Urgent Omnibua Motion Cno.32306-R

7/24/2019 Urgent Omnibua Motion Cno.32306-R

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/urgent-omnibua-motion-cno32306-r 1/68

OFFITE

(OPr

REPUBLIC

OF

THE

PHILIPPIITES

First

Judlcial

Region

Regional

Trial

Court

i

Branch

6O,

Baguio

CitY

THE

PEOPLE

OF

THE

PHILIPPIITES

ffiffn''

illM&t

:

Plaintiff,

-vGrsus-

Crim.

Case

No.

323O6-R

ERr{ESTO

L.

DELOS

SAITTOS,

Accused-

URGENT

OMNIBUS

MOTION

'\

(Fourthn

rotion

for

Inhibition,and

Deferment

of

Proceedings

pending

'"he

resolution

of

the

Fourth

Motion

for

Inhibition)

Accused

Att5r.

TRNESTO DE

LOS

SAI{TOS,

through

the

undersigned

counsel,

re'ipr<1611y

states,

thus:

1.

Accused

is

hereby

submitting

the

instant fourth

Motion

for

Inhibition.on

the

groundthat

he

has-lost

faith

and

confidence

in

this honorable

Court's

honest5r,

objectivity

and impartiality;

2.

From

the

inception

of

ttris

case

up

to now,

atf.

unusual

personal

steadfast interest has been consistently

shown

by

the

presiding

judge

on

this

case,

and a

number

of

imegularities

has

consistently

occ-urred

before this Court;

3. The

said

unusual

steadfast

personal

interest

of

the

presiding

judge

over

tJ:is

case

and

the

said

irregularities;

prompted

herein accused

to file

the long over due

administrative complaint

against

the

presiding

judge.

A copy of the criminal

and

Administrative

complaints filed

before

the

Office of

the

Ombudsman

'

and the

Supreme

Court are

hereto attached as

Annexes

"Att

and

$Bn.

llPage



M

4.

As

a"

necessarv

consequence

of such

filing,

the

principle

that

litigants

are

entifled

to nothing

less than

tfle

cold neutrality

of

-an impartial

judge

would

already

be

unav"ilirrd.

After such

filiotg,

the

actions

of

the

magrstrate

will certainly be

biab

and

will

no longer

be

free

from

any

suspicion

as

to

his

fairnes$,

irnpartiality

and

integrityl;

5.

So

as

to

avoid

this untoward

situatioFr, we reiterate and

beg for the fourth

time

the

Honorable

Court to

iplease

inhibit

from

the instqnt

case.

His inhibition

would

revive

the

bonfidence

not

only

of

tJle accused's

in

particular

but the

public'

in

general,

to the

integrity

of

the

judiciary;

6.

Antonio

A.

Carbonellz, the

highest

Court

has ttiis

pronouncement,

thus:

"Clearly,

Judge

Carbonell

fell sholt of

the

exacting

standards set

in

Section

2,

Canoh

3

of

the

New Code of

Judicial

Conduct

which states:

'

,i

CANON 3

IMPARTTALITY

Impartiality

is

essential to

tJ'

e

proper;discharge

of the

judlcial

office.

It

applies

not ont to the

deolslon ttielf

but also

to the

proceas

by

rrhtch

the

declslon

l*r:made.

:

l

xxxx

:

SEC.

2.

Judges shall

ensure

that his or

her

conduct,

both

in

and out

of court,

mainltains

and

enhances

the

confidence

of

the

public,

,the

legal

profession

and

litigants

in

the

impartiality of the

judge

and of

tJle

judieiary.

{Emphasis

supplied}

Lower

court

judges

play

a

pivotal

rble in the

promotion

of the

people's

faith

in the

judi(iary.

They

#e

front-liners

who

give

human

face

to the

judiciat

branch

at the

grassroots

level

in

their

inter4ction

with

litigants

and

those

who

do

business

with tfre

courts.

Thus,

the

admonition

that

judges

must

avoifl

not

only

tiAM

No. 12-8-160 RTC,

December

10, 2012,

Angping vs. ROS

2l,.trt.

No. RTp&2145;

Iune

1&

2o1o

2[Page



/\,

\-_/

impropriety

but also

the

appearance

of

impnopriety

is

more

sternly

applied

to them.

7.

Most importantly,

in

the

case

of Angphgr,

the

highest

Court

declared,

thus:

.

l

A

Judge

should

avoid

ipproprlety

and the

appearance

of impronfiety

in

all

actlvities. The failure

of

the

$etltioners

to

pr.esent

evidence

that

the rpspondent

acted

with

parttaltty

aud

r{atice

can

only

negate

tlor

alleg$tion

of

impropriety,

but not

the appearance

of

impropriety.

In

De

la Cruz u.

Jud.ge

Bersamira,3

this

Court

undergcored

the

need

to

show

not only the fact

Q{

propriety

but

the

appearance

of

propriety

itself.

It

held that

the

standard

of

mQrality

and

decency

required

is

exacting

so

mirch

so

that

a

judge

should

avoid

imprgpriety

and

the

appearance

of

improprtetf,

in

all

his

activities.'f

i

8.

Again,

we

are

furnishing the Chigf

Justice

of

tJ:e

Supreme Court

and the

Supreme Court

Comigrittee

Investigating

Judicial

Cormption,

copy of

this Fourth Mofion

for Inhibition

(annexes

included)

to

prevent

the

mockery

of

jrJstice

involving

this

case

and to stop the

staged

proceeding

before

thi$

Court.

PRAYER

,,

WHEREFORE,

premises

considered,

:

accused most

respectfully

prays

that

the

Honorable

presiding

judge,

inhibit/disquali$r

himself

from further

sitting oh

or

taking

part

in

tJ.e

hearing

of

ttre

above-captioned

case

and

that

the

case

be

immediately re-raffled. Accused

likeurise

prays

that

the hearing in

the

case,be

deferred

pending

resolution of the

inqtant motion.

3AM

No.

fZ.A-foo

RTC,

December

10,

2}tl,Angping

vs.

ROS

3lPage



Accused also

prays

for such

other measuref

of

relief

and

remedies

which

are

just

and

equitable

under

tJreipremises.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

:

Makati

City

for tl'e City

of

Baguio,

June 2,

POl4.

JTIDITH

ZARRAGA

LINS

..

LAUI

FIRM

7256

J.

Victor

St., Barangay

Pio

de[

Pilar

Tel/Fax

{tlos.

82

Notlce

of

Hearing:

To the

Branch

Clerk

of

Court

Branch

60,

Regional

Trial

Court

Baguio

City

Greetings:

Please

subrnit

the

foregoing

Urgent

consideration

and

approval

of

the

Honorable

2O74

at

8:EO

in'the

mornins.

rL2

ATTY.

z. Lurs

PTR

No.

928A944Y1

OL-28-L4/

Queeon

City

LB.P.

Lifetime

No.

03951

QuezoniCity

ROLL No.

38963

MCLE

III

Compliance

No. IV-0018666;

tApril

25,2OL3

Motion far

the

June

JTIDITH E. LUIS

Makati

City

1230

4lPaee



Copy Furnished:

THE

HOIT{)RABLE

CHIEF JUSTICE

MARIA

LOURI}ES

P.

A.

SEREITO

Supreme

Court

of

the Philippines

Padre

Faura, Manila

ASSOC.

JUSTICE

MARIIIC LElOilETV

Chairman

Committee

Investigating

Judicial

Cormption

Supreme

Court

of the

Fhilippines

Padre

Faura,

Manila

RBT.

JUSTICE

ALICIA

AUSTRIA.MAR:HilEZ

Member

Committee

Investigating

Judicial

Cormption

Supreme

Court

of

the PhiliPpines

Padre

Faura,

Manila

REf,.

JITSTTCE ROITEO

CALLR

O, SR.

Member

Committee

Investigating

Judicial

Cormption

Supreme.Court

of

the

Philippines

Padre

Faura,

Manila

"ACP

ELMER

IilAIYUEL'

SAGISAGK]

Handling

Public

Prosecutor

Office

of

the

City Prosecutor

Hall

of Justice

Baguio

City

aTTr.

ALIIUT

A.

CARUT,I0

Counsel

for

Respondent

UM

Suite

1609

L6/F,

Jollibee

Plaza.

F. Ortigas Jr.

Road

(ex-Emerald

Avenue)

Ortigas

Center,

Pasig

CitY

1605

P.O.

Box

No.

13143

l

pp.

116.

1c745

|

fiafs;

E-

B-l*

Post

Office:

t4ffi

ftp.

[[6;

t

dq5l

Date:6'12-t4

Post Office:

,la,Oa

RR.

No:

lC)a53

ffafg

b-ls:

l*

Post

Office:

lafu,

RR.No:loqsy

Dale:

0-ts

-(q

Post

Office:

Ntffi

RR. No:

/Oq55

p.als'

6-

la,

|

*

post

Oflicsi

AbA

RR. No.:

lDut

.5b

Date:

6-

lz-

taf

Post Office:

y'a

M

EXPLIIIIATIOil

The

foregoing

Urgent

Omntbus

Motion

has

been

filed and served

by

registered

mail

due

to

distance,

time

constraints,

unpredictable

traffic

situation

JI'DITH

U.

LUTS

and

lack

of

available

messenger

to personally

file

and

qerve

the

5lPage



OFFIIE

(OP.T

REPUBLIC

OF

THE PHILIPPINtr-EMWE}(

OFFICE OF THE

OMBUDSMAN

rrArt

Quezon

City

ATTY.

ERNESTO

DE

LOS

SANTOS

Complainant,

CASE

No._

-vefsus-

A. KNOWINGLY

RENDERING IJNIUST

ORDERS

B. GITOSS

IGNORANCE

OF

THE

LAW

C. MANIFEST

PARTIALITY

AND

MISCONDUCT

D. GRAFT

AND

CORRUPT

PRACTICES

JUDGE

EDILBERTO

T.

CLARAVALL,

Presiding

Judge

Braneh

5O,

Regional

Trial

Court,

Baguio

City

x_.

-

;

- -

-,

-

-

_

-,

-

_ _ _

_

-

-

_

_

-.

-

-

- -,

:::-l-:-1::-1:

_ _

-

-"

COMPLAINT

Complainant

Atty.

ERNESTO

DE

LOS

SANTOS,

through

the

undersigned

counsel,

respectfully

states,

thus:

1.

,

Complainant

is

hereby

submitting

the

instant

complaint

for an

offense

in

violation

of Republic

Act

No.

3019

as

a"mended,

Republic

Act

67

L3,

Title

VII

Chapter

II, Section 2

of

the

Revised

Penal

Code,

and

for

such

offenses

committed

by

the respondent

in

relation

to his

office,

as

the

presiding

judge

of

the

Regional

Trial

Court, Baguio

City

as follows:

a.

Public

display

hold on

steadfast

to

corrupt

reasons;

of

personal

interest to

the

case

for;

obvious

0MBU[$M.At\i F*R

LUEOI

l

E_\"/oE

lrrnel

j

tr=ffiffi

fi-

.\---i

[---

CR.MU

"JUN

x

$

201+

l

lPage



b.

Knowingly

rendering

an

unlawful

and

unjust order

b.

Flagrant,

shocking and

notorious

display

of

extraordinary

partiality

in

favor

of an

adverse

party

utterly offensive not

only

to

the

accused and to

the

integrity

of the

presiding

judge

himself but to the

esteemed

legal

profession;

c. Issuance

of

a dubious Court Order

unknown and"

not

sent

to

the

parties

but was

very

much

known

to

the counsel

for

the

private

complainant;

d.

Extraordinary

and

extreme

pressure

imposed

to

the

counsel

for the

accused

with

the obvious

intention

to

rush the termination

of the

case.

Display

of

steadfiast

interest

to

hold

on

to

the case

for

obvious

reasons

2.

