FLORENCIA SEALANA-ABBU, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE FLORANTE E. MADRONO, RESPONDENT.

For resolution herein are two administrative complaints filed
against respondent Judge Florante E. Madrono of the 4th Municipal Circuit Trial
Court of Balingasag-Lagonglong, Misamis Oriental.

I

Adm. Matter No. 92-1-084-RTC is a letter-complaint filed by Asst. Provincial Fiscal Florencia
Sealana-Abbu against respondent Judge for inappropriate application and/or
grant of bail bonds. The complaint was
filed before Actg. Executive Judge Alfredo J. Lagamon of the Regional Trial
Court of Misamis Oriental, who was tasked to investigate the same.

It appears that in People vs. Nepomuceno Valerio, docketed as
Crim. Case No. 8041 filed by complainant Assistant Fiscal before the Court
presided by respondent Judge, the accused therein was charged with illegal
possession of firearms. The accused
subsequently applied for bail. Under
Sec. 1, P.D. 1866, as amended, said offense is punishable by reclusion temporal in its maximum period to
reclusion perpetua. Respondent Judge,
however, granted bail in the amount of P5,000.00 only. Upon motion for reduction of bail filed by P/Maj. Aquilino C.
Ipan, Station Commander of Balingasag, Misamis Oriental, in behalf of the
accused, respondent Judge without notice to the prosecution of said application
further reduced the amount of bail for the provisional release of the accused
to P3,000.00.

Executive Judge
Lagamon in his report dated June 2, 1992, recommends that respondent Judge be
reprimanded for precipitately granting and/or reducing the bail bond of accused
Nepomuceno Valerio without prior notice to the prosecution. His findings and recommendations are as
follows:

“The penalty for illegal possession of firearms under Section 1 of
P.D. 1866 is reclusion temporal in its
maximum period to reclusion perpetua. The office of the Provincial Prosecutor and office of the City
Prosecutor in Cagayan de Oro City following the guidelines in Department of
Justice Circular 10-8 directing the prosecutors to recommend the amount of
P10,000.00 per year of imprisonment, generally recommends between P170,000.00 to P300,000.00 or no bail. The order of the respondent judge granting
bail in the amount of P3,000,00 was much too low.

“Taking into consideration that the Court has only preliminary
jurisdiction, sound practice would have dictated that the office of the
Provincial Prosecutor be notified of any motion to allow bail or for reduction
of bail bond. In the instant case, the
Provincial Prosecutor was never notified of the motion. In fact, the complaint against the
respondent was initiated by Asst. Provincial Prosecutor Florencia D.
Sealana-Abbu. When a warrant of arrest
was issued by the respondent judge dated August 6, 1986, he already fixed bail
in the amount of P5,000.00 and there is no showing that the same was upon
recommendation or with the acquiescence of the prosecution.

“The fact that the accused did not jump bail may be appreciated as
a mitigating circumstance.

“The undersigned, therefore, recommends that the respondent Judge
Florante E. Madrono be reprimanded.”

We agree with the findings and recommendation of Executive Judge
Lagamon. Nevertheless, in view of the
fact that respondent Judge had already been dismissed from the service in Adm.
Matter MTJ-90-833, entitled “Venustiano Saburnido vs. Judge Florante Madrono”
(promulgated June 15, 1992), this case has been rendered moot.

II

Adm. Matter No. MTJ-90-486 was initiated by the spouses
Venustiano and Rosalia Saburnido in a letter-complaint dated April 10, 1990 addressed to the then Executive Judge
Celso P. Largo.

In the said letter-complaint, Venustiano Saburnido, member of the
Philippine National Police, alleged that on March 22, 1989, he was a member of
a police patrol team on board a pumpboat which seized and apprehended smuggled
goods, all brand-new and foreign-made, while patrolling the waters of Misamis
Oriental. The following day, the seized
goods were deposited inside the office of respondent Judge upon the filing of a
criminal case for smuggling against the perpetrators thereof. The case was docketed as Crim. Case No.
8398, entitled “People vs. Antigua.” Respondent Judge issued a receipt for the seized goods which included 21
small TV sets, 12 big TV sets, 5 tires and 1 Toshiba refrigerator.

In his report dated June 8, 1992, Actg. Executive Judge Alfredo
J. Lagamon, who conducted the investigation of this case (after the retirement
of then Executive Judge Celso P. Largo), stated as follows:

“This case was initiated by Venustiano Saburnido and his wife
Rosalia A. Saburnido per their letter-complaint dated April 10, 1990 addressed
to Executive Judge Celso P. Largo, alleging that 33 TV sets which were
deposited in trust with the respondent on March 23, 1989 were sold to different
buyers.

xx x               xx x                  xxx

“Former Executive Judge Celso P. Largo referred the complaint of
Mr. and Mrs. Saburnido to the Regional Director, NBI, Region 10 requesting
immediate investigation stating that rumors have been circulated that subject
TV sets were allegedly sold and deliberately changed with damaged or destroyed
ones with different serial numbers.

