EN BANC
PNP
SUPT. DARLITO
A. GONZALO, DINALUPIHAN,
BATAAN,
Complainant,
A.M.
No. P-02-1662
July 28, 2004
-versus-
VIRGILIO
P.
MEJIA,
CLERK OF COURT, MUNICIPAL
CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT,DINALUPIHAN-HERMOSA,
BATAAN,
Respondent.
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
D E C I S I O N
PER
CURIAM:
In his Letter-Complaint
dated June 19, 2000, P/Supt. Darlito A. Gonzalo, Chief of Police of
Dinalupihan,
Bataan, charged Virgilio P. Mejia, Clerk of Court, Municipal Circuit
Trial
Court (MCTC), Dinalupihan-Hermosa, Bataan, herein respondent, with
bribery
and usurpation of judicial functions.[1]
Complainant alleged
that Norberto P. Brigeles, Crisanto P. Brigeles, Eugenio dela Cruz and
Narciso B. Harpon were all detained at the Dinalupihan Municipal Police
Station for the charge of direct assault upon a person in
authority.
The case was pending before the MCTC, Dinalupihan-Hermosa,
Bataan.
On June 2, 2000, their relatives approached Paulino Vitug, Liaison
Officer
of the Office of the Mayor of Dinalupihan, asking his help for the
release
of the detainees. That same day, Paulino talked to respondent Clerk of
Court. The latter promised to help, but for a monetary
consideration.
Paulino told respondent that the detainees are poor but that he will
try
to raise money. That same day, respondent, taking advantage of the
absence
of then Presiding Judge Reynaldo B. Bellosillo, prepared a handwritten
letter addressed to complainant Chief of Police Gonzalo, which reads:chanrobles virtual law library
“MCTC,
Dinalupihan,
Bataan
June 2, 2000
To: Col. D.A.
Gonzalo
Chief of Police
Dinalupihan Police Station
Request your
office
to release the following persons who are detained, to wit:
1.
NORBERTO P. BRIGELESchanrobles virtual law library
2.
CRISANTO P. BRIGELESchanrobles virtual law library
3.
EUGENIO DELA CRUZchanrobles virtual law library
4.
NARCISO B. HARPONchanrobles virtual law library
Considering that
the complainant,
Renato Montemayor, has filed his Pag-uurong ng Reklamo, you are hereby
directed to release the aforementioned accused without any
responsibility
on your part. (Sgd.)
VIRGILIO P. MEJIA
Clerk of Court”[2]
and another typewritten
letter, also addressed to complainant, stating:
“Republic
of the
Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Third Judicial
Region
Municipal Circuit
Trial
Court
Dinalupihan-Hermosa
Dinalupihan,
Bataan
To: Col.
Darlito Agdagdag
Gonzalo
Chief of Police
Dinalupihan Police Station
Dinalupihan, Bataan
In view of the
loss
of interest of the principal complainant, RENATO S. MONTEMAYOR, to file
the case of Direct Assault of an Agent in Authority, based on his
‘PAG-UURONG NANG REKLAMO,’ you are hereby directed to release the
following
detained persons, to wit:
1.
NORBERTO
P. BRIGELESchanrobles virtual law library
2. CRISANTO
P. BRIGELESchanrobles virtual law library
3. EUGENIO
DELA CRUZchanrobles virtual law library
4. NARCISO
B. HARPONchanrobles virtual law library
This Order is
directed
to you without any responsibility on your part.
June 2, 2000,
Dinalupihan,
Bataan. (Sgd.)
VIRGILIO P. MEJIA
Clerk of Court”[3]
Respondent personally
handed
these letters to complainant at the latter’s office.
That same day, the detainees were released.
On June 7, 2000, Paulino
informed complainant that he had raised one thousand (P1,000.00)
pesos. Immediately, complainant organized a team of
policemen
to entrap respondent and had the money, consisting of ten P100.00
bills,
marked. At noontime of the same day, after having lunch
with
respondent at the canteen located behind the Dinalupihan Municipal
building,
Paulino gave him the money. Immediately, policemen Vedasto
Malit, Ricardo Guevarra and Ernesto Silva arrested the
respondent.
Confiscated from him were marked money consisting of P100.00 bills with
serial numbers BU534735, HG999434, EX764858, WN596061, FZ891290,
CY583491,
GD463840, JA771363, YT836633, and ZB697380, in the total amount of
P1,000.00.[4]
Consequently, the police officers filed with the Office of the
Provincial
Prosecutor, a complaint for robbery/extortion against respondent,
docketed
as I.S. No. 00-658.cralaw:red
On June 7, 2002, then
Acting Court Administrator Jose P. Perez directed respondent to comment
on the instant letter-complaint.cralaw:red
In his Comment,[5]
respondent stated that he could not be held administratively liable for
bribery. He explained that earlier, the Office of the
Provincial
Prosecutor of Bataan dismissed the criminal complaint in I.S. No.