On

June

2L 2013,

complainant'

filed

a

Motion

for

Inhibition

before

tJle respondent

court

on the

ground that

the

respondent

has a

close

association

with

the

counsel of

the

adverse

party.

Certifieed

true copy

of the

motion

for

inhibition

is

hereto

I

attached

as

Annex

"A";

3.

In

an

Order

dated July

L2, 2A13, the

respondent

court

while

admitting in

the

said

order

that

the

adverse

party's

counsel,

Atty. Judge

Clarence

Villanlleva

is

his colleague

and a

school

mate

2lPage



--1

\

i\ i

-y

in the

UP

College of

Law, he

nonetheless

denied

the

accu"sed's

Motion

for

Inhibition

ratiocinating;

Certified

true

copy of

the Order

dated

July

L2,

2013,

denying

the

first Motion

for

Inhibition

is

hereto

attached

as

Annex

"B"'

:

4.

Due

to explicit

disregard

of

the

rights

of

the

accused

during

triat

as

mandated

under

the

rules and

the

issuance

of

another dubious

court

order,

the

accused

was

prompted

to

file

another

Urgent

Motion

dated

October

1,2013

seeking

(1) To

reconsider

the

Order

dated

24

September

20

13

issued

by

the

respondent

court

(21

For Second

Motion

for

Inhibition

(3)

To

Defer

Proceedings

Pending

the

Resolution

of

the

Second

Motion

for

Inhibition-

Certified

trr.e

copy

of

this

Omnibus

Motion

dated

October

L,2OL3

is hereto

attached

as

Annex

"C";

5.

In an

order

dated

January

10, 2AI4,

the

respondent

court

again

denied

the

accused's

Omnibus

Nlotion

seeking

to inhibit

for

the iecond

time

the

respondent

court

from

further

hearing

the

case.

Certified

true

copy

of

the

Order

is

hereto

attached

as

Annex

.eDrr.

6.

Due

to

persistent

irregularities

occurring

in

the

respondent's

court,

consistent

public.display

of

bias

in

favor

of

the

adverse

party,

urrfathomable

pressure imposed

to

herein

complairuot'"

counsel,

complainant

was

thus

again,

constrained

to

file

his

Third

Motion

for

Inhibition

dated

March

10, 2OL4'

A

Certified

true

copy

of

the Third

Motion

for

Inhibition

is

hereto

attached

as

Annex

'3E"'

7.

In

an

Ordbr

dated

May

L9,2014,

the

Court

for the

third

time,

denied

the

complainant's

Motion

for

Inhibition.

A

certified

true

copy

of

the

Order of

denial

is

hereto

attached

as

Annex

"F"'

8.

The

obvious

personal

interest

of

the

respondent

to

hold

on

to

the

case

for

corrupt

reasons

are

apparent.

In

the

second

*Ltio,

for

inhibition

fil;d

by

the

accused,

the

accused

even

i1n*g"



declaredl

that

he is not blind of the

fact

impregnated

with

irregularities since

corruption,

thus

accused declared:

that this case

has

been

its

inception

due

to

tdFourth,

this Court

must

not

be

blinded of

the

fact

ttrat

this

case

from

its

inception

has

been

impregnated

with

irregularities; l

The

instant

case

for

Qualified

Theft

docketed

under

case

No.

INV-I1-01553

filed

before

tJre

Office

of the City

Prosecutor of

Baguio

was originally

dismissed

by

Honorable

Prosecutor

Nenita

Opiana

in

a

Resolution

dated

July

29,

?OLL

for

lack of

probable

cause;

The

Adverse

parqf

filed

a Motion

for

Reconsideration

and

Amended

Motion

for

Reconsideration

seeking

the

reversal

of

the

said Resolution

dated

July

29,

20

L

1

and

the

accused's

counsel

fited

an

Opposition

thereto

by

way

of

Registered

Mail

on

September

22, 2OLL

and

also

bY way of

Personal

Service

to

the

Office

of

the City

Prosecutor

of

Baguio

on

September

26,

20Ll;

On

September

23,

zALt,

or

exactlY

one

(1)

day

after

the

mailing.

of

accused's

opposition,

a Resolution"

on'

Review

was

rendered

obviouslY

in

no

time

bY

Prosecutor

Rolando

Vergara

reversing

the

resolution

of

Prosecutor

Nenita

'Opiana

despite

other

much

older

aged

dockets

previously

submitted

for

resolution;

In

fact,

said

Resolution

on

Review

with

the

accompanying

Information

and

the

attached

documents

were

already

forwarded

1

Urgent

Omnibus

Motion

(Annex

C

of

this

complaint),

paragraphs22-3L.

'

4lPage



to the

Court even

before the

receipt

by the

Offi.ce of

the

City

prosecutor

of

Baguio

of the

undersigned's Opposition

to

the

adverse

party's

Amended

Motion

for

Reconsideration;

The

case

even underwent

a

Special

RaJfle

for

no

valid reason

which

culminated

to

the

immediate

issuzlnce

of

a

warrant

of

arrest;

Worse,

the

accused was already

arrested

pursuant

to the

said Resolution

on

Review

and

Information

issued

in

connection therewith even

before

said

contested

Resolution

on

Review

dated

September 23, 2O1lhad

been

mailed

by

the

Office

of

the

City

Prosecutor

of Baguio to the

parties

concerned;

Further,

the

records

of the

preliminaqr

investigation

and

Information

were already

forwarded to

the

Honorable

Court even

before

said

contested Resolution

on

Review

was offlcially

promulgated

by

the

Office of the

City Prosecutor

of Baguio

in

blatarit

violation

of

section 55 of

the

Manual

for

Prosecutor's,

thus:

Section

55,

Manual

for

Prosecutors

states,

to

wit:

'section

55.

Promulgation af

resoltttlort.-

The

resutrt

of the

preliminary

investigation

shall

be

promulgated

by

furnishing

the

parties

or

their

counsel

a

copy of

the

resolution

by:

a)

Personal

service;

5lPage



(

b)

Registered

mail with

return

card

to

the

complainartt,

and

b5r

ordinarJr

mail

to

the

respondent,

if

the resolution

is

for the

dismissal

of

the complaint;

or

c)

Registered

mail

with

return

card

to

the

respondent,

and

by ordinary

mail to the

complainattt,

if

the

resolution

is

for

the

indictrnent

of

the

respondent."

The

instant

case

has

an

unenfling

irregularities

since

its

inception

and

the

actions

being

dispalyed

by

the

Court

are

no

exceptions.

The

court's

obvious

interest

and

desire

to

hold

on fast, cling,

clasp,

stay

on

close

grip

to

this

case

despite

palpable

grounds

for

inhibition

is

already

a

violation

of

the

mandated

provisions

of

Judicial

Ethics;"

9.

Accused

emlmerated

the

vestiges

of

corruption

surrounding

the

case

to

prevent

the

respondent

judge

frgm

committi.rglfr"

same

mockery

of

justice or

to

at

least mitigate

the

greed

of

persons

who

are

supposed

to

be vangua-rds

of

justice;

10.

In

fact,

the

accused

after

the

enumeration

and

discussion

of

an

array

of

irregularities

in

his

second

motion

for

inhibition,

even

forewarned

and

declared

thus:

"Certainly,

.

future

administrative

complaint

which

are

PromPted

bY

dubi,ous

actions

on

the

Part

of

the

presid"ing

judge

would

indubitably

show

iack

of

-faitfr

by

the

accused

to

the

presiding

magistrate.

As

a

necessary

consequence

of

such

filing,

the

principle

that

litigants

are

entitled

to

nothing

less

than the

cold

neutrality

of

an

impartial

judge

would

already

be

unavailing.

After

such

filing,

the

actions

of

the

magi"ttate

will

no

longer

be

free

6lPage



{u

from

€Lrry

suspicion

as

to

their

fairness,

impartiality

and

integrityzi

,

,;

So

as

to

avoid

this

untoward

situation,

we

reiterate

and

beg

the

Honorable

Court

to

please

inhibit

from

the instant

case,

reviving

in

effect

the

public

confidence

in

the

integrity

of

the

judiciary;

After

all, the

court's

act

of

inhibiting

from

the instant

case

would

in

fact reduce

his

docket

and

\Mill

eventually

unburden his

court;"

1

1.

Despite

the accused's

plea

for fairness

and inipartiali{y

and further

considering

the forewarnings

mentioned

by

the

accused,i

the

respondent

court

consistently

displayed

acts

of

impropriety/injustice

and consistently

denied

the

three

(3)

motions

for

inhibitions

filed

by

the

accused, completely

eroding

the

accused's

confidence

to the

respondent

judge;

12.

The

irregularities narrated

by the

accused

in

his motion

for inhibition were not mere

product

of

his imagination.

In

fact,

the

irregularities

involving

this case occurred not

only before

the

proseclltor's

office,

before

the

trial

court

but were

even

extended

before the

Court

of

Appeals

i

,:

13. The irregularities

before

the Court of Appeals

were

shown

in

the Motion

for Inhibition

filed

by

the

accused

before

the

appellate

court

in

connection

with

his

Petition

for

Certiorari,

questioning

the

orders

of the

herein

respondent

judge,

thus:

"9.

Considering

the

foregoing

experiences,

petitioner

filed a

Motion

for

Inhibition before

the

Office

of

the

City

prosecutor

but

was

outrightly

denied.

Petitioner

likewise

filed a

Motion

for

Inhibition

seeking

to

inhibit

the

public

respondent

Regional

Trial

Court, Branch

60

to eliminate

obvious

partiality

and for

the

honorable

judge

to

be

freed

from corruption

'rbid.

TlPage



,,':\

"f,J"/

10.

Similar

to the

foregoing

experiences,

the

decision

promulgated

on

July

30, 2013

by the Special

Tenth

Division

of

the

Honorable

Court was

likewise

extraordinarily

expeditiously

promulgated

;

l" l-. The

instant

Petition

for

Certiorari

was fiIed

on

February

15,

2OL3

without

any

prayer

for

TemPorar5r

Restraining

Order,

Preliminary

Injunction

or

any

other

provisional remedies

exhibiting

urgency

nor

any other

remedies

wa-rranting

Court's

urgent

attention;

L2.

On

MaY

28,

2OL3,

Petitioner

received

t]le

Comment

on

the instant

petition

filed

by

the

private

respondent

Emily

De

Leon;

obviou.sly

lobbied

likewise

denied;

13.

A

ReplY

was

filed

by

herein

2013;

in his

sala

but

on

the said

Comment

petitioner on

July

1

1,

14. On JulY

30,

2OL3

or

barelY

3

weeks

from

the

time

of

the

submission

of

the

Petitioner's

Reply,

the

decision

penned

by

Justice

Francisco

P.

Acosta

was

quickly

and

expeditiouslY

Promulgated;

;

15.

It

is

worth

reiterating

that

tl:e

instant petition

included-no

prayer

for

TRO

nor

any

provisional

nor

ancillary

remedies

that

would

warrant

the

immediate

attention

of

the

Honorable

Court.

Despite

the non

urgency,

the

instant

Petition

was

Iip"e;



considerably

treated

more

important

than

those

cases with

a

prayer

for

a

TemporarJr

Restraining

Order;

16. It may

also

be

safely surmised

or Judicial

Notice may be taken

of

the

fact

that

there

n-aybe

more

cases in

the

office

of

the Honorable

Justice Acosta that

might

need more

urgent attention

or

old

aged

cases

submitted

for

decision which

are

already

antiquated.

But due

to

extraordinary

attention given

by

Justice

Acosta

and/or the

Special

Tenth Division

to

the

instant

case, the

contested

Decision was

extraordinarily

expeditiously

promulgated

;

LT .

Petitioner

would

like

to

defeat

information

received

from

reliable sotrrces

that

valuable

considerations

a.re

agfln

involved

in

this

case

and

it is

not

remote

that

the

private respondent again

tried

the

herein

ponente's

soul.

