ARSENIO R. SANTOS AND AMELITA S. NICODEMUS, COMPLAINANTS, VS. JUDGE MANUELA F. LORENZO AND BRANCH CLERK OF COURT EVA S. NIEVALES, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 43, MANILA, RESPON…

This is a complaint charging Judge Manuela F. Lorenzo and Branch
Clerk of Court Eva S. Nievales, both of the Regional Trial Court, Branch
43, Manila, with neglect of duty and abuse of authority. The
complainants, Arsenio R. Santos and Amelita S. Nicodemus, are the father
and aunt of the victim in Criminal Case Nos. 95-146904-05^[1]
(for Frustrated Murder and Illegal Possession of Firearms) and
Criminal Case No. 96-147577 (for Violation of Comelec Gun Ban) filed
with the said court.

In a letter/complaint, dated November 17, 2000, to the Office of
Court Administrator, complainants, through the Volunteers Against Crimes
and Corruption (VACC), alleged that the cases were submitted for
decision on February 14, 2000, but judgment against the accused Zaldy
and Zandy Prado was rendered only on September 11, 2000. It was further
alleged that respondent judge Lorenzo issued on the date of promulgation
an order regarding the bail bonds in the three cases against Zaldy
Prado: the bond of P130,000.00 for illegal possession of firearms
remained the same, while the bond for frustrated murder was increased
from P17,000.00 to P22,000.00, and the bond for violation of the COMELEC
gun ban was increased from P6,000.00 to P12,000.00. In the frustrated
murder case, respondent judge Lorenzo likewise increased the bail bond
of Zandy Prado from P8,500.00 to P17,000.00. However, so it was alleged,
on September 18, 2000, on motion of the accused, respondent judge
Lorenzo reduced the bail bond for illegal possession of firearms from
P130,000.00 to P30,000.00. Complainants claimed that the reduction of
the bond after the conviction of the accused was irregular. They also
denounced the delay in the rendition of the decision in these cases.

As to Branch Clerk of Court Nievales, complainants blamed her for
the delay in the transmittal of the records of the cases to the Court of
Appeals after the accused had filed a notice of appeal on September 20,
2000. Complainants alleged that, as of November 3, 2000, the records of
the said cases had not been elevated to the appeals court.

In their letter/complaint to the Office of the Court Administrator,
complainants asked for clarification “if the Hon. Judge and the Clerk
of Court [had] legal basis [for] what they did in our cases.”^[2]

Required to comment on the letter/complaint, respondent judge Lorenzo stated:

The complainant accuses undersigned of abuse of authority and
gross ignorance of the law for reducing the bail of Zaldy Prado. In
Crim. Case No. 146905 Zaldy Prado was charged [with] Illegal Possession
of Firearms and the bail recommended then was P130,000.00. However,
after the decision was promulgated Zaldy Prado was sentenced to suffer
imprisonment of two years, eleven months and eleven days to four years,
nine months and eleven days of prision correccional. As a matter of
fact, Zaldy Prado and Zandy Prado were brought to prison immediately
after promulgation [of judgment] because they cannot put up a new bond
in the increased amount. This is so because in the frustrated homicide
case and violation of election law, the bonds were increased but the
illegal possession remained at P130,000.00 because the undersigned
believes that it is high already. Zaldy Prado moved that the P130,000.00
[bail] for the illegal possession of firearms [case] be reduced and
considering that the penalty was only for two to four years, the Court
believes that the amount of P30,000.00 was reasonable. In allowing the
reduction of the bond, the primary consideration as found in Sec. 9,
Rule 114 of the [Revised] Rules of Criminal Procedure has been followed
and that the circumstances that preclude the grant of bail as enumerated
in Sec. 5, Rule 114 [of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure] are
not present. Besides, if they found [that] the Court erred in reducing
the bond to that amount why did they not ask for reconsideration? The
remedy is available to them.^[3]

On the other hand, in her comment dated May 15, 2001, Branch Clerk
of Court Eva S. Nievales explained the reasons for the delay in the
transmittal of the records to the Court of Appeals:

1. Criminal Case No. 35-146304 was never filed in this Court,
   hence the undersigned branch clerk of court should not be made
   accountable for the record of this case;

