VENUSTIANO SABURNIDO, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE FLORANTE MADRONO, RESPONDENT.

Complainant Venustiano Saburnido, a member of the Integrated National
Police stationed at Balingasag, Misamis Oriental, charges respondent judge
Florante Madrono of the Municipal Trial Court, Balingasag-Lagonglong, Misamis
Oriental, with grave threats and acts unbecoming of a member of the judiciary.

As summarized by the investigating judge, the complaint/affidavit
alleges:

“That at about 8:00 o’clock in the morning of November 23,
1989, complainant was awakened by his son Charliemen Saburnido who told him
that Judge Florante Madrono with two (2) companions were at the gate of their
house, and would like to talk to him. Complainant then went down his house and saw Judge Madrono together with
Zosimo Panimdim and Ruel Hebe all armed; Judge Madrono carried an M-16 Armalite
Rifle, Panimdim a CAFGU member carried with him an M-14 while Ruel Hebe also a
CAFGU member carried a pistolized carbine. That as the complain­ant approached them, Judge Madrono with his gun
pointed towards Saburnido, ordered Saburnido to stop and said, ‘Do not come
near Ving,’ hence, Saburnido stopped. Judge Madrono then confronted Saburnido and said, ‘It’s good because it
is already morning. What made you angry
with me, when in fact we are friends? What did you utter last night? Maybe you were drunk.’ Then Judge Madrono asked Ruel Hebe to relate what
Saburnido told Ruel that evening. Ruel
then quoted Saburnido to have said: ‘Do
not be boastful Ruel.’ ‘You are as boastful as your boss.’ Sensing that Judge
Madrono was angry, Zosimo Panimdim advised Judge Madrono by telling him just to
settle the matter. At that stage, Judge
Madrono ordered Saburnido to raise his hands and to surrender with his gun
poised to shoot Saburnido, so Saburnido asked for forgiveness but he felt dizzy
and his blood pressure went up. He then
lowered his hands and held his head but he subsequently lost consciousness and
collapsed. His son Charliemen Saburnido
came to his rescue and helped him. Thereafter, Judge Madrono and his companions left.”

In a resolution dated March 30, 1990, the Court required
respondent judge to answer the complaint. In his answer dated May 7, 1990, the respondent judge, among other
things, alleged:

“I categorically deny that I threatened the complainant Pfc.
Venustiano Saburnido in the mor­ning of November 23, 1989. Many weeks before November 22, 1989, friends
had been telling me that everytime Pfc. Saburnido becomes drunk, even while
performing his duty as market guard at the Balingasag Public Market, he kept on
uttering defamatory words against me but I did not react because I am not onion
skinned to criticisms which public officials must always accept. Then at 11:00 o’clock PM of November 22,
1989, CAFGUs Felicismo Panimdim and Ruel Hebe who were at that time assigned by
the Company Commander of ‘A’ Coy, 9IB to augment the INP of Balingasag, Misamis
Oriental, while they were at the Public Market, the complainant Pfc. Venustiano
Saburnido who was heavily drunk challenged the two CAFGUs Panimdim and Hebe to
a duel and threatened some market vendors with bodily harm and told CAFGUs Hebe
and Panimdim in the presence of many persons ‘IKAY KAPAYASON LIWAT KA SA IMONG
AMO NGA SI JUDGE MADRONO KAPAYASON which when translated in English ‘You are
boastful like Judge Madrono who is boastful and stupid’; that in the morning of
November 23, 1989, when those statements were confirmed by CAFGU Panimdim and
Pat. Eugene Zafra, I immediately went to the Police Station of Balingasag,
Misamis Oriental to complain to the Station Commander about the misconduct and
unruly behavior of Pfc. Saburnido but unfortunately the Station Commander, who
is not a resident of Balingasag, Misamis Oriental, was out; so I went to the
residence of the Deputy Station Commander for the same purpose but at that time
the Deputy Station Commander was also out of his residence. When CAFGUs Panimdim and Hebe who were fully
armed because they knew that the complainant Pfc. Saburnido has a record of
rape and administratively charged before the Police Commission and who recently
murdered a certain Edwin Pacana, I volunteered to accompany them because I did
not want a firefight between the two armed group to happen and I intend to
mediate and to find out from the complainant Pfc. Venustiano Saburnido why was
he acting that way; what I really did in the morning of November 23, 1989, was
to reprimand him and I did not mince words castigating him for his unruly
conduct for which I explained that if the two (2) CAFGUs were drunk also and
reacted to his challenge a bloodbath could have happened.

“I would like to inform Honorable Members of the Supreme Court
that if I went out of my way to accompany the two (2) CAFGUs Hebe and Panimdim
to the street fronting the house of the complainant Pfc. Saburnido it was only
for the purpose of seeing to it and making sure that no shooting incident or
bloodbath could ensue between the two (2) troops of armed men.”

The answer was noted in the resolution of July 10, 1990. In the same resolution, the Court resolved
to refer the com­plaint to the Executive Judge, Regional Trial Court, Cagayan
de Oro City for Investigation, Report and Recommendation.

