EN BANC
OFFICE OF THE
COURT
ADMINISTRATOR,
Complainant,
A.M.
No.
P-02-1555
April 16, 2004
-versus-
ATTY. EDGAR
ALLAN C. MORANTE,
CLERK OF COURT,
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT,LAS PINAS CITY,
BRANCH 275,
Respondent.
D E C I S I
O N
PER
CURIAM:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
This case stemmed from
an anonymous letter dated September 10, 2001 addressed to the Chief
Justice
from “CONCERNED LAW PRACTITIONERS.”[1]
The letter brought to his attention the alleged corrupt acts/practices
of respondent Edgar Allan Morante, Branch Clerk of Court of the
Regional
Trial Court, Las Piñas City, Branch 275. Attached to the
letter
was a news clipping that appeared in the September 10, 2001 issue of
The
Metro Daily Tribune, entitled “NBI Agents Nab Las Piñas Clerk of
Court for Extort.”[2]
The news item reported that the respondent “was caught by government
agents
in the act of receiving some P.2 million to fix a court decision.”[3]
In a First Indorsement
dated September 24, 2001, the matter was referred to the Office of the
Court Administrator (OCA) for appropriate action.[4]
The OCA requested National
Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Director Reynaldo G. Wycoco, through
Special
Action Unit Head Atty. Vicente de Guzman, for a copy of its
investigation
report and its annexes on the Morante extortion case, and to inform the
said office whether the filing of administrative/criminal cases against
the subject was recommended.[5]
On January 28, 2002, Deputy Court Administrator Christopher Lock
submitted
his memorandum on the matter to the Court.cralaw:red
The Court thereafter
issued a Resolution dated February 19, 2002, re-docketing the instant
case
as A.M. No. P-02-1555,[6]
suspending the respondent effective immediately pending the
investigation
of the case, and referring the administrative matter to Justice Narciso
Atienza, Consultant, Office of the Court Administrator, for
investigation,
report and recommendation.[7]
Pursuant to the Court’s
resolution, Justice Atienza conducted a formal investigation of the
case.[8]
In due course, the Investigating Justice submitted his report to the
Court
on January 15, 2003, finding the respondent guilty of grave and serious
misconduct and recommending that the respondent be dismissed from the
service
with forfeiture of all benefits, with prejudice to his appointment in
any
branch of the government or its agencies or instrumentalities.
The Case for the
Complainant[9]
Tetsuo Momma, a Japanese
citizen, was the president of the Montec International Corporation with
principal offices at Lot 2, Block 21, Phase III, Cavite Export
Processing
Zone Authority, Rosario, Cavite. He employed Jose “Joey” Olavere
as his executive secretary, who also acted as his personal interpreter.cralaw:red
Luz Amper filed a criminal
complaint against Momma, her former employer, for libel with the Las
Piñas
City Prosecutor. After the requisite preliminary investigation,
an
information for libel was filed against Momma on January 28, 2000 with
the Regional Trial Court of Las Piñas City, docketed as Criminal
Case No. 00-0117. The case was raffled to Branch 255 of the
court,
presided by Judge Ambrosio Alumbres whose pairing judge was Judge
Bonifacio
Sanz Maceda, the Presiding Judge of Branch 275 of the court.
Momma
posted a cash bail bond of P80,000. On March 29, 2000, the court
issued a hold departure order against him.cralaw:red
In the meantime, Momma
filed a petition for review of the resolution of the Las Piñas
City
Prosecutor finding probable cause for libel against him. On
November
7, 2000, the Secretary of Justice issued a resolution granting Momma’s
petition for review, reversing the resolution of the City Prosecutor,
and
directed the latter to file a motion to withdraw the information, and
to
inform the Secretary of Justice of his action thereon within ten days
from
notice. Private complainant Luz Amper, through counsel, filed a
motion
for the reconsideration of the resolution of the Secretary of Justice,
but the latter issued a Resolution on January 12, 2001 denying the said
motion. She forthwith filed a petition for certiorari with the
Court
of Appeals (CA), entitled Luz Amper v. Secretary of Justice[10]
for the nullification of the said resolution. However, the CA did
not issue any temporary restraining order against the respondents and
thereafter
dismissed the petition.cralaw:red
On December 1, 2000,
Momma filed a letter-complaint with the Court against Judge Ambrosio
Alumbres,
alleging, inter alia, that the Judge pressured him into settling the
libel
case for P7,000,000. According to Momma, the Judge would even
call
his representative to his chambers in an effort to convince him to
settle
the case. When he refused, the Judge agreed to reduce the offer
to
P3,000,000.00. He also complained that the Judge was eager to
issue
warrants for his arrest although there were no valid reasons
therefor.
He asked the Court to help him have an impartial judge to decide the
libel
case.[11]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On December 2, 2000,
Olavere, in behalf of Momma, filed a motion with the RTC Branch 255,
for
the inhibition of the presiding judge.[12]
Acting on the complaint of Momma, the OCA wrote him on February 5,
2001,
requesting that his complaint be executed under oath within ten
days.
Momma complied with the request.cralaw:red
On March 12, 2001, the
State Prosecutor filed a motion with the trial court in Criminal Case
No.
00-0117 for the withdrawal of the information, conformably with the
resolution
of the Secretary of Justice, and the lifting of the hold departure
order.
Momma, through his counsel Atty. Roberto Garay, filed a motion on April
17, 2001 for the release of his cash bail bond in the amount of
P80,000.
Because the private complainant was not notified of the hearing of the
public prosecutor’s motion on May 2, 2001, the court reset the hearing
to May 16, 2001, and then reset it anew to June 25, 2001.cralaw:red
On June 3, 2001, Judge
Ambrosio Alumbres, Presiding Judge of Branch 255, retired from
office.
Executive Judge Manuel Fernandez designated Judge Bonifacio Sanz
Maceda,
the pairing Judge of Branch 255, as Acting Presiding Judge thereof.cralaw:red
Judge Maceda at times
required Ms. Joselita P. Macaldo, Officer-In-Charge (OIC) of the Office
of the Deputy Clerk of Court of Branch 255, to make a case summary or a
preliminary statement of pending incidents thereon before resolving the
same. She also prepared drafts of orders for Judge Maceda’s
approval
and signature, and the latter would either approve the draft and sign
the
same, or revise it, in which case, the order would be typewritten in
Branch
255. Macaldo would then affix her initials below the typewritten
name of Judge Maceda before the latter signed the Order.cralaw:red
On June 25, 2001, Momma
filed a motion for the lifting of the hold departure order. The
said
motion was set for hearing on July 2, 2001. Conchita Blanza,
Stenographer,
Branch 255, RTC, Las Pinas, recorded the proceedings of the hearing.
Judge
Maceda issued an Order stating that the pending incidents had been
submitted
for the resolution of the court. On July 3, 2001 OIC Macaldo
transmitted
the records of Criminal Case No. 00-0117 to respondent Atty. Edgar
Allan
C. Morante, who was the Deputy Clerk of Court of Branch 255, for the
resolution
by Judge Maceda of the pending incidents.cralaw:red
Olavere and Momma’s
counsel, Atty. Garay, followed up the case with the respondent several
times for the early resolution of the pending incidents therein.
According to Olavere and Momma, the ninety-day period for the
resolution
thereof had long since elapsed.cralaw:red
On August 20, 2001,
Atty. Garay arrived in the house of Olavere, and informed the latter
that
the respondent had a message: if Olavere wanted a favorable decision in
the libel case against Momma, he, Olavere, would have to talk with the
respondent to make “arrangements” with the Judge. Olavere
forthwith
saw the respondent in the latter’s office at the Justice Hall in Las
Piñas
City. The respondent told Olavere that he, the respondent, could
have the case against Momma dismissed by Judge Maceda if Momma was
willing
to come across with P250,000.cralaw:red
When Olavere relayed
the respondent’s message to Momma, the latter replied that he would
have
to see the order of dismissal first. Olavere, in turn, relayed
Momma’s
message to the respondent, and the latter told Olavere that Momma would
have to pay P50,000 in exchange for an unsigned copy of the order of
dismissal
of the court. The balance of P200,000 would then be paid to the
respondent
upon delivery to Olavere of the order of dismissal bearing the
signature
of Judge Maceda. Olavere informed Momma of the respondent’s
message.