“On July 4, 1990, former Executive Judge Celso P. Largo wrote a
letter to Municipal Circuit Trial Court Judge Madrono which was handcarried by
NBI agents who were going to conduct a physical audit of the TV sets and other
items which were deposited in court. The members of the team were Assistant Director Benjamin S. Hughes, NBI
Agents Attys. Justiniano Parras, Virgilio Mendez, and Teresita L. Lim, State
Audit Examiner, COA-NBI.

“During the ocular inspection, the team headed by NBI Asst.
Regional Director Hughes found in the sala
of respondent Judge Madrono the following:

a) Five (5) units Television sets

b) Three (3) pcs. used Tires

c) One (1) unit Refrigerator

“All the TV sets and tires were found to be unserviceable, and
beyond economical repair. Eighteen (18)
acknowledgment receipts of the TV sets
borrowed by different persons were also submitted.

“The report noted that the acknowledgment receipts were not the
official memorandum receipts (General Form No. 32-A) and bear no indication as
to the complete specifications of the TV sets borrowed.

“During the trial, NBI Assistant Regional Director Benjamin S.
Hughes affirmed that the NBI Regional Office was requested by former Executive
Judge Celso P. Largo to conduct an investigation regarding the complaint of the
spouses Venustiano and Rosalia Saburnido and identified the complaint.

xx x               xxx                   x
x x

“The final report of the NBI
made the following recommendations:

‘Therefore, when subject Judge Madrono allowed and/or consented the
numerous military police officers as well as some civilian government
authorities to borrow said TV sets, even under receipts, he thereby becomes
liable as a consequence thereof – for the crime of Malversation of Public Funds
or Property as provided for under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code, to
wit: “Art. 217. Malversation of Public
Funds or Property – Presumption of Malversation. – Any public officer who, by
reason of the duties of his office, is accountable for public funds or
property, shall appro­priate the same, or shall take or mis­appropriate or
shall consent, or through abandonment or negligence, shall permit any other
person to take such public funds or property, wholly or partially, or shall
otherwise be guilty of the misappropriation or malversation of such funds or
property, shall suffer:

x x x            x x x                 xx
x

‘In view of the foregoing, it is respectfully recommended that
Subject Judge Florante E. Madrono be prosecuted for Malversation of Public
Funds or Property above stated. Furthermore, administrative charges may be filed against him for
allowing military/police officers as well as civilian government officials to
borrow the TV sets submitted to his office as exhibits or evidence resulting in
substitution and loss of the same. Further, that RTC Executive Judge Celso Largo of Misamis Oriental be
furnished copy of our findings.’

“Complainant Venustiano Saburnido is a member of PNP with a rank of
Senior Police Officer I. He declared
that on March 22, he was a member of a team that patrolled the sea of Misamis
Oriental and he saw a pump boat (motorboat) loaded with smuggled goods
consisting of TV sets, tires, a Refrigerator, and four (4) Honda Motorcycles. The pump boat was apprehended and escorted
to the seashore. The items smuggled
were brought to the police station. The
following day, the case was filed in Court and the items smuggled were deposited
in court. He identified a Receipt issued by respondent Judge Madrono showing
that he received 21 small television sets, 12 big television sets, 5 tires, and
1 Toshiba refrigerator. Complainant
Saburnido observed that the items deposited in court could no longer be found
in the office of the respondent judge. Having heard that some of the television sets were sold and some were
borrowed, he reported one matter to former Executive Judge Celso P. Largo
through a letter dated April 10, 1990.

“Respondent Judge Florante E. Madrono admitted that there were 33
television sets depo­sited in his office and at the time of the inspection of
the NBI, 27 television sets were borrowed by several persons under his
responsibi­lity. The respondent Judge
explained that the station commander recommended that it be placed in the
possession of several persons for safekeeping because it might get lost in his
sala which has a common door with PopCom, Comelec, and Municipal Assessor. Further, the courtroom became crowded and
the functions of the court was hampered and that they could hardly move in his
courtroom. He was not aware that the smuggled items should be delivered to
the Bureau of Customs because it was the case of first impression in his
sala. There was no other purpose except
to secure the items and there was an assurance that it will be made available
during the trial and he was, selective who shall take custody of the TV sets.

“Respondent denied that he ever sold a
single TV set and if there is any evidence establishing that he sold a single
item, he will enter a plea of guilty. He asserted that not one TV set among those deposited was ever
lost. After the filing of the
administrative complaint, respondent issued an order to all the persons who
borrowed the items from the court to turn over the same. Some were delivered directly to the NBI for
custody and safekeeping. The 33 TV sets
are now in the possession of Crispin G. Wong, Supply Officer of the Bureau of
Customs, Port of Cagayan de Oro City and he presented the receipt dated April
14, 1992 at 11:00 A.M. showing that the 33 TV sets were in custody of the
Bureau of Customs. Judge Madrono
expressed his great sacrifice and pain in recovering the TV sets.

