SECOND DIVISION
ILUMINADA
SANTILLAN
VDA. DE NEPOMUCENO,
Petitioner,
A.M.
No.
MTJ-03-1482
April 4, 2003
-versus-
JUDGE
NICASIO V.
BARTOLOME, MUNICIPAL
TRIAL COURT, STA.
MARIA, BULACAN.chanrobles virtual law library
Respondent.
R E S O L U T I
O N
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
J.:cralaw:red
In an affidavit-complaint
dated April 1, 2001 filed before the Office of the Court Administrator
(OCA), complainant Iluminada Santillan Vda. De Nepomuceno charged
respondent
Judge Nicasio V. Bartolome with violation of Republic Act No. 3019
otherwise
known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act relative to Criminal
Case No. 8464 entitled, People of the Philippines v. Manuel Ramos, for
Reckless Imprudence Resulting to Homicide and Slight Physical Injuries.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Complainant in her affidavit-complaint
alleges that respondent judge demanded P5,000.00 from her, reasoning
"total
panalo na yung kaso at may makukuha raw na pera"; and that she acceded
to the demand of respondent judge by reason of the said assurance and
considering
that respondent Judge is notoriously known for his corrupt
activities.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In his Comment, respondent
judge vehemently denied the accusation that he demanded P5,000.00 from
the complainant reasoning that if it were really true that he made such
demand then it would be a case of a perfect basis for entrapment.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Upon recommendation
of the OCA, the Court in a Resolution dated August 5, 2002, referred
the
matter to the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Malolos,
for
investigation, report and recommendation within 90 days from receipt of
the records, it being deemed right and proper for both the protagonists
to substantiate their respective allegations in a formal hearing.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
After conducting several
hearings, Executive Judge Oscar C. Herrera, Jr. found the following
facts
to be undisputed:
Iluminada Santillan
vda. De Nepomuceno, the complainant, was the private complainant in
Criminal
Case No. 8464 of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC), Sta. Maria, Bulacan,
presided over by Judge Nicasio V. Bartolome, the respondent. The
case was entitled `People of the Philippines vs. Manuel Ramos y
Bernabe.’
The case was for Reckless Imprudence Resulting To Homicide And Slight
Physical
Injuries which was filed in October 1994 (p. 8, record). One of
the
victims thereon, Angelita Nepomuceno, who died, was the daughter of
complainant;
while the other one, Emerito Nepomuceno, who sustained physical
injuries,
is the son of the complainant. In a Decision dated February 15,
1999,
respondent found the accused guilty of the crime charged, sentenced him
to six (6) years imprisonment, and ordered him to pay the heirs of the
deceased as well as the injured the sum of P66,523.70 supported by
receipts
and to indemnify the heirs the sum of P75,000 and to pay the cost of
the
suit’ (p. 9, record). Said decision was promulgated on April 13,
1999 (see Annex `A’, Counter-Affidavit dated November 6, 2002 of Judge
Bartolome). The accused in said case applied for and was granted
probation. On July 21, 1999, upon motion of complainant,
respondent
issued a writ of execution to enforce and implement the civil liability
imposed upon the accused (p. 48, record). On December 7, 1999,
respondent
issued an order revoking the probation and ordering the arrest of the
accused
for the latter’s alleged failure to comply with the conditions of the
probation
order (p. 53, record). Upon motion for reconsideration filed,
respondent
issued an Order dated January 11, 2000 reconsidering the Order dated
December
7, 1999 and allowing the accused to settle the civil liability by
paying
P30,000 within ten (10) days from receipt of the order and P10,000 per
month thereafter. The accused apparently failed to pay the
amounts
corresponding to the months of April, May and June 2000 (p. 31,
record).
On May 8, 2000, respondent issued an order denying a motion of the
accused
for reduction of the installment payments (p. 32, record). On May
31, 2000, respondent issued an order approving the recommendation
contained
in the Manifestation filed by the Bulacan Parole and Probation Office
reducing
the monthly payment of the accused from P10,000 to P2,000 (p. 33,
record).
A motion for reconsideration was filed by the complainant but this was
denied in an Order dated July 13, 2000 (p. 34, record). On
September
14, 2000, complainant filed a petition for certiorari with the Regional
Trial Court of Bulacan questioning the proceedings before the
respondent,
particularly the reduction of the monthly payment from P10,000 to
P2,000
(p. 14, record). The petition was docketed as Civil Case No.
613-M-2000
and was assigned to Branch 11 presided over by Judge Basilio R. Gabo,
Jr.
