ANICETO C. LOPEZ, COMPLAINANT, VS. MUNICIPAL JUDGE CASTOR B. CORPUZ OF KIAMBA, SOUTH COTABATO, RESPONDENT.

The accusation filed against
respondent Municipal Judge Castor B. Corpuz of Kiamba, South Cotabato, who was likewise acting in a concurrent
capacity as the Municipal Judge of Maasim of the same province, was the willful
violation of Republic Act No. 6036, the complainant being a certain Aniceto C.
Lopez of General Santos City.  All
that was imputed to him was that in his order of June 30, 1972, he released on the basis of an affidavit of
recognizance a provisionally detained accused, Luis Gonzales, the lone suspect
in a criminal case for estafa.  The
complainant was the alleged offended party in such criminal case.  When asked to comment, respondent Judge
denied that there was such a violation on his part, alleging at the same time
that he was being subjected to harassment.

The complaint was referred to Judge Pedro Animas of the Court of
First Instance of General Santos City for investigation and report.  He inquired into the matter.  The complainant declared that he was no
longer interested in pursuing the charge. 
This notwithstanding, respondent asked that he be heard as the complaint
involved his integrity.  Thereafter,
Judge Animas submitted his report recommending dismissal of the complaint.  Pertinent portions of his findings read as
follows:  “It appears that on April 27, 1972, complainant filed a
criminal case of estafa against Luis Gonzales for the reason that the latter
took his cow worth P1,000.00 in his ranch in Maasim, South
Cotabato, without his knowledge and the accused failed to pay him
inspite of repeated demands.  A warrant
of arrest was issued and the bail bond for his provisional liberty was fixed at
P2,000.00.  Arrested on June 7, 1972, accused was detained for almost a month for
failure to put up a bail bond. 
Thereafter, he filed a petition with the lower court presided by
respondent allowing him to avail of the privileges provided for by Republic Act
No. 6036 with Councilors Aquino and Muñasque of Maasim, South Cotabato acting
as his custodian and witness, respectively. 
No opposition was filed to this petition; hence, he was released on a
bail of recognizance on June 30, 1972
with Councilor Ruben Aquino as custodian and Councilor Pompei Muñasque and
Emiliana Vda. de Lopez (relative of complainant) as
witnesses.  Neither was there any motion
for reconsideration to said order.  For
having failed to report on October
19, 1972 and to explain satisfactorily his failure, the affidavit
of recognizance was cancelled and the accused rearrested on November 1, 1972.  That was a few days before respondent
received a copy of the letter-complaint of Mr. Aniceto Lopez.  The estafa in question is punishable by arresto
mayor in its maximum period to prision correcional in its
minimum period (Art. 315, Revised Penal Code). 
Strictly speaking, the case of Luis Gonzales is not covered by Republic
Act No. 6036 as it applies only ‘to a person charged with violation of a
municipal or city ordinance, a light felony and/or a criminal offense the
prescribed penalty of which is not higher than six months and/or a fine of
P2,000.00 or both * * *.’ There is evidence, however, per explanation of
respondent Judge that the accused acted only upon instruction of Arpa
Macalancom and Baby Niera who employed him as a helper and who instructed him
to get the cow because there was already a previous understanding between them
and the complainant.  There is no showing
here, as there is no evidence to the contrary that said explanation of the
accused was not true.  Respondent Judge
construing [the law] as well as the right to bail, liberally in favor of the
accused, as it should be, then believed that the accused was entitled to the
benefits of Republic Act 6036 as the penalty imposable under the circumstance
would then not be over arresto mayor.  That he acted maliciously is not even alluded
to and the mantle of legal presumption of having acted in good faith covers his
official actuation.  Such being the case,
coupled with the open manifestation of the complainant that he has lost any
interest whatsoever in the further prosecution of his administrative complaint,
it is our conviction that this case has no leg to stand [on].”^[1]

There is no question about the good faith of respondent
Judge.  He was quite sympathetic to the
plight of the accused in case for estafa. 
All that he did as a lowly paid employee was to follow
instruction given to him.  Then he
found himself prosecuted for estafa and apparently no payment was made by his
employer for the cow taken from the ranch of complainant.  The latter’s sense of grievance for what he
believed to be an affront to his property rights was so great that he would go
to the extent of asking for the dismissal of respondent Judge, who ordered the
release on the recognizance of two prominent citizens, as the accused had been
detained for over a month.  Judge Corpuz
thought he could do so by virtue of the spirit, if not of the letter, of
Republic Act No. 6036.

At the most then, there was an error of law.  As was pointed out by the
then Justice, later Chief Justice, Makalintal, in Vda. de Zabala v. Pamaran,^[2]
mere errors should not be visited with a penalty rather severe in character,
which is what is sought by complainant in this case, although he had the good
sense to desist from further prosecuting his charge when the investigation was
held.  This sentence in the opinion of
the then Justice Makalintal finds relevance: 
“No one, called upon to try the facts or interpret the law in the
process of administering justice, can be infallible in his judgment.”^[3]

WHEREFORE, the administrative complaint against respondent
Judge Castor B. Corpuz is dismissed.  Let
a copy of this resolution be spread on his record.

Barredo, (Acting Chairman), Antonio, Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., and Santos,
JJ., concur.

^[1] Order dated March 13, 1973 of Inquest District Judge Pedro Animas, 1-3.

^[2] Adm. Case No. 200-J, June 10, 1971, 39 SCRA 430.

^[3] Ibid, 433.