2. Criminal Case No. 96-147577 entitled “People of the
   Philippines versus Zaldy Prado y Donato” was tried and decided by this
   Court in consolidation with two other criminal cases. In the drafting of
   her Decision (consisting of thirty-one (31) pages) the Honorable
   Manuela F. Lorenzo brought to her house the original of the transcripts
   of stenographic notes (TSNs). The decision was promulgated on September
   11, 2000.
3. This Branch was designated as a Family Court
   effective September 1, 2000 and pursuant to the guidelines in
   AM-99-11-07 SC an inventory of our pending cases was made for the
   purpose of unloading those over which this Court has no jurisdiction. We
   unloaded eighty-five (85) cases on September 14, 2000 and in the
   tedious task of the inventory (where pages were numbered, return cards
   were pasted and records were sewn) the undersigned cannot remember where
   exactly the TSNs of the questioned Zaldy Prado case were placed when
   they were returned by the Honorable Manuela Lorenzo. Moreover, the
   undersigned as well as the other Court personnel were overwhelmed by the
   incoming Family Court cases (72 in September, 81 in October, 61 in
   November 2000).

4. Considering the strict procedure at the Court of
   Appeals, the undersigned cannot forward immediately the questioned
   records of the case.^[4]

On April 4, 2002, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), to
which the complaint in this case was referred for evaluation,
recommended that the administrative case against respondents be
dismissed for lack of merit.

EVALUATION: After a careful study of the
documents on file, we recommend that the letter dated November 17, 2000
of Mr. Arsenio R. Santos and Ms. Amelita S. Nicodemus not be given due
course.

While the documents on file show that the aforesaid criminal
cases were submitted for decision on February 14, 2000 and the decision
was promulgated only on September 11, 2000 the same should not be taken
against the respondent judge considering the heavy caseload of the court
within the National Capital Judicial Region. Moreso, there is nothing
on record that will show that the delay was done maliciously or was
caused with deliberate intent to inflict damage.

RECOMMENDATION: Respectfully submitted for the
consideration of the Honorable Court recommending that this case be
DISMISSED for lack of merit.

With regard to the delay in the transmittal of the records to the
Court of Appeals, we find the explanation of co-respondent Atty. Eva S.
Nievales worthy of credence so as to exculpate her from administrative
liability. It has been noted that Regional Trial Court, Branch 43,
Manila was designated as Family Court and was tasked to conduct an
inventory for the purpose of unloading of cases to other branches.

The disarray of records in the course of the inventory should be
considered so as [to] justify the delay in the transmittal of the
records.^[5]

We find the recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator to be well taken.

A. With regard to Judge Manuela F. Lorenzo

Two questions are raised with respect to Judge Manuela F. Lorenzo.
The first is her reduction of the bail bond for accused Zaldy Prado in
Criminal Case No. 146905 from P130,000.00 to P30,000.00. This is a
prosecution for illegal possession of firearms. At the time the bail was
initially fixed in 1995, it was set at P130,000.00 in view of the
penalty (reclusion perpetua to death) then prescribed for the crime
under P.D. No. 1866. However, R.A. No. 8294, which took effect on July
6, 1997, reduced the penalty for illegal possession of firearms to
prision correccional in its maximum period (4 years and 1 day to 6
years) and a fine of not less than P15,000.00. In accordance with the
new law, respondent judge sentenced accused Zaldy Prado to an
indeterminate prison term of two (2) years, eleven (11) months, and
eleven (11) days to four (4) years, nine (9) months, and eleven (11)
days. As the bail was originally fixed in view of the penalty imposed in
P.D. No. 1866, it became necessary for respondent judge to fix the bail
at a lower amount when the accused applied for bail on appeal on
September 19, 2000 in view of the provisions of R.A. No. 8294.

Bail, after conviction by the Regional Trial Court, is afforded to
the accused as a matter of discretion. A trial judge acts according to
law in granting bail if the circumstances enumerated in Rule 114, §5 for
denying it are not present. Thus this provision reads:

SECTION 5. Bail, when discretionary. — Upon conviction by the Regional Trial Court of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or
life imprisonment, admission to bail is discretionary. The application
for bail may be filed and acted upon by the trial court despite the
filing of a notice of appeal, provided it has not transmitted the
original record to the appellate court. However, if the decision of the
trial court convicting the accused changed the nature of the offense
from non-bailable to bailable, the application for bail can only be
filed with and resolved by the appellate court.