The two agreed to report the matter to the NBI, so that the respondent
could be apprehended in flagrante delicto.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On August 27, 2001,
Momma arrived at the NBI where he executed a complaint-affidavit
against
the respondent for robbery/extortion. The said affidavit was
subscribed
and sworn to before Atty. Timoteo Pineda, Jr., the Executive Officer of
the Special Action Unit of the NBI. In the said
complaint-affidavit,
Momma alleged, inter alia, that the respondent had requested him to
produce
P250,000 in exchange for the court’s favorable decision in the libel
case.[13]
It was also alleged that Momma and Olavere agreed to give P50,000 in
consideration
for the unsigned order dismissing Criminal Case No. 00-0117.cralaw:red
At about 11:00 a.m.
on August 28, 2001, Olavere saw the respondent in his office at the
second
floor of the Justice Hall in Las Piñas City. The other
court
personnel were then having lunch. Olavere gave the P50,000 to the
respondent who then gave Olavere an unsigned copy[14]
of the Order dated July 19, 2001 granting the motion to withdraw
information filed by the State Prosecutor, Momma’s motion for the
release
of his cash bond, as well as the lifting of the hold departure
order.
The respondent told Olavere that he would call him as soon as the order
had already been signed by Judge Maceda. In the afternoon of the
same day, Olavere proceeded to the Special Action Unit of the NBI and
gave
a sworn statement to Senior Agent Nelson Pacada, alleging, inter alia,
that the respondent had demanded P250,000 in exchange for the order of
dismissal of the libel case against Momma, and that he, Olavere, had
already
given P50,000 to the respondent earlier that morning in exchange for an
unsigned order of the dismissal of the libel case, the balance payable
to the respondent upon delivery by him of the order of dismissal duly
signed
by Judge Maceda.[15]
Olavere gave the NBI the unsigned Order he earlier received from the
respondent.[16]
Momma and NBI Agent
Pineda decided to conduct an entrapment operation against the
respondent
at his office. Momma gave four P500 bills to Pineda bearing
Serial
Numbers RU582077, RU582078, SW730103 and TX016250 for the operation.[17]
Pineda requested NBI Forensic Chemist, Felicisima Francisco, to subject
the four bills contained in the white envelope to fluorescent powder
markings.[18]
Francisco also dusted the white envelope with fluorescent powder. She
then
returned the bills and the white envelope to Pineda. The latter,
in turn, placed the four P500 bills on top of other peso bills
amounting
to P198,000. Since the bills were so bulky, Pineda placed the
P200,000
in a brown envelope and sealed the same. The forensic chemist,
however,
did not dust the envelope with fluorescent powder.cralaw:red
In the meantime, Olavere
was able to talk with the respondent over the telephone a couple of
times.
They agreed that Olavere would deliver the balance of P200,000 to the
respondent
at his office in the morning of August 31, 2001. In exchange, the
respondent would give Olavere the order dismissing the case bearing the
signature of Judge Maceda.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On August 29, 2001,
Judge Maceda signed an Order granting the Motion to Withdraw
Information,
the State Prosecutor’s Motion to Lift Hold Departure Order, as well as
Momma’s motion for the release of his cash bond of P80,000. The
respondent
affixed his initials on the order below the typewritten name of Judge
Maceda.[19]
Instead of returning the records of Criminal Case No. 00-0117 to Branch
255 of the RTC for the release of the said order, the respondent kept
the
said records, including the order of Judge Maceda, and waited Olavere
to
return with the P200,000.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
When Olavere informed
Pineda that the respondent had agreed to a meeting in the morning on
August
31, 2001 for the payoff, Pineda called the other NBI agents to a
pre-entrapment
conference and agreed on the mechanics of the operation. Olavere
and Pineda agreed that they would proceed to the office of the
respondent;
Olavere would carry the brown envelope containing the P200,000, while
the
NBI agents would position themselves strategically nearby.
Immediately
after delivering the envelope with the money to the respondent, Olavere
will give the pre-arranged signal. The NBI agents would then
enter
the office of the respondent, take him into custody and confiscate from
him the P200,000.cralaw:red
Shortly before noon
of August 31, 2001, Olavere and NBI Agents Timoteo Pineda, Jr. Marlon
Toleda,
Joel Toresa, and Dante Sonbar arrived at the second floor of the
Justice
Hall in La Piñas City. Judge Maceda was absent because he
was ill. The agents strategically positioned themselves outside
the
office of the respondent, while Olavere, with the brown envelope
containing
P200,000, proceeded to the latter’s office. The respondent met
Olavere
outside the office and brought him inside. The respondent then
gave
Olavere a copy of the Order in the libel case signed by Judge Maceda,
dated
August 29, 2001.[20]
Olavere handed over to the respondent the brown envelope containing the
P200,000 and gave the pre-arranged signal to the NBI agents who were
waiting
outside. Instead of opening the envelope and counting the money
contained
therein, the respondent placed the envelope on top of his table.cralaw:red
When the NBI agents
heard Olavere’s pre-arranged signal, they entered the office of the
respondent.
They saw the brown envelope containing the P200,000 on the respondent’s
table. They took custody of the respondent and the brown
envelope,
including the money inside. The NBI agents informed the
respondent
of his constitutional rights and brought him to the NBI headquarters in
Taft Avenue, Manila, where he was placed under arrest.[21]
The chemist was unable to examine the brown envelope which contained
the
bribe money because the NBI agents failed to deliver the same to her.cralaw:red
Olavere gave a sworn
statement to NBI Agent Toledo.[22]
The NBI agents executed their joint affidavit of the respondent’s
arrest.[23]
On the same date, the NBI Director transmitted to Inquest Prosecutor
Roberto
D. Lao of the Department of Justice the complaint of Momma and Olavere
charging the respondent of violating Section 3(b) in relation to
paragraph
(c) of Republic Act No. 3019.[24]
The respondent submitted his counter-affidavit[25]
and rejoinder[26]
during the preliminary investigation. The respondent was later
charged
of violating Rep. Act No. 3019 in an Information filed with the RTC of
Las Piñas City, docketed as Criminal Case No. 02-0317.
The Case for the
Respondent[27]
The respondent vehemently
denied the charges hurled against him. He adopted the
counter-affidavit
he submitted to the Inquest Prosecutor as his testimony on direct
examination
before the Investigating Justice. His version of the incident is
as follows:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
When Judge Bonifacio
Sanz Maceda of RTC, Branch 275 took over the numerous cases pending
before
the sala of Judge Alumbres after the latter retired as Presiding Judge
of RTC, Branch 255, an inventory of cases revealed that there were 143
cases with pending incidents; 91 cases submitted for decision which
were
already beyond the reglementary period for issuing an order, resolution
or decision, and 891 other pending cases. The office was deluged
by calls from party litigants, their representatives, as well as their
respective counsels, who were eager to follow up the status of their
respective
cases and seek the speedy resolution thereof. One case being
followed
up with unusual persistence was the criminal case for libel against
Momma.
The respondent met Atty. Roberto Garay during the third or fourth week
of June 2001 when the latter followed up the resolution of the pending
incidents. He met Jose “Joey” Olavere, who introduced himself as
an employee of Momma and followed-up the resolution of the motion to
lift
hold departure order, the motion to withdraw information filed by the
State
Prosecutor and Momma’s motion for the refund of the cash bond then
pending
before Branch 255 of the RTC.cralaw:red
Olavere began telling
“stories” that his employer had already spent almost P1,000,000 to
settle
or dispose of the said libel case, particularly the hold departure
order
issued by the court. Olavere showed to him a list containing the
names of the “recipients” and the amounts received by each: Judge,
P300,000;
Clerk of Court, P100,000; sheriff, P20,000; fiscal, P50,000.
