You are on page 1of 18

VELASCO VS.

ANGELES
A.M. No. RTJ-05-1908, August 15, 2007
CARPIO, J.
The Case
This administrative case covers 10 complaints fled by Emmanuel Ymson
Velasco (complainant), State rosecutor o! the "epartment o! #ustice ("$#),
a%ainst &doracion '( &n%eles (respondent), residin% #ud%e o! the )e%ional
Trial Court ()TC) o! Caloocan City, *ranch 1+1(
The ,acts
Complainant -as the investi%atin% prosecutor in a criminal complaint !or
multiple counts o! child abuse, or violation o! )epublic &ct .o( /010 ()(&(
/010), fled in 1111 a%ainst respondent by her %randniece, 2a( 2ercedes
Vistan (2ercedes)( The complaint -as doc3eted as 4(S( .o( 115667( $n +0
#une 1111, complainant issued a )esolution ()esolution) recommendin%
respondent8s indictment(
Callin% the indictment 9hi%hly anomalous,9 respondent char%ed complainant
-ith %ross i%norance o! the la-, mani!est partiality, and bad !aith in an
administrative complaint fled be!ore the "$# on / #uly +000( Then "$#
Secretary :ernando *( ere; dismissed the complaint in a letter dated 0 #une
+001 addressed to respondent( &!ter her motion !or reconsideration -as
denied, respondent fled a etition !or )evie- (petition !or revie-) be!ore the
$<ce o! the resident, doc3eted as $(( Case .o( 0+5"51=/( Si> o! the
complaints in the present case are based on the contents o! the petition !or
revie- and respondent8s succeedin% pleadin%s in $(( Case .o( 0+5"51=/(
The rest are based on acts respondent alle%edly committed either be!ore this
case -as fled, or durin% its pendency, but in connection -ith incidents in 4(S(
.o( 115667(
$n = &pril +007, -e re!erred the matter to Court o! &ppeals &ssociate #ustice
.oel '( Ti?am (#ustice Ti?am) !or investi%ation, report, and recommendation(
#ustice Ti?am conducted a !ull5blo-n investi%ation and presided over 10
hearin%s !rom 1 #une +007 to @ &u%ust +00@( $n 16 2arch +006, -e resolved
to treat the matter as a re%ular administrative complaint(
The )eport and )ecommendation dated 1 "ecember +00@ ()eport) o! #ustice
Ti?am outlines the !ollo-in% char%es a%ainst respondentA
2isBuotin% complainant in bad !aith and accusin% complainant o! !alsi!yin% a
public documentC
Dsin% intemperate lan%ua%e in pleadin%s fled be!ore the $<ce o! the
resident and the $<ce o! the Court &dministrator ($C&), Supreme CourtC
Committin% acts o! child abuse a%ainst her t-o housemaids, in violation o!
)(&( /010C
Visitin% the Secretary o! #ustice -hile her case -as pendin% be!ore the "$#C
Visitin% the Secretary o! #ustice durin% o<ce hours, -ithout flin% !or o<cial
leave o! absenceC
2aliciously statin% in a pleadin% that complainant, in his capacity as public
prosecutor, deliberately suppressed evidence to -ea3en the %overnment8s
caseC
,alsi!yin% a public document and introducin% the document as evidence in a
?udicial proceedin%C
Causin% 2ercedes to e>ecute a !alse a<davit, and introducin% the a<davit
as evidence in a ?udicial proceedin%C
Dsin% intemperate lan%ua%e and assailin% the di%nity o! a Supreme Court
#usticeC and
Dtili;in% sheriEs o! the )TC Caloocan to serve pleadin%s on her behal!(
,or purposes o! e>pediency, -e shall discuss ?ointly char%es (1) and (/), and
(7) and (=), as they involve intert-ined !acts( Fe shall do the same !or
char%es (+) and (1), -hich are substantially similar, and char%es (@) and (6),
-hich arise !rom a common incident(
1st complaintA )espondent Buoted the )esolution incorrectly and accused
complainant o! !alsifcationC
/th complaintA )espondent !alsifed a public document and 3no-in%ly
introduced it as evidence in a ?udicial proceedin%
Complainant alle%ed in his Complaint dated +6 #uly +00+ (frst complaint)
that respondent8s petition !or revie- contained 9!alse and malicious
statements9 that besmirched his reputation( Complainant specifcally
assailed the !ollo-in% portion o! the petition !or revie-A
,ourth, the > > > GcomplainantH employed a double standard in the
appreciation o! the evidence presented( :e %ave !ull credit to the testimony
o! the thirteen5year5old 2aria 2ercedes because he considered her still a
child, but he did not aEord even the sli%htest consideration to the
hand-ritten notes o! the %irl8s youn%er brother > > >(
&ttemptin% to dis%uise his bias !or 2aria 2ercedes, GcomplainantH
pontifcated that !rom the mouths o! children, -e elicit the truth(
*ut considerin% his reaction to atric3 &drianne (sic) '( Vistan8s notes and to
#ennilyn SerBuina8s a<davit, the ada%e -as t-isted by GcomplainantH as
!ollo-sA 9,rom the mouth o! 2aria 2ercedes, 4 %et the truth, !rom the mouths
o! other people, re%ardless o! a%e, 4 %et !alsehood(9
The only nomenclature !or such attitude is mani!est partiality
Complainant alle%ed that his )esolution only stated, 9,rom the mouths o!
children -e %et the truth(9 4n her Comment dated +@ $ctober +00+ (initial
comment), respondent admitted that she modifed the statement as alle%ed
by complainant( :o-ever, respondent ?ustifed the chan%e as a means o!
