedy trial was violated and that respondent maliciously delayed the administration of justice is baseless. Respondent has satisfactorily explained the reasons for the cancellation or postponement of the hearings, a number of which were even out of consideration for complainant. On the other hand, complainant has not shown that in canceling or postponing the hearings of her cases, respondent acted with malice, bad faith or ill motive.

Complainant bewails the failure of respondent to act on her "Motion for Provisional Dismissal of the Case." Complainant, however, cannot expect respondent to act thereon. As observed by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), the notice appended to said motion did not specify the date in "August 2002" when complainant requested said motion to be heard. Similarly, complainant cannot complain about the alleged inaction of respondent on her personal letter and "Open Letter to the Court," both of which relate to the merit of her cases and sought affirmative relief. The Court agrees with the OCA that complainant's act of writing these letters seems to undermine the independence and impartiality of respondent.

As to the recall of complaining witness Marjorie Santos to the witness stand, the OCA correctly notes that:

... As shown in complainant's own Annex "I", what actually happened was a correction of a clerical error in the transcription of the stenographic notes. The date "November 30, 2000" was corrected to read "First week of November 2000." The correction refers to the date witness Marjorie was introduced to complainant Lolita Trinidad. At that time, Marjorie Santos was already seated on the witness stand for cross-examination. Thus, before the start of the cross-examination, the respondent judge allowed the correction as there was no objection on the part of the defense counsel.

The Court also finds that complainant has not shown in what manner respondent harassed her attorney-in-fact, Mr. Memorando. She merely alleges that Mr. Memorando was declared in contempt of court and was ordered imprisoned on account thereof. It may be recalled that respondent sanctioned Mr. Memorando in the exercise of the court's power to punish contemptuous behavior. Considering that Mr. Memorando was the person affected by the exercise of said power, it is he, not complainant, who has a cause to complain, if any. However, it appears from the Order dated August 7, 2002 that Mr. Memorando already gave his explanation and apologized to the court, and finding the same to be meritorious, he was ordered released.

WHEREFORE, the administrative complaint against Judge Silvestre H. Bello, Jr., is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA

Asst. Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

1901	1902	1903	1904	1905	1906	1907	1908
1909	1910	1911	1912	1913	1914	1915	1916
1917	1918	1919	1920	1921	1922	1923	1924
1925	1926	1927	1928	1929	1930	1931	1932
1933	1934	1935	1936	1937	1938	1939	1940
1941	1942	1943	1944	1945	1946	1947	1948
1949	1950	1951	1952	1953	1954	1955	1956
1957	1958	1959	1960	1961	1962	1963	1964
1965	1966	1967	1968	1969	1970	1971	1972
1973	1974	1975	1976	1977	1978	1979	1980
1981	1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987	1988
1989	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996
1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004
2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012
2013

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

1901	1902	1903	1904	1905	1906	1907	1908
1909	1910	1911	1912	1913	1914	1915	1916
1917	1918	1919	1920	1921	1922	1923	1924
1925	1926	1927	1928	1929	1930	1931	1932
1933	1934	1935	1936	1937	1938	1939	1940
1941	1942	1943	1944	1945	1946	1947	1948
1949	1950	1951	1952	1953	1954	1955	1956
1957	1958	1959	1960	1961	1962	1963	1964
1965	1966	1967	1968	1969	1970	1971	1972
1973	1974	1975	1976	1977	1978	1979	1980
1981	1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987	1988
1989	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996
1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004
2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011