Olavere
even admitted that he was being paid a bonus for the “arrangements”
that
he had facilitated with the said officials. He also revealed that
Momma wanted to go back to Japan to visit his father who was seriously
ill.[28]
Because of his employer’s
apparently precarious situation, Olavere requested the respondent to
intercede
for his employer so that the criminal case against the latter could be
resolved in the soonest possible time. The respondent replied
that
Judge Maceda was a very strict presiding judge, and that it was
impossible
to influence him in the resolution of cases. He also told Olavere
that he was going to do his best to help, but emphasized that he was
not
promising anything.cralaw:red
After this first visit,
Olavere came to his office several more times. Olavere and Atty. Garay
also started calling the said office frequently. It got to a
point
where the respondent evaded their calls.[29]
The respondent denied
that he received the sum of P50,000 from Olavere in exchange for an
unsigned
Order dated July 19, 2001. He denied ever preparing and giving
the
said unsigned order to Olavere. He alleged that although Judge
Maceda
often asked him to prepare a preliminary study of the facts and legal
issues
in pending cases, the Judge did not ask him to prepare any order in
Criminal
Case No. 00-0117. He claimed that the records of Criminal Case
No.
00-0117 were inside the chambers of Judge Maceda from July to August
2001.cralaw:red
At around 9:00 a.m.
of August 28, 2001, Olavere arrived in his office and asked the
respondent
if there was already an order lifting the hold departure order issued
against
his employer duly signed by Judge Maceda. He replied in the
negative.
He was in a hurry at the time because he had an appointment with the
City
Legal Officer, Atty. Zardi Melito Abellera. Before he left the
office,
he advised Olavere to check the matter out with Branch Sheriff Josefino
Ortiz.[30]
Sheriff Ortiz heard him say, “There’s no resolution yet. Better follow
up with Branch 255.”[31]
Olavere then told him that he would be back on Friday to find out if an
order had already been issued. There was no talk about money.[32]
The respondent was accompanied by Branch Sheriff Josefino Ortiz, and
they
arrived in Atty. Abellera’s office at about 9:15 a.m. Ortiz stood
by the door to the office of Atty. Abellera during the meeting.
The
meeting, where they talked about the budget for the offices and the
newly
appointed judges, lasted until about 11:30 a.m.[33]
Thereafter, the respondent and Ortiz had lunch together.[34]
In the morning of August
29, 2001, the respondent arrived in his office and saw a draft of an
order
for Judge Maceda’s review bearing his corrections. The said order was
appended
to the records. The respondent corrected the draft and gave the
records
to the stenographic reporter for the typing of the final draft.
The
next day, August 30, 2001, he saw the Order dated August 29, 2001,
already
signed by Judge Maceda. However, the respondent did not transmit
the records to the Branch Clerk of Court, Branch 255 for the release of
the Order.cralaw:red
On or about 11:20 a.m.
on August 31, 2001, Olavere again came to his office to follow up the
libel
case. He stood up and went inside Judge Maceda’s chambers to get
a copy of the order, which he knew had already been signed the day
before.[35]
At around 11:30,[36]
he summoned RTC Sheriff Roberto Galing of Branch 255 to have the order
certified by OIC Joselita R. Macaldo of Branch 255. Sheriff
Galing
had the copy of the order certified by Macaldo, and handed the same to
him. The respondent, in turn, gave a copy of the Order to
Olavere.
The respondent also made the latter acknowledge the receipt of the said
copy in the original copy of the order retained for the court file.[37]
Olavere read the order, then placed it inside his bag as he stood in
front
of the respondent’s desk. The respondent noticed that Olavere was
pulling out a bulky brown envelope, about 8x11 inches in size.
Olavere
placed the envelope on top of the respondent’s desk. The latter
immediately
said, “Ano ‘yan?”[38]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Court Process Server
Leon Matienzo of RTC, Branch 255, had entered the office to inform the
respondent that he was able to get a schedule for the civil service
examination
and stood in front of the copy machine located beside the respondent’s
table. Matienzo heard the respondent say, “Ano ‘yan?” as the
latter
pointed to a thick brown envelope on his table.[39]
Matienzo told him, “Boss, excuse me po, ipapa-alam ko lang na nakapag
pa-schedule
na kami para sa civil service exam,” to which the latter replied,
“Okay.”
Matienzo then left the room to have his lunch.[40]
The respondent turned
his attention back to Olavere and repeated his query about the
envelope,
“Ano ‘yan? Bakit may letterhead pa yan ng Garay Law Office?” Olavere
replied,
“Eh galing kay Garay ‘yan, e!”[41]
Suddenly, a group of about eight persons barged into the office,
approached
his desk and introduced themselves as agents of the NBI. They
surrounded
the desk and one of them took hold of the brown envelope. The
seal
was removed and the envelope was opened in front of the
respondent.
The latter saw that the envelope contained bundles of money.[42]
Realizing that the respondent had not picked up the envelope, much less
touched the money contained therein, one of the NBI agents positioned
to
grab his right hand and tried to place it inside the envelope, in an
apparent
attempt to mark it with the fluorescent powder with which the money was
previously dusted.[43]
The apparent attempt to mark the respondent’s right hand was foiled by
the timely entry of Leticia B. Agbayani, the Branch Stenographer, who
immediately
shouted, “What’s happening here? Anong nangyayari dito?” to which the
respondent
replied, “Entrapment daw!”[44]
Agbayani asked, “Anong inilagay? Hinawakan mo ba?” to which the
respondent
replied, “Hindi, hindi ko hinawakan.” She then told the NBI
agents,
“You mean to say that you can entrap anybody when somebody (sic) put an
envelope on top of your table?” When she inquired where the
envelope
was, a certain Atty. Pineda replied, “It was already secured.”[45]
People began to gather
in the office. One of them, Branch Sheriff Josefino Ortiz,
pointed
to the NBI agents for setting him up, and asked to accompany the latter
to the NBI Headquarters in Manila. At this point, Olavere
informed
the respondent that he was also a confidential agent of the NBI and
showed
his identification card.[46]
The group left the office at around 12:00 noon. They boarded a
pick-up
truck together with Atty. Pineda and a certain Atty. Bonoan. They
arrived at around 1:30 in the afternoon. The respondent underwent
interrogation and testing for fluorescent powder marks.[47]
While he was being questioned at the NBI office, he noticed a
foreign-looking
individual who was freely going in and out of the office of NBI
Division
Chief Atty. De Guzman. He later came to know that the man was in
fact Tetsuo Momma.[48]
Momma was apparently a very influential individual at the NBI as he was
also seen conversing and laughing with Olavere and Atty. De Guzman.[49]
According to the respondent,
the case against him was weakened by Olavere’s execution of an
affidavit
retracting his sworn statement and supplemental statement to the NBI,
the
latter’s testimony, and by the affidavit of desistance executed by
Momma
dated March 5, 2001.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Issues
The issues for resolution
in this case are the following: (a) whether or not the complainant
adduced
substantial evidence to prove that the respondent gave the unsigned
Order
dated July 19, 2001 to Olavere on August 28, 2001 after receiving
P50,000
from the latter; (b) whether or not the respondent promised
and agreed to give to Olavere on August 31, 2001 a certified copy
of the August 28, 2001 Order signed by Judge Bonifacio Maceda and in
consideration
of P200,000; (c) whether or not the respondent received the brown
envelope
containing P200,000 from Olavere on August 31, 2001 after giving to
Olavere
the certified copy of the August 28, 2001 Order signed by Judge Maceda;
and, (d) whether the respondent is guilty of grave and serious
misconduct
in office.
The Ruling of the
Court
On the first issue,
the respondent asserts that in administrative cases, where the acts
subject
of the complaint are criminal in nature such as bribery or violation of
Rep. Act No. 3019, the quantum of proof required is proof beyond
reasonable
doubt. The respondent asserts that the complainant failed to
adduce
evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he demanded P50,000 in
consideration
for the delivery of an unsigned order granting the motion of the State
Prosecutor for the withdrawal of the Information and for the granting
of
the motion for the lifting of the hold departure order, and that he
actually
gave to Olavere on August 28, 2001 an unsigned order after receiving
P50,000
from him. The respondent contends that the affidavit-complaint of
Momma was hearsay because the latter failed to testify. He also
asserts
that Olavere’s claim, as contained in his affidavit, that he had an
agreement
with the respondent to give P50,000 in consideration of an unsigned
order,
is belied by Olavere’s testimony during the investigation, that the
agreement
was for the delivery of a signed copy of the Order to Olavere.
