ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[A.M. No. OCA IPI 01-1170-RTJ.August 22, 2001]

POSO vs. JUDGE MIJARES et al.

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated AUG 22 2001.

A.M. No. OCA IPI 01-1170-RTJ(Oscar M. Poso vs. Judge Jose H. Mijares, RTC-Br. 21, Laoang, Northern Samar and Flor Serio, OIC Clerk of Court, Office of the Clerk of Court.)

On 1 February 2001 the Office of the Ombudsman referred to this Court the Complaint-Affidavit of Oscar M. Poso charging respondent Judge Jose H. Mijares, RTC �Br. 21, Laoang, Northern Samar, with Knowingly Rendering an Unjust Judgment, Issuing Unjust Interlocutory Orders, Concealment of Documents and Commission of Acts punishable under Sec. 3, pars. (e) and (f), of RA 3019, as amended, otherwise known as The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

Specifically, complainant alleged that respondent Judge unjustly and to the prejudice of the People of the Philippines and the private complainants in Crim. Case No. 2477 entitled "People v. Virgilio de Guia," committed the following acts: (a) convicted the accused of homicide when the charge was for murder of which he should have been convicted; (b) acted favorably on 10 January 1996 on an unsigned Motion for Reconsideration filed by the accused for the reduction of the prison term imposed on him, i.e., from four (4) years two (2) months and one (1) day of prision correccional as minimum to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as maximum, to two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision correccional as minimum to six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as maximum, without notice to the handling Public Prosecutor Napoleon C. Lagrimas; (c) unjustly released the accused on the recognizance of OIC Clerk of Court, respondent Flor Serio, without notice and hearing on 11 January 1996; (d) gave due course to the application of the accused for probation in his Order dated 12 January 1996 without hearing and in violation of Sec. 9 of the Probation Law which provides that the benefits of the law do not extend to those sentenced to serve a maximum term of imprisonment of more than six (6) years; and, (e) barred the issuance of certified copies of the documents relative to Crim. Case No. 2477 requested by complainant for purposes of his appeal, in conspiracy with the OIC Clerk of Court, respondent Flor Serio. Complainant contended that respondent Judge thereby violated Sec. 3, pars. (e) and (f), of RA 3019 which provide that causing any undue injury to any party including the government or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference as well as neglecting or refusing, after due request and without sufficient justification, to act within a reasonable time on any matter pending for the purpose of discriminating against any interested party constitutes corrupt practices.

With respect to respondent Clerk of Court Flor Serio, complainant alleged that the latter unjustly refused, in violation of the aforesaid Sec. 3, par. (f), of RA 3019, to furnish him with certified copies of the following documents relative to Crim. Case No. 2477 which were requested for purposes of perfecting an appeal, to wit: (a) Information; (b) Pre-Trial Conference Order; (c) Sentence promulgated on 27 November 1995 finding the accused guilty of homicide; (d) Resolution dated 10 January 1996 acting on accused's Motion for Reconsideration praying for reduction of his penalty; and, (e) Order dated 12 January 1996 acting on accused's application for probation despite the penalty imposed, which exceeded six (6) years, and without notice and hearing. In support of his allegations, complainant attached to his Complaint-Affidavit, among others, copies of the Motion for Reconsideration dated 12 December 1995 filed by the accused praying for the reduction of his penalty ¹ Annex "C." as well as of respondent's questioned Resolution dated 10 January 1996 granting the same. ² Annex "D." Complainant apologized that he could not submit certified true copies thereof for reasons already stated in his Complaint-Affidavit.

On 11 April 2001 respondent Judge filed his Comment denying the charges leveled against him. In addition to justifying his orders relative to Crim. Case No. 2477, respondent flatly denied that he granted probation to "one who was clearly disqualified under the Probation Law." As proof thereof respondent submitted as Annexes "3" and "3-A" of his Comment a copy of his Resolution dated 10 January 1996 wherein, upon motion of the accused, he reduced the latter's indeterminate penalty from four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day of prision correctional as minimum to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as maximum, to only two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision correccional as minimum to six (6) years of prision correccional maximum, not to six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as maximum, which would have disqualified the accused from probation, as complainant's Annex "D" purportedly shows. Respondent disclaimed the authenticity of complainant's Annex "D," insisting that his Annexes "3' and "3-A" are the certified true copies of subject Resolution dated 10 January 1996. In addition, respondent denied that he issued the resolution without notice to the handling Public Prosecutor Napoleon C. Lagrimas.

Respondent OIC Clerk of Court Flor Serio, in turn, likewise denied the charge against her. In a Letter-Comment dated 6 April 2001 she denied refusing to issue certified copies of the documents requested by complainant and contended that as the OIC Clerk of Court of the RTC of Northern Samar she could not be charged with concealment of the documents which were properly under the custody of the Branch Clerk of Court, Br. 21, where Crim. Case No. 2477 was pending.

In a Reply-Affidavit dated 23 May 2001 complainant branded as falsified Annexes "3" and "3-A" submitted by respondent Judge; prayed that the latter be preventively suspended pending resolution of this case to prevent further falsification of the records of Crim. Case No. 2477; insisted that the Motion for Reconsideration (for reduction of penalty) filed by the accused was acted upon by respondent Judge without notice to handling Prosecutor Lagrimas as confirmed by the latter in his Counter-Affidavit ³ Annex "A" of Reply-Affidavit. filed with the Office of the Ombudsman; and, that the records of Crim. Case No. 2477 were with the Office of the Clerk of Court at the time the request therefor was made as could be confirmed by Roland Acedera who was working in the same room as respondent Flor Serio, i.e., Office of the Clerk of Court, when the request was made.

Clearly, from the foregoing, certain factual matters particularly as to which between complainant's Annex "D" and respondent's Annexes "3" and "3-A" is the true copy of subject Resolution dated 10 January 1996, need to be resolved first before a complete and just resolution of this case could be made.

ACCORDINGLY, this case is REFERRED to Associate Justice Edgardo P. Cruz of the Court of Appeals for an exhaustive investigation, report and recommendation, according specific but not limited attention to the foregoing disquisitions, the same to be completed and submitted to this Court within ninety (90) days from notice hereof.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) TOMASITA B. MAGAY-DRIS
Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE