A.M. No. 1402-MJ. September 14, 1979
HERMOGENES ANGULUAN AND ANGEL ANGULUAN, COMPLAINANTS, VS. HON. HENRY C. TAGUBA, RESPONDENT.
FERNANDEZ, J.:
In a joint affidavit subscribed and sworn to at Tuguegarao,
Cagayan on September 10, 1976,[1]
Hermogenes Anguluan and Angel Anguluan charged the respondent Municipal Judge
Henry C. Taguba of Rizal, Cagayan with (1) conniving with Mayor Ventura
Baloran of Rizal, Cagayan in the filing of “an imaginary, fabricated,
baseless and unfounded criminal case of Qualified Trespass” against the
complainant Hermogenes Anguluan and other persons as a consequence of which
the persons charged were imprisoned for three (3) days at the municipal jail of
Rizal on August 3, 4 and 5, 1976, and (2) advising the complainants and Aleco
Anguluan, Diosdado Gundan and Jose de la Cruz, to sign an affidavit in the
presence of Mayor Baloran on August 12, 1976 without allowing them to read the
affidavit wherein the affiants admitted having entered upon “the area
presently occupied and belonging to VENTURA B. BALORAN, a resident of Barrio
Cambabangan, Rizal, Cagayan.”[2]
This affidavit-complaint was referred to the respondent for
comment.[3]
In his comment filed on
November 19, 1976, the respondent denied the alleged connivance between
himself and Mayor Ventura Baloran but admitted that Criminal Case No. 216 for
Qualified Trespass was filed before him by Acting Chief of Police David G.
Duruin on June 18, 1974 and alleged that he conducted the requisite preliminary
investigation of the case on August 29, 1974 but issued the warrant of arrest
only on August 3, 1976; and that respondent’s inability to promptly rule on
the existence of probable cause was due to his belief that the dispute was
more or less civil in nature and “there were sincere efforts on the part
of both parties to settle the case.”[4]
On the charge that the
respondent failed to read and explain to the affiants the averments of the
affidavit, the respondent said:
“The Affidavit of Hermogenes Anguluan and Angel Anguluan was
prepared by somebody else. All what I
could recall was the Municipal Secretary in the morning whom I trusted to
serve as a bridge between the Mayor and accused approached me and asked
accommodation to mediate the differences of the parties. Since this was the first time that a
respectable and responsible person made a request which request could not be
turned down considering his stature, I acceded believing that it could
terminate once and for all their squabble.
So that in the afternoon when the Mayor brought in the supposed affiants
of the affidavit in question, I thought that that was the work of the
Secretary. I instructed my clerk to
supervise the signing and unaware of the legal effects of the document, he
assured me that everything was alright.
I did that because at the time I was helpless without eyeglasses.”[5]
On the alleged detention
of the complainants for three days, the respondent said:
“It is alleged in the Joint Affidavit of Hermogenes Anguluan
and Angel Anguluan that they were detained.
May I ask if a Court
after conducting the requisite preliminary investigation prior to arrest is
devoid of any power to issue a Warrant of Arrest. The new lawyer who instigated this case
against me should study his law. The law
is clear on the matter that after a Judge has asked searching questions of the
complainant and his witnesses, a Warrant of Arrest could be issued there being
findings of probable cause, which is present in the case. As to the allegation that when I subscribed
their affidavit, I did not explain to them what was then being subscribed, I
know clearly my law on the matter and if there was mistake committed, I was
probably laboring under the impression that everything was in order and since
my Court and/or office was overcrowded doing plenty of work and forgot my
eyeglasses then at home I mislooked and overlooked important items that should
at the first place given close scrutiny.
But while I admit slight oversight on minor matters, I deny vigorously that
I connived with certain parties. I
cannot sacrifice the immense prestige of a judge in a small municipality for
the sake of temporary friendship and narrow convenience. My oath as such has always served as my
guidepost for discipline, excellence and fairness.”[6]
In a Resolution dated
June 19, 1978, this Court referred the case to Executive Judge Alberto Gampoña
of the Court of First Instance of Cagayan, at Tuao, Cagayan for investigation,
report and recommendation.[7] Judge Gampoña submitted his Report and
Recommendation[8] to this Court on February 15, 1979.
During the investigation
on September 14, 1978 conducted by Judge Gampoña, the complainant, Hermogenes
Anguluan, appeared without counsel and manifested his intention to withdraw
his complaint against the respondent.[9]
On October 16, 1978,
complainants’ counsel appeared on the scheduled hearing without the
complainants. Said counsel informed the
investigating judge about his clients’ desire to withdraw the complaint.[10]
On October 30, 1978, a
motion to withdraw the complaint was filed by complainants’ lawyer, Atty.
Nelson C. Villaflor. To said motion was
attached the affidavit of complainant, Hermogenes Anguluan, explaining the
non-appearance of the other complainant, Angel A. Anguluan, whose whereabouts
are not known to him and alleging that the administrative matter was being
withdrawn because the affidavit-complaint “does not in any way substantiate a good cause of
action” and the complainants’ “evidence on hand will not suffice our
charge x x x.”[11]
Notwithstanding the above-stated motion to withdraw, Alberto
Gampoña examined the records of the case.