pursuin% her ar%ument that complainant 9used a double standard9 in
investi%atin% 2ercedes8 case( )espondent insisted that complainant had
based his )esolution on 2ercedes8 bare alle%ations, -ithout reBuirin%
2ercedes to present a medical certifcate supportin% the char%es o! physical
abuse, or her diary alle%edly containin% a record o! incidents o! abuse(
Complainant also be-ailed respondent8s accusation in the petition !or revie-
that he 9made it appear Gin the )esolutionH9 that on ++ #une 1111, Ieonila
Vistan (Ieonila), 2ercedes8 %randmother and respondent8s sister, subscribed
to her Sinumpaan% Salaysay (Salaysay) be!ore him at the "$#( )espondent
su%%ested that Ieonila could not have %one to the "$# on that date, and that
the Salaysay, -hich complainant cited in the )esolution recommendin%
respondent8s indictment, -as not Ieonila8s but -as complainant8s !abrication(
,irst, respondent pointed out that complainant8s )esolution -as dated +0
#une 1111, or t-o days precedin% Ieonila8s supposed appearance on ++ #une
1111( Thus, respondent posited that there -as no need !or Ieonila to be at
the "$# on the Buestioned date to subscribe to her a<davit be!ore
complainant, as the investi%ation -as by then already concluded, and in !act
she -as not notifed o! any hearin% to ta3e place on that date( Second,
respondent alle%ed that lon% be!ore #une 1111, Ieonila had been stayin% at
the %round Joor o! her house as she could not climb up the stairs(
)espondent there!ore su%%ested that it -as impossible !or Ieonila to climb
up to the third Joor o! the "$# buildin%, -here complainant8s o<ce -as
located(
$n the other hand, 2ercedes testifed be!ore #ustice Ti?am that she
accompanied Ieonila to the "$# at the ++ #une 1111 hearin%C that Ieonila
-as able to climb the stairs o! the "$#C and that in her presence and -ith her
assistance, Ieonila a<>ed her thumbmar3 on the Salaysay( Complainant8s
-itness ercival &bril (&bril) corroborated 2ercedes8 testimony, sayin% that
he -as present -hen Ieonila subscribed to her Salaysay be!ore complainant
on ++ #une 1111( &bril also testifed that althou%h Ieonila appeared -ea3,
she -as able to si%n the certifcate o! attendance( $n cross5e>amination,
&bril admitted that he !ailed to prepare a subpoena !or respondent8s
attendance on ++ #une 1111( &bril stated that the subpoenas he prepared
-ere only !or 2ercedes and other prosecution -itnesses(
Tryin% to turn the tables a%ainst respondent, complainant in his Complaint
dated +1 $ctober +00+ (seventh complaint) accused her o! !alsi!yin% a copy
o! the Salaysay and 3no-in%ly introducin% the !alsifed copy as evidence
be!ore the $<ce o! the resident and the $C&(
Complainant alle%ed that respondent obtained a certifed true copy o!
Ieonila8s Salaysay !rom the "$# records( This copy, -hich -as submitted as
9&nne> 8.89 to respondent8s administrative complaint a%ainst complainant
be!ore the "$#, contains no si%nature or stamp mar3 o! a public prosecutor(
Complainant claimed that Ieonila appeared be!ore him on ++ #une 1111
attestin% to the contents o! a copy o! the a<davit, on -hich complainant
a<>ed his si%nature and stamp mar3( 4n the copy respondent submitted to
the $<ce o! the resident as an anne> to the petition !or revie-, respondent
re-rote over the ori%inal -ord 9&nne>9 and superimposed the letter 9"9 over
the 9.(9 4n the copy respondent submitted to the $C& !or this administrative
case, respondent re-rote over the ori%inal -ord 9&nne>9 and superimposed
the number 909 over the 9.(9 Complainant pointed out that respondent, in all
her other anne>es previously labeled or mar3ed, never superimposed a ne-
mar3in% over the old(
Complainant accused respondent o! intendin% to hide the ori%inal mar3in% to
be able to claim that the Salaysay -as never subscribed be!ore him,
especially on the Buestioned date o! ++ #une 1111( Complainant contended
that respondent submitted the documents to the $<ce o! the resident and
the $C& in an eEort to mislead them deliberately into believin% that Ieonila
did not appear at the "$# on that date(
4n her Comment dated +0 ,ebruary +007 (second comment), respondent
countered that complainant8s accusation -as intended as a cover5up !or his
!alsifcation o! a copy o! Ieonila8s Salaysay( )espondent contended that her
act o! chan%in% the mar3in%s on the copy !or purposes merely o! its
attachment to diEerent pleadin%s did not aEect the meanin% o! its contents
to any de%ree(
+nd and 1th complaintsA )espondent used intemperate lan%ua%e in her
pleadin%s
4n his Complaint dated = $ctober +00+ (second complaint), complainant
accused respondent o! usin% intemperate lan%ua%e not befttin% a ?ud%e( 4t
appeared that in complainant8s 2ani!estationKComment submitted in $((
Case .o( 0+5"51=/, he mentioned that his post%raduate de%ree thesis
tac3led measures to curb corruption( 4n her )eply dated 1/ September +00+,
respondent commentedA
GComplainantH also boasts about his thesis at the .ational "e!ense Colle%e
-herein he alle%edly made recommendations to preempt corruption and
ineptitude at the G"$#H( > > > 4t certainly does not mean that he is incapable
o! doin% the acts imputed a%ainst him( .aturally, GcomplainantH is e>pected
to submit a thesis that is drippin% -ith idealism( Certainly, he cannot submit
a thesis on ho- to do acts o! corruption -hen the bosses are not loo3in%( The
%enuine concern is not the rhetorics in his thesis but -hether or not he has
the sincerity to pursue the ob?ectives set !orth therein( GComplainantH
submits that he does not have the sincerity or the moral fber to do -hat his
thesis says( > > >
Complainant char%ed respondent -ith maliciously besmirchin% his reputation
be!ore the $<ce o! the resident and o! moc3in% the 9?udiciary8s eEorts to
stren%then the inte%rity o! the criminal ?ustice system(9 )espondent
contended, ho-ever, that she only intended to emphasi;e that complainant8s
thesis -as not necessarily a reJection o! his trac3 record in public service,
particularly o! his investi%ation o! the child abuse case( )espondent
e>plained that she perceived complainant8s citation o! his thesis as an
9evasive strate%y to avoid the main issue o! his culpability(9
4n his petition !or indirect contempt dated +@ ,ebruary +007 (ninth
complaint), complainant a%ain accused respondent o! usin% intemperate
lan%ua%e and assailin% the di%nity and stature o! the Supreme Court and o!
#ustice #osue .( *ellosillo (#ustice *ellosillo, no- retired) in particular( The
controversy arose -hen respondent stated in a pleadin% submitted in $((
Case .o( 0+5"51=/ that the Court had already decided the administrative
case fled by 2ichael Vistan (2ichael), 2ercedes8 brother, on her behal!(
Complainant challen%ed respondent to sho- proo! o! the decision( 4nstead o!
simply !urnishin% complainant a copy, respondent in her )e?oinder to the
)eply dated 16 $ctober +00+ remar3edA
G)espondentH has no obli%ation to produce GcomplainantH proo! o! the
dismissal by the Supreme Court o! the administrative aspect o! the child
abuse case( This is a matter o! public record and 3no-led%e( &nd besides, i!