To

eliminate

the

slightest

doubt

and

for

the

honorable

division

to

be

freed

from

the elaborate

anatomy

of

temptation

from

cornrption,

we

humbly

beg

and

seek

inhibition

in

the

corridors

of this

Honorable

Division;

18.

The

case of

Pimentel

u.

Salanga,

21

SCRA

160,

reiterated

in Gutang

u.

Court

of

Appeals,

G.R.

JVo.

124760,

B Julg

7998,

292

SCRA

76,

is apropos,

thus:

"All

the

foregoing

nohaithstanding,

this

should

be

a

good

occasion

as

aftU

to

draw

qttention

of all

Judges

to

dpproprtqte

guidelines in

a

situation

where

their

iapacifu

to

try

and

dectde

a. ca,se

fatrlg

and

judlciouslg

comea

to

the

fore

bg

wag

9lPage



&.]

of

chatlenge

.frorn

dtug

ane

of

the

parties.

A

judge

ma.g

not

be

legallg

prohibited

from

sitting

in a

litigation.

But when

suggestion

is

made

of record

that

he

night

be

induced.

to

qct,

in

faaor

of

one

paftg

or

with

bias

ar

preiudice

against

a

litigant

arising

out

of circumstaneefs]

reasonablg

capu,ble

af

imeiting

such

a.

stelte

af

mind,

he

should

conduct

a

careful

self-examinqtiort.

IIe

should

exercise

lrris

dtscretion

ln

a

wag

that

the

people's

fanth

in

the

courts

of

iustice

is

not

impaired,

A salutary,norm

is that

he

reflect

on

the probabilitg

that

a

losing

part7

might

nurhte

at the

back

of

his

mind

lne

lnoug?rt

that

the

judge

unmeritoriouslg

titted

the

scales

of

justice

against

him,

That

passion

on

the

Part

of

a

judge

maA

be

generated

because

of

serious

charges

of

misconductagairusthimbaasuitorarhis

courrsel,

if

not

altogether

remote'

He

is

a

man

subject-to

the

frailties

of

other

men'

He

should,

therefore,

exercise

great

care

and

cautionbeforemakinguphismindtoactor

tllithdrawfromasuitwherethatpartaor

counselisinuolued.Hecauldingoodgrace

inhibithimsetfuherethatcasecouldbe

heard

bg

another

iudge

and

where

no

appreciable

preludice

would

be

occasioned

to

thi

others

inuolued

therein.

On the

result,

af

his

decision

ta

sit'

or

not

to

sit

mag

dePend

ott

a

great extent

the

all'

a

inportant,

confidence

in

the

impartiaW

of'the

iudfciarg.

If

df,ter

ref'lection

he

ihould

resolae

to

aoluntarilg

desist

from

,sitting'ind.cd.sewherelraismotiaesa;nd

fairniss

tnight

be

seriouslg

impugned'

hisactionistabeint,erpretedasgiaing

.

meaning

and

sttbstamce

t9

the

s1coy

paragraph

of

Section

7,

Rule

737'

IIe

trrri"

-the

caruse

of

the

law

who

forestalls

mlscarriag

e

of

iustico

"'

Copy

of

the

Motion

for

Inhibition

filed

before

the

Court

of

Appeals

is

hereto

attached

as

Annex

66G"'

l0

lPage



L4.

Unlike

the respondent

judge

who

had

the

excessive

boldness,

Bfld audacity

to

perpetrate

injustice

for

obvious

corrupt

motives,

,the

honorable

justices

of

the

Court of

Appeals,

inhibited

and

re-raffled the

case

to

another division;

15. On

the

face

of the above

anomalies,

to which

the

respondent

judge

was

made

aware

that

the accused

is not

blind

of

the obvious

corruption

involving

this case

and

on

the face

of

the

forewarnings

that

an

administrative

complaint

might be flled

in

case

of

persistent

display

of

irregularities

in

his

court,

the

respondent

judge

had

the

temerity

to

continuously

perpetrate

injustice

for

obvious

corruption

and

persistently

disregard

the

rights

of the

accused

and

deliberately

misread

the law

to

the

prejudice

of

the

accused;

rendering

an

Unjust

r

1-6.

,On

June

25,2013,

the

scheduled

pre-trial of

the

case,

the

accused

(Co mplairuant

in

this

casel

was

required

by

the

Court

to

submit

ali

theludicial

affidavits

of

their

witnesses

within

five

(5)

days

from

such

hearing

date

or

only

until

June

30,

2013;

LT.

In compliance,

accused

fiied

the

judicial

affidavit

of

his

witness,

Orlando

Albi"rrto

but

due

to

time

constraints,

accused

flled

an

Urgent

Motion

praying

for

the

deferment

of

the

submission

of

the

judicial

affidavits

of

other

witnesses;

:

18.

'The

said

Motion

to

Defer

submission

of

Judicial

Affidavits

was

prompted

by

the

fact

that

private

complainant

Rever

ceased

in

harassing

the

witnesses

of

the

accused.

Accused

in

the

said

motion

enumeiated

and

substantiated

all

the

harassment

acts

and

the

arTay

of

cases

filed

by

the

private

complainant

against

herein

accused.'s

witnesses.

copy

of

the

Motion

to

defer

submission

is

hereto

attached

as

Annex

tilt"'

19.

In

an

Order

dated

September

24,

2OL3,

the

respondent

Court

a-llowed

the

accused

a

NON-EXTENDIBLE

period

of ten

(10)

days

from

receipt

of

the

ord.er

within

which

to

submit

the

judicial

affidavits

of

other

witnesses

in

utter

disregard

of

the

rules;

ll

lPage



20.

By

reason

of

such

order

and

others,

accused

filed

an

omnibus

Motion

seeking

to

inhibit

for

the second

time

the

presiding

judge

of

the

Honorable

Court

and

to reconsider

the

Septemb

er-24,-2018

order,

banking

on

the

option of

the

accused

to

deier

submission

of the

judicial

affidavits

as

provided

under

section

g

orthe

Judicial

Affidavit

Rule'which

explicitly

provides,

thus:

"Section

9

of

the

Judicial

Affidavit

Rule,

thus:

;

Section

g.Apptication

of

rute

to

criminal

actions.

-

(a)

This

rule

-shall

apply

to

all

criminal

actions:

'

(1)

Where

the

maximum

of

the

imposable

penaltY

does

not

exceed

six

Years;

(2)

Where

the

accused

agrees

to

the

use

ofjudicialaffidavits,irrespectiveofthepenalty

involved;

or

(3)

With

respect

to

the

civil

aspect

of

the

actions,

whatever

the

penalties

irrvolved

are.

(b)

The

prosecution

shall

submit

the

Judicial

affidavits

of

its

witnesses

not

later

than

live

days

before

the

pre-trial,

serving

copies

of

the

same

upon

the

accused'

The

complainant

or

public

prosecutor

shall

attach

'

to

the

affidavits

such

documentar5r

or

object

evid.ence

as

he

may

have,

marking

them

as

Exhibits

A,

B,

C,

and

so

on'

No

further

judicial

affidavit,

documentary'

or

object

evidenceshallbeadmittedatthetrial.

(c)

If

the

accused

desires

to

be

heard

onhisdefenseafterreceiptofthejudicial

affldavits

of

the

prosecution' he

shall

have

theoptiontosubmithisJudicialaffidavitas

well

as

those

of

his

witnesses

to

the

court

,withintend.aysfromreceiptofsuchaffi"davits

.......

.

:...._....--........,

12lPage



,r,t \

tL

)

and

serve

a

copy

of

each

on

the

public and

private

prosecutor,

including

his

documentary

and

object

evidence

previously

marked

as

trxhibits

1,

2,3,

and

so

on.

These

affid"avits

shall

serve

as

d"irect

testimonies

of

the

accused

and

his

witnesses

when

t\.y

appear

before

the

court

to

testify.

2I.

It

is

worth

noting

that

Section

9

deals

\Mith

and

referred

to

the

seryice

and

filing

of

the

judicial

affidavits

in criminal

cases;

22.

Paragraph

(b)

af

section

9

specifically mandates

the duty

on

the

pro""rition

to

submit

judicial

affidavits

of

its

witnesses

not

later

than

five

(5)

days

before

the

pre-trial

and

still

further

requiring

under

the

thiid"

sentence

that

"tt',o

fufiher

iudicial

aJfidautt''

doeumcfltary,

of

obiect,

evidence

shalt

be

admitted

at

t|a;e

trialn,

thus:

(b)

The

prosecuti.on shall

submit

the

judicial

affidavits

of

its

witnesses

not

later

than

five

davs

before

the

pre-trial,

serving

copies

of

the

same

upon

the

accused'

The

complainant

or

public

prosecutor

shall

attach

to

the

affidavits

such

documentarlr

or

object

evidence

as

he

may

have,

marking

them

as

Exhibits

A,

B,

C,

and

so

on'

Na

further

23.

Paragraph

(c) of

sectiofl

9,

on

the

other

hand,

pertains

to

the

opTIow

of

irr

"-

or.u"ed

to

submit

judicial

affidavit,

thus:

(")

If

the

accused

desires

to

be't

heard

on

hisdefenseafterreceiptofthejudicial

affidavits

of

the

prosecution,

he

shall

hque

the

optian

to

submit

his

judicial

affidavit

as

'Emphasfq

s4

13[Page



well

as

those

of

his

witnesses

to

the

court

within

ten

days

from

receipt

of

such affidavits

and

serve

a copy

of

each

on

the

public

and

private

prosecutor,

including

his

documentar5r

and

object

evidence

previously

marked

as

Exhibits

1,

2,

3,

and

so

on.

These

affidavits

shall

serve

as

direct

testimonies

of

the

accused

and

his

witnesses

when

they

appear:before

the

court

to testify.

(trmphasis

supplied);

24.

while

paragraph

(b)

of

section

9

mandates

that

the

prosecution

.,sh*tt

"rrt*it"

irrAicial

a{fidavits

not

later

than

five

(5)

d.ays,

pgru.gr.pr,

(c)

on

the

-oth",

hand

provides

that

the

accused

c,shall

have

tire

iption"

to

submit

his

Judicial

Affidavit,

if

he

so

desires;

25.

The

accused

is

therefore

not

mandated

to

submit

within

ten

(10)

days

from

receipt

of

the

adverse

pafty's

Judicial

Affidavit

uri

ir"

has

the

oprroN

to

submit

his

Judicial

Affidavit

in

case

he

desires

to

be

heard

on

his

defense

after

receipt

of

the

Judicial

Affidavit

submitted

by

the

prosecutiol

unlike

in

paragraph

.(b)

where

it

was

specifically

mentioned

that

where

the.

proseculion

failed

to

submit

iudicial

Afndavits

not

later

than

five

(5)

daSis

b-eforg

pre-trial,

,,no

further

judicial

affidavit,

documentary,

or

obJect

lvidence

shall

be

admitted

at

the

trial";

26.

Had

it

been

the

intention

of

the

highest

court

to

put

such

restriction

or

penalty

upon

the

accused

in

case

of

his

refusal

;;;1";;-;i"

.ptior,

th"

"r*"

could

had

easily been

indicated

under

paragraph

(c);

27.

Onthe

contrarSr,

much

leeway

is

given

to

the

accused

as

it

mentioned

under

the

salne

paragraph

that

the

accused

t'shall

have

the

option,,,

thereby

,*"ogiririnl

tirg

accused's

option

to

be

heard

soon

after

his

receipi

of

thJ

prosJcution's

Judicial

Affidavit

or at

his

oppotrune

time

to

present

his

defense;

,

'

zs.Inbrief,whattheaccusedisprayingbeforethe

Honorable

Court

is not

anything

unwritten

but

the

exercise

of

his

OpTION

and

privilege

as

aiforded

to

him

by

the

highest

court

thru

the

A,M.

12-8-8-SC,

otherwise

known

as

the

Rule

on Judiclal

Affidavit;

14lPage



U

29'.