00-658
for insufficiency of evidence, as shown by a copy of the Resolution
dated
August 22, 2000 issued by Prosecutor Oscar M. Lasam.[6]
(In the same Resolution, however, Prosecutor Lasam recommended that
respondent
be prosecuted for estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2[a] of the
Revised
Penal Code for falsely pretending to possess power in ordering the
release
of the accused).chanrobles virtual law library
Respondent denied having
usurped judicial functions, claiming that his handwritten and
typewritten
notes, both dated June 2, 2000, directing complainant to release the
four
accused “were forcibly made and prepared at complainant’s
instigation.”
The typewritten note “was prepared by complainant himself or ordered
one
of his men to type it.” Then complainant went personally to his
(respondent’s)
office at the MCTC and forced him to sign it at once despite his
request
to study it first. Thereafter, complainant left but “came back after
several
minutes and forced him to write in his own handwriting the same
typewritten
note.” According to complainant, this is required in order
that the accused may be released and that “the bribe money (for the
boys)
in the amount of P5,000.00 was already in the hands of Paulino Q.
Vitug.”
Respondent ended his
comment by claiming that complainant’s charges are all fabricated and
that
the entrapment conducted against him was “orchestrated by complainant
for
he was interested in the bribe money.”[7]
On November 20, 2002,
we issued a Resolution directing that: (a) the complaint be re-docketed
as a regular administrative matter; (b) the case be referred to
Executive
Judge Jose Ener S. Fernando, Regional Trial Court, Dinalupihan, Bataan
for investigation, report and recommendation; and (c) pending the
investigation
of the complaint, respondent be placed under preventive suspension
effective
from notice until further orders from the Court.[8]chanrobles virtual law library
After conducting an
investigation, Executive Judge Fernando submitted his Final Report and
Recommendation dated March 24, 2003. He found that
respondent
voluntarily wrote and typed the two letters in question and that he
demanded
and received money from Paulino Vitug in exchange for the release of
the
four detainees. Accordingly, the Investigating Judge recommended that
respondent
be dismissed from the service.cralaw:red
On June 20, 2003, the
Court Administrator submitted his Evaluation Report adopting the
findings
and recommendation of Executive Judge Fernando.cralaw:red
We sustain the findings
and recommendation of both the Investigating Judge and the Court
Administrator.
Indeed, respondent usurped the function of a judge by directing
complainant
to release the four detainees from confinement. In exchange
for their release, respondent demanded and received from Paulino Vitug
P1,000.00. We quote the pertinent findings of the
Investigating
Judge:
“x
x x
“Respondent, a Clerk
of Court of MCTC, Hermosa-Dinalupihan, Bataan, intervened, allegedly on
behalf of the policemen, in asking money from Paulino Vitug as a
consideration
for the release of the prisoners. It is an established fact
that the said prisoners were released primarily because of the notes he
wrote to Supt. Gonzalo of the Dinalupihan Police Station.
Without
any right nor authority to do so, he blatantly usurped judicial
authority.
Therefore, all elements of the offense (Sec. 3[b] of R.
A. 3019, as amended) are present.chanrobles virtual law library
"x
x x
“The allegation that
respondent was merely framed-up by the police deserves scant
consideration.cralaw:red
“Respondent alleged
that when he and Paulino Vitug met on June 7, 2000 in the canteen at
the
back of the municipal building, the latter tried to insert something in
his (respondent) pocket, which he brushed away. Before
this,
he noticed the policemen taking their pictures.cralaw:red
“If it were true that
Paulino Vitug tried to insert something in respondent’s pocket, his
initial
reaction would have been a surprise. Respondent obviously
knew
that it was the money he demanded/requested, allegedly on behalf of the
policemen, that was being inserted in his pocket. Hence, he
brushed it away since there were policemen taking his pictures (during
the entrapment).
“Respondent’s defense
of frame-up cannot override complainant’s testimony that the entrapment
was regularly performed. Instead of justifying his demand
for
money, respondent concentrated on destroying and discrediting the
testimony
of the complainant and his witnesses regarding the entrapment
operation.
In the absence of any controverting evidence, the testimonies of the
policemen
are given full faith and credence as they are presumed to have acted in
the regular performance of their official duties (Peligrino vs. People,
G.R. No. 136266, August 13, 2001, 362 SCRA 683, 705).”chanrobles virtual law library
As reported by the Court
Administrator:
“Respondent
ought to know that in issuing the handwritten and typewritten orders
directing
the complainant Chief of Police to release the four accused prisoners,
he is already usurping a function which rightfully belongs to a
judge.
Under the 2002 Revised Manual for Clerk of Court (Adjudicative Support
Functions of the Branch Clerk of Court, First Level Courts 1.3.1.4, p.
622) he can sign only ‘notices of orders and decisions for service to
the
parties, release papers of detained prisoners who are acquitted and/or
who filed their corresponding bail bonds duly approved by the presiding
judge.’ Nowhere in the said function can be inferred that
he
is allowed to issue an order of release or to direct a Chief of Police
to release an accused in custody. He is only allowed to
release
papers of detained prisoners who are acquitted but not to order their
release.