GcomplainantH portrays to 3no- a lot about the undersi%ned, ironically even
on matters -hich she hersel! has no 3no-led%e o!, then he ou%ht not to be
as3in% anymore about the Supreme Court8s decision on the administrative
case( .o doubt his patron has already told GhimH about the minutiae o! the
deliberations(
Complainant claimed that the 9patron9 re!erred to is #ustice *ellosillo(
Complainant recounted that he 3ne- nothin% about the status o! the
administrative case until he inBuired and obtained !rom 2ichael a copy o!
#ustice *ellosillo8s letter addressed to Chie! #ustice :ilario '( "avide, #r( (no-
retired)( 4n the letter dated + #anuary +001, #ustice *ellosillo used stron%
lan%ua%e to re!ute respondent8s accusations that he intervened in the f%ht
!or 2ercedes8 custody bet-een respondent and the "epartment o! Social
Fel!are and "evelopment ("SF")( )espondent had ta3en issue -ith the !act
that the incumbent "SF" Secretary then -as Iina *ellosillo Iai%o (Secretary
Iai%o), a relative o! #ustice *ellosillo( )espondent had also fled an
administrative case a%ainst Secretary Iai%o and other %overnment personnel
involved in the investi%ation o! the child abuse case(
)espondent did not ta3e li%htly complainant8s e>tensive Buotation o! #ustice
*ellosillo8s letter in his pleadin%s fled be!ore the $<ce o! the resident and
the $C&( 4n her )e?oinder dated +1 #anuary +007, respondent statedA
The alle%ed letter o! #ustice *ellosillo to the :onorable Chie! #ustice has not
even the remotest connection to this case > > >( )elevantly, GrespondentH is
not even privy to its e>istence -hen she is supposed to be the person under
fre in said missive( 4t is very mysterious, ho-ever, that GcomplainantH has a
copy o! the same( 4t is a serious !ood !or thou%ht to ponder on -hat
GcomplainantH and #ustice *ellosillo have in common(
)espondent !urther hinted at a 9lin39 bet-een #ustice *ellosillo and
complainant in her )e?oinder dated 7 ,ebruary +007, -here she as3edA 9> > >
Fhat is Gcomplainant8sH lin3 to #ustice *ellosillo and -hat do they have in
commonL9 4n her $mnibus )eply dated += #anuary +007, respondent statedA
9> > > )espondent -ould li3e to ponder on -hat herein complainant and
#ustice *ellosillo have in common( erhaps, in the interest o! transparency,
complainant should disclose his lin3 GtoH #ustice *ellosillo(9
Complainant maintained that he does not 3no- personally #ustice *ellosillo(
Complainant characteri;ed respondent8s malicious insinuations a%ainst
#ustice *ellosillo as a blatant disre%ard o! the trust and respect that should
be accorded to ?ustices o! the Court(
)espondent denied any intention o! assailin% the di%nity and stature o! the
Court as a body( She claimed that her 9honest e>pression o! sentiment9 -as
directed at only one o! its members and spurred by a sincere desire to 3no-
the truth(
7rd complaintA )espondent violated )(&( /010C
=th complaintA )espondent !orced 2ercedes to si%n an a<davit, and
introduced the per?ured a<davit in evidence
4n his Complaint dated 16 $ctober +00+ (third complaint), complainant
char%ed respondent -ith violation o! )(&( /010 a%ainst the persons o!
2ercedes and her !ormer housemaids .ancy 'aspar ('aspar) and roclyn
acay (acay)( 'aspar and acay had fled a criminal complaint, doc3eted as
4(S( .o( 165++@, a%ainst respondent in 1116( The "$# !ound probable cause to
indict respondent, -hich fndin% -as a<rmed by "$# Dndersecretary )icardo
.epomuceno (Dndersecretary .epomuceno)( Criminal cases -ere fled
a%ainst respondent !or multiple counts o! violation o! )(&( /010( $n 1/ #uly
+000, the )TC o! Mue;on City, *ranch 100 convicted respondent o! t-o
counts o! violation o! )(&( /010( The case is still pendin% be!ore the Court o!
&ppeals( $n the other hand, "$# Dndersecretary )e%is V( uno
(Dndersecretary uno) reversed on @ &pril +000 complainant8s )esolution in
4(S( .o( 115667 recommendin% respondent8s indictment( Complainant
contended that re%ardless o! the outcome o! the criminal investi%ations,
respondent8s indictments alone render her administratively liable(
"urin% the course o! the investi%ation, the parties a%reed to the e>clusion o!
the char%e o! violation o! )(&( /010 committed a%ainst 2ercedes as this
Court had already passed upon the issue o! respondent8s administrative
liability in &(2( .o( )T#50+510/+, -here the decision -as promul%ated on 70
#anuary +00+(
)espondent countered that complainant had no personal 3no-led%e o! the
alle%ed acts o! child abuse, and -as only moved by bad !aith and malice in
flin% this complaint a!ter he !ound himsel! !acin% an administrative char%e
be!ore the $<ce o! the resident( )espondent averred that even assumin%
that complainant had le%al personality to fle this char%e, there is no truth to
'aspar and acay8s alle%ations o! abuse( )espondent cited an a<davit
e>ecuted by 2ercedes on 11 &pril 1116 (11 &pril 1116 a<davit) in her
de!ense, statin% that she never -itnessed any incident o! physical abuse on
'aspar and acay and a<rmin% that the t-o -ere in !act treated -ell in
respondent8s household(
$n cross5e>amination, complainant admitted that his 3no-led%e o! the !acts
surroundin% 'aspar and acay8s complaint a%ainst respondent comes solely
!rom his role as investi%atin% prosecutor in 4(S( .o( 115667( Complainant8s
supportin% evidences consisted o!A (1) the #oint )esolution dated +6 #uly 1110
(#oint )esolution) issued by "$# State rosecutors )ichard &nthony ,adullon
and &l!redo ( &%caoili, recommendin% respondent8s indictment !or t-o
counts o! violation o! )(&( /010C (+) Sinumpaan% Salaysay o! 'aspar dated 0
2arch 1116C (7) Sinumpaan% Salaysay o! acay dated = 2arch 1116C and (@)
letter5memorandum issued by Dndersecretary .epomuceno dismissin%
respondent8s petition !or revie- assailin% the #oint )esolution( 2edical
certifcates o! 'aspar and acay oEered by complainant as documentary
evidence -ere not admitted !or lac3 o! proo! as to their authenticity(
4n 4(S( .o( 165++@, respondent submitted the 11 &pril 1116 a<davit as
evidence( The a<davit rebutted 'aspar and acay8s alle%ation that they
suEered abuse !rom respondent -hile -or3in% !or her( $n +1 2ay 1111,
2ercedes e>ecuted a second a<davit (+1 2ay 1111 a<davit) in support o!