The rule

on Judicial

Affidavit

giving

such OFTION

to the

accused

is

clear

and

cannot

be construed otherwise.

It is

in keeping

with the

State's

recognition

to

provide

importance on

the

accused's

constitutional

right

to life and

liber 5r

where

the

accr:sed

must be

given

every

opportunity to

establish

his

innocence

and

that

laws

be

construed

in

his favore;

;

30.

Despite

the

explicit

provision of the

rule

on Judicial

Affidavit,

the

court

in

alr"

order

dated

January

1O,

201.4,

again

ilenied

the

plea

of

herein

petitioner to

defer submission

of

the

judicial

affidavits

of

his

witnesses

as

well

the

'

petitioner's

plea for

the second

motion

for

inhibition;

31.

By

and

large,

the

court

consistently

denied

the

right

of

herein

accused

to

defer

subrnission

of

his

judicial

affidavit

and

that

of his

witnesses

though

mandated

und,er

section

9

of

the

Judicial

Affidavit

rule.

The

fact

that

the

presiding

judge

has

fuII

knowledge

of

the

fact

that

what

he

issued was

an

unjust

Order

can be

gleaned

in

the

following

discussions;

Flagrant,

shocking

and

notorious

behavior

of the

Presiding

judge

in

favor

of the

prosecution

32.

Surprisingly,

on

February

18,

2014,

during

the

scheduled

pre-trial, th*

pr*siding

judge

who

consistently

denied

the

accused

foi

several

months

of

his

option

to

defer

submission

of

his

judicial

affidavits

as

mand.ated

under

the

rule,

unexpectedly

tontradicted

his

own

written

orders

and

suddenly

recognized

the

option

of

the

accused

to

defer

submission

of

his

affidavits

and

declared

in

open

court,

thus:

"Court:

Perhaps,

you have

already

considered

the

judicial

affidavits

because

even,

if

it

will

be

here

or

in

another

court,

a

judicial

affidavit

will

be

needed.

Did

you

not

consider

drafting

or

making

a

judicial

aJfidavit?

3

people

of

the

Philippines

vs.

Victorino

Del Mundo,

GR Nos.

119964-69,

September

20'

1996'

-i5iP-e;



Atty.

Luis:

Yes

your

honor.

We

acknowledge

the

mandatory

character

of

the

judicial

affidavit.

However,

as

if I

may

reiterate,

though

it

was

denied already,

your

honor,

as

provid.ed

under

section

g,

paragraph

c,

we

believe

that

the

accused

as

in all

other

courts,

the

accused

has

the

option

to

submit

or

not

to

submit

judicial

affidavit

after

receipt

of the

judicial

affidavits

submitted

by

the

proseclltion,

your honor.

So,

it

is

our

readings,

your

honor

that

the

accused

has

the

option

to

submit

before

the trial,

I

mean,

before

the

presentation

of

the

defense'

evidence,

yourr

honor.

Court:

So,

you

are

not

going

to

submit

now?

Atty.

Luis:

No,

your honor.

By

virtue

of

the

denial

I

read

this

morning

from

the

court's

record,

your

honor, we are asking

a

ten

(10)

day

period

within

which

to

submit

the

judicial

affidavit

of

the

accused

Atty.

Carullo:

Your

honor,

may

I

refresh

the

memory

of

the

parties

and

this

court,

your

honor?

I

witrl

quote frorn

the

order

of

this

court

dated

January

1O,

2AL4,

your

Honor, "Despite

being

granted

a

new

ten

day

period

to

file

his

Judicial

affidavits

even

though

the

period

given

to

him

under

the

judicial

affidavit

rule,

already

lapsed,

he

never

took

advantage

of

the

same

and

file

his

intended

judicial

affidavit,

yoltr honor".

so,

it

is

very

clear,

your honor,

that

the

ten

day period

given

to

them

to

file

their

judicial

affidavit,

already

lapsed,

your

honor.

Court:

t..

16lPage



Well,

as

stated,

the

accused.

has

the

option to file

a

judicial

affidavit

or not. Now,

I

was

asking

the

accused if

he still

intends to submit a

judicial

affidavit.

Atty.

Luis:

Yes

your

honor.

Court:

Anyway,

you

can

file

your

judicial

affidavit

when

you

present

your

evidence.

We

will

allow

that,

if that

is

your

thinking

now.

But

we

will

continue

with the

pre-trial."

;

33.

While

the

counsel

for

the

accused

was

still

pondering

why

the sudden

disregard

of

his

written

orders,

the

presiding

judge

on

the

safire

occasion

directed

the

prosecution

to submit

additional

judicial

affidavits

of

their

witnesses

within

ten

(1O)

days

after

the

conclusion of

the

Pre-trial;

34.

Such

direction

was

in

fact

even included

in the

written

order

of

the

Court

dated

February

18,2014,

thus:

"The

Pre-trial

conference

was

conducted

and

concluded

today.

A

pre-trial

order

will

be

issued

upon the transcription

of

today's

proceedings.

The.

prosecution

is

hereby directed

to

submit

the

Judicial

Affidavits

of

other

respective

witnesses

within

ten

(10)

days

from

todaY."

Copy

of

t]re

Order

dated

February

t8,2014

is

hereto

attached

as

Annex

t'I";

35.

In

fact,

prosecution

will

it was

even

thru

the

initiative

of

the

court

that

the

belatedly

submit

its

judicial

affidavits.

The

lTlPage



undersigned

counsel

attempted

to

question

the

actuations

of

the

presiding

judge

in

open

courta

but

to

no

avail,

thus:

"Court:

when

can

you submit

their

judicial a-ffidavits?

;

tty.

Carullo:

As

'contained

in

the

Judicial

Affidavit

Rule,

your

Honor,

we

will

furnish

the

adverse

counsel

of

at

least

five

days

before

the intended hearing

days,

your

Honor'

Atty.

Luis:

Your

Honor,

the

privilege

being

availed

by

the

good

counsel

here

is

not

a

privilege

granted

to

the

prosecution'

yolrr

Honor,

that

privilege

is

granted

only

to

the

accused,

your

"ho.or.

The

obligation

of

the

prosecLltion

to

submit

judicial

affidavits

is

only

ten

days

prior

to

the

pre-trial,

your

honor,

and

under

the

Judicial

Affidavit

rule,

your

honor,

failure

to

submit

judicial

affidavits

shatl

be

deemed

as

a

waiver

of

the

right

of

the

probecution

to

submit

such,

your

honor'

Pros.

Sagsago:

'

Your

honor,

just to

expedite

the

proceedings,

r:nay

we

request

that

we

be

given

at

least

ten

days

from

today

within

which

to

submit

a

copy

of

the

judicial

affidavits?

Anyway,

we

have

not

started

with

the

trial'

Atty.

Carullo:

Yes

Your

honor,

if

this

honor

and

I

think

it

is

court

will

allow

them

very

unfair

for

us,

Your

to

submit their

judicial

4

lbid.,

pages Lo

-L1.

18[Page



affidavits

ten

da5rs

before

the

intended

hearing

and

we

are

deprived

of

such

process,

your

honor'

Court:

we

will

give

yolr

ten

days

to

submit

those

judicial

affidavits.

Atty.

Carullo:

Thank

You,

Yolrr

honor.

copy

of

the

pertinent

transcript

of

stenographic

notes

(pages

10 to

11}

is

hereto

attached

as

Annex

*Jnt;

36.

T?re

contention

of

the

undersigned

counsel

in

open

court

carne

from

the

fact

that

for

several

gfueling months,

the

accused

fougfrt

for his

right to

defer

submission

of his

judicial

affidavits

on

the-basis

of

exp:ilicit

provisions

of

the

Judicial

Affidavit

rule-

But

this

right

of

the

accused

trrough

mandated

,by

the

rules

was

consiste4tly

denied

through

written

court

orders;

ST.

This

exclusive

privilege

to

submit

judicial

affidavits

Ar"rER

pre-trlal,

however,

which

pertain

solely

to

the

accused

was

in

fact

granted

by

the

presiding

judge

in

no

time

and

wittrout

any

effort

*f

utt

to

the

ptoi."ution,

who

are

already

ba{ed

under

the

sarne

rule.

This

behavlor

of the

presiding

Judge,

in

fact,

made

iU"

""oused

understand

why

he

was

suddenly

verball5r allowed

in

open

court

to

defer

submisslon

of

his

Judicial

aflidavlts

despite

written

orders

of

denflals;

38.

The

case

of

LUCILA

TAN

vs.

Judge

MAXWEL

S.

ROSE-TE,5

is

worth

mentioning,

thus:

\Me

have

repeatedly

adrnonished

our

judges

to adhere

to

the

highest

tenets

of

u[e.U

No.

MTJ-04-L553.

Septemher

8,

2004.];

(FormerlyA.M.

OCA

IPI

No.

02-1207-MTD;

19lPage



judicial

conduct.

TheY

must

be

the

Lmbodiment

of

competence,

integrity

and

independ.ence.

Like

Caesar's

wife,

a

judge

mo"t

not

only

be

pure

but

above

suspicion'

This

is not

without

reason.

The

exacting

standard"s

of

conduct

demanded

from

judges

are

designed

to

promote

public

confidence

in

the

integritv

and

impartiality

of

the

judiciary

becamse

th;

people's

confidence

in

the

judicial

system

is

founded

not

only

on

the

magnitude

"i

lega1

knowledge

and

the

diligence

of

the

-.*6"rs

of

the

bench,

but

also

on

the

highest

standard

of

integrity

and

mora-l

uprightness

ifr"y

are

bxpeeteJto

possess.

When

the

judge

himself

becomes

the

transgressor of

any

law

whlch

he

is

sworn

to

aPPlY,

he

places

his

ofliee

in

disrepute,

encourages

disrespect

forthelawandimpairspublicconfidencein

it

"

integrity

anA

impartiality

of

the

judicia"y

it""if.

It

is

therefore

paramount

that

;

judge's

personal

behavior

both

in

the

performanceofhisdutiesandhisdailylife,be

iree

from

any

appearance

of

impropriety

as

to

be

beyond

reProach.

39.

It

is

also

the

submission

of

herein

accused

that

the

order

dated

J4nuqry-io,

2oL4 issued

by the

Honorable

Court,

again

denying

the

"lu*o,

of

the

."cr*"d

to

defer

submission

of

his

j,rai"ij

Affidavit,

was

not

prepared

by

the

presiding

judge

nor

emanated

from

hls

office

by

t"u."ott

of

the

following

circurnstances

keenly

dbserved

by

herein

accusedl

:

40.

First,

the

order

received

by

herein

accused

through

mail

was

written

in

a

bond

paper

and

not

in

an

onion

skin

paper

whele

the

order

of

this

court

is

customarily

written and

is

normally

received

bY

herein

Petitioner;

D"bird;ourt

Order

dated

JanuarY

1O,

.4;OL4

unknown

to

the

aecused

but

was

r--^-..- *^ *La nritzafe nnrnnlainant

very

known

t"

th.

Pri"att

t"m

20

lPage



tr

4L.

Second,

considering

that

such

Order

urould

dietate

whether

the

pre-trial

on

February

18,

2AI4

would

proceed

or

be

deferred",

and

further

considering

that

the undersigned

counsel

who

would

attend

such

pre-trial

would

still

come

from

lvlanila,

representatives

of the

counsels

for

herein

a"ccused

were

never

remiss

in their

follow

ups

regarding

the

issuance

of

such

court

order;

42.

In

fiact, several

days

before

the

scheduled

hearing

date

on

Februar5r

18,

2014,

the

secretarlr

of

Atty.

Rosanne

Rarang,

inquired

as to

th.

existence

of

any

court

order

regarding

the

accused's

motion

for

inhibition,

but

found

none;

43.'

