DANILO STA. MARIA, COMPLAINANT, VS. HONORABLE ANASTACIO T. ZAMUCO, MUNICIPAL JUDGE OF BUGALLON, PANGASINAN, RESPONDENT.

This administrative complaint against Municipal Judge Anastacio
T. Zamuco of Bugallon, Pangasinan arose from the alleged tampering of certain
state­ments offered during a preliminary examination. Complainant Danilo M. Sta. Maria of the Philippine Constabulary
asserted that the testimony of a certain policeman of Bugallon, Alegrio
Taoiñgan by name, was taken before one Sergeant Romeo Colet of the Philippine
Constabulary. Thereafter, it was
submitted to respondent Judge on February 1, 1977. A preliminary examination
was then conducted by him, with Patrolman Taoiñgan being subjected to searching
questions but with his adopting as his own the questions propounded by
Sergeant Colet. There were certain
answers though of Patrolman Taoiñgan he considered hearsay and
unresponsive. Those he dis­regarded
substituting different answers, despite the objection of the witness. Patrolman Taoiñgan then reported the matter
to his immediate superior, who in turn referred it to Lieutenant Santa Maria. The result was the filing of this complaint.

In the answer of respondent Judge, he admitted that he did cross
out answers of the policeman-witness for their being unresponsive and
hearsay. He alleged though that what he
did was with the consent of the witness, who then gave the proper answers. It was his submission that he acted without
malice or evil intention in not accepting portions of the statement deemed by
him hearsay and unrespon­sive. There
was the assertion likewise that the patrolman entertained a grudge against him
because he was the one who subscribed the statement of the complainant in a
case filed against the patrolman.

The matter was then referred to Executive Judge Willelmo C.
Fortun. The findings in his report was
that respondent Judge “was acting with the best of intentions and without
any malice, whatsoever.”^[1]
He, therefore, recommended that the complaint against respondent Judge be
dismissed citing Zabala v. Judge Pamaran^[2]
and Bondoc v. Judge de Guzman.^[3]

The records of the Office of the Court Administrator show that
respondent Judge reached the compulsory age of retirement on April 27,
1981. Ordinarily, therefore, especially
so in the light of the above
recommendation, this case should be considered moot and academic. Nonethe­less, under certain circumstances,
this Court has deemed it proper and desirable to act on the matter by way of setting guidelines for the
conduct of the occupants of the bench. While then, the report of Judge Fortun is accepted, it is still
necessary to impress on respondent Judge that he could have exercised greater
prudence in the exercise of his undoubted prerogative to ask clarificatory
questions. It is especially impor­tant
that to preclude any semblance of plausibility to the charge of his failing to
maintain an accu­rate and truthful account of proceedings in his court, he
should just retain in the record whatever answer is given to any question
asked. The original answers must not be
altered, leaving him free to propound questions that would remove any doubt or
uncertainty as to the nature of the answer given or in the alternative make it responsive.

WHEREFORE, the case against respondent Judge is
dismissed, his compulsory retirement making it moot and academic. Let an admonition, however, be spread on his
record.

Aquino, Abad Santos, De Castro, Ericta, and Escolin, JJ., concur.

Concepcion, Jr., J., on leave.

Barredo, J., no part.

^[1]
Report, 6.

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

^[3]
Adm. Case No. 279-J, May 30, 1974, 57
SCRA 135.