her o-n complaint a%ainst respondent !or child abuse( The +1 2ay 1111
a<davit a<rmed 'aspar and acay8s alle%ation that respondent maltreated
them( 2ercedes claimed that she had si%ned the 11 &pril 1116 a<davit out
o! !ear that respondent -ould other-ise inJict harm upon her person( Thus,
complainant ar%ued in his Complaint dated +1 $ctober +00+ (ei%hth
complaint) that respondent must be held liable !or !orcin% 2ercedes, then a
mere nine5year old, to si%n the 11 &pril 1116 a<davit containin% a !alse
narration o! !acts and to %ive !alse testimony a%ainst 'aspar and acay( The
ei%hth complaint !urther stated that respondent 9li3e-ise submitted the
a<davit o! $liva &n%eles ($liva, respondent8s sister) to support her de!ense
that there -ere no acts o! child abuse committed on the t-o maids and that
GacayH committed the crime o! the!t(9 4n sum, complainant alle%ed that
respondent 93no-in%ly and -ill!ully !orced9 2ercedes and $liva to s-ear
!alsely and there!ore commit per?ury(
)espondent asserted that complainant8s alle%ations are all hearsay(
)espondent alle%ed that 2ercedes understood the contents o! the +1 2ay
1111 a<davit, as she e>pressed a 9%enuine outra%e9 a%ainst 'aspar and
acay upon their flin% o! char%es a%ainst her and -as more than -illin% to
de!end her( )espondent pointed out that she could not be accused o!
coercion or !orce since it -as not she, but $liva and other prosecution
-itnesses -ho -ere -ith 2ercedes -hen the latter subscribed to the 11 &pril
1116 a<davit at the "$#( )espondent contended that the dismissal o! &(2(
.o( )T#50+510/+ clearly indicated that the pieces o! evidence presented by
2ichael, amon% them the +1 2ay 1111 a<davit, -ere o! doubt!ul veracity(
)espondent !urther alle%ed that the ni%ht be!ore this a<davit -as e>ecuted
or on +0 2ay 1111, she cut oE the fnancial support she had been providin%
2ichael due to a !amily dispute( Thus, respondent claimed that 2ercedes
e>ecuted the second a<davit only a!ter 2ichael and other relatives induced
her to leave respondent8s house as a 9retaliatory move(9
@th and 6th complaintsA )espondent visited the o<ce o! the Secretary o!
#ustice -hile her petition !or revie- -as pendin% be!ore the "$#, and durin%
o<ce hours
$n +1 ,ebruary +000, respondent -rote then Secretary o! #ustice &rtemio
TuBuero (Secretary TuBuero) to inBuire on the status and pray !or the early
resolution o! her pendin% petition !or revie-( Complainant alle%ed in his
Complaint dated 16 $ctober +00+ (!ourth complaint) that also on +1
,ebruary +000, durin% o<ce hours, respondent personally -ent to see
Secretary TuBuero in his o<ce( $ne day a!ter respondent8s visit, Secretary
TuBuero issued a hand-ritten memorandum to "$# Dndersecretary &ntonio
Ilorente (Dndersecretary Ilorente) reBuestin% action on respondent8s case(
$n = 2arch +000, Secretary TuBuero sent another memorandum to
Dndersecretary Ilorente -ith the noteA 9lease act on this matter, one o! the
parties bein% a !ormer collea%ue !or the prosecution service(9 ,rom this
seBuence o! events, complainant claimed that respondent improperly and
deliberately too3 advanta%e o! her relationship -ith Secretary TuBuero, -ho
-as her !ormer classmate in la- school and collea%ue at the 2anila
rosecutors8 $<ce(
4n another Complaint dated 10 $ctober +00+ (f!th complaint), complainant
accused respondent o! visitin% Secretary TuBuero on +1 ,ebruary +000
durin% o<ce hours, -hen respondent should have been in her sala or
other-ise on o<cial leave(
)espondent narrated that on +1 ,ebruary +000, she -as at the Court on
o<cial business -hen she chanced upon t-o collea%ues, )TC #ud%es
Edmundo &cuNa (#ud%e &cuNa) and Victorino &lvaro (#ud%e &lvaro)( The three
o! them sou%ht Secretary TuBuero at his o<ce but !ailed to meet -ith him as
he abruptly le!t !or a meetin% at 2alacaNan%( )espondent emphasi;ed that
their meetin% -as accidental and their visit not arran%ed(
#ud%e &lvaro testifed that respondent had %iven 9no prior intimation o!
-antin% to visit9 Secretary TuBuero( :e claimed that he and #ud%e &cuNa sa-
respondent at the Supreme Court lobby, upon -hich they told her o! their
plan to con%ratulate Secretary TuBuero on his recent appointment(
)espondent a%reed to ?oin them( Dpon arrival at the "$#, ho-ever, they -ere
told to -ait !or Secretary TuBuero, and then -ere later in!ormed that he had
le!t !or 2alacaNan%( #ud%e &cuNa8s testimony corroborated the statements o!