In his Report, investigating-Judge Celso P. Largo made the
following findings of facts and conclusions:

“From the evidence thus adduced, there is no dispute that the
Respondent, Judge Madrono, together with CAFGU member Ruel Hebe and Zosimo
Panimdim, went to the house of the complainant Pfc. Venustiano Saburnido at
Calacala, Cogon, Balingasag, Misamis Oriental, in the early morning of November
23, 1989. That on the said occasion,
Judge Madrono and his two companions were all armed with high powered
rifles. That a confrontation ensued
between Judge Madrono and Saburnido regarding the incident that happened the
night before wherein Judge Madrono demanded from Pfc. Saburnido an explanation
why he uttered defamatory words against him; that in the course of their
confrontation, Pfc. Saburnido begged for forgiveness from the respondent but he
was severely reprimanded by Judge Madrono; that as a result of the said
confrontation, Pfc. Saburnido collapsed and lost consciousness and was subsequently
brought to a doctor who prescribed some medicines for his treat­ment; that the
said incident was immediately reported to the Police Station and the report was
correspondingly entered in the Police Blotter.

“The remaining issue to be determined, is whe­ther or not
Judge Madrono threatened the complainant with his Armalite rifle by menacingly
pointing his gun at the complainant.

“To the mind of the herein Investigator, the version narrated
by the complainant and his witnes­ses are more credible and in consonance with
the truth and the circumstances obtaining in this case.

“To start with, it is incredible to
believe that the complainant, who is a member of the Integrated Police of
Balingasag and who has been trained in the art of self defense and combat
principles would simply collapse and lose consciousness by a mere scolding by
the respondent. x x x A well trained
policeman such as the herein complainant would not lose consciousness and
collapse just by a mere tongue lashing from the Respondent. There is a strong reason to believe that the
com­plainant’s life was placed in imminent danger that is by the aiming of the
loaded armalite rifle on the complainant accompanied by threats on his
life. This must be so for what would
have prompted the complainant to raise his two hands when he was approaching
Judge Madrono if the armalite rifle was not pointed at him.

“More, the respondent himself admitted that he was really very
angry with the complainant which explains his haste in proceeding to the house
of the complainant armed with an Armalite rifle. In fact, it was not necessary for respondent to carry with him
his armalite rifle if indeed his real purpose was just to settle the
controversy between Hebe and Saburnido as he claimed, taking into account that his
two companions ware fully armed with high powered guns. The fact that when they arrived at the house
of Saburnido, Ruel Hebe did not even utter a single word and it was the
respondent who did all the scolding and reprimanding of Saburnido, give the lie
to the claim of the respondent that he accompanied Hebe to the house of
Saburnido because he noticed that Hebe was very angry and wanted to confront
Saburnido. As a matter of fact, there
was no attempt to settle the controversy between Hebe and Saburnido because
instead of doing so, he castigated the respondent (sic) for his alleged unruly
behaviour and mis­conduct, to boot.

x x x              x x x                 x
x x

“The respondent acted with precipitate haste, arrogantly and
imprudently by going directly to the house of the complainant parading around
the town with an armalite rifle and with two fully armed body guards. He should not have taken the law into his
own hands but rather endorsed the matter to the Office of the Station Commander,
considering that the incident involved a police­man and a CAFGU, who were both
members of the Po­lice Force. Although,
as he claimed that the Sta­tion Commander and his Deputy were out of town, this
nevertheless, could not have precluded him from reporting the matter to any
police officer in the Office of the Station Commander and leave their
confrontation or investigation in the hands of the Police Officers, who had
jurisdiction over the protagonists, or at least, to avoid any scandal, call
Policeman Saburnido to his office instead of going personally to the house of
Pat. Saburnido, fully armed.”

The Court agrees with the findings and conclusions of Executive
Judge Largo.

Indeed, the gun-pointing incident was witnessed by com­plainant’s
son, Charliemen, and a neighbor, Teodocia Penton, whose testimonies were
neither denied nor contradicted by respondent during the investigation. More, witness Penton has been shown to be a
simple barrio resident without any motive to testify falsely against respondent
Judge who occupies a re­spectable position in the community. Furthermore, according to the investigating
judge:

“The above narrated incident was witnessed by Charliemen
Saburnido and Theodocia Penton a neighbor of the complainant. In effect they corroborated the testimony of
Venustiano Saburni­do. The complainant
also presented a police and Barangay Clearance to show that he had not been
accused or convicted of any crime (Exh. “E”); complainant also
presented the Extract of the Police Blotter of Balingasag (Exh. “F”)
to show that the aforesaid incident was reported to the Police Officers of
Balingasag, Misamis Oriental.”

