SALVADOR VELOSO, COMPLAINANT, VS. MUNICIPAL JUDGE GODOFREDO CARMONA OF SOCORRO, ORIENTAL MINDORO.

Marceliano Rivera, Jr. was charged by the chief of police with slight
physical injuries in the municipal court of Pola, Oriental Mindoro in a
complaint dated June 18, 1973. The
offended party was Salvador Veloso (Criminal Case No. 2584). Rivera voluntarily surrendered to the chief
of police on July 30, 1973. He posted a
“character bond” for his re­lease.

Godofredo L. Carmona, the incumbent municipal judge of the
neighboring town of Socorro (he is a native of Pola) and the acting municipal
judge of Pola, heard the case. At the
hearing scheduled on August 18, 1973 Rivera did not appear. His bond was cancelled. The hearing was reset for August 28,
1973. According to Judge Carmona,
Veloso was notified of that hearing through his father and he (the judge) even
wrote him a letter to apprise him of that hearing.

Rivera, assisted by a counsel de officio, appeared at the
hearing scheduled on August 28. Veloso
was not pre­sent. In view of Veloso’s
absence, the chief of police asked for postponement. Rivera’s counsel objected. He was arraigned. He pleaded
guilty. When Veloso arrived in court at
ten o’clock that morning, he was informed
that the case was already terminated.

On that same
morning, Judge Carmona signed a decision, convicting Rivera of slight physical
injuries and im­posing upon him a fine of twenty-five pesos and the penalty of
public censure, “without costs”. No civil liability was adjudged. The mitigating circumstances of plea of guilt and voluntary surrender to
the authorities were appreciated in Rivera’s favor. Rivera paid the fine on that same date, August 28.

That decision provoked Veloso to file on September 3 an
administrative complaint against Judge Carmona. Veloso alleged that on the date of the trial, respondent judge
reproached him for not assenting to Rivera’s offer of compromise. Veloso was surprised as to why only a fine
was imposed on Rivera, con­sidering that the latter never appeared at the trial
and he was not even arrested when he failed to appear at the scheduled
hearing. Veloso said that the judge did
not answer his inquiries and that he was not given a copy of the decision and
he was not shown any document confirming that Rivera had pleaded guilty and had
paid the fine.

The Judicial Consultant observed that respondent should have
ordered the arrest of the accused upon his failure to appear at the trial
despite due notice of his bondsmen.

It may further be observed that respondent Judge should have made
a finding as to the civil liability of the accused con­sidering the allegation
in the complaint that the offended party suffered “contusion with
abrasions on the left cheek and left axillary fold, which injuries will require
medical treatment from 7 to 9 days barring complication”.

As to Veloso’s gripe that he was not given a copy of the decision, it should be
noted that the chief of police, as the representative of the prosecution, was
furnished with a copy of the decision.

The foregoing facts do not warrant any disciplinary action
against the respondent.

WHEREFORE, the complaint is dismissed but the respondent
is warned and admonished to be more careful in the performance of his duties so
that his integrity and fairness will he above suspicion. Let a copy of this resolution be attached to
his personal record.

SO ORDERED.

Fernando, (Chairman), Barredo, Antonio, and Concepcion, Jr., JJ., concur.