#ud%e &lvaro(
0th complaintA )espondent maliciously stated in a pleadin% that complainant
suppressed evidence in a case to the %overnment8s pre?udice
4n her 2ani!estation dated +/ #une +00+ and )eply dated 1/ September +00+
in $(( Case .o( 0+5"51=/, respondent accused complainant o! suppressin%
evidence !or the prosecution in eople o! the hilippines v( Iinta%, tried
be!ore the sala o! )TC Caloocan #ud%e riscilla 2i?ares (#ud%e 2i?ares)(
)espondent alle%ed that complainant had intended to 3eep a vital -itness, a
%emolo%ist, !rom testi!yin% in order to -ea3en the case !or the %overnment(
)espondent !urther alle%ed that #ud%e 2i?ares communicated to Chie! State
rosecutor #ovencito OuNo (OuNo) her concern over complainant8s !ailure to
present the %emolo%ist, -ho ori%inally -as in the list o! prosecution
-itnesses( OuNo alle%edly called complainant8s attention to #ud%e 2i?ares8
observation, so that complainant -as constrained to fle a 2otion to resent
&dditional Evidence(
4n his Complaint dated 1= $ctober +00+ (si>th complaint), complainant
char%ed respondent -ith besmirchin% his reputation as a public prosecutor
-ith her malicious accusations( Complainant submitted OuNo8s certifcation
attestin% that he never 9casti%ated9 complainant or 9called GhisH attention9
-ith re%ard to the handlin% o! eople v( Iinta%( &ccordin% to complainant, he
decided to present the %emolo%ist only to !urther stren%then the
%overnment8s case and 9to th-art the belated strate%y o! the de!ense to
misrepresent in court the true value9 o! ?e-elry sub?ect o! the case, -hich
value -as already clearly alle%ed in the in!ormation and stipulated in the pre5
trial a%reement(
"urin% the hearin%s, respondent presented #ud%e 2i?ares8 a<davit statin%
that durin% the trial o! eople v( Iinta%, she 9doubtGedH the actuation o!
GcomplainantH9 so that she called up OuNo and reBuested the latter to loo3
closely into complainant8s acts( #ud%e 2i?ares admitted that on one occasion,
she relayed the matter to respondent, -hom she considered her %ood !riend(
#ud%e 2i?ares testifed to a<rm the contents o! her a<davit( :o-ever, #ud%e
2i?ares clarifed that in her conversation -ith OuNo, she never used the
-ords 9deliberate9 and 9suppressed,9 but she communicated to OuNo her
concern over the !act that complainant fled a !ormal oEer o! evidence -hen
he had yet to present one vital -itness(
10th complaintA )espondent utili;ed sheriEs o! the )TC5Caloocan to serve her
pleadin%s
Complainant alle%ed in his Complaint dated / 2arch +007 (tenth complaint)
that several times !rom 11 &pril +00+ to / 2arch +007, respondent ordered
SheriEs &rmando 2ariano (2ariano), *ranch 1+1, and #ovenal Salayon
(Salayon), $<ce o! the Cler3 o! Court, both o! the )TC Caloocan, to serve
copies o! her pleadin%s upon complainant at the "$#( These -ere pleadin%s
in connection -ith respondent8s petition !or revie-( 4n support o! this char%e,
complainant submitted his #oint S-orn Statement -ith #ohn &rnel C( *uen
and &velina C( Ver%ara, both "$# employees, attestin% that they received
!rom either 2ariano or Salayon respondent8s pleadin%s in $(( Case .o( 0+5"5
1=/( & list o! these pleadin%s and their dates o! service !ollo-sA
leadin%C "ate Served
1( Comment to the Dr%ent etition !or )evie-A 0 &u%ust +00+
+( ComplianceC 70 &u%ust +00+
7( )eply to the 2ani!estationKCommentC 1= September +00+
@( 2otion to &dmit &ttached Supplement to the )e?oinderC +6 $ctober +00+
6( CommentC = .ovember +00+
0( )eply to the CommentC 17 .ovember +00+
/( CommentC 1@ .ovember +00+
=( CommentC 11 .ovember +00+
1( )e?oinderC +6 .ovember +00+
10( )eplyC 1 #anuary +007
11( )eplyC +7 #anuary +007
1+( )e?oinderC +1 #anuary +007
17( )eplyA @ ,ebruary +00+
1@( )eplyC 1/ ,ebruary +00+
16( 2otion !or )econsiderationC / 2arch +007
)espondent completely admitted complainant8s alle%ation( )espondent
e>plained that she reBuested the sheriEs alternately to deliver some
pleadin%s on her behal!, upon shoulderin% their !are, because they happened
to have o<cial business in the vicinity(
,indin%s and )ecommendations o! the 4nvesti%atin% #ustice
&!ter conductin% the investi%ation, #ustice Ti?am transmitted to the Court his
e>haustive )eport recommendin% that all complaints, e>cept the ninth, be
dismissed !or lac3 o! substantial evidence( &s re%ards the ninth complaint,
#ustice Ti?am recommended that respondent be held %uilty o! indirect
contempt and fned +6,000, -ith a stern -arnin% that a repetition o! the
same in!raction shall be dealt -ith more severely(
The )ulin% o! the Court
Fe adopt the fndin%s o! #ustice Ti?am( Fe hold that respondent is %uilty o!
usin% intemperate lan%ua%e in her pleadin%s(
.o misBuotation and deliberate assertion o! !alsehood on the part o!
respondent
4t is obvious !rom a readin% o! the assailed portions o! the petition !or revie-
that respondent did not deliberately misBuote complainant as havin% said,
9,rom the mouths o! 2aria 2ercedes, 4 %et the truth, !rom the mouths o!
