RODRIGO CORTEZ, COMPLAINANT, VS. CITY JUDGE AVELINO CONSTANTINO, BRANCH XII, MANILA, RESPONDENT.

From a judgment of acquitting an accused in a criminal case, respondent
City Judge Avelino Constantino
of Branch XII, Manila had to face
an administrative complaint for grave abuse of discretion from Rodrigo Cortez,
the aggrieved party in a case for slight physical injuries against one Cerilo Regala.  In an eleven-page decision of acquittal,
respondent Judge explained in some detail why the version of they accused Regala as to how the fist fight resulting in the injuries
inflicted arose, was more credible. 
Thus:  “Pitted against the
testimony of the complainant, the Court finds the story of the accused to be
the more credible version.  Witness
Cortez insists that he was not drunk, but his own medical certificate (Exhibit
‘A’) states that he had alcoholic breath (Exhibit ‘A-1’) which,
belies his claim that he had only a small sip of hard drinks.  The Court is thus persuaded that he stayed
longer than five minutes with his friend Ricardo San Diego who invited him for
a drink.  His testimony that he waited
two hours to get that short ride from Concepcion
to the PWU bears a closer look.  San
Diego was not presented to support the alleged five
minutes-only drink with complainant.  His
earlier statement that he did not drink at the eatery near the PWU* * *, he
contradicted on rebuttal as he testified that he did take a small quantity of
alcohol in that restaurant at the back of PWU * * *.  A five-minute sip of liquor would not be
enough to register a positive finding of alcoholic breath when examined several
hours later.  He was found to have
alcoholic breath, because he had imbibed such quantity of liquor sufficient to
put him in that condition where the outward manifestation is seen in a person
when he is tipsy. 
The legs become shaky and he is no longer firm in his steps.  His reflexes are generally slow and he is
prone to be clumsy.  A misstep resulting
in a stumble or falling down is very likely. 
He is not yet intoxicated or dead drunk, as more commonly known, because
if he is at this stage, he can no longer move on his own unaided.  It was in this inebriated state when he hailed
the Blumentritt-bound jeepney
and while on board, he was exhibiting the signs of a person who was going to
vomit.  Emphasis is placed on Cortez’s
condition, because it was the root cause of the incident.  Had he been sober, the accused would have
normally and easily alighted from the jeepney which
is being done everyday by thousands of front seat jeepney
passengers.  But because a co-passenger
has absorbed so much alcohol as to adversely affect his movement and his
thinking, a misunderstanding arose on the trivial matter of alighting.  At this point, it is a touch-and-go situation
on the question of credibility of the protagonists.  Complainant would say that he was simultaneously
pushed and boxed as he was not quick to alight in order to give way to the
accused.  The latter maintains that
complainant slipped while alighting. 
Angered because of his fall which he blames on the accused, he took a
punch at him.  A fist fight ensued as the
accused retaliated.  The complainant, in
the condition that he was, naturally got the worse of the fisticuffs.  Cortez claims that the beating he received
was the result of mauling by Regala and 2 alleged
bystanders who aided the accused.  This
was denied by Regala and it appear[s] in the records
that he was indeed alone.  The crime
report (Exhibit ‘D’), which embodies the complaint of Cortez, does not make
mention of any confederate.  The
information did not say that accused was in company with others when the
alleged offense was committed.  Moreover,
it was raining hard that evening and it was not likely that a mere and innocent
bystander would join the fray just for the fun of it.  Verily, people usually [avoid] and [shy] away
from trouble.  Similarly, those who are
drunk are avoided and kept at a distance by sober men and so, it is hard to
believe that the accused would deliberately pick on the complainant and
[engage] him in a fist fight, except to defend himself.  Under the above facts and circumstances, the
Court can find no clear guilt in the accused.”^[1]

The verdict, as noted, was one of acquittal.  From the above excerpt of the assailed
decision, it is quite evident why the administrative, complaint for grave abuse
of discretion lacks legal foundation.  So
Acting Judicial Consultant Lorenzo Relova
recommended.  We agree.

It certainly would be less than fair if a judge, who had so
meticulously examined the evidence and had so carefully prepared a decision
explaining why he came to the conclusion he did, could be found liable for
grave abuse of discretion.  This is another
one of those instances where the leading In re Horilleno
decision^[2]
of Justice Malcolm finds application. 
Respondent can in no wise be held to have laid himself open to the
accusation that his act was corrupt or “inspired by an intention to
violate the law, or [was] in persistent disregard of well-known legal
rules.”^[3]
Far from it.

WHEREFORE, the administrative complaint against respondent
Manila City Judge Avelino Constantino
is dismissed.  Let a copy of this
resolution be spread on the record.

Barredo, Antonio, and Concepcion, Jr.,
JJ., concur.

Aquino, J., concurs.  There is no showing
that the judgment of acquittal is an unjust judgment rendered maliciously or by
reason of inexcusable negligence or ignorance. 
(In re Climaco, Adm.
Case No. 134-J, January 21, 1974, 55 SCRA 107.

^[1]
Decision in Criminal Case F-162779 of the City Court of Manila entitled People v.
Regala, 8-10, Annex A of
Complaint.

^[2] 43 Phil. 212 (1922).

^[3] Ibid, 214. Cf. Enriquez v. Araula,
Adm. Case No. 270-J, Dec. 18, 1973, 54 SCRA 232; Tombo
v. Medina, Adm. Case No. 929, Jan. 17, 1974, 55 SCRA 13; Lampauog v. Villarojo,
Adm. Matter No. 381-MJ, Jan. 28, 1974, 55 SCRA 304; Bartolome
v. De Borja, Adm. Matter No. 1096, May 31,
1976; Amosco v. Magro, Adm.
Matter No. 439-MJ, Sept. 30, 1976.