Furthermore,
Toledo’s allegation that Olavere arrived in the NBI on August 27, 2001
is belied by the latter’s testimony that it was only on August 28, 2001
when he made a report to the NBI. The respondent concludes that
Olavere
could not have given him P50,000 on August 28, 2001 because Olavere
admitted
that it was entirely possible that he did not give the P50,000 to
the respondent but pocketed the money himself.cralaw:red
The contention of the
respondent does not persuade.cralaw:red
In Office of the Court
Administrator v. Judge Bautista,[50]
this Court, citing its ruling in Mamba v. Garcia,[51]
held that in administrative proceedings only substantial evidence, or
that
amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate
to support a conviction, is required. Evidence to support a
conviction
in a criminal case is not necessary, as the standard of integrity
demanded
of members of the Bench is not satisfied which merely allows one to
escape
the penalties of criminal law. The dismissal of any criminal case
against the respondent in an administrative case, for the prosecution’s
failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, is not a ground for
the dismissal of the administrative case. The affidavit-complaint[52]
of Momma was admitted by the Investigating Justice as part of the
testimony
of Toledo and Olavere and, more specifically, Momma submitted the said
affidavit-complaint against the respondent to the NBI and subscribed
and
swore to the truth of its contents before Toledo.[53]
The complainant adduced
substantial evidence that the respondent himself gave to Olavere the
unsigned
order[54]
after receiving P50,000 from the latter. As gleaned from
Olavere’s
affidavit, the respondent gave the unsigned order to him in the morning
of August 28, 2001 after he had given P50,000 to the respondent.cralaw:red
T:
Papaano naman aayusin ni ATTY. MORANTE ang kaso?
S:
Sinabi niya sa akin na mapapadismiss niya ang kaso ng boss ko bastat
magproduce
lang ako ng P250,000. Sinabi ko ito sa boss ko pero ang sabi
niya,
gusto niyang makita ang papeles.cralaw:red
T:
Ano ang nangyari pagkatapos?
S:
Ang sabi ni ATTY. MORANTE magbigay ako ng P50,000 kapalit ang walang
pirmang
papeles at pagkatapos yong balanseng P200,000 ay itatawag niya sa akin.cralaw:red
T:
Pumayag ba naman ang boss mo?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
S:
Opo, sa katunayan ay binigay ko na kaninang umaga ang P50,000 at
itatawag
ni ATTY. MORANTE sa akin kapag pirmado na ang desisyon para maibigay ko
ang balanseng P200,000.cralaw:red
T:
Mayroon ibinigay bang papeles si ATTY. MORANTE?
S:
Opo, ito pong walang pirmang Order ni Judge MACEDA. (Affiant
submits
an unsigned six-page Order dated July 19, 2001 under Judge BONIFACIO
SANZ
MACEDA, RTC, Branch 255, Las Pinas City marked as Annexes “A” to “A-5”).[55]
We reject respondent’s
contention that Olavere was impeached as a witness, and that the
entirety
of his sworn statement and supplemental statement to the NBI and his
testimony
during the investigation was weakened, merely because in answer to one
of the questions of respondent’s counsel on cross examination, Olavere
stated that he went to the office of the respondent on August 28, 2001
with the intention of getting a signed copy of the Order of Judge
Maceda,[56]
contrary to his earlier declaration in his sworn statement that he was
at the office of the respondent on the said date, with the intention of
getting an unsigned order. We find no basis for the respondent’s
assertion that since the case against him is based principally on
Olavere’s
testimony and sworn statement, the complaint against him must be
dismissed.cralaw:red
It is true that in response
to one of the questions of the respondent’s counsel on cross
examination
on whether Olavere had intended to secure an unsigned order from the
respondent
on August 28, 2001, Olavere declared that he was expecting a signed
order
from the respondent. Indeed, the answer of Olavere contradicts
his
sworn statement to the NBI in which he stated that he went to the
office
of the respondent on August 28, 2001 to get an unsigned order. It
bears stressing, however, that in answer to the subsequent questions on
cross examination, Olavere testified that he intended to secure an
“unsigned
decision” from the respondent on August 28, 2001, thereby corroborating
his sworn statement.[57]
To determine the
credibility
and probative weight of the testimony of a witness, such testimony must
be considered in its entirety and not in truncated parts. To
determine
which contradicting statements of a witness is to prevail as the truth,
the other evidence received must be considered. In People v.
Ubiña,[58]
the Court held that contradicting testimony given subsequently does not
necessarily discredit the previous testimony if the contradiction is
satisfactorily
explained. There is no rule which states that a previous
testimony
is presumed to be false merely because a witness now says that the same
is not true. A testimony solemnly given in court should not be
lightly
set aside. Before this can be done, both the previous testimony
and
the subsequent one should be carefully scrutinized – in other words,
all
the expedients devised by man to determine the credibility of witnesses
should be utilized to determine which of the two contradicting
testimonies
represents the truth.cralaw:red
Also, under Rule 132,
Section 13 of the Revised Rules of Court, a witness may be impeached by
showing that such two contradicting statements are under oath. However,
in order to impeach Olavere’s testimony to be inconsistent with the
sworn
statement, the sworn statement alleged to be inconsistent with the
subsequent
one should have been shown and read to him and, thereafter, he should
have
been asked to explain the apparent inconsistency. This was not
done
in this case, and the respondent cannot derive any benefit from the
supposed
contradiction in Olavere’s testimony.[59]
We reiterate our own ruling in People v. De Guzman:[60]
In People vs. Resabal,
this Court explicitly ruled that the mere presentation of the prior
declarations
of a witness without the same having been read to the witness while he
was testifying in court is insufficient for the desired impeachment of
his testimony. As explained therein, the apparent contradiction
between
the declarations of the witness before the former justice of the peace
court and those before the then court of first instance was
insufficient
to discredit him since he was not given ample opportunity, by reading
to
him his declarations before the lower court, to explain the supposed
discrepancy.cralaw:red
The rule which requires
a sufficient foundation to be first laid before introducing evidence of
inconsistent statements of a witness is founded upon common sense and
is
essential to protect the character of a witness. His memory is
refreshed
by the necessary inquiries, which enables him to explain the statements
referred to, and to show that they were made under a mistake, or that
there
was no discrepancy between them and his testimony.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
It would be unjust to
complainant at this stage to be declared an incredible witness as a
result
of the unauthorized procedure adopted by appellant. It is
evidentiarily
proscribed to discredit a witness on the bases of purportedly prior
inconsistent
statements which were not called to the attention of that witness
during
the trial, although the same are supposedly contained in a document
which
was merely offered and admitted in its entirety without the requisite
specifications.cralaw:red
Through such a somewhat
underhanded recourse, a party can expediently offer in evidence at the
trial the whole document containing allegedly variant statements and
then
point out much later on appeal the supposed contradictory statements
which
were not specified, intentionally or otherwise, in the same
trial.
That sub silentio gambit would necessarily deprive a witness of the
chance
to explain the seeming divergencies, which is the paramount
consideration
of the rule mandating the laying of the proper predicate.cralaw:red
Complainant is undoubtedly
the person best suited and mandated by the rule to explain the supposed
differences in her statements. Without such explanation before
us,
whether plausible or not, we are left with no basis to evaluate and
assess
her credibility on the rationale that it is only when no reasonable
explanation
is given by a witness in reconciling his conflicting declarations that
he should be deemed impeached. As things stand before us and the
court a quo, therefore, complainant’s credibility remains unimpeached.cralaw:red
On the foregoing considerations,
we confirm the validity of the doctrine articulated by the Court of
Appeals
in Villaruel vs. Bascon that, unless the proper predicate is laid
during
the trial by calling the attention of a witness to his alleged
inconsistent
statements given outside of his testimony in court and asking him to
explain
the contradiction, the supposed inconsistencies cannot be pointed out
on
appeal for the purpose of destroying the credibility of the
witness.
This pronouncement was actually based upon and in line with the
holdings
of this Court in Escosura and People vs. Lim Quingsy.cralaw:red
We have calibrated,
in light of the other evidence on record, the entirety of Olavere’s
testimony
on cross-examination and have arrived at the conclusion that, indeed,
Olavere
intended to receive an unsigned Order of Judge Maceda from the
respondent
on August 28, 2001. The evidence on record shows that when
Olavere
arrived at the respondent’s office on August 28, 2001, he received the
unsigned order from the respondent after the latter had received the
P50,000.