Suddenly,

the

Order

dated

Januar5r

10,

2014

came

into

being

on

February

18,

2Ot4

during

the

scheduled

hearing

for

pre-

trial;

d.iscover,

when

she

went

over

the

court

records

in

the

early morning

of

Februar5r

18,

2014

that

such

order

was

apparenfly

issrred

as

early

as

January

10,

2OL4

but

no

copy

was

sent

to

the

parties;

45.

The

fact

that

such

order

came

into

heing

instanfly

in the

court

records

and

no

copies

were sent

to the

parties

as

of Fehruar5r

18,

2Ol4

could

be

found

on

the

envelope

of

a

recent\r

received

registered

mail

by

the

undersigred

from

the

court

indicating

a

registered

stamp

tLrat

such

mail

was sent

by the

Cqurt

to

the

post

offi".

in

Baguio

City only

on

February

24, 2OL+:

Copy

of

the

envelope

is

heieto

attached

as Annex

33K"'

46.

Orders

issued

by

the

Court are

norrnally

being

received

by Atty.

Rarang

(co-counsel

for the

accused),

whose

office

is

located

near

the

court,

for

only

few

days

after

its

issuance

or

at

times,

ev€n

through,

personal

service.

Court

orders

after

its issua-nce

were

also

normally

released

by the court

for

mailing

in

no time and

are

being

received

by

the

undersigned counsel

thru

mail

in

less

than two

(2)

weeks;

21

lPage



Ii

42.

As

of

February

18,

2014,

the

seheduled

pre-trial hearing,

both

counsels

for

the

accused,

Atty.

Rosanne

Rarang

and

herein

undersigned

counsel

did

not receive

any mail

of

such

order

dated

January

10,

2014

and

had

no

copy

of

the

same;

48.

Despite

the

fact

that

such

order

was

not

released

to

parties, it

is

quite

surprising

that

thd

counsel

for

the

private

iomplainant

fraa

the

copy

of

the

said

order

and

even

had

the

temirity

to

quote said

oid"r

in open

court

on

February

18,2014

pre-trial

hearing,

thus:

Your

honor,

may

I refresh

the

memory

of

the

parties

and

this

court,

yolrr honor.

I wtll

quotg

ir,rm

the

order

of

this

Court

dated

January

1O,

2Ot4?

your

honof.

"Despite

berng

Stranted

a

new

ten-day

period

to

Iile

his

judicial

aflidavits

)oof

49.

Third,

the

format,

the font

used,

the

lengthy

order

or

style

of writing

used

were

not

the

usual

writings

pertaining

to

tJre

piesiding

judgi

compared

to

the

array

of

orders

alqeady

issued

b5r

1,'

the

court;

SO.

However,

the

other

order

issued

by

the

Court

on

Januar5r

18, 2014,

which

was

issued

three

3 daSrs

after the

issuance

of the

contested

order

on

Januar;r

10,

2AL4,

was

mailed

in

the

regular

course

of

business

by the

court

to

the

post

office

on

Januarlr

16,

ZOL4

and.

the

onion

skin

copy

of

the

order

was

also

customarily

received

by

our

office

on

January

24,

2014.

Copy

of

the

mailing

envelope

is

hereto

attached

as

Annex

"Ln.

Thus,

it

is

quite

surprising

how

such

contested

order

skipped

the court's

release

for

mailing

and

was

suddenly

inserted

in

the

court's records;

51.

In

brief,

the order

dated

January

10'

2014

is

an

order

not

customary

to

the court

insofiar as

it

uras

belatedly

released

for

mailing,

did

not

immedlately

exist

on

record

after

its

alleged

issuance,

not

written

ln

an

onion

skin normally

sent

to

p"rtles

and

not

ln

the usual

font

and

style

of'writing

pertalning

to

the

presidlng

Judge;

22lP

a

ge



52.

Fourth,

during

the

hearing

for

pre-trial

on

February

18,

ZAL4,

the

undersigned

counsel

keenly

observed

that

the

presiding

judge

was

not

so aware

with

the

said

written

order dated

January

-10,-2014

and

such

observation

was

further

bolstered

by

the

fact

that

the

same

presiding

judge

who

issued

said

written

order

veruauy

contradicted

his

own

orders

in

open

court;

'

53.

As

was

held

in

the

case

against

Judge

Jaurigue6,

djudge

charged

with

knowingly

rendering

an

unjust

judgment

can

not

find"

refufe

in

the

shortcoining

of

his staff.

In

order

to

keep

track

of

the

"orrit',

business,

the

judge

should'

have

adopted

a

s5rstem

-of

checklisting

all

matters

".rb*itt"d

for

resolution,

including.-th"

dates

wheri

these

were

resolved

and

served

on

the

parties.

Faifing

this,

it

is

difficult

to

dispel

the

impression

that

the

orders

were

ante-dated;

54.

The

above

behavior

smacks

of dishonesty

which

is

a

serious charge

or

offense

under

Section

B,

Rule

140

of the

Rules

of

Court.

ILis

rt*o

violative

of

Canon

3

of

the

Code

of

Judicial

Conduct

which

commands

judges

to

perform

official

duties

honestly.

7

Ih"

accused

as

of

this

writiog

is

preparing

both

an

administrative

and

criminal

complaint

against

-the

presiding

Judge

who

consistently

displays

his

interest

over

the

ease by

clinging

on

unto

the

instait

case

for

obvious

reasoRs

despite

several

motions

for

inhibitions.

The

accused

is

thus

constrained

to

file

the

instant

motion

not

only

to

avoid

mockery

of

justice

but

to

avoid

the

sham

trial

before

the

sala

of

the

presiding

judge;

u

[A.U.No.

RTJ-04-1834.

March

31,20A4];(Formerly

OCA-IPI-O2-I591-RTJ.);

CHI

CHAN

ripU

@.,C[IAN

eUE,"

and

HUI

LAO

CHLING

@"LE]FE

SENclAo",_complainants,

vs'

HON.

INOCENCIO

M.

JAURIGUE

in his

capacity

as

Presiding

Judge,

RTC'

Branch 44,

Mamburao,

Occidental

Mindoro,

respondent'

7mid.

23

lPage



l--.r

,..i

,

ri:-j1

t

t1

P*ttum.

Pressure

imPosed

to

the

counsel

for

the

accused

with

the

obvious

intention

to

rush

the

termination

of

the

case.

55.

During

the

sched.uled"

pre-trial

hearing

on

FebruarSr

18,

2AL4

where

thelarties

wer"

",rpposed

to

agree

on

the

scheduled

trial

dates,

the

extraordinary

pressure

imposed

upon

the

,ndersigned

cognsel

to

meet

tfre

iniention

of

the

presiding

judge

to

rush

the

termination

of

the

case is

utterly

obvious,

thus:

t'Court:

No,

We

will

accommodate

you

on

April

2'

Atty.

Luis:

We

have

a hearing

Your

honor'

Atty.

Carullo:

In

Manila.your

honor,

in

another

case'

Atty.

Luis:

April

16?

Court:

We

will

be

on

leave.

Atty.

Luis:

April

23

Your

honor?

Court:

24lP

age



We

',xrill

be

on

leave

until May

1-6.

We can start

vdth

the

May

L2,

\3,

L4."

56.

Considering

that

the

presiding

judge

will

be

on

leave

until

Ma),

L6,2014,

tJre

undersigrred

counsel

was

thereafter

con$tr?,ained

to

meet

the

desired

schedule

of

the

court

to

rrsh

the

termination

of

the

case,

ttrus:

"Court:

lYlay

L2,

2A

and

26?

Atty.

Carullo:

Available

on

the

26trr

your

honor,

z7thyour

honor.

Court:

27

and

z8th?

How

many

days

are

those?

Interpreter:

Only

six

Atty.

Luis:

Four

your

honor.

March

L2,

May

L2,

2O

and

2i6,

yroar

honor.

Interpreter:

Including

27

and'28.

Atty.

Carullo:

I'm

availahle

your

honor

on

the

27th

and

28th

25[Fage



:

Atty.

Luis:

I

cannotn

your

honor.

Court:

You

are

supposed

to

terminate

the

presentatipn of

your

evidence

within

six

month.

That

is

mandated.

June

2,

3

and

4.

Atty.

Carullo:

Available,

Your

honor.

,.

Court:

If there

are

judicial

aJfidavits

that

you

will

o'e

submitting,

the,

,

proceedings

will

be

facilitated.

It's

just

a

matter

of

identi$ring

and

then

cross-examination.

Atqy.

Carullo:

Yes,

Jrour

Honor.

Corlrt:

,

Hour

many

daSrs?

Ten

daYs?

Atty.

Carullo:

I

Just

to

be

safe,

Your

honor.

Court:

Horv

many

daYs

are

those

alreadY?

26lP

ase



it'

Interpreter:

Seven,

your

honor,

including

June 2,

3,

and

4.

:

Atty.

Luis:

'

JuRe

4,

your

honor.

Court:

Make

yourselves available

already

on these

dates

because

we

cannot

just

accommodate everybody

here.

June 9

and

1O. How

many

days

are

those?

Interpreter:

Seven,

your

honor.

Court:

Including

9

and

10?

Interpreter:

Yes,

your

honor.,

June

4,9

artd

IO.

Court:

16

and

L7.

We

will

have

to

make these

setting

Row

r,

because

we

have

to

meet

the

deadline

of'

the

Supreme

Court.

Atty.

Carullo:

Available,

your

honor.

Atty.

Luis:

I

think

seven

days

will

be

sufficient.

2TlFage



i

lr

;:

,:

irr

\ lnl

.:lii

\i

lir)

\f- r

Atty.

Carullo.

'

Yes,

your honor.

Court:

The

defense,

how

many

trial

dates?

Atty.

Luis:

Considering

that

we have five witnesses, maybe, around

seven

days

also,

your honor,

or

five

days'

Court:

'

JuIY

3O,

August

5'

6,

LL,

2

and

l3'"

Copy

of

the

transcript

of

stenographic

notes

(pages 14

to

17)

is

hereto

attached

as

Annex

'3J"'

ST

.

The

above

directives

of

the

presiding

judgg

would

yield

an

inevitable

conclusion

that

so

much

pfessure

is being

imposed

upon

the

undersigned

counsel

who

has

her

family

and

living

in

Manila

to

attend

a

hearing

in Baguio

every

I$eek

and

be

constrained

to

stay

in

Baguio

City

for

not a

day or

two

but

even

for three

consecutive

days

regardless

of her

previously

set

schedule;

58. A

perusal

of the

court

records,

specifically

the assailed

orders

would

show

that

the

presiding

judge

in

the

performance of

his

functions

and

issuance

of

the

contested

orders

was

obviously

moved

by

bad

faith,

fraud,

dishonesty

and

corruption,

enough

for

the

presiding

judge

to

be

held

liable

for

knowingly

rendering

an

unjust

orders,

gross

ignorance

of

the

law,

manifest

partiality

and

misconduct

in

the

perfortnance

of

official

duties;

59.

As

was

held

in

the

case

of

Chief

State

Prosecutor

JOVENCITO

R. ZUNIO,

complainant,

vs. Judge

ALEJANDRINO

C.

28

lFag*



,.-

'l',

r:,

'(;t''

,

'\.i:,:r

i, r :::'l

\_,

CABtrBE8,

in order

to

be held

liable

for

knowingly

rendering

an

unjust

judgment

or

order,

respondent

judge

must

have actecl

with

malice or

in

wittful

disregard

of

the

right

of

a

litigant,

as what

evidently transpired

in

the

case

at bar;

PRAYER

WHEREFORE,

premises

considered,

complainant

most

respectfully

prays

that

a

judgment

be issued

imposing disciplinary

sanctions

against

herein

respondent

for

knowingly rendering

unjust

orders,

manifest

partiality,

graft

and

corrupt

practices

and

manifest

misconduct.

Complainant

also

prays

for such

other

measures

of

relief and

remedies

which

are

just

and

equitable

under

the

premises.