“Judge Madrono declared that Criminal Case No. 8398 is still
pending in Court because the PNP has not complied with the order to turn over
the pump boat that was lost in the custody of the PNP. He assured that it will be terminated in
three weeks time.

xxx                xxx                   xxx

“Upon motion of complainant, the Court issued an order dated May 8,
1992 that an ocular inspection shall
be conducted on May 19, 1992 at 10:00 o’clock in the morning of the television
sets, refrigerator, and tires which were deposited in the Bureau of
Customs. During the ocular inspection,
neither the complainants nor the respondent appeared although they were
furnished copy of the order of the Court.

“The undersigned
found during the ocular inspection 12 big TV sets and 15 small TV sets. Not a single big double screen TV set can be
found. All were of old vintage,
unserviceable, non-­functioning, and beyond economical repair.

“The 5 tires submitted
by respondent to the Bureau of Customs are the following:

1. Good Year Tire,
SN A42M-TKYR 5.750×14 8 ply; Made in the Philippines

2. BF Goodrich, SN
AWO82A 700×16 10 ply; Made in the Philippines

3. Firestone, SN
L19P11474 700×16 8 ply Made in the Philippines

4. Firestone, SN
K19W15837 700×16 10 ply Made in the
Philippines

5. Good Year Tire, SN 193225 750×16 8 ply

“All the tires are Philippine made, worn-out, four (4) show
evidence of having been recapped, two (2) suffered explosions, and all are
beyond economical repair. The tires
which were deposited per testimony of Station Commander Tagotongan were all
brand-new. Pictures of the TV sets and
the tires were taken and are now attached to the records.

xxx                xxx                   xxx

“In fine, the undersigned finds respondent Judge Florante E.
Madrona guilty of the following:

“1. (a) Failure to comply with Memorandum Order
No. 225 issued by her Excellency Corazon C. Aquino dated March 17, 1989 and
Section 602(g) of the Tariff and Customs Code by not turning over to the Bureau
of Customs the articles confiscated from the defendants.

“(b) Failure to
comply with the Warrant of Seizure and Detention dated May 31, 1989 and the letter
of the District Collector of Customs to respondent dated August 30, 1990
regarding turnover of the apprehended items which were deposited in court.

“(c) Long delay of the delivery of the items
to the Bureau of Customs which was made only
on April 14, 1992 or after a lapse of more than three (3) years.

“2. Recklessly allowing the TV sets which were
placed in custody of the Court to
be borrowed by different civil and military officials without requiring
Memorandum Receipts (Gen. Form No. 32-A), wherein the serial number and other
identifying marks should be indicated, thus, allowing the sub­stitution of the
borrowed items with TV sets that are most if not all beyond economical repair,
worthy only of the junk yard.

“3. Failure to terminate the preliminary
investigation of Criminal Case No. 8398 for more than three years.

“4. Disappearance of
the brand new tires and the vulgar substitution of the same with overused,
worn-out, beyond economical repair Philippine-made tires.”

and recommends that respondent Judge be
found guilty of gross misconduct and that proper disciplinary action be imposed
upon him.

We agree with the
findings and recommendations of investigating Judge Alfredo J. Lagamon
regarding the serious and gross misconduct committed by respondent Judge
Florante E. Madrono in the case at bar.

The penalty against a
judge found guilty of several violations is dismissal from the service with
forfeiture of all salaries, benefits and leave credits to which he may be
entitled and with prejudice to
reemployment in the government service, including government-owned or controlled corporations. The
Court stresses that this action is without prejudice to any criminal or civil
liability which may have arisen from the acts complained of in these cases (Reyes v. Faderan, 186 SCRA 547 {1990}).

ACCORDINGLY, respondent Judge Florante E. Madrono is
found guilty of gross misconduct and should be ordered dismissed from the
service. Considering, however, that
respondent judge had already been ordered dismissed from the service without
forfeiture of retirement benefits, but with prejudice to reinstatement, in
Administrative Matter No. MTJ-90-383 entitled “Venustiano Saburnido vs. Judge
Florante Madrono,” promulgated June 15, 1992, the instant finding of another
cause for his dismissal has been rendered superfluous. Nevertheless, in view of the gravity of the
offense herein committed by respondent Judge Florante E. Madrono, the
FORFEITURE OF RETIREMENT BENEFITS and leave credits to which he may be entitled
is hereby ordered as additional penalty to dismissal from the service ordered
in A.M. MTJ-90-383.

Let a copy of this
Resolution be furnished the Department of Justice for whatever action it may
deem appropriate in the premises.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin,
Grino-Aquino, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Nocon, Bellosillo, Melo, and Campos, Jr., JJ., concur.

Medialdea, J., on leave.