others, re%ardless o! a%e, 4 %et !alsehood(9 )espondent care!ully placed in
proper conte>t her interpretation o! ho- complainant -ei%hed the evidence
and arrived at his recommendation to indict respondent in 4(S( .o( 115667(
The statement -as relevant to the issue raised by respondent in the petition
!or revie-, -hich -as that complainant erred in arrivin% at his
recommendation( The statement, ta3en to%ether -ith those precedin% it,
clearly -as not attributed to complainant but rather -as respondent8s o-n
pronouncement(
Fe fnd no malicious assertion o! !alsehood in respondent8s claim that
complainant lied about Ieonila8s visit to the "$# on ++ #une 1111(
Complainant !ailed to prove that respondent 3ne- o! the !act o! Ieonila8s
appearance and deliberately stated other-ise( Such assertion -as
respondent8s personal conviction based on her 3no-led%e o! the events
leadin% to the issuance o! the )esolution in 4(S( .o( 115667( &s correctly
noted in the )eport, &bril8s admission that no subpoena -as issued to
respondent !or her to appear at the "$# on ++ #une 1111 ?ustifes
respondent8s incredulous stance( 4ndeed, complainant testifed on cross5
e>amination that there -as really no hearin% on the Buestioned date, but
that Ieonila appeared be!ore him merely to subscribe to the Salaysay(
Similarly, 2ercedes testifed that Ieonila -as made to appear be!ore
complainant 9para ma%in% valid an% a<davit(9
4n the same vein, -e cannot hold respondent liable !or alle%in% that
complainant suppressed evidence as prosecutor in eople v( Iinta%( .ot only
-as the alle%ation relevant to the cause o! action in her administrative
complaint a%ainst complainant, but it -as also culled !rom respondent8s
conversations -ith #ud%e 2i?ares( 4ndeed, #ud%e 2i?ares admitted that she
had raised concerns over complainant8s presentation o! evidence in the case,
and had relayed the incident to respondent, a close !riend o! hers( There!ore,
no malice or bad !aith may properly be attributed to respondent(
.o substantial evidence to support the /th, 7rd, =th, @th, and 6th complaints
&n act unrelated to a ?ud%e8s dischar%e o! ?udicial !unctions may %ive rise to
administrative liability even -hen such act constitutes a violation o! penal
la-( Fhen the issue is administrative liability, the Buantum o! proo! reBuired
is only substantial evidence, or that amount o! relevant evidence -hich a
reasonable mind mi%ht accept as adeBuate to support a conclusion(
Evidence to support a conviction in a criminal case is not necessary, and the
dismissal o! the criminal case a%ainst the respondent in an administrative
case is not a %round !or the dismissal o! the administrative case( Conversely,
conviction in the criminal case -ill not automatically -arrant a fndin% o!
%uilt in the administrative case( Fe emphasi;e the -ell5settled rule that
criminal and civil cases are alto%ether diEerent !rom administrative matters,
and each must be disposed o! accordin% to the !acts and the la- applicable
to it( 4n other -ords, the disposition in the frst t-o -ill not necessarily
%overn the third, and vice versa(
,alsifcation o! a public document reBuires that there be an alteration or
intercalation made on a %enuine document -hich chan%es its meanin% and
causes the document to spea3 o! somethin% !alse( $n this issue, #ustice
Ti?am observedA
Complainant8s alle%ation that GrHespondent altered the mar3in% on GIeonila8sH
a<davit by chan%in% the inscription 9&nne> 8.89 and superimposin% 9&nne>
8"89 and 9&nne> 8089 is totally bere!t o! merit( Complainant insists that said
act o! -ritin% over the ori%inal mar3in% o! said a<davit is an alteration
because the same conceals the history o! the document, specifcally in -hat
case it -as frst used in evidence( > > > &rticle 1/1 contemplates an
alteration -hich chan%es the meanin% o! the document( Dndeniably, the
chan%es GrHespondent caused to be made in said attachments have not
chan%ed any o! the substantial contents o! the same nor did such mar3in%s
ma3e the document state a !alsity( This 4nvesti%ator fnds that the ne-
mar3in%s -ere made only !or the purpose o! identi!yin% the a<davit as an
attachment to GrHespondent8s pleadin%s(
Fe a%ree -ith #ustice Ti?am that the char%e o! !alsifcation seems too !ar5
!etched %iven the circumstances( &lthou%h respondent admitted that she
superimposed her -ritin% on the labels, it is not !or the Court to inBuire as to
the motive behind her act -hen there is no dispute that the document is a
!aith!ul reproduction o! a copy obtained !rom the records o! the "$# and does
not contain any alteration or intercalation( 2ore importantly, the mar3in%s
are not an inte%ral part o! the alle%ations in the Salaysay(
.either do -e fnd substantial evidence on record supportin% the char%e o!
violation o! )(&( /010 a%ainst 'aspar and acay( Complainant admitted that
his 3no-led%e o! the acts constitutin% the char%es o! child abuse is limited to
2ercedes8 testimony and other documentary evidence !ormin% part o! the
records o! 4(S( .o( 115667( Fe note that the private complainant in 4(S( .o(
115667 -as solely 2ercedes, and not 'aspar and acay( Complainant -as
not involved in the investi%ation or prosecution o! 'aspar and acay8s case(
Thus, the documentary evidence complainant submitted in this case
pertainin% to the latter t-o could have come only !rom the records in 4(S( .o(
165++@ and its resultin% criminal case no- pendin% be!ore the Court o!
&ppeals( .one o! the a<ants in the supportin% documents, includin% 'aspar
and acay, testifed in the investi%ation hearin%s( 4n EspaNol v( 2upas, -e
heldA
4n administrative proceedin%s, complainants have the burden o! provin% by
substantial evidence the alle%ations in their complaints( Thus, -hen the
complainant relies mainly on second5hand in!ormation to prove the char%es
a%ainst the respondent, the complaint is reduced into a bare indictment or
mere speculation The Court cannot %ive credence to char%es based on mere
credence or speculation( &s -e held in a recent caseA
&ny administrative complaint leveled a%ainst a ?ud%e must al-ays be
e>amined -ith a discriminatin% eye, !or its conseBuential eEects are by their
nature hi%hly penal, such that the respondent ?ud%e stands to !ace the
sanction o! dismissal or disbarment(
2ercedes -as admittedly amon% respondent8s de!ense -itnesses in 4(S( .o(
165++@( ,or this purpose, 2ercedes e>ecuted the 11 &pril 1116 a<davit,
attestin% that she never -itnessed any incident o! physical abuse on the
housemaids( "urin% this time, respondent fnancially supported 2ercedes as
her 9-ard,9 sendin% her to school and providin% her -ith the basic
necessities( 4n her +1 2ay 1111 a<davit, 2ercedes diso-ned the previous
a<davit as havin% been prepared by respondent !or her, to be used in 4(S(
.o( 165++@( 4n her testimony be!ore #ustice Ti?am, 2ercedes claimed that she
si%ned the frst a<davit because she -as a!raid that respondent -ould
physically abuse her and stop puttin% her to school(
#ustice Ti?am !ound in his )eport thatA