“Anent the
respondent’s
violation of R.
A. 3019, the undersigned shares with the observations and findings
of the Investigating Judge on the matter. He believes that
the herein respondent’s culpability for the said charge was
sufficiently
established during the investigation conducted on the
matter.”
The clerk of court is
an
essential and ranking officer of our judicial system as he performs
delicate
administrative functions vital to the prompt and proper administration
of justice.[9]
Owing to the delicate position he occupies in the judicial system, he
is
required to be a person of competence, honesty and
probity.
He is specifically imbued with the mandate of safeguarding the
integrity
of the court and its proceedings, to maintain loyalty thereto and to
the
judge as his superior officer, to preserve the authenticity and
correctness
of court records, and to uphold the trust and confidence of the public
in the administration of justice.[10]
Clearly, by committing
the acts subject of the present complaint, respondent utterly failed to
live up to the norms of conduct demanded of his
position.
His infractions adversely affect the dignity and honor of the courts
and
shake the people’s faith and trust in the judiciary. He has
veered away from the strict standard of integrity, uprightness and
honesty
in the public service. Obviously, he should suffer the consequences of
his acts.chanrobles virtual law library
There is usurpation
of judicial function when a person who is not a judge attempts to
perform
an act the authority for which the law has vested only upon a judge.[11]
In Escañan vs. Monterola II,[12]
we ruled that the clerk of court, unlike a judge, has no power to order
either the commitment or the release of persons charged with penal
offenses.
Thus, respondent, in ordering the release of the four prisoners, has
unduly
usurped the judicial prerogative of a judge. Such usurpation is
equivalent
to grave misconduct.[13]
Respondent committed
another grave misconduct when he demanded and received P1,000.00 from
Paulino
Vitug in exchange for the release of the prisoners.
In
Office of the Court Administrator vs. Diaz,[14]
we held that the fact that respondent clerk of court received money
from
litigants is enough basis for penalizing him for grave misconduct.chanrobles virtual law library
“Misconduct”
is defined as any unlawful conduct on the part of a person concerned in
the administration of justice prejudicial to the rights of parties or
to
the right determination of the cause.[15]
The term “grave” means “very serious; involving or resulting in serious
consequences: likely to produce real harm or damage.”[16]
Under Section 52, A(3),
Rule IV of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the
Civil
Service,[17]
grave misconduct is punishable by dismissal from the service.
WHEREFORE, we find VIRGILIO
P. MEJIA GUILTY of grave misconduct. He is hereby ordered DISMISSED
from
the service, with forfeiture of all benefits, excluding unused leave
credits,
and with prejudice to reemployment in the government service, including
government-owned or controlled corporation.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Davide, C.J., Puno,
Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio,
Austria-Martinez,
Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., Azcuna, Tinga, and Chico-Nazario, JJ.,
concur.
Corona, J., on leave.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo at 19-40.
[2]
Id. at 35.
[3]
Id. at 37.chanrobles virtual law library
[4]
Id. at 27-28, 32.
[5]
Id. at 76.chanrobles virtual law library
[6]
Annex “D” of Comment, id. at 84-87.
[7]
Comment, Rollo at 79.chanrobles virtual law library
[8]
Rollo at 96.chanrobles virtual law library
[9]
Elena F. Pace vs. Reno M. Leonardo, etc., A.M. No. P-03-1675, August 6,
2003; Report on Judicial Audit, RTC, Br.29 & 59, Toledo City, 354
Phil.
8 (1998), citing Juntilla vs. Calleja, 262 SCRA 291 (1996).chanrobles virtual law library
[10]
Id.; Marasigan vs. Buena, 348 Phil. 1 (1998); Reyes-Domingo vs.
Morales,
A.M. No. P-99-1285, October 4, 2000, 342 SCRA 6.
[11]
Elena F. Pace vs. Reno M. Leonardo, etc., supra.chanrobles virtual law library
[12]
A.M. No. P-99-1347, February 6, 2001, 351 SCRA 228, citing Biag vs.
Gubatanga,
318 SCRA 753 (1999).
[13]
Escañan vs. Monterola II, id.chanrobles virtual law library
[14]
A.M. No. P-93-794, February 18, 1999, 303 SCRA 243.chanrobles virtual law library
[15]
Executive Judge Leandro T. Loyao, Jr. vs. Mamerto J. Caube, Clerk
of Court II and Ricardo B. Quisadio, Court Interpreter II, A.M. No.
P-02-1599,
April 30, 2003, quoting Black’s Law Dictionary, Fourth Ed. at 1150.chanrobles virtual law library
[16]
Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, 1993 ed. at 992.chanrobles virtual law library
[17]
Promulgated by the Civil Service Commission (CSC) through Resolution
No.
99-1936 dated August 31, 1999 and implemented by CSC Memorandum
Circular
No. 19, series of 1999. |