We, therefore, rule that Olavere was not impeached as a witness and his
sworn statement rendered of no probative weight merely because of his
erroneous
answer to one of the questions of respondent’s counsel on
cross-examination.
We also note that the Investigating Justice gave credence and full
probative
weight to the sworn statement of Olavere, that he received the unsigned
order[61]
from the respondent on August 28, 2001.cralaw:red
The probative weight
of the sworn statement of Olavere that the respondent gave him the
unsigned
Order on August 28, 2001 cannot be overcome by the latter’s bare
denials.cralaw:red
This Court is convinced,
as the Investigating Justice was, that the respondent himself prepared
the unsigned order. The evidence on record shows that the
respondent,
as the Deputy Clerk of Court of Branch 275, received from Macaldo, the
Branch Clerk of Court of Branch 255, the records of Crim. Case No.
00-0117
on July 3, 2001, as Judge Maceda was to resolve the pending incidents,
including the Motion to Resolve Ex-Parte Omnibus Motion to Quash, Lift
Hold Departure Order and to Recall Warrant of Arrest and Release Bond
filed
by the State Prosecutor. After receiving the records of the case
from Macaldo, the respondent kept the same in his custody. The
respondent
failed to adduce credible evidence that he parted with the records from
July 3, 2001 to August 28, 2001 and turned over the same to Judge
Maceda.cralaw:red
Even a cursory reading
of the unsigned Order will show that it contained facts culled from the
records of Criminal Case No. 00-0117. As the records were in the
custody of the respondent, only he could have prepared the said
order.
Moreover, on the last page, on the left bottom side of the order,
contain
the initials of the stenographic reporter who typed the said order,
followed
by the initials of the respondent himself: “EACM” corresponding to his
full name, Edgar Allan C. Morante. We agree with the perceptive
disquisitions
of the Investigating Justice in his Report to this Court on the utter
untenability
of the respondent’s bare denial, thus:
The denial of the respondent,
and even a thousand more, cannot alter the fact that his initial eacm
which
stands for Edgar Allan Ching Morante and the initial of one of the
stenographers
of Branch 275 which reads, cgl appeared at the left bottom portion of
the
last page of the unsigned order (Exhibit “B-5,” p. 131, Rollo).
The
stenographer with cgl initial appeared to be the favorite stenographer
of Judge Maceda as shown by the fact that all the orders that the judge
issued which were marked as Exhibits “H” to “H-23,” only Exhibit “H-22”
did not bear said initial. The initial of the respondent eacm
that
appeared in the unsigned order is a mute but a very persuasive and
convincing
witness that, indeed, the unsigned order was prepared by him
(respondent)
and, he was the one who gave it to Olavere in exchange of the Fifty
Thousand
(P50,000.00) Pesos. Moreover, the signed order except for two or
three significant paragraphs was bodily lifted from the unsigned
order.
The signed order also bore the initial (cgl) of the same stenographer
at
the bottom of the last page and of the respondent below the typewritten
name, BONIFACIO SANZ MACEDA (TSN, p. 6, Nov. 8, 2002)….[62]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The respondent foisted
on the Court a tattle-tale when he claimed that the records of Criminal
Case No. 00-0117 had been in the chambers of Judge Maceda from July to
August 2001 and, as such, it was physically impossible for him to have
prepared the unsigned order and later gave it to Olavere. The
respondent
failed to adduce any documentary evidence to prove that Judge Maceda
received
the records of said case from Macaldo or from the respondent before
August
28, 2001. The respondent should have adduced in evidence the
record
book of Branch 275 showing when the records were transmitted to Judge
Maceda.
It behooved the respondent to have presented Judge Maceda as a witness
to corroborate his claim that the records were in the chambers of the
Judge
from July 3, 2001 up to August 28, 2001. The respondent could
have
elicited from Judge Maceda that he kept the records of said criminal
case
in his chambers during the said period. Judge Maceda could have
identified
the person who prepared the draft of the signed order which he
corrected
before he signed the same on August 28, 2001. The respondent
failed
to do so. The respondent’s culpability became more evident
when he was confronted by the Investigating Justice with the unsigned
order.
The Investigating Justice noticed that the respondent blushed and
started
to stammer when the latter answered clarificatory questions.[63]
A reading of both the
unsigned order[64]
and the signed order[65]
reveals that there can be no other conclusion than that the two orders
were prepared by one and the same person using the same typewriter, and
the records of Criminal Case No. 00-0117. As gleaned from the
encompassing
Report of the Investigating Justice:
… When respondent was
confronted with the two (2) orders – unsigned and signed – with his
initials
in both and, asked whether he noticed that the 2nd par. of page 2 of
the
signed order was verbatimly copied from the 3rd par., p. 1 of the
unsigned
order, respondent blushed and started to stammer in answering further
questions.cralaw:red
A careful examination
of the two (2) orders would show that par. 2, p. 1 of the unsigned
order
is the same as par. 1, p. 3 of the signed order; par. 1, p. 3 of the
unsigned
order is the same as par. 2, p. 3 of the signed order except that the
cited
authority in the unsigned order reads Luspo vs. Mogue, while in the
signed
order the authority cited reads, Crespo vs. Mogul, 151 SCRA 462.
The cited authority which reads Luspo vs. Mogue can be concocted only
by
a devious mind. Par. 2, p. 3 to p. 4, of the unsigned order is
similar
to par. 1, p. 2 of the signed order; and, the last paragraphs of both
the
unsigned and signed orders are the same.cralaw:red
The respondent resorted
to twisting the testimony of Olavere to prove his claim that the latter
pocketed the P50,000 intended for the respondent.cralaw:red
When asked by counsel
for the respondent if it was possible that he, Olavere, did not give
the
P50,000, Olavere testified it was possible, but insisted that he gave
the
same to the respondent:
ATTY. MORALES-PADUA:
Q: And then
you reported to Mr. Momma that the amount of P50,000.00 was received by
Mr. Morante?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A:
Of course.cralaw:red
Q: He takes
(sic) your word for it?
A:
Yes.cralaw:red
Q: It is
possible that you did not give it to Mr. Morante? You just told
Mr.
Momma that you gave it to Mr. Morante. Is that not possible?
A:
It is possible, but I gave it to Mr. Morante.cralaw:red
Q: And it
is also possible that you pocketed the money?
A:
That is impossible, I will not do that.cralaw:red
Q: It is
possible.cralaw:red
A:
I will not do that to my boss.cralaw:red
Q: When
you alleged you gave the money to Atty. Morante, you did notify the NBI?
A:
After I gave the money, I went directly to the NBI and reported what
happened
during the exchange of unsigned decision.cralaw:red
Q: We are
talking about the P50,000.00?
A:
Yes.cralaw:red
Q: You did
not go to the NBI before you gave the money to entrap Atty. Morante?
COURT:
Before you gave the money, you did not go to the NBI?
That is the question.cralaw:red
Q: The P50,000.00?
A:
I am coordinating my every move with the Chief of SAU. That
includes
the P50,000.00 we were supposed to give in exchange for the unsigned
decision.cralaw:red
COURT:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
When you say SAU. What do you mean by that?
WITNESS:
Special Action Unit.cralaw:red
COURT:
Of what?
WITNESS:
Of the NBI.cralaw:red
Q: So before
you allegedly gave the P50,000.00 to Atty. Morante, you informed the
NBI?
A:
Yes, they knew of my every move.[66]
When Olavere saw the
NBI agents on August 27, 2001 as claimed by Toledo about the denial of
the respondent for P250,000 in consideration of an unsigned order is
not
of such importance. Olavere went to the NBI on said date and
executed
an affidavit-complaint against the respondent and filed the same to the
NBI. Olavere closely coordinated all their moves with the NBI,
including
the giving of P50,000 for the unsigned order:
Q
When you alleged you gave the money to Atty. Morante, you did notify
the
NBI?
A
After I gave the money, I went directly to the NBI and reported what
happened
during the exchange of unsigned decision.cralaw:red
Q
We are talking about the P50,000.00?