There is no conclusive evidence that the a<davits are !alse( > > > There is no
sho-in% that GrHespondent per!ormed an act in order to directly inJuence or
coerce 2ercedes to si%n the frst a<davit( 4t G-asH li3e-ise not sho-n that
-hen 2ercedes a<rmed the contents o! the Ga<davitH be!ore Gthe
prosecutorH, she did so under the direction or compulsion o! GrHespondent( > >
> the e>ecution o! the frst a<davit en?oys the presumption o! re%ularity
absent any concrete proo! to the contrary( &s to G$liva8sH a<davit, apart !rom
GcHomplainant8s bare alle%ations, there is absolutely no evidence sho-in%
that the same -as !alse or that she -as prompted by !ear in e>ecutin% the
same !or the purpose o! helpin% her sister8s case(
Fe fnd no reason to overturn these fndin%s( roo! that respondent e>ercised
authority or moral ascendancy over 2ercedes should not be interpreted
outri%ht as evidence that she coerced or !orced 2ercedes to e>ecute the 11
&pril 1116 a<davit( Complainant presented no evidence that 2ercedes -as
sub?ected to !orce and violence( 4n !act, 2ercedes testifed that respondent
-as not present at the "$# -hen she subscribed to the a<davit( 2ercedes
also testifed that even at that youn% a%e, she already understood the
contents o! the a<davit but never voiced an ob?ection to the prosecutor and
instead voluntarily e>ecuted the a<davit be!ore the latter(
Complainant ne>t fnds !ault in respondent8s visit to Secretary TuBuero on +1
,ebruary +000, alle%in% that the visit -as part o! respondent8s eEorts to
inJuence the outcome o! her then pendin% petition !or revie-( Complainant
points out that respondent made the visit durin% o<ce hours, time -hich she
should have spent attendin% to her duties in court( $n this matter, -e a%ree
-ith #ustice Ti?am thatA
> > > there is no evidence that GrHespondent is %uilty o! inJuencin% the
outcome o! her GcomplaintH( )espondent8s testimonial and documentary
evidence su<ciently disprove GcHomplainant8s alle%ation that GrHespondent
-ent to Secretary TuBuero8s o<ce to !ollo-5up her case( #ud%e &lvaro, -ho
-as -ith GrHespondent durin% the said visit to the "$#, corroborated
GrHespondent8s claim that she merely intended to con%ratulate GSecretaryH
TuBuero on his appointment( )ecords are also bere!t o! evidence to support
GcHomplainant8s assertion that due to GrHespondent8s letter !ollo-in% up Gon
the status o!H her case, her GcaseH -as !avorably acted upon( The
memorandum issued by Secretary TuBuero to Dndersecretary Ilorente does
not uneBuivocally sho- that the latter -as prevailed upon by the !ormer to
resolve GrHespondent8s petition one -ay or the other( > > >
2oreover, this 4nvesti%ator fnds no violation o! the Code o! #udicial Conduct
or the Canons o! #udicial Ethics -hen the GrHespondent -as not in her sala
durin% o<ce hours on the day she visited Secretary TuBuero( Said visit -as
not sho-n to have disrupted the dispensation o! ?ustice nor -as it proven to
have caused any in?ustice to any liti%ant be!ore GrHespondent8s sala( There is
no evidence that GrHespondent concealed her visit > > >( There is li3e-ise no
evidence that GrHespondent !alsely claimed that she -as in her sala -hen in
!act she -as not, at the time o! her visit > > >(
4t is not necessary to the proper per!ormance o! ?udicial duty that ?ud%es
should live in retirement or seclusionC it is desirable that, so !ar as the
reasonable attention to the completion o! their -or3 -ill permit, they
continue to min%le in social intercourse, and that they should not discontinue
their interests in or appearance at meetin%s o! members o! the bar(
To repeat, there is no basis to hold that respondent used her o<cial position
or her pro!essional relationship -ith Secretary TuBuero to inJuence her
pendin% petition( ,irst, respondent8s brie! letter to Secretary TuBuero only
e>pressed her desire that the petition be promptly resolved( Fe certainly
cannot penali;e respondent !or this act, as the flin% o! such a letter or
motion !or early resolution is a privile%e o! every party to a case( Second,
there is no evidence that the petition -as !avorably acted upon by
Dndersecretary uno due to respondent8s pro!essional relationship -ith
Secretary TuBuero( .either do -e fnd any impropriety in respondent8s
attempt to con%ratulate Secretary TuBuero personally, in the company o! t-o
other ?ud%es( #ud%es &cuNa and &lvaro testifed be!ore #ustice Ti?am that their
meetin% -ith respondent and subseBuent visit to the "$# -ere spontaneous
and only -ith an intention to convey %ood -ishes to a !ormer collea%ue(
4ndeed, the visit -as not out o! the ordinary and -ould even be considered in
accord -ith common social practice(
&s to the use o! o<ce hours, -e fnd uncontroverted respondent8s claim that
she -as at the Supreme Court on o<cial business that day( &s respondent
e>plained, the Supreme Court comple> is ad?acent to the "$# buildin%(
)eBuirin% respondent to confne hersel! strictly to the Supreme Court, -hen
the visit to the "$# -ould have all but ta3en several minutes, -ould be
unduly restrictive, i! not unreasonable(
$n causin% sheriEs to serve her pleadin%s
#ustice Ti?am accepted respondent8s e>planation that she merely reBuested
SheriEs 2ariano and Salayon to serve pleadin%s to the "$# because they had
9o<cial business in the area(9 #ustice Ti?am considered such reBuest
acceptable on respondent8s part as 9a conseBuence o! her o<ce as an )TC
?ud%e,9 addin% that there -as no su<cient evidence to sho- that respondent
acted in mani!est bad !aith and caused undue in?ury( )espondent also
repeatedly emphasi;es that the sheriEs -ere not coerced to serve the
pleadin%s, and that she shouldered their transportation e>penses(
)espondent8s alle%ation that SheriEs 2ariano and Salayon -ere actually on
o<cial business in the area -hen she as3ed them to serve her pleadin%s to
the "$# -as not disputed( &s #ustice Ti?am !ound, complainant alle%ed that
the sheriEs in!ormed him that they did not have any o<cial business in the
area -hen they served the pleadin%s( :o-ever, complainant did not present
any sheriEs durin% the trial( :e did not present any evidence to contradict
respondent8s alle%ation( :ence, it -as not sho-n that respondent utili;ed the
services o! SheriEs 2ariano and Salayon purely !or her personal beneft(
Fhen SheriEs 2ariano and Salayon served pleadin%s !or respondent to the
"$#, it -as only incidental to their o<cial business in the area(
$n respondent8s use o! intemperate lan%ua%e
Fe a%ree -ith respondent that her comments on complainant8s thesis,
thou%h irreverent, did not actually su%%est that a thesis be made on 9ho- to
do acts o! corruption -hen the bosses are not loo3in%(9 4n conte>t,
respondent -as merely e>poundin% on her ar%ument that complainant8s
inte%rity -as Buestionable( .evertheless, the records are replete -ith other
instances -hen respondent used intemperate lan%ua%e in her pleadin%s( Fe
cite them as !ollo-sA 9hi%h5!alutin thesis9C 9insult to intelli%ence9C
9Gcomplainant8sH mind has been suddenly trans!ormed into a cheap !actory o!