It was highly improper for a judge to have wielded a high?powered
firearm in public and besieged the house of a perceived defamer of character
and honor in warlike fashion and berated the object of his ire, with his
firearm aimed at the victim – an unarmed policeman, also a person in authority
at that, thereby threatening the latter’s life. In so doing, respondent judge committed an act of grave
impropriety unbecoming of a judge and in violation of the Code of Judicial
Conduct, specifically, Rule 2.01, Canon 2, to wit:

“CANON
2

A JUDGE SHOULD AVOID IMPROPRIETY AND THE APPEARANCE OF
IMPROPRIETY IN ALL ACTIVITIES

Rule 2.01 — A judge should so behave at all times as to promote public
confidence in the integrity and im­partiality of the judiciary.”

Verily, the actuations of respondent Judge tend to destroy the
reputation that judges are unblemished in character and firmly adhere to a code
of right conduct.

The claim of respondent Judge that he is authorized to carry an
M-16 Armalite because he is in the hit list of rebels, does not confer on him
any right to take the law into his own hands or to use the firearm for
aggressive purpose to threaten people.

As held by Executive Judge Largo, respondent Judge should have
instead left to complainant’s superiors or to a police investigator the
responsibility of taking the appropriate action on what respondent Judge
believed were complainant’s excesses.

The case of Romero vs. Valle, Jr. (147
SCRA 197 /1987/), is in point. There, a Regional Trial Court Judge, after having engaged a lawyer in a
heated discussion during the hearing of a case, lost his temper, banged his
gavel in a very forceful manner, unceremoniously walked out of the courtroom
and came out of his chamber carrying a gun in plain view of the lawyers and
others present in the courtroom.

In finding the said judge guilty of grave misconduct and in
ordering him dismissed from the service, the Court held:

“On the other hand, respondent judge exhibited shortness of
temper and impatience, contrary to the duties and restrictions imposed upon him
by reason of his office. In Calalang
vs. Fernandez, Adm. Case No. 175-J, June 10, 1971, We stated that a judge
should show no shortness of temper for it merely detracts from the equanimity
and judicious­ness that should be the constant marks of a dispen­ser of
justice. x x x

“Respondent judge appears to have a valid ex­planation for
carrying a gun, but such explanation cannot be taken as satisfactory for his
having chosen to carry the same in plain view of the complain­ant and other
lawyers inside the courtroom when he came out of his chambers on his way to the
stairs. Taken in the light of what had
just transpired, the actuation of respondent judge was not an innocent gesture,
but one calculated to instill fear in or intimidate complainant. We cannot let this pass unnoticed. Respondent judge’s behavior constitutes
grave misconduct. It is a serious vio­lation
of the Canons of Judicial Ethics which required that a ‘judge’s official
conduct should be free from the appearance of impropriety, and his personal
behavior, not only upon the bench and in the performance of judicial duties,
but also in his every day life, should be beyond reproach.’ Moreover, it
reveals an attitude diametrically opposed to our pronouncement in De la Paz v.
Inutan, 64 SCRA 540, that ‘the judge is the visible representation of law, and
more importantly, of justice.’ Certain­ly, one who lives by the uncivilized
precept of ‘might is right,’ is unworthy of an office entrusted with the duty
to uphold the rule of law.” (idem, pp. 202-203)

The actuations of respondent judge in the case at bar are even
more reprehensible. Respondent did not
only display his firearm to intimidate the complainant but pointed the barrel
of his high-powered gun at complainant who was unarmed and commanded the latter
to surrender for having uttered defamatory words against respondent the night
before.

A judge should be beyond reproach even
in his private life (Castillo v. Bersama, 63 SCRA 388 /1975/). In De la Paz v. Inutan (64 SCRA 540 /1975/),
a judge who poked his gun at another inside a restaurant while in a state of
intoxication was held as not fit for service in the judiciary. Thus:

“The judge is the visible representation of the law and, more
importantly, of justice. From him, the
people draw their will and awareness to obey the law. They see in him an intermediary of justice between two
conflicting interests, specially in the station of municipal judges, like
respondent Judge, who have that close and direct contact with the people before
anybody else in the judiciary. Thus,
for the judge to return that regard, he must be the first to abide by the law
and weave an example for the others to fol­low. He should be studiously careful to avoid even the slightest
infraction of the law.

“But, here is a judge who stands across the path of the
law. Unperturbed by judicial con­science,
he breached the very law he was sworn to uphold. Perhaps in a misplaced display of the influence of his office, he
unrestrainedly and openly intoxicated himself in a public place, caused
disturbance and alarm, and poked his gun at an innocent man. He wilfully moved away from the behavioural
injunctions of his office and let himself caught by the reaches of misconduct
and misdeeds. Such conduct need be
sanctioned and must, therefore, be drawn to a close. It throws an indelible stain on the judiciary.”

The foregoing disquisition applies with equal force to re­spondent
judge.

ACCORDINGLY, Judge Florante E. Madrono is found guilty of
conduct unbecoming of a member of the judiciary and is hereby ordered DISMISSED
from the service, without forfeiture of retirement benefits, but with prejudice
to reinstatement in any branch of the government or any of its agencies or
instrumentalities.

SO ORDERED.

Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Paras, Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin,
Grino-Aquino, Medialdea, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Nocon, and Bellosillo, JJ., concur.

Melencio-Herrera,
J., retired.