He found that the respondent judge had committed gross negligence in the
performance of his judicial functions in that the respondent gave due course to
the complaint for Qualified Trespass in Criminal Case No. 216 filed on June
18, 1974; that it was clear from
the complaint and the supporting affidavits that the crime charged therein had
already prescribed; that moreover, although the preliminary examination was
conducted on August 29, 1974, the warrant of arrest was issued only on August
3, 1976, after the lapse of more than two (2) years from date the complaint was
filed; and that finally, the respondent admitted that he failed to explain the
contents of the affidavit which was subscribed and sworn to on August 12, 1976
before him by complainant Hermogenes Anguluan and four other persons, the
dismissal of Criminal Case No. 216 being based on said affidavit.
The findings of Judge Alberto Gampoña are supported by the facts
of record.
The criminal complaint filed by the Acting Chief of Police, David
G. Duruin, in Criminal Case No. 216 before the Municipal Court of Rizal,
Cagayan, presided by the respondent judge reads as follows:
“C
O M P L A I N T
The undersigned Acting Chief of Police, Rizal, Cagayan, under oath
accuses HERMOGENES ANGULUAN, DIOSDADO GUNDAN, ALEJO ANGULUAN, ANGEL ANGULUAN,
JOSE DE LA CRUZ AND ERNESTO ANGULUAN, for
the crime of ‘QUALIFIED TRESPASS’ defined and penalized under Art. 280 in
relation to Article 281 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, committed
as follows, to wit:
That on or about 10th day of December, 1973, in the Municipality of
Rizal, Province of Cagayan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused without justifiable cause and has not
secured the permission of the owner entered the enclosed estate of one VENTURA
B. BALORAN of plowing and planted corn versus the latter’s will.
Contrary to law.
Rizal, Cagayan, May 6, 1974.
DAVID G. DURUIN
Actg. Chief of
Police”[12]
It is to be noted that although the crime
is designated as qualified trespass, the allegations describe the offense as
other forms of trespass defined by Article 281 of the Revised Penal Code with
the penalty of arresto menor or a fine not exceeding
P200.00. The act of entering a fenced
estate is a light felony in view of the penalty imposed.[13]
Light offenses prescribe in two months.[14]
It is alleged in the criminal complaint filed by the Acting Chief
of Police that the crime was committed on December 10, 1973. The criminal complaint was filed only on June
18, 1974. The respondent judge should
have known immediately by simply reading the criminal complaint that the crime
charged had prescribed. The respondent
judge displayed gross ignorance of the law in giving due course to the criminal
complaint as a result of which the persons accused were detained for three
days.
Although the preliminary examination was conducted on August 29,
1974, the warrant of arrest was issued only on August 3, 1976. The failure of the respondent judge to issue the warrant of arrest within
a reasonable time is suspicious. The
respondent judge was either ignorant of his duty or he was impelled by an
ulterior motive.
And finally, the respondent judge admitted that he did not
explain the affidavit to the affiants before he administered the oath. His excuse that he could not read without his
eyeglasses is asinine, to say the
least.
Although the complainants have
asked for the withdrawal of this complaint, the Court cannot overlook the
anomalouzs acts of the respondent judge. The actuations of the respondent judge
seriously the public interest inasmuch as they involve the administration of
justice. It is for this reason that the motion to withdraw
the complaint filed by the complainants will not justify the dismissal of this administrative respondent. As stated by the Supreme Court in Vasquez
versus Malvar,[15] “x x x Furthermore, to condition
administrative actions upon the will of
every complainant, who may, for one reason or another, condone a detestable act, is to
strip this Court of its supervisory power to discipline erring
member of the Juduiciary.”
Under the established
facts and circumstances, the respondent judge should be imposed a penalty of suspension from office without pay
for three months.
WHEREFORE, the respondent judge, Henry C. Taguba, found
guilty of serious irregularities in the performance of his duties as a
municipal judge and is hereby suspended from office for a period of three (3)
months without pay effective from the finality of this decision.
SO ORDERED.
Teehankee, Acting C.J., (Chairman), Guerrero, De Castro, and
Melencio-Herrera, JJ., concur.
Makasiar, J., is on official
leave.
[1]
Rollo, pp. 5-6.
[2]
Rollo, p. 8.
[3]
Rollo, p. 9.
[4]
Rollo, pp. 10-11.
[5]
Letter Answer, Rollo, pp. 10-11.
[6]
Idem., Rollo, p. 11.
[7]
Rollo, p. 31.
[8]
Rollo, pp. 68-91.
[9]
Rollo, p. 38.
[10]
Rollo, p. 40.
[11]
Rollo, pp. 42-47.
[12]
Rollo, p. 12.
[13]
Article 9, 3rd paragraph, Revised
Penal Code.
[14]
Article 90, Revised Penal Code.
[15]
85 SCRA 10, 26.