A
Yes.cralaw:red
Q
You did not go to the NBI before you gave the money to entrap Atty.
Morante?
COURT:
Before you gave the money, you did not go to the NBI?
That is the question.cralaw:red
Q
The P50,000.00?
A
I am coordinating my every move with the Chief of SAU. That includes
the
P50,000.00 we were supposed to give in exchange for the unsigned
decision.cralaw:red
Q
When you say SAU, what do you mean by that?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A
Special Action Unit.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q
Of what?
A
Of the NBI.cralaw:red
Q
So before you allegedly gave the P50,000.00 to Atty. Morante, you
informed
the NBI?
A
Yes, they knew of my every move.[67]
Indeed, immediately
after receiving the unsigned order from the respondent on August 28,
2001,
Olavere gave the unsigned order to the NBI as evidence against the
respondent.
The culpability of the respondent is, likewise, evidenced by his
failure
to follow procedure when he made arrangements with Olavere to release
the
order signed by Judge Maceda himself. As ruled by the
Investigating
Justice:
Respondent violated
procedure when he personally released the signed order to
Olavere.
According to Ms. Macaldo, the release of the order should have been
made
by the court where it was filed. Since the Momma case was filed
with
Branch 255 and the pending incidents were resolved by Judge Maceda only
as a pair judge, the order should be released by the staff of Branch
255.
This procedure was followed in all cases with pending incidents from
Branch
255 that were resolved by Judge Maceda, except the Momma case.[68]
Anent the second and
third issues, we agree with the findings of the Investigating Justice
in
his Report that the complainant was able to adduce substantial evidence
to prove that the respondent promised to Olavere and agreed to give and
did give and actually gave to the latter on August 31, 2001 a certified
copy of the August 28, 2001 Order already signed by Judge Maceda after
receiving the brown envelope containing the P200,000 from
Olavere.
In his affidavit-sworn statement on August 31, 2001 Olavere declared,
thus:
T
Pagkatapos na maibigay mo ang P50,000 noong August 28, 2001 kapalit ang
walang pirmang desisyon, anong nangyari?
S
Nakipagset ng schedule si ATTY. MORANTE na ibibigay niya ang pirmadong
desisyon kapalit ng P200,000 sa
biyernes,
August 31, 2001.cralaw:red
T
Ano ang sumunod na pangyayari?
S
Ngayon araw na ito, August 31, 2001, bandang alas-onse y medya ng umaga
(11:30 AM) ay nagpunta ako sa opisina ni ATTY. MORANTE.cralaw:red
T
Ano naman ang ginawa mo sa opisina ni ATTY. MORANTE?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
S
Ayon sa usapan ay kinuha ko ang pirmadong desisyon ni Judge BONIFACIO
SANZ
MACEDA kapalit ng P200,000. Tinanggap niya ang pera na nasa loob
ng envelop at ipinatong sa ibabaw ng kanyang mesa. (Affiant
submits
Order of Judge BONIFACIO SANZ MACEDA dated August 29, 2001 marked as
Annexes
“A” to “A-3”)
T
Ano ang sumunod dito?
S
Dumating na ang mga taga-NBI at hinuli si ATTY. MORANTE.cralaw:red
T
May ipapakita ako sa iyong tao, kilala mo ba siya?
S
Opo, siya po si ATTY. ALLAN MORANTE ang Branch Clerk of Court ng Branch
275, RTC, Las Piñas City, na tumanggap ng P200,000 nasa loob ng
envelope.cralaw:red
T
Pansamantala ay wala na muna akong nais na itanong pa sa inyo, mayroon
ba kayong nais na idagdag o ibawas dito sa inyong salaysay?
S
Wala po.[69]
To the clarificatory
questions of the Investigating Justice, Olavere replied, viz:
Q
When you went inside the room, there is (sic) a door?
COURT
Door to the office?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q
Door to the office of Atty. Morante from the outside? There must
be a door.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A
Yes, of course.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q
The door was not locked.cralaw:red
A
Presumably it was not locked.cralaw:red
Q
You did not lock it when you enter (sic)?
A
No.cralaw:red
Q
Then you went to the office of Mr. Morante?
A
Yes, he led me inside.cralaw:red
Q
Then according to you, you got the signed copy of the decision given to
you allegedly by Atty. Morante?
A
After the exchange of the money.cralaw:red
Q
Then you got the money from your back contained in an envelope, and you
gave it to Atty. Morante?
A
I handed it to him.cralaw:red
Q
He got it and then placed it in (sic) the table. That is the
statement
that you swore and I quote: “Tinanggap niya ang pera na nasa loob ng
envelope
at ipinatong sa ibabaw ng kanyang mesa.” He did not hide it in
his
drawer. He did not pocket it. And after receiving the
money,
he placed it there on top of the table. And you swore to that
statement?
A
Yes.cralaw:red
Q
When was the money given to you by the NBI? We are referring to
the
P200,000.00. Who gave to (sic) you the money?
A
Mr. Momma gave the money.cralaw:red
Q
Did you give it to the NBI?
A
I showed it to them and then they had it dusted for (sic) fluorescent
powder.
All the proceedings were done with proper paper works. And I had
the money with me and I went to Las Pinas.cralaw:red
Q
When you handed the money contained in an envelope, you know that it
was
already dusted for (sic) fluorescent powder and everything in order to
show…?
A
Yes.[70]
Respondent belabored
on the evidence on record that after the entrapment operation in the
office
of the respondent, the dorsal and palmar aspects of his left and right
hand were subjected to ultraviolet light test and were found negative
for
fluorescent powder. However, the result of the test does not
enfeeble
the case for the complainant. In the first place, the absence of
fluorescent powder on the dorsal and palmar aspects of the respondent’s
hands is not conclusive evidence that he did not hold the brown
envelope
at all before the NBI agents arrived in his office. The evidence
on record shows that the NBI agents referred the white mailing envelope
with the P1,000 bills to the NBI Forensic Chemist Section for the
application
of fluorescent powder.[71]
The said bills and the white mailing envelope were dusted with
fluorescent
powder. However, the NBI agents discovered that the white mailing
envelope was too small to contain bundles of bills amounting to
P200,000,
and placed the bundles of bills in a 6x8-inch size brown envelope,
which,
however, was no longer dusted with fluorescent powder. After
receiving
the envelope from Olavere, the respondent placed it on top of his
table.
Had the respondent opened the envelope containing the four P1,000 bills
dusted with fluorescent powder, for sure, the palmar aspects of his
hand
would have tested positive for fluorescent powder.cralaw:red
The respondent claimed
that one of the NBI agents who barged into his room took hold of the
brown
envelope, removed the seal and opened it in front of him, and that the
said agent grabbed his right hand and attempted to place it inside the
envelope, but was foiled when stenographer Leticia B. Agbayani entered
the room and shouted, “What’s happening here?” (Anong nangyayari dito?)
to which the respondent replied, “Entrapment daw.”[72]
The claim of the respondent is belied by his testimony that before
Agbayani’s
arrival, an NBI agent had already taken the money from the brown
envelope
and placed the bundles of money on top of his table. Thus, when
Agbayani
barged into the respondent’s room, Agbayani must have seen the bundles
of money on his table. In her affidavit,[73]
she stated that when she barged into the respondent’s room after the
NBI
had gained entry, she asked the respondent, “Alam mo ba kung anong
laman
niyan?” to which the respondent replied, “Hindi,” does not bolster the
respondent’s defense, but on the contrary, weakens the same. It
is
incredible that the respondent would respond that “he did not know what
was contained in the envelope,” when, according to his testimony,
Agbayani
barged into the room and the bundles of P200,000 had already been taken
out of the envelope and were placed on his table. The
respondent
even failed to identify the NBI agent who filed an administrative or
criminal
charge against him for attempting to falsely implicate the respondent.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Apart from the presumption
that the NBI agents performed their duties in accordance with law, the
bare statement of the respondent cannot prevail, especially since Leon
Matienzo, the principal witness, whose testimony the respondent
principally
relied on to corroborate his, was found by the Investigating Justice
incredible.