bo%us char%es > > >9C 9a monument to hypocrisy9C 9the instant complaint > >
> can be compared to the last %runtin% noises o! a dyin% rat that became
trapped in its o-n %ullibility9C 9GiHt is very dis%ustin% that GcomplainantH is
actin% li3e a cry baby be%%in% !or attention > > >9C and 9GeHven the %reatest
o! croo3s can easily ma3e dis%uises( Even -olves can dress in sheep8s
clothin%(9 )espondent8s use o! disrespect!ul lan%ua%e in her pleadin%s is
certainly belo- the standard e>pected o! an o<cer o! the court( The
esteemed position o! a ma%istrate o! the la- demands temperance, patience
and courtesy both in conduct and in lan%ua%e(
#ustice Ti?am also !ound respondent %uilty o! intemperate lan%ua%e in ma3in%
statements a%ainst #ustice *ellosillo in her pleadin%s be!ore the $<ce o! the
resident and the Supreme Court( )espondent insinuated an improper
relationship bet-een complainant and #ustice *ellosillo in her pleadin%s fled
in $(( Case .o( 0+5"51=/, such as those !ound in the Buoted portions o! her
16 $ctober +00+ and +1 #anuary +007 )e?oinders( )espondent8s 7 ,ebruary
+007 )e?oinder contained the same accusationA
& perusal o! Gcomplainant8sH latest pleadin% reveals that it contains his usual
diversionary tactics( The alle%ed letter o! G#ustice *ellosilloH to the :onorable
Chie! #ustice has no relevance to the issue in this petition, aside !rom the !act
that GrespondentH -as never privy to the same( Thou%h the alle%ed letter is
li3e a stab on her bac3, she does not li3e to di%ni!y the same by allo-in% it to
sidetrac3 the issue in this case( G)espondentH is ready to meet the
alle%ations o! #ustice *ellosillo be!ore the proper !orum( > > >
4t is very intri%uin%, ho-ever, that GcomplainantH had !ree access to the
alle%ed letter, entire contents o! -hich -ere not made 3no-n to
GrespondentH( 4t must be emphasi;ed that GrespondentH -as never !urnished
a copy o! the alle%ed letter and she only learned !or the frst time the alle%ed
entirety o! the same -hen GcomplainantH made a !uss about it in his
pleadin%s( Even the :onorable Supreme Court En *anc only mentioned a
small portion o! the same in its )esolution o! the administrative case( The
!act that the dero%atory remar3s therein -ere simply brushed aside by the
:onorable Supreme Court means that such ne%ative alle%ations do not have
any importance at all( &t any rate, GcomplainantH needs to ans-er a very
pressin% BuestionA Fhat is Gcomplainant8sH lin3 to #ustice *ellosillo and -hat
do they have in commonL
4n an $mnibus )eply dated += #anuary +007 that she fled be!ore the $C&,
respondent also statedA
&nent the alle%ed letter o! #ustice *ellosillo to the :onorable Chie! #ustice,
su<ce it to state that GrespondentH -as never privy to the same( Iet it also
be stated that #ustice *ellosillo is not a party to the instant 4n!ormal
reliminary 4nBuiry (44)( &t any rate, #ustice *ellosillo or GcomplainantH are
entitled to their respective opinion in much the same -ay that the
undersi%ned is also entitled to her o-n opinion o! them(
She fnds it very mysterious, ho-ever, that complainant has in his possession
a copy o! the alle%ed letter -hen he is not the addressee o! the same( &nd
no- he has the temerity to use it to character5assassinate the undersi%ned
even i! the same is totally irrelevant to the issues herein( )espondent -ould
li3e to ponder on -hat herein complainant and #ustice *ellosillo have in
common( erhaps, in the interest o! transparency, complainant should
disclose his lin3 -ith #ustice *ellosillo(
#ustice Ti?am !ound respondent8s statements unnecessary, as respondent
hersel! admitted that #ustice *ellosillo8s letter -as irrelevant to the issues at
hand( #ustice Ti?am !ound that 9Buestionin% the inte%rity o! an &ssociate
#ustice o! the Supreme Court unavoidably casts a shado- on the di%nity and
inte%rity o! the Supreme Court as the hi%hest court o! the land(9
Fe a%ree that respondent should have been more circumspect in her
lan%ua%e( Fe have held in a lon% line o! cases that the ?ud%e is the visible
representation o! the la-( Thus, a ?ud%e must behave at all times in such a
manner that his or her conduct, o<cial or other-ise, can -ithstand the most
searchin% public scrutiny( The ethical principles and sense o! propriety o! a
?ud%e are essential to the preservation o! the people8s !aith in the ?udicial
system( :o-ever, -e do not a%ree that respondent8s action merits the
fndin% o! indirect contempt a%ainst her( )espondent8s outburst -as due to
the !act that the sub?ect letter o! #ustice *ellosillo -as addressed to then
Chie! #ustice :ilario '( "avide, #r(, copy !urnished all &ssociate #ustices o! the
Supreme Court( She had never seen the letter and she must have been
surprised -hen complainant Buoted e>cerpts o! the letter in his pleadin%s( 4t
is e>pected o! her to try to fnd out ho- complainant %ot hold o! a copy o!
the letter(
F:E)E,$)E, -e )E)42&." respondent &doracion '( &n%eles, residin%
#ud%e o! the )e%ional Trial Court o! Caloocan City, *ranch 1+1, !or her use o!
intemperate lan%ua%e in her pleadin%s( )espondent is STE).IY F&).E"
that a repetition o! the same or similar act shall merit a more severe
sanction( Fe "4S24SS all the other char%es a%ainst respondent(
S$ $)"E)E"(

You might also like