RtrSPECTFULLY

SUBMITTED.

Makati

City

for

the City

of

Manila,

May 28,2014.

JUDITH

ZARRAGA

LUIS

LAW

FIRM

7256

J.

Victor

St.,

Barangay

Pio

de1

Pilar

Tel/Fax

Nos.

8

\

JUDITH

Z.

LUIS

PTR

No.

I.B.P.

92809+4/

OL-28-14l

Quezon

CLLY

Lifetimb

No.

03951

Quezon

City

ROLL

No.

38963

MCLE

III

Compliance

No.

IV-0018666;

April 26,2OI3

t

[a.U.No.

OCA 03-1800-RTJ.

November

26,2004.1;

(formerly

OCA

IPI No.

03-1675-RTJ);

Cfrief;

State Prosecutor

JOVENCITO

R.

ZI-INO,

complainant,

vs. Judge

ALEJANDRINO

C.

Makati

City

1230



-

't

a-..

'l

i '

t

_,_,,

CABEBtrS,

in order

to be

held

liable

for knowingly

rendering

an

unjust

judgment

or

order,

respondent

judge

must have

acted

with

malice

or

in willful

disregard

of

the

right

of

a

litigant,

as

what

evidently

transpired

in the

case

at

bar;

PRAYER

WHEREFORE,

premises

considered,

complainant

most

respectfully

prays

that

a

judgment

be

issued

imposing

disciplinary

*sanctions

against

herein

respondent

for

knowingly rendering

unjust

l

orders,

manifest

partiality,

graft

and

corrupt

practices

and

manifest

misconduct.

Complainant

also

prays for

such

other

measures

of

relief

and

remedies

which

are

just

and

equitable

under

the

premises.

RESPECTFULLY

SUBMITTED.

Makati

City

for

the

City

of

Manila,

May

28,2OI4.

JUDITH

ZARRAGA

LUIS

LAW

FIRM

7256

J. Victor

St.,

Barangay

Pio del

Pilar

Makati

City

l23O

Tel/Fax

Nos.

8

\

JUDITH

Z.

LUIS

.i#

PTR

No.

I.B.P.

92809+4/

Ol-28-14l

Quezon

CILY

Lifetimb

No.

03951

Quezon

City

ROLL

No.

38963

MCLE

III

Compliance

No.

IV-0018666;

April 26,2OL3

t

[a.U.No.

OCA

03-1800-RTJ.

November

26,2004.];

(formerly OCA

IPI

No.

03-1675-RTJ);

Ctrief;

State

Prosecutor

JOVENCITO

R. ZI-INO,

complainant,

vs.

Judge

ALEJANDRINO

C.



i

iri

't

CoBy

Furnished:

PBESIDINC

.TTTDGE

EDILBERTO

T.

Branch

60,, RTC

Baguio

City

ACP

ETMER [A IUEI,

SAgSAGO

Handling

Public

Ffosecrttor'

OfIice

of

the

CitY

F,msecutor

Hall

of

Juptice

Baguio

City

-..*

*ffi#+s"

J*?C8*fd{u;}

,.rsl:

tu*ilttofu

'-

Phillppine

Postal

CorPoration

2014-06-09

3i49,:07

PM

:

Sender

a-judical

zarr?ga

law

firm

Addressee/eReg.

No'

acp

elmer

manuel

sagEa9o

RL4L260,4424164

presiding

judge

Rt4t25A4424L72

rMakati

Central

Post

Bateh

No.

:

NQ435140609+r

Address

7255

I

victor

st

brgY

Pie

del

Pilar

makati

city

Address

office

of

the

city

prqsecutor,

hall

of

justice,

Baguio, Benguet

edilberto t

claravall,

brangh

60

rtc

,

F

160

Baguio,

Benguet

Total

Amount

P

320

Z

cLj

E:XpUerrefioIt

P

f

,otal

No'

of

Mails

-f

Thls

serves

as

four

acknowledgement

receipt

The.

foregoing

Administratiue

complaint

lnas

been

filed

and

served

by

rftst&ed

mail

due

to

distance,

time

constraints,

unpredicdable

J"rfti"

situation

and

lack

o&

availablelpessengef"I

:

personally file

and

serve

the

sarne.

30lFage



;r'

\i*.*-r

REPUBLIC

OF

THE

PHILIPPINES

}

r{"trEZ0N

GIT},

}

S.S.

VERIFICATION

AND

CER.TIFICATION

OF

NON-FORUM

SHOPPING

"

l,Atty.

Ernesto

David

Llamas

De

Los

Santos,

of

legal

age,

Filipino,

and

with

ajdres-s

at

No.

108,

Cenacle

Drive,

Sanville,

Tandang

Sora,

Quezon

City,

after

being

duly

sworn

in

accordance

with

law,

hereby

deposes

and

states

that:

1.

That

I

am

the

complainant

in

the

above

captioned

case

and

have

caused

the preparation of the

foregoing

AdminiFtrative

Corqplaint

and

I

have

read

and

know

the

contents

thereof

and

the

allegations

contained

therein

are

true

and

correct

based

on

my

own

knowledge

and

authentic

records;

2.

That

I

have

not

heretofore

commenced

any

other

action

involving

the

same

issues

before

the

Supreme

Court,

in

the

Court

of

Appeals

or

the

different

divisions

thereof,

or

any

other

tribunal

or agency;

g.

If

I

should

thereafter

learn

that

a

similar

action

or

proceeding

has

been

filed

or

is

pending

before

the

supreme

court,

or in

the

court

of

Appeals,

or

different

divisions

thereof,

or

any

other

tribunal

or

agency,

I

hereby

undertake

to promptly inform

this

Honorable

Court and

the

aforesaid

tribunal

or

agency

within

five

(5)

days

therefrom.

I

have

hereunto

affixed

my

signature

this

IN

day

ao".No.ffi

Page

No.

--19

Book

No.

f/-;

Series

of

2OL4.

ful*r6*e

Zv#"fu

Atty.

Ernesto

David

Llamas

De

Los

Santos

suBSCRTBED

AND

swoRN

ro

before

me

this

-

kL$tfl -ZQ]L

2oL4-

r,*rw

,Jn

r'',

U'tgt'

ft

t?rll4

*

Tff

riiii

:iti$'l

.\'9

t'tl-

o2-14'-o[

;;'*::'

-,iut4d,

ra

-

27

-

I

3"0

E

ilrffi,5i.#1;$rt;l3r''

F,



il

r

ir

't*,:

SUPRBME

COURT

OPFICE

OF

TTIE

COURT

ADMINISTRATOR

Manila

-,.1

'lr

, ,."]

.;.1

tr.:r+'

'':r'

OFFITE

ffPr

'"8"

-versus-

JUDGE

EDILBERTO

T.

CLARAVALL'

Presiding

Judge

Branch

6O'

Regional

pondent.

rial

Court,

Baguio

CitY

x--------,

..

--

-

-:::

----

----------x

ADMINISTRATIVE

COMPLAINT

complainant

Atty.

ERNESTO

DE

LOS

SANTOS,

through

the

undersigned

counsel,

respectfully

states'

thus:

;,

l.ii

Complainant

is

hereby

submitting

the

instant

complaint

on

the

foflowing

PalPable

grounds:

a.

Public

display

of

personal

interest

to

hold

on

stead.fast

lLo

the

case

for

obvious

REPUBLIC

OF

THtr

PHILIPPINES

EffiruEX

#

ATTY.

ERNESTO

DE

LOS

SANTOS

CornPlainant,

f.iFii,I] fiF THI

COURI

AAMIHISTBATOR

rjri;xrt

a

euEnnnrueE

6lvlsloN

ADM.

CASE

NO

A.

I(NOWTNGLY

RENDERING

UNJUST

ORDERS

B.

GROSS

IGNORANCE

OF

THE

LAW

C.

MANIFEST

PARTIALITY

AND

MISCONDUCT

o.

Cnarr

AND

coRRUr,.

PRAcTICES

JUN

I

3

TOI+



b.

Knowingly

rendering

an

unlawful

and

unjust

order

b.

Flagrant,

shocking

and

notorious

display

of

extraord"inary

partiality

in

favor

of

an

adverse

party

utterly

offensive

not

only

to

the

accused

and

to

the

integrity

of

the

presiding

judge

hirnself

but

to

the

esteemed

legal

profession;

c.

Issuance

of

a

dubious

Court

Order

unknown

and

not

sent

to

the

parties

but

was

very

much

known

to

the

counsel

for

the

private

comPlainant;

d.

Extraordinary

and

extreme

pressure

imposed

to

the

counsel

for

the

accused

with

the

obvious

intention

to

rush

the

termination

of

the

case.

2,

on

June

21

2013,

complainant

filed

a

Motion

for

Inhibition

before

the

respondent

court

on

the

ground

that

the

,".por.aent

has

a

close

association

with

the

counsel

of

the

adverse

;;qy.

Certifieed

true

copy

of

the

motion

for

inhibition

is

hereto

u.ttu.ln"a

as

Annex

36At';

3.InanorderdatedJulyL2,2a 3,therespondentcourt

while

admitting

in-tf,"

said

ordei

that

the

adverse

party's

counsel'

;rqr.

*d-;;;r;;""

Vrllanueva

is

h1s

colteague

and

a

school

rnate

2lPage

fll"pt"V

of

steadfast

interest

to

hold

on

to

the

case

for

ohvious

reasolls



K-,1,.

'-{r'

in

the

UP

College

of

Law,

he

nonetheless

Motion

for

Inhibition

ratiocinating;

denied

the

accused''s

Order

dated

JulY L2,2A13,

denYing

hereto

attached

as

Annex

t'Bt';

ertified

true

coPY

of

the

the

first

Motion

for

Inhibition

is

.

4.,

Due

to

explicit

disregard

of

the

righls

of

the

accused

durinf

trial

as

mandated

und&

the

rules

and

the

issgance

of

another

dubious

cburt

ord

er,

the

accused

was

prompted

to

file

another

urgent

Motion

dated

october

1,

20

13

seeking

(1)

To

reconsid"er

the

Ord"er

dated

24

September

2013

issued

by

the

respondent

cou

rt

(21

For

second

Molion

for Inhibition

(3)

To

Defer

Proceedings

Pending

the

Resolution

of

the

second

Motion

for

Inhibition.

certified

true

copy

of

this

omnibus

Motion

dated

Octoberl,2Ol3isheretoattachedasAnnex"C";

;

5.

In

an

order

dated"

January

10,

2014,

the

respondent

court

again

denied

the

accused's

Omnibus

Motion

seeking

to.inhibit

for

the

second

time

the

respondent

court

from

further

hearing

the

case.

CertifieJ

true

copy

of

tf,e

Order

is

hereto attached

as

Annex

36Dtr.

6.

Due

to

persistent

irregularities

occurring

in

tl"

respondent,s

court,

ctnsistent

public

display

of

bias

in

favor

of

the

adverse

part,

unfathomabli

pressure

imposed

to herein

;;*phirrurrt'*

"counsel,

complainant

was

thus

again

constrained

to

file

his

Third

Motion

for

Inhibition

dated

March

10,

2AL4'

A

certified,

true

copy

of

the Third

Motion

for

Inhibition

is

hereto

attached

as

Annex

'38"'

T.InanorderdatedMayLg,2ol4,thecourtforthethird

time,

denied

the

complainant's

Motion

for

Inhibition.

A

certified

true

copy

of

the

Order

of

denial

is

hereto

attached

as

Annex

'6F"'

8.