We agree with the following disquisition of the Investigating Justice
in
his Report to the Court:
To corroborate respondent’s
defense that he did not received (sic) the money inside the bulky brown
envelope, another tutored and perjured witness in the person of Leon
Matienzo
was presented.cralaw:red
Leon Matienzo admitted
that his affidavit was prepared by Atty. Cayton, counsel for the
respondent.
Witness was not sure whether his affidavit was prepared in August or
September
2001. When the witness finally decided that his affidavit was
prepared
September 2001, on a Monday after talking to Atty. Morante, yet he
cannot
remember the date. The witness was warned not to talk to anybody
while still testifying (TSN, pp. 22-23, July 22, 2001). The
witness
was even ambivalent when asked as to the time his affidavit was
prepared
(TSN, p. 24, Ibid.) which is a proof that he was tutored and was just
asked
to sign it.cralaw:red
Witness Matienzo is
the Process Server of Branch 254. He claimed that at about 11:30
o’clock in the morning on August 31, 2001, he went inside the office of
the respondent to inform him that they were able to get a schedule for
their civil service examinations. Almost simultaneous with his
arrival
in said office, he heard Atty. Morante asked (sic) the person he was
talking
to, “ano yan?” He asked to be excused and told the respondent,
“boss
ipapaalam ko lang na nakapagpa-schedule na kami para sa civil service
examination”
and, he (Morante) answered, “Okay.” And he asked permission to leave.cralaw:red
The role assigned to
Matienzo in the defense of respondent was just to say/testify that he
heard
Atty. Morante asked (sic), “ano yan?” and, nothing more. The
witness
is the Process Server of Branch 254 presided by Judge Fernandez, the
Executive
Judge. According to him, he was already permitted by the
Executive
Judge and the Branch Clerk of Court to take the civil service
examination.
Why then would he still go to the office of Atty. Morante, who was not
his superior, on the fateful day of August 31, 2001 just to inform him
that he had a scheduled civil service examination?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Hereunder are portions
of the testimony of the witness that would show the limited role
assigned
to the witness in respondent’s defense:
Q
What was the reaction of the person who was inside (the office) when
Atty.
Morante say (sic), “ano yan?”
A
Nakatingin po sa kanya, sir.cralaw:red
Q
He did not react?
A
Hindi ho kasi mabilis lang po ako doon, eh. Nang sabihin po
nag-excuse
na po ako.cralaw:red
Q
Why were you in a hurry to leave the place when at that point, Atty.
Morante
was already asking, what was that?
A
Dahil sa nag-excuse po ako, sir. Excuse me, sir, sabi ko sa kanya
at sa kanyang kausap, me sasabihin lang po ako (TSN, p. 32, July 22,
2002).cralaw:red
Q
Now, are you sure that what you heard was, ano yan?
A
Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q
Nothing else?
A
Nothing else, sir. (TSN, p. 35, Ibid.)chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The witness cannot even
remember the date when the affidavit was prepared, the day he signed it
and, the date when it was subscribed before a person authorized to
administer
oath. These only show that all the facts stated therein were
supplied
by counsel to corroborate the testimony of the respondent.[74]
The case for the complainant
is not enfeebled by the affidavit of Olavere dated December 5, 2002
where
he retracted his sworn statement, the supplemental sworn statement to
the
NBI and his testimony before the Investigating Justice; and desisted
from
being a witness against the respondent on his claim that “the
statements
therein are not only hearsay but were brought about by grave mistake
and
misapprehension of fact and any lack of knowledge of court procedures;”[75]
nor by the affidavit of desistance executed by Momma on his claim that:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
3. However, the said
statement was merely provided by my interpreter, which is turned out
and
was later on discovered, was a result or was brought about by mistake
and
grave misapprehension of facts and his lack of knowledge of court
procedure,
Atty. Morante did not request nor received money directly from me to
have
the said case dismissed and I have never met him in my life;[76]
First. In People
v. Ballabare,[77]
we held that a retraction of a witness does not necessarily negate an
original
testimony. For this reason, the Court looks with disfavor upon
such
retractions because testimonies can easily be obtained from witnesses
through
intimidation or for monetary consideration. Moreover, any
reconsideration
must be tested in a public trial, with sufficient opportunity given to
the adverse party affected by it to cross-examine the recanting
witness.
Hence, when confronted with a situation where a witness recants his
testimony,
courts must not automatically exclude the original testimony solely on
the basis of recantation. They should determine which testimony
should
be given credence through a comparison of the original testimony and
the
new testimony, applying the general rules of evidence.[78]
We have also held that it is absurd to disregard a testimony that has
undergone
trial and scrutiny by the Court and the parties simply because an
affiant
withdraws his testimony. Olavere and Momma executed their
affidavits
only after the formal investigation had been concluded and the case
submitted
for report and recommendation by the Investigating Justice.cralaw:red
Second. The respondent
failed to file a motion for the reopening of the investigation to
enable
him to present Olavere and Momma to testify on their affidavits to
prevent
the Investigating Justice and the Court Administrator, which were not
even
furnished with copies of said affidavits, from conducting examination
of
Olavere and Momma on their affidavits.cralaw:red
Third. Olavere
had personal knowledge of the facts contained in his sworn statement,
supplemental
sworn statement and his testimony and, hence, the said statement and
testimony
are not hearsay. Olavere dealt personally with the respondent,
gave
him the total amount of P250,000 after receiving the unsigned and
signed
orders from the respondent.cralaw:red
Fourth. Olavere
and Momma did not explain their affidavits why it took them until
December
11, 2002 or after the lapse of more than a year from the entrapment of
the respondent on August 31, 2001 to execute the same. It is
incredible
that it took Olavere more than one year to realize that the facts
contained
in his sworn statement and as testified to by him were hearsay and of
his
lack of knowledge of procedure. Being a mere secretary and a
functionary
of Momma, Olavere has not explained how he came to the conclusion that
his sworn statement and testimony are “hearsay.”
Fifth. The desistance
of witnesses does not automatically result in the dismissal of an
administrative
case. This Court, in fact, looks with disfavor at
affidavits
of desistance filed by complainants, especially if done as an
afterthought.
Contrary to the submission of the respondent, the withdrawal of the
complaint
on the recantation of Olavere does not have the legal effect of
exonerating
him from any administrative disciplinary actions for acts/omissions
meriting
disciplinary sanctions by the respondent. It does not operate to divest
this Court of jurisdiction to determine the truth behind the matter
stated
in the complaint. The Court’s disciplinary authority cannot be
dependent
on or frustrated by private arrangements between parties. An
administrative
complaint against an official or employee of the judiciary cannot
simply
be withdrawn by a complainant who suddenly claims a change of mind.[79]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On the last issue, we
agree with the Investigating Justice that the respondent, based on the
substantial evidence on record, is guilty of grave and serious
misconduct:
for extorting P50,000 from Momma through Olavere for the unsigned
order,
and another P200,000 for the order duly signed by Judge Maceda.
Such
abominable acts of the respondent warrant his dismissal from the
service
and the imposition of accessory penalties therefor.[80]
The Court condemns and
would never countenance any conduct, act or omission on the part of all
those involved in the administration of justice which would violate the
norm of public accountability and diminish or even just tend to
diminish
the faith of the people in the Judiciary.[81]
Time and again this
Court has stressed that those involved in the administration of justice
must conduct themselves in a manner that is beyond reproach since their
office is circumscribed with a heavy burden of responsibility.[82]
Public office is a public trust. No position demands greater
moral
righteousness and uprightness from its occupant than does the judicial
office. Clerks of court, in particular, being the chief
administrative
officers of their respective courts, must be individuals of competence,
honesty and probity, charged as they are with safeguarding the
integrity
of the court and its proceedings.[83]
As essential and ranking officers of our judicial system, they perform
delicate administrative functions vital to the prompt and proper
administration
of justice.[84]
Clerks of court serve as an exemplar for other court employees, whose
duties
and responsibilities must be strictly performed. They play a key
role in the complement of the court and cannot be permitted to slacken
on the job under one pretext or another.[85]
Furthermore, it must
be stressed that a member of the Bar who assumes public office does not
shed his professional obligations. The Code of Professional
Responsibility
was not meant to govern the conduct of private practitioners alone, but
of all lawyers, including those in government service.[86]
Lawyers is government are public servants who owe utmost fidelity to
the
public service. Thus, they should be more sensitive in the
performance
of their professional obligations, as their conduct is subject to the
ever-constant
scrutiny of the public.[87]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Under A.M. No. 02-9-02-SC[88]
Re: Automatic Conversion of Some Administrative Cases Against Justices
of the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan; Judges of Regular and
Special
Courts; and Court Officials Who are Lawyers as Disciplinary Proceedings
Against Them Both as Such Officials and as Members of the Philippine
Bar,[89]
which took effect on October 1, 2002, the respondent would have been
required
to “comment on the complaint and to show cause why he should not also
be
suspended, disbarred or otherwise disciplinarily sanctioned as a
member of the bar.” However, the complaint was filed before this
Court on September 21, 2001, long before the said resolution took
effect.
