SABENIANA M. PEREZ, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE PANFILO W. ALPUERTO, MCTC, CATMON-CARMEN-SOGOD, RESPONDENT.

Complainant Sabeniana M. Perez, in two
(2) sworn letters-complaints, charges Hon. Panfilo W.
Alpuerto, MCTC, Catmon-Carmen-Sogod,
Cebu, with abuse of discretion, oppression, bias,
falsification, and ignorance of the law for having dismissed Criminal Case No.
1464-CR for serious physical injuries through reckless imprudence entitled, “People vs. Napoleon D. Capuno,” in which she was the offended party.

In her first complaint dated April 14, 1988, complainant
alleged:  (1) that the criminal action
was dismissed on May 21, 1987 for failure to prosecute because of the absence
of the prosecuting fiscal; (2) that while respondent Judge was solicitous of
the right of the accused to a speedy trial, he was totally oblivious of her
(complainant’s) sufferings as a victim of the accident, having been
hospitalized for 82 days and submitting to loan sharks to be able to defray her
medical expenses; and, (3) that respondent Judge should have inhibited himself
from trying the case because the wife of the accused is his wife’s niece.

In her second complaint dated April 22, 1988, complainant
averred:  (1) that respondent Judge
falsely stated in his aforementioned order of May 21, 1987 that the case was
dismissed upon motion of counsel for the accused, although, as a matter of
fact, neither the accused nor his counsel, nor respondent Judge was present in
court on that date; (2) that this falsehood was repeated in his Order of March
15, 1988; (3) that respondent Judge, in ignorance of the Rules on Summary
Procedure, dismissed the case instead of allowing counsel for the accused (granting
he was present) to cross-examine a prosecution witness; and (4) that for
several months thereafter, respondent Judge hid the records of the case in his
house to prevent the complainant from
obtaining copies of the minutes of the proceedings.

In his Comment, respondent Judge alleged that there was no hasty
dismissal of the case, for in fact, it had dragged on for some time for failure
of the prosecution to proceed; that on May 21, 1987, the fiscal did not appear
despite due notice, and without a proper motion for postponement being filed;
and that the dismissal was not prejudicial to the complainant for she had filed
a separate civil action for damages.

Respondent Judge denied the charge of falsification for he did
hear two (2) cases on May 21, 1987,
as shown by a copy of the transcripts thereof. 
He also denied the charge of ignorance of the law, for the dismissal of
the case was based on failure to prosecute and on the right of the accused to a
speedy trial.

He denied the alleged relationship of his wife to the accused Capuno and avers that, anyway, his wife’s relatives are not
immune from conviction if
warranted by the evidence.

On June 14, 1988,
respondent Judge applied for optional retirement.

The complaint was referred for investigation to Executive Judge Fortunato A. Vailoces, RTC,
Branch 22, Cebu
City (now an Associate Justice of
the Court of Appeals).

On August
22, 1990, Justice Vailoces submitted to this Court his report and the records
of his investigation, including the documentary exhibits and transcripts of
stenographic notes.

Justice Vailoces found that the criminal action against Capuno was commenced on April 29, 1986 by the Station Commander of Carmen.  After seven (7) settings, Capuno
was arraigned on September 16, 1986.  It
took eight (8) more settings of the trial before a prosecution witness
showed up on December 9, 1986.  All the continuances and resettings,
except one, were at the instance of the prosecution.  On October 28, 1986, accused Capuno moved for the dismissal of the case, invoking his
constitutional right to a speedy trial. 
Respondent Judge denied the motion “to give the prosecution and the
Station Commander all the opportunity, to request (for) a fiscal to . . .
handle this case.” (p. 6, Report.)

 On the issue of falsification,
Justice Vailoces noted that the complainant did not
mention in her original complaint, but only in her second complaint, the
alleged falsehood in the court’s order of dismissal.  He also found that this was not
satisfactorily proven because the complainant’s evidence was not based on
personal knowledge but on the affidavits of her sisters, Fe Perez and Nena Perez, and of Narciso Fulgo and Gamaliel Euldan.  However, of
the four (4) affiants, only three (3) testified during the investigation.  In any event, their allegations were
effectively traversed by respondent Judge.

Justice Vailoces noted that the allegation of respondent Judge and
his three (3) witnesses, that he held court in the afternoon of May 21, 1987, was supported by official and public records; that Attorneys Serafin Branzuela and Gabriel Roldan, members of the Bar in good standing and
already in their 70’s, are entitled to the presumption of trustworthiness; that
Amelita T. Cabatania,
stenographic reporter in the office of respondent Judge, testified that
hearings were conducted by the latter in three (3) cases on May 21, 1987, which
she recorded stenographically; that her stenographic
notes (Exh. 8) in Criminal Case No. 1464-CR,
“People vs. Napoleon Capuno” are in the
records of said case (pp. 122-123), and the transcript, consisting of three (3)
pages (Exh. 9) is on pages 124 to 126 thereof.  The last page of said transcript is the
respondent Judge’s order of dismissal (Exh. 9-E) duly
signed by him.  Cabatania
denied having told complainant’s sisters that the case against Capuno was postponed due to the absence of the fiscal.