The

obvious personal

interest of

the

respondent

to

hold

on

to

the

case

for

corrupt

reasons

ate

apparent'

In

the

second

motion

for

inhibition

fil;d

by

the

accused,

the

accused

even

3lPage



declaredl

that

he

is

not

blind

impregnated

with

irregularities

thus

accused

declared:

viii

of

the

fact

that

this

case

has

been

since

its

inception

due

to

corruption,

,.1

-\ /

i 1'-l

\:'rjl

"Fourth,

this

Court

must

not

be

blinded

of

the

fact

that

this

case

from

its

inception

has

been

impregnated

with

irregularities;

The

instant

case

for

Qualified

Theft

docketed

under

case

No'

INV-

1

1-01553

filed

b"for.

the

Office

of the

City

Prosecutor of

Baguio

was

originally

dismissed

by

Hoiorable

prosecutor

Nenita

opiana

in

a

Resolution

dated

July

29,

2OLL

for

lack

of

probable

cause;

The

Adverse

pady

filed

a

Motion

for

Reconsideration

,tta

Amended

Motion

for

R."orr"id.eration

seeking

the

reversal

of

the

said

Resolution

dated

July

29,

20

I

I

and

the

accused.'s

counsel

filed

an

Opposition

thereto

by

way

of

Registered

Mail

on

s"pt.*n"i

22,

-2OLL

and

also

by

way

of

Peisonal

Service

to

the

Office

of

the

City

Prosecutor

of

Baguio

on

September

26'

20lt;

On

SePtember

23,

2}ll,

or

exactlY

one

(1)

day

after

the mailing of

accused's

opposiiior,

^

Resolution

on

Review

was

,"rra.rea

obviouslY

in

no

time

bY

Prosecutor

Rolando

Vergara

reversing

the

resolution

of

Prosecutor

Nenita

opiana

despite

other

much

older

aged

dockets

pr"rrio.rsly

submitted

for

resolution;

In

fact,

said

Resolution

on

Review

with

the

accompanying

Information and

the

attached"

documents

were

already

forwarded

aiPil;

l

Urgent

Omnibus

Motion

(Annex

C

of

this

complaint),

paragraphs22-3L'



.--.

(r

1

a

:.r,}*l'

\?"

to

the

court

even

before

the

receipt

by

the

Office

of

the

Cify

prosecutor

of

Baguio

of

the

undersigned"'s

Opposition

to

the

adverse

party's

Amended

Motion

for

Reconsideration;

.

The

case

even

underwent

a

SPecial

Raffle

for

no

valid

reason

which

culminated

to

the

immediate

issuance

of

a

warrant

of

arrest;

Worse,

the

accused

was alreadY

arrested.

pursuant

to

the

said

Resolution

on

Review

and

Information

issued

in

connection

therewith

even

before

said

contested

Resolution

on

Review

dated'

Septemb

et

23,201lhad

been

mailed

by

the

Ofiice

of

the

City

Prosecutor

of

Baguio

to

the

parties

concerned;

Further,

the

records

of

the

preliminary

investigation

and

Information

*.r.

already

forwarded

to

the

Honorable

court

even

before

said

contested

Resolution

on

Review

was

officially

promulgated

by

the

Office

of

the

City

Prosecutor

of

Baguio

in

blatant

violation

of

section

55

of

the

Manual

for

Prosecutor's,

thus:

Section

55, Manual

for

Prosecutors

states,

to

wit:

"section

55.

Promttlgation

of

resolutiott.-

The

result

of

the

preliminary

investigation

shall

be

promulgated

by

furnishing

the

parties

or

their

counsel

a-

copy of

the resolution

bY:

a)

Personal

service;

b)

Registered

mail

w:ith

return

card.

to

the

complainant,

and

by

ordinarSr

5lPage



iLlr'\*l

\:,;,

mail

to

the

respondent,

if

the

resolution

is

for

the

dismissal

of

the

complaint;

or

c)

Registered

mail

with

return

card

to

the

respond'ent,

and

by

ordinary

mail

to the

"o*pt.inant, if

the resolution

is

ior

the

ind.ictment

of

the

respondent'"

The

instant

case

has

an

unend'ing

irregularities

since

its

inception

and

the

acti6ns

being

dispalyed

by

the

Court

are

no

erceptiot

".

Th"

"orrit'*

obvious

interest

and

desiie

to

hold

on

fast,

cling,

clasp'

stay

on

close

grip

to

this

case

despite

palpable

grorrt

a"*

ior

inhibition

is

already

a

violation

of the

mandated

provisions

of

Judicial

Ethics;"

g.

Accused

enumerated

the

vestiges

of

corruption

surrounding

the

case

to

prevent

the

respondent

judge

from

committjng

the

same

mockery

of

justice

or

to at

least

mitigate

the

greed of

persons

who

are

supiou"a

to

he

vanguards

of

justice;

l0.Infact,theaccused'aftert]:eenumerationand

discussion

of

i

*ruy

of

irregularities

in

his

second

motion

for

irfriUitiot

,

even

forewarned

and

declared

thus:

"Certainly,

.

future

administrative

complaint

which

are

PromPted

bY

dubious

actions

on

the

Part

of

the

presiding

judge

would

indubitably

show

iack

of

-faitft

Uy

the

accused

to

the

presiding

magistrate.

As

a

necessary

conseqltence

of

such

filing,

the

principle

that

litigants

are

entitled

to

nothing

less

than

the

cold

neutrality

of

;

imfiartial

ju'Cge

would

alread5t

be

,rrr.u^iiing.

After

such

filing, the

actions

of

the

magistrate

will

no

longer

be

free

from

any

sLlspicion

as

to

their

fairness'

irnpartialitY

and

integritY2

;

ilbjd,

6i-Pil;



irl

)

L

.

lr\\

.-'

...

,

[l*-z;,.

tLir)

So

as

to

avoid

this

untoward

situation,

we

reiterate

and

beg

the

Honorable

Court

to

please

inhibit

from

the instant

case,

reviving

in

effect

the

public

confidence

in

the

integrity

of

the

judiciary;

After

all,

the

court's

act

of

inhibiting

from

the

instant

case

would

in

fact

reduce

his

docket

and

will

eventuallY

unburden

his

court;"

1

1.

Despite

the

accused's

plea for

fairness

and

impartiality

and

further

considering

the

forewarnings

mentioned

by

the

accused,

the

respondent

court

consistbt

tty

displayed

-

acts

.

of

i*propri.irTirr3.rstice

and

consistently

denied

the

three

(3)

motions

for

inhibitionJ

filed

by

the

accusecl,

completely

eroding

the

accused's

confidence

to

the

respondent

judge;

L2.Theirregularitiesnarratedbytheaccusedinhismotion

for

inhibition

were

not

mere

product

of

his

imagination.

In

fact,

the

irregularities

involving

this

case

occurred

not

only

before

the

prosecutor's

office,

before

the

trial

court

but

were

even

extended

before

the

Court

of

APPeals;

13.

The

irregularities

before

the

court

of

Appeals

were

shown

in

the

Motion

for

tntribition

filed

by

the

accused

before

the

appellate

court

in

connection

with

his

Petition

for

Certiorari,

questioning

the

orders

of

the

herein

respondent

judge,

thus:

"g.

Considering

the

foregoing

experiences,

petitioner

filed

a

Mdtion

for

tnhibition

before

the

Office

of

the

City

prosecutor

but

was

outrightly

denied'

betitioner

likewise

filed

a

Motion

for

Inhibition

seeking

to

inhibit

the

public

respondent

Regional

Triat

Court,

Branch

60

to

Ltminate

obvious

partiality

and

for

the

honorable

judge

to

be freed

from corruption

obviously

lobbied

in

his

sala

but

was

likewise

denied;

TlFage



#]t#'

10.

Similar

to

the

foregoing

experiences,

the

decision

promulgat:+

.""

.l.rfy

30,

2013

by

the

Special

Tenth

Division

of

the

Honorable

Court

was'

Iikewise

extraord

inarily

expeditiously promulgated;

13.

A

RePIY

on

the

said

Comment

was

filed

by

herein

petitioner

on

JuIy

1

1'

2013;

1

1.

The

instant

Petition

for

Certiorari

was

filed

on

February

15,

2013

without

any

Prayer

for

TemPorary

Restraining

Order,

Prelirhinary

Injunctlo.l

o'

anyotherprovisionalremediesexhibiting

urgency

nor

any

other

remedies

warranting

Court's

urgent

attention;

t2.

On

MaY

28,

2013,

Petitioner

received.

the

Comment

on

the

instant

pliltir,

fi1ed

by

the

private

respond"ent

Emily

De

Leon;

L4.

On

JulY

30,

2013

or

barelY

3

weeks

from

the

time

of

the

submissicln

of

the

Petitioner's

Reply,

the

decision

penned'

by

Justice

Francisco

P.

Acosta

was

quickly

and

expeditiouslY

Promulgated

;

15.

It

is

worth

reiterating

that

the

instant

petition

included

no

prayer

for

TRO

nor

any

provisional

nor

ancillary

remedies

that

would

warrant

the

immediate

attention

of

the

Honorable

Court.

Despite

the

non

urgency,

the instant Petition

was

considerably

treated

more

important

than

those

cases

with

a

prayer

for

a Temporary



.1

',

,.

,:

i\

i

i

r'

j'-r

i

t,

\"<i:li

\::/

16.

It

maY

also

be

salelY

surmised

or

Judicial

Notice

may

be

taken

of

the

fact

that

there

maybe

more

cases

in

the

office

of

the

Honorable

Justice

Acosta

that

might

need.

more

urgent

attention

or

old

aged

cases

submitterC

for

decision

which

are

already

antiquated.

But

due

to

extraorclinary

attention

given

by

Justice

AcostaafidlortheSpecialTenthDivisionto

the

instant

case,

the

contested

Decision

was

extraord.inarily

exp

e

ditiou

sly

promulgate

d

;

LT

.

Petitioner

would

like

to

defeat

information

received

from

reliable

sources

that

valuable

considerations

are

again

involved

in

this

case

and

it

is

not

reinote

that

the

private

respondent

again

tried

the

herein

ponente's

soul.

To

eliminate

the

slightest

doubt

ancl

for the

honorable

dMsion

to

be

freed

from

the

elaborate

anatomy

of

temptation

from

corruption,

we

humbly

beg

and

seek

inhibition

in

the

corridors

of

this

Honorable

Division;

18.

The

case

of

Pimentel

u'

Salanga,

21

SCRA

760,

reiterated

in

Gutang

u'

Caurt

of

Appeals,

G.R.

,l[o. 124760,

B

Julg

1998,

292

SCRA

76,

is

apropos,

thus:

"All

the

foregoing

notwithstanding,

this

should.

be

a

good occasion

crs

ang

t'o

draw

attention

of

all

iudges

to

dppropriate

guidelines

in

a

sifitation

where

their

Zapaeitg

to

try

and

decide

a'

ca'se

fairlg

oia

iuaiciouslg

comes

to

the

fore

bg

wag

of

ciallenge

from

a

ng

one

af

the

parties'

i

iuag"

i"g

not

be

legallg

prohibited

frim

Zfiting

in

d

litigatlon'

But

uhen

*"ugg""tion

is

rnade

of

reeord

that

he

9lPage



/\

ul

mtght

be

Tndtteed

to

orct

in

fannr

of ofte

pcrly

or

urtth

bids

or

pteiudice

argo;i'nst'

a

Ittigant

arislng

out

af

eireum"stance[sl

reasonablg

cupahte

of

tncittng

such

d

starte

bf

mind,

he

shoul'd aonduct

d

earefal

se$'exantrtnortlon.

He

should

weieise

lr'i,rs

discretion

in

a

wdg

thqrt

the

people's

fortt/r.

ln

the

coutts

qf

iusfiee

is

no{

t*palred.

A salutary

rlarrn

is that

he

reJlect

an

the

probabilitg

ttrnt

a

losing

partA

might

rurture

at

the

back

af

his

mind

in*

Tnoignt

that

the

judge

unmeritarious

titted

thi

seates

of

iustice

against

him.