On December 6, 2001, Judge Gabo rendered a decision dismissing the
petition
but declaring that the mode of payment enunciated in the Order of
respondent
dated January 11, 2000 stands (p. 9, record).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In charging respondent
with Violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, complainant
insists that respondent demanded and received from her the amount of
P5,000
as consideration for the favorable Decision dated February 15, 1999 in
Criminal Case No. 8464 and that respondent abused his authority when he
allowed the reduction in the payment of civil liability from P10,000 to
only P2,000 per month. Of course, respondent denies he ever
demanded
and received P5,000 from complainant and claims he never allowed the
reduction
of the payment of civil liability from P10,000 to P2,000. In
connection
with the latter, he invokes the Decision dated December 6, 2001
rendered
by RTC, Bulacan Branch 11 in Civil Case No. 613-M-2000 dismissing the
petition
for certiorari of complainant.[1]
The Investigating Judge
found the complainant to have "remained firm and steadfast" in her
claim
that respondent Judge demanded P5,000.00 from her on February 19, 1999
in the chamber of respondent judge, as a consideration of the favorable
decision dated February 15, 1999; and that the payment was handed to
respondent
Judge on March 1, 1999 at about 9:30 in the morning while they were at
the stairs of the Municipal Hall where a flag ceremony is going on.[2]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
However, considering
that no other evidence was adduced to substantiate the above
allegations
of the complainant, the Investigating Judge concludes that the
testimony
of the complainant, standing alone, is insufficient to warrant a
finding
of guilt.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We fully agree.
An accusation of bribery is easy to concoct and difficult to disprove,
thus, the complainant must present a panoply of evidence in support of
such an accusation.[3]
Inasmuch as what is imputed against the respondent judge connotes a
misconduct
so grave that, if proven, it would entail dismissal from the bench, the
quantum of proof required should be more than substantial.[4]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Anent the complaint
that respondent judge abused his authority when he issued the Order
dated
May 31, 2000 approving the reduction of the monthly installment of the
civil indemnity in Criminal Case No. 8464 from P10,000.00 to P2,000.00
- We do not see any malice or ill motive nor taint of abuse of
authority
on the part of the respondent in the issuance of the said Order.
It is based on the Manifestation of the Chief Parole and Probation
Officer
Teresita A. Mascunana that after an intensive investigation,
probationer
is found to be in unstable financial status and capable of making a
monthly
payment of only P2,000.00.[5]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
As to the observation
of the Investigating Judge that during the entire proceedings,
respondent
Judge twice made untruthful and inaccurate statements in his desire to
free himself from the controversy: first, when he insinuated in
his
Comment filed before the Office of the Court Administrator that the
Decision
dated February 15, 1999 had already been released thus making it appear
that the claim of complainant that a demand made upon her on February
19,1999
after the release of the Decision, is unbelievable; and, second,
respondent Judge asserted that he never allowed the reduction of the
monthly
installment from P10,000.00 to P2,000.00 –
A perusal of respondent’s
Comment dated June 11, 2001, reveals that there was no such insinuation
made by the respondent. His statement was premised on the
assertions
made by complainant in her affidavit-complaint. Besides,
respondent
has specifically stated in his counter-affidavit which he filed with
the
Investigating Judge[6]
that the subject decision was promulgated on April 13, 1999.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
But while respondent
stated in his Comment that he approved the Manifestation filed by the
Chief
Parole and Probation Officer dated May 25, 2000 recommending the
reduction
of the monthly installment from P10,000.00 to P2,000.00 and denied the
motion for reconsideration thereof, he consciously and deliberately
made
contradictory statements in paragraphs 6 and 9 of his
counter-affidavit,
to wit:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
'6. The Chief of the
Probation Office recommended its approval but respondent judge
reiterated
an earlier order fixing the monthly payment at P10,000.00.cralaw:red
'9. Far from the truth,
respondent judge stayed put with his Order dated January 11, 2000
wherein
the monthly payment was pegged at P10,000.00.[7]'
The abovequoted statements
made by respondent judge is belied by the records. The Order
dated
May 31, 2000 shows that respondent judge approved the recommendation of
the Chief Parole and Probation Officer, reducing the monthly
installment
from P10,000.00 to P2,000.00 "without modification".[8]
Under Canon 2 of the
Code of Judicial Conduct, judges should avoid impropriety and the
appearance
of impropriety in all activities. Under Rule 2.01 of the Canon, a
judge should so behave at all times as to promote public confidence in
the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. By willfully and
deliberately making inaccurate and untruthful statements in his
defense,
respondent judge apparently transgressed these mandates and violated
the
Code of Judicial Conduct. Considering that the statement in
question
was under oath, respondent judge should be required to show cause why
he
should not be dealt with administratively for Serious Misconduct.[9]
WHEREFORE, the present
administrative complaint against respondent Judge Nicasio V. Bartolome
is DISMISSED for insufficiency of evidence.cralaw:red
However, for making
deliberate untruthful statements during the proceedings, respondent
Judge
is required to show cause within ten (10) days why he should not be
administratively
dealt with for Serious Misconduct.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Bellosillo, J.,
(Chairman),
Mendoza, Quisumbing, and Callejo, Sr., JJ., concur.chan
robles virtual law library
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Report dated December 26, 2002, pp. 6-7.
[2]
TSN, p. 8, October 30, 2002.
[3]
Co v. Calimag, 334 SCRA 20, 26.
[4]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
Rollo, pp. 64-65.
[6]
Records, p. 38.
[7]
Records, p. 39.
[8]
Rollo, p. 33.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
Sec. 3, Rule 140, rules of Court. |