Complainant failed to
refute the testimonies of Attorneys Branzuela and Roldan with proof that in the afternoon of May 21, 1987
respondent Judge or either of these lawyers were
somewhere else other than in the courtroom in Catmon.  Accordingly, the rule that positive testimony
should be accorded more weight
than negative testimony should apply.  It
is also clear from the record that respondent Judge, for the protection of the
complainant, waited until complainant could file her separate civil action
before granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss based on his constitutional
right to speedy trial.  The allegation
then that respondent Judge was absent from his station in the afternoon of May 21,
1987, leading to the
supposed falsification of the dismissal order, has no basis.

According to Justice Vailoces, respondent Judge testified that in the morning of
May 21, 1987,
he was in Bogo where he is Acting Judge of the Bogo-San Remigio Municipal
Circuit Trial Court.  In the afternoon,
he was in Catmon. 
The criminal case against Napoleon Capuno was
one of the three (3) cases he heard. 
Upon motion by the defense counsel, because of the absence of the fiscal
and of the complainant, he issued the order of dismissal complained of.  In several incidents prior to May 21,
1987, he had
exercised care and diligence to protect the rights of the complainant as the
offended party in the case.  He disclosed
that the complainant had filed a charge against him before the Ombudsman
concerning the same order of dismissal, and that the complaint was dismissed
for lack of merit.

Associate Justice Vailoces recommended that:

“x x x the charges of OPPRESSION,
FALSIFICATION, PARTIALITY (TO FAVOR A RELATIVE), and IGNORANCE OF THE LAW
against respondent Judge Panfilo W. Alpuerto by complainant SABENIANA M. PEREZ (now Mrs.
SABENIANA M. PEREZ-ESTILLORE) be DISMISSED as they have not been effectively
substantiated and proved by complainant.

“For the anomalous witholding, however, of notice to the fiscal and to the
complainant of his order of dismissal of Criminal Case No. 1464-CR, tantamount
to improper and irregular performance of duty, it is recommended that the
respondent judge be CENSURED and REPRIMANDED, with a warning that repetition
thereof would be dealt with more severely.” (p. 9,
Report.)

The recommendations of Associate Justice Vailoces
are hereby approved by this Court.

Complainant’s imputation of partiality is premised on the
contention that Ludivina Villamor
Buot, the wife of the accused Capuno,
is the niece of respondent Judge’s wife, Yolanda Villamor.  The alleged close relationship was not
satisfactorily proven by the complainant.  Her evidence is not based on personal
knowledge but on “public knowledge.” Indeed, if such relationship
really existed, she should have earlier asked the prosecutor to move for the
inhibition of respondent Judge.  She did
not.

With respect to the third ground of the complaint, the
complainant was able to prove that she was given the run-around when she
requested for a copy of the dismissal order and the minutes of the proceedings
in the Capuno case on that date.  Although the complainant had already filed a
separate civil action, she was entitled to receive a copy of the dismissal
order when she made a request for it. 
The right to information on matters of public concern is a
constitutional right.  Access to official
records and to documents and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions,
or decisions shall be afforded the
citizen, subject to such limitations as may be provided by law (Valmonte vs. Belmonte, 170 SCRA
256).  Respondent Judge’s act was
tantamount to ignorance of basic rules on the disposition and safekeeping of
court records and their character as public records accessible to public
scrutiny and examination.

The order of dismissal for failure to prosecute was a final order
equivalent to an acquittal (Esmena vs. Pogoy, 102 SCRA 861; People vs. Quizada,
160 SCRA 516).  Copies of it should have
been furnished the parties.  Strangely,
while respondent Judge issued orders separate and distinct from the
stenographer’s transcripts on motions for postponement of arraignment and
relief of the private prosecutor, he failed to issue a typewritten order of dismissal;
instead, he merely signed the portion of the transcript of stenographic notes
where the dismissal appears.  It was a
too casual and informal treatment of his final disposition
of the criminal case.

The practice among court stenographers is to transcribe
immediately and typewrite orders dictated by the judge in open court so that he
can sign them.  Why this was not followed
in the criminal case in question is not clear. 
Stenographic reporter Amelita T. Cabatania and respondent Judge have not satisfactorily
explained the omission.  The order of
dismissal, found only in the transcript, was reproduced in the order of
dismissal which was issued much later on March 15, 1988, by
respondent Judge.  The long interval
fuels suspicion that the order which surfaced was an 11th hour
improvisation.

WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Judge guilty of
dereliction of duty and improper conduct bordering on oppression.  He is hereby CENSURED, REPRIMANDED and WARNED
that a repetition of the same in the future will be dealt with more severely.

SO ORDERED.

Fernan, C.J., Narvasa,
Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Paras, Feliciano, Gancayco,
Padilla, Bidin, Medialdea, Regalado, and Davide, Jr., JJ., concur.

Sarmiento, J., on leave.