Should the court grant the application, the accused may be
allowed to continue on provisional liberty during the pendency of the
appeal under the same bail subject to the consent of the bondsman.

If the penalty imposed by the trial court is imprisonment
exceeding six (6) years, the accused shall be denied bail, or his bail
shall be cancelled upon a showing by the prosecution, with notice to the
accused, of the following or other similar circumstances:

(a) That he is a recidivist, quasi-recidivist, or habitual
delinquent, or has committed the crime aggravated by the circumstance of
reiteration;

(b) That he has previously escaped from legal confinement,
evaded sentence, or violated the conditions of his bail without valid
justification;

(c) That he committed the offense while under probation, parole, or conditional pardon;

(d) That the circumstances of his case indicate the probability of flight if released on bail; or

(e) That there is undue risk that he may commit another crime during the pendency of the appeal.

The appellate court may, motu proprio or on motion of any party,
review the resolution of the Regional Trial Court after notice to the
adverse party in either case.

There is no claim in this case that, in fixing the bail for the
purpose of appeal at P30,000.00, respondent judge abused her discretion.
Complainants’ only basis for objecting to the same is that the
reduction of the amount of the bail from P130,000.00 to P30,000.00 was a
drastic one. But that was because there was a considerable reduction in
the penalty attached to the crime involved.

The second matter raised against respondent judge is that she
decided the criminal cases more than three months after they had been
submitted for decision. But the Office of the Court Administrator, which
has supervision of lower courts, found that this was because of the
heavy caseload of courts in the National Capital Region. Indeed,
considering the cases in the docket of the court of respondent judge, a
delay of about seven months may be excused. Submitted for decision on
February 14, 2000, the decisions in these cases were actually
promulgated on September 11, 2000.

B. With respect to Branch Clerk of Court Eva S. Nievales

The only complaint against Nievales is that she failed to transmit
the records of the cases to the Court of Appeals from the time the
accused gave notice on September 20, 2000 that they were appealing from
the decision of the trial court. It appears that she actually
transmitted the records on November 15, 2000. The Branch Clerk of
Court’s explanation for the delay in the transmittal of the records is
quoted at the beginning of this opinion. The Court is satisfied with the
explanation given. The same reason justifying respondent judge’s
failure to decide the cases in question within ninety (90) days
justifies the failure of respondent Branch Clerk of Court to transmit
the records on time. The heavy caseload of the court, coupled with the
fact that an inventory of cases had to be made as a consequence of the
designation of Branch 43 as a Family Court, prevented the early
transmittal of the records to the Court of Appeals. Rule 122, §8 states:

Transmission of papers to appellate court upon appeal. —
Within five (5) days from the filing of the notice of appeal, the clerk
of court with whom the notice of appeal was filed must transmit to the
clerk of court of the appellate court the complete record of the case,
together with said notice. The original and three copies of the
transcript of stenographic notes, together with the records, shall also
be transmitted to the clerk of the appellate court without undue delay.
The other copy of the transcript shall remain in the lower court.

The Court has not hesitated to discipline lower court judges and
court personnel who are found guilty of violations of the law or the
Code of Judicial Conduct. But it has likewise not hesitated to exonerate
them whenever it finds the charges to be without basis. Let the guilty
ones be severely brought to book, but let those who are innocent enjoy
merited exoneration to which they are entitled as a matter of simple
justice.

WHEREFORE, as recommended by the Office of the
Court Administrator (OCA), the complaint against Judge Manuela F.
Lorenzo and Branch Clerk of Court Eva S. Nievales, both of the Regional
Trial Court, Branch 43, Manila, is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

Bellosillo, (Acting C.J.), (Chairman), Quisumbing, and Corona, JJ., concur.

---

^[1] There was a typographical
error in the initial letter/complaint as these were referred to as
Criminal Case Nos. 35-146304-05, thus causing confusion.
^[2] Letter from Arsenio R. Santos and Amelita S. Nicodemus to Court Administrator Alfredo L. Benipayo (November 17, 2000).
^[3] Comment of Judge Manuela F. Lorenzo, dated Jan. 29, 2001, pp. 1-2.
^[4] Comment of Branch Clerk of Court Eva S. Nievales, dated May 15, 2001, p. 1.
^[5] Recommendation, dated Apr. 4, 2002, pp. 2-3.