Thus, it cannot be applied in the instant case.[90]
WHEREFORE, in view of
the foregoing, respondent Atty. Edgar Allan C. Morante, Clerk of Court,
Regional Trial Court, Las Piñas City, Branch 275, having been
found
GUILTY of grave and serious misconduct, is DISMISSED from the service
effective
immediately, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits, except accrued
leave credits, with prejudice to his reemployment in any branch or
instrumentality
in the government, including government-owned and controlled
corporations.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno,
Vitug, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez,
Carpio,
Austria-Martinez, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., Azcuna, and Tinga, JJ.,
concur.
Corona, J., on leave.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo, p. 116.
[2]
Id. at 117.
[3]
Id.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Id. at 188.
[5]
Id. at 114.
[6]
Office of the Court Administrator v. Branch Clerk of Court Edgar Allan
Morante, RTC, Las Piñas City, Branch 275.
[7]
Rollo, p. 240.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
The parties agreed that the affidavits of the witnesses for the
complainant
and those of the respondent and his witnesses shall serve as the
testimonies
of said witnesses and the respondent, respectively, on direct
examination
subject to the cross-examination by the adverse party.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
The complainant presented Jose Olavere, NBI Agents Marlon Toledo,
Joselita
Macaldo and Forensic Chemist Felicisima Francisco.
[10]
CA-G.R. SP No. 63849.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]
Rollo, p. 155.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[12]
Id. at 154.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[13]
Exhibit “E.”
[14]
Exhibit “B,” Rollo, p. 126.
[15]
Exhibit “A.”
[16]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[17]
Exhibits “F-1” to “F-4.”
[18]
Exhibit “F.”
[19]
Exhibit “C.”
[20]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[21]
Exhibit “I.”
[22]
Exhibit “A.”
[23]
Rollo, p. 237.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[24]
Otherwise known as the Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
[25]
Exhibit “10.”chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[26]
Exhibit “11.”chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[27]
The following submitted their respective affidavits: (1) Roberto
Galing,
Sheriff of RTC, Branch 255; (2) Leon Matienzo, Process Server of Branch
254; (3) Leticia B. Agbayani, Court Stenographer and the OIC of RTC,
Branch
275; (4) Josefino Ortiz; (5) Zardi Melito D. Abellera, City Legal
Officer;
and (6) Edgardo Villar, Clerk III of RTC, Branch 275. Respondent
Edgar Allan Morante submitted a counter-affidavit (Exh. “10”) and a
Rejoinder
(Exhibit “11”).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[28]
Rollo, pp. 145-146.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[29]
Id. at 146.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[30]
Id.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[31]
TSN, 29 July 2002, p. 7.
[32]
Rollo, p. 147.
[33]
TSN, 12 August 2002, p. 5.
[34]
TSN, 29 July 2002, p. 11.
[35]
Rollo, p. 148.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[36]
TSN, 22 July 2002, p. 14.
[37]
Supra at note 29.
[38]
Id. at 148.
[39]
Rollo, p. 203.
[40]
Ibid.
[41]
Id. at 149.
[42]
Id.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[43]
Id.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[44]
Id.; TSN, 22 July 2002, p. 42.
[45]
TSN, 22 July 2002, pp. 43-44.
[46]
Id. at 150.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[47]
Id.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[48]
Supra at note 26.
[49]
TSN, 29 July 2002, p. 16.
[50]
A.M. No. RTJ-01-1631, August 14, 2003.
[51]
359 SCRA 426 (2001).
[52]
Exhibit “E.”
[53]
TSN, 2 April 2002, pp. 33-34.
[54]
Exhibit “B.”
[55]
Rollo, p. 125.
[56]
TSN, 2 April 2002, p. 14.
[57]
Id. at 19.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[58]
97 Phil. 515 (1955).
[59]
People v. Campaner, 336 SCRA 439 (2000).
[60]
288 SCRA 346 (1998).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[61]
Exhibit “B.”chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[62]
Report and Recommendation, p. 30.
[63]
Report and Recommendation, p. 30.
[64]
Exhibit “B.”chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[65]
Exhibit “C.”
[66]
TSN, 2 April 2002, pp. 16-18 (Italics supplied).
[67]
Id. at 17-18.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[68]
Report and Recommendation, p. 36.
[69]
Exhibit “H-1,” Rollo, p. 134.
[70]
TSN, 2 April 2002, pp. 24-26.
[71]
Exhibits “F” to “F-4.”chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[72]
Exhibit “10,” Rollo, p. 149.
[73]
Exhibit “5,” Id. at 205.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[74]
Report and Recommendation, pp. 32-34.
[75]
Rollo, p. 341.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[76]
Id. at 342.
[77]
332 Phil. 384 (1996).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[78]
Citing Reano v. Court of Appeals, 165 SCRA 525 (1988).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[79]
See Punzalan v. Plata, 372 SCRA 534 (2001) and Guray v. Bautista, 360
SCRA
489 (2001).
[80]
Huggland v. Judge Lantin, 383 Phil. 516 (2000).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[81]
Pizarro v. Villegas, 345 SCRA 42 (2000).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[82]
Gacho v. Fuentes, Jr., 291 SCRA 474 (1998); Sy v. Academia, 198 SCRA
705
(1991); Tan v. Herras, 195 SCRA 1 (1991).
[83]
Rangel-Roque v. Rivota, 302 SCRA 509 (1999); Re: Memo dated September
27,
1999 of Ma. Corazon M. Molo, Officer-in-Charge, Office of the Court
Admnistrator,
A.M. SCC-00-6-P, October 16, 2003; Gutierrez v. Quitalig, A.M. No.
P-02-1545,
April 2, 2003.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[84]
Reyes-Domingo v. Morales, 342 SCRA 6 (2000).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[85]
Noel G. Wabe v. Luisita P. Bionson, A.M. No. P-03-1760, December 30,
2003.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[86]
Canon 6. – These Canons shall apply to lawyers in government service in
the discharge of their official tasks.
[87]
Atty. Julito Vitriolo, et al. v. Atty. Felina Dasig, A.C. No. 4984,
April
1, 2003.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[88]
Dated September 17, 2002, entitled Re: Automatic Conversion of Some
Administrative
Cases Against Justices of the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan;
Judges
of Regular and Special Courts; and Court Officials Who are
Lawyers
as Disciplinary Proceedings Against Them Both as Such Officials and as
Members of the Philippine Bar.
[89]
The full text of the said resolution is as follows:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Some
administrative cases against Justices of the Court of Appeals and the
Sandiganbayan;
judges of regular and special courts; and court officials who are
lawyers
are based on grounds which are likewise grounds for the disciplinary
action
of members of the Bar for violation of the Lawyer’s Oath, the Code of
Professional
Responsibility, and the Canons of Professional Ethics, or for such
other
forms of breaches of conduct that have been traditionally recognized as
grounds for the discipline of lawyers.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In any of the foregoing instances, the administrative case shall also
be
considered a disciplinary action against the respondent Justice, judge
or court official concerned as a member of the Bar. Judgement in both
respects
may be incorporated in one decision or resolution.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
This Resolution shall supplement Rule 140 of the Rules of Court and
shall
take effect on the first day of October 2002. It shall also apply to
administrative
cases already filed where the respondents have not yet been required to
comment on the complaints (Emphasis supplied).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[90]
Please see Heinz R. Heck v. Judge Anthony E. Santos, RTJ-01-1657,
February
23. 2004. |