That

passion

on

the

part of

a

iudge-

maA

be-

-generated

becauie

af

serioars

charges

of

.

i*"

conduct

against

him

bg

a

suitor

or

his

counsel,

if

not

attogether

remote'

He'rs

a

man

subject

to

the

frailties

of

ather

men'

He

should,

-t?rerefore,

exercise

great

care

and

caution

befare

making

up

his

mind

to

qct

or

uithdraw

from

a

suit

wkere

that

partA

or

courusel

is

inuolued.

He

could

in

good

grece

inhibrt

himsetf

uhere

that

case

could

be

heard

bU

another

iudge

qnd

where

no

appreciaUte

prejudice

uauld

be

oceagioned

ts

titi

others

iiuolued

therein.

On

the result

of

his

decision

ta

sit

ar

not fo

stt

fi'd,U

depend

ott

a

great

extent'

tlw

o,tl'

fnportornt

confidence

tn

ttw

tmparttafiW

ol

tlrre

iudlalary.

If

afrer

refle&ion

lB

inou/rc

resolue

to

ttoluntarllg

deslst

f'rom

sttttng

in

a

co.se

uhere

Inris

motives

o;nd

fatrniss migltt

be

serlouslg

lmnuefed,

fris

actlon

ts ta

be

lnteryteted

ss

gttlltlg

,,,', meanlng

olnd

substqnee

b tlw

second

paragraph

af

Seation

7,

Rute

787.

Ife

ierrrs

the

coruse

of

tllre

lsw who

fore

sta.lls

mlsc

artlag

e

af

fuqtice.

"

Copy

of

the

Motion

for

Inhibition

liled

before

the

Court

of

Appeals

is

hereto

attached

as

Annex

"G";

L4.

Unlike

the

respondent

judge

who

had

tlre

excessive

boldness

and

audacity

to

perpetrate

injustice

for

obvious

cormpt

l0lPage



'\ii}

ft

motives,

the

honorable

jrrstices

of

the

court

of

Appeals'

inhibited

a.rta

re-raffled'

the

case

to

another

division;

15.onthefaceoftheaboveanomalies,towhichthe

respondent

judge

was

mad.e

aware

that

the

accused

is

not

blind

of

the

obvious

coiruption

involving

this

case

and

on

'the

face

of

the

forewarnings

that

an

administiative

complaint

might

be

filed

in

case

of

persistent

display

of

irregularities

in

his

court'

the

,*"porra"rrt

j;;g;

had

-th;

temerity

to

continuously

perpetrate

^t"*=tice

foi

obvious

corruption

and-

persistently

disregard

the

rights

of

the

accused

und.'deliberately

misread

the

law

to

the

prejudice

of

the

accused;

16.

On

June

25,

2OL3,

the

scheduled"

pre-tria-l

of

the

case'

the

accused

(co

mplainant

in

this

case/

was

required

by

the

court

to

subrnit

all

the

judiciat

affidavits

of

their

witnesses

r,r'ithin

five

(5)

days

from

s,ch

helring

date

or

only

until

J,ne

30,

2O13;

ft

lT.IngomPliance,accusedfiledthejudicialaffidavitofhis

witness,

orlando

atbi"rrto

but

due

to

time

constraints,

accused

filed

an

urgent

Motion

praying

for

the

d"eferment

of

the

submission

of

the

juJicial affidavits

of

other

witnesses;

18.

The

saicl

Motion

to

Defer

submission

of

Judicial

Affidavits

was

prompted

by

the

fact

that

private

complainant

never

ceased.

in

haralsini

the

witnesses

of

the

accused'

Accused

in

the

said

motion

enumelated

and

substantiated

all

the

harassment

acts

and

the

*r"V

-"i

cases

filed

by

the

private

complainant

against

herein

4."r"*d's

witnesses.

copy

of

the

Motion

to

defer

submission

is

hereto

attached

as

Annex

ttH";

19.

In

an

Order

dated

September

24,2013,

the

respondent

Corrri

rffr*.a

the

accused

a

NC]N-EXTtrNDIBLE

period

of

ten

(10)

daysfromreceiptoftheorderwithinwhichtosubmitthejudicial

affidavits

of

other

witnesses

in

utter

disregard

of

the

mles;

20.Byreasonofsuchord.erandothers,accusedfiledan

omnibus

Motion

seeking

to

inhibit

for

the

second

tim;e

the

owinglY

rendering

an

Unjust

lllPage



.,.,ii i

i',i

,-'t.*_-i

\i

;,-

tu,it#

presidingjudgeo{thgHonorableCourtandto.reconsiderthe

septemb

",

z+12013

ord"r,.[*r.irg

on.the

option

of'the

acctlsed

to

defer

submission

of

the

judici*

urlar"its

as

provided

under

section

9

of

the

Jud.i"iuf

Afndavii

ili;which

explicitly

provides'

thus:

"section

9

of

the

Judicial

Affidavit

Rule'

thus:

Section

g.Application

of

rute

to

criminal

actiorus.

-

(a)

tftu

rule

shall

apply

to

all

criminal

actions:

(1)

Where

the

maximum

of

the

imposable

penaltY

does

not

exceed

six

Years;

(2)

Where

the

accused

agrees

to

the

use

of

juiicial

affidavits,

irrespective

of

the

penal"ty

involved;

or

(3)

With

respect

to

the

civil

aspect

of

the

actions,

whatever

the

penalties

involved

are'

(b)

The

prosecution

'shall

submit

the

3ualciai

affidavlts

of

its

witnesses

not

later

than

five

days

before

the

pre-trial'

serving

copies

of

the

same

upon

the

accused'

The

complainant

or

public

prosecutor

sha1l

attach

to

the

affidavits

such

documentary

or

object

evidence

as

he

may

have,

marking

them

as

Exhibits

A,

B,

C,

and

so

on'

No

further

Judicial

affidavit,

documentary'

or

obJect

evidence

shall

be

admitted

at

the

trial'

(c)

If

the

accused

desires

to

be

heard

on

his

defense

after

receipt

of

the

judicial

affidavits

of

the

prosecution'

he

shall

have

the option

to

submit

his

judicial

affidavit

as

well

as

those

of

his

uritnesses

to

the

court

within

ten

days

from

receipt

of

such

affidavits

and

serve

t

"opy

of

each

on

the

public

and

,

private

prosecutor,

including

his

documentary

12lPage



ir,

J,:'l

j,,

':il:t'

,,.

-,

2L"

It

is

worth

noting

that

section

9

deals

with

and

referred

to

the

service

an{d"

filing

of

the

judicial

affidavits

in

criminal

cases;

22.Paragraph(b)ofsectiorrgspecificallymandatestheduty

on

the

pro"r.rliin

ti;rt;ii:.rJi"iur

affidavits

of

its

witnesses

not

later

than

five

(5)

days

f"for"

tit"

pie-triaf

and

still

further

requiring

under

the

third

sentenc.

it

"t

*"no

further

iudicial

affidaait'

documentary,

or

obiect

iia.n"t

"nott

bi

admitted

at

the

trial",

tltus:

,l;l

I

i

i"

t

and

otrject

evidence

previously

marked

as

Exhibits

1

,

2,

3,

and

so

on'

These

aJfidavits

shall

serve

as

direct

testimonies

of

the

accused

and

his

witnesses

when

they

appear

before

the

court

to

testifY.

(b)

The

orosecution

shall

submit

the

judiciJaffid.avitsofitswitnessesnotlater

than five

davs

before

the

pre-trial'

serving

copies

of

the

sarne

upoq

the

accused'

The

complainant

or

public

proiecutor

shall

attach

totheaffidavitssrrchd'ocumentar5rorobject

evidence

as

he

may

have,

marking

them

as

Exhibits

A,

B,

C,

and

so

on'

No

further

iudicial

affidaait'

documentaru'

or

obiect'

'

euid,ence

shall

ie

admitted

at

the

trtal'

(EmPhasis

sun?liedt:

23.

Paragraph

(c)

of

Sectio

fl

9,

on

the

other

hand,

pertains

to

the

opTIoN

oiirr.'"

ciusedto

submit

judicial

affidavit,

thus:

(c)

If

the

accused

desires

to

be

heard

on

his

d.efense

un.t

receipt

of

the

judicial

affidavits

of

the

prosecution'

he

slr';all

haae

the

option

to

submit

his

judicial

affidavit

as

well

as

those

of

his

witnesses

to

the

court

*itttirr

ten

days

from

receipt

of

such.

affidavits

..

n

u

s

"



24,

While

paragrap

(bl

9f.

*"^:qo"

g

mandates

that

the

prosecution

,.shrit

",rfr*it"

j[ii"i4

ufnaavits.

pot

l1te1

than

five

(5)

days,paragraph{c)9'F"otft"thandprovidesthattheaccused

..shall

have

the

option"

to

submit

his

Judicial

Affidavit,

if

he

so

desires;',

r

25.

The

accused

is

therefore

not

mandated'

to

submit

within

ten

(10)

days

ao*

receipt

of

the

adverse

party's

Judicial

Affidavit

but

he

rrlas

the

opTroN

to

submit

his

;udiclat

Aflidavit

in

case

he

d"esires

,to

be-heard

on

his

detense

after

receipt

of

the

Judieial

Aflidavit

"ru*ilt.a

by

th;

pro*.".,liol

unlike

in

paragraph

(b)

where

it

was

specifically

mlrtioned

that

where

the

prosecution

failed

to

submit

]udicial

Affia;;its

not

rarer

than

five

(s)

days

before

pre_trial,

,,no

-fuittrer

judicial

affidavit,

documentary,

or

obJect

evidence

shall

be

ad'mitted

at

the

trial";

26.

Had

it

been

the

intention

of

the

highest

court

to

put

such

restriction

or

penalty

..po*

the

llcused

in

:"P:

of

his

refusal

to

avail

of

his

option,

tne

l"ame

-could

had

easily'

been

indicated

under

Paragraph

(c);

2T,ontlrecontraqlr,muchleewayisgiventotheaccusedasit

mentioned

under

the

*r*r-pr[graprrirraithe

accused

"shall

have

the

option,,,

thereby

,".ogiririn

ti.g

accused's

option

to

be

heard

soon

after

his

receipt

of

th;

p;"Ecution's

Judicial

Affidavit

or

at

his

,ppott"ne

time

to

present

his

defense;

zS.Inbrief,urhattheaccusedisprayinpbefotethl

Jlonorable

court

is

not

anythinq-

ulwritten

but

the

exercise

of

his

opTIoN

and

privilei;";i

-"fturded

to

him

hv

the

highest

court

thru

the

A.M.

tz-'g-a-sc,

otherwise

knowR

as

the

Rule

on

Judicial

Affidavit;

29.

T,,e

rule

on

Judicial

Affidavit

giving'such

gPTIoN

to

the

accused

is

crear

and

.*rroiG-construed

otherwise.

It

is

in

keeping

-***^

..*"'-..-:-:

and

serve

a'

copy

of

each

on

the

public

and

private

prosecutor,

including

his

documentary

and

object

evidence

previously

marked

as

Extribits

1,

2,3,

and

so

on'

These

affidavits

shallserveasdirecttestimoniesoftheaccused

and

his

witnesses

when

they

appea-r

before

the

court

to

testify.

(Emphasis

supplied);

.i



+u;w

with

the

state's

recognition

to

provide

importance

on

the

accused''s

constitutional

right

to

life

urrd'-1ib"rty

where

the

accused

must

be

given

every

opportu,,iy

to

establish

his

innocence

and

that

laws

be

fonstrued

in

his

favor3;

30.

Despite

the

explicit

provision of the rule

on

Judicial

Affidavit,

the

court

in

an

ordei

dated

January

1o,

2014,

again

denied,

the

plea

of

herein

petitioner

to

defer

submission

of

the

judicial affidavits

of

his

wiinesses

as

well

the

petitioner's

plea for

ih"

"..ond

motion

for

inhibition;

3l.Byand.large,thecourtconsistentlyagligdtherightof

herein

accused

to

defe,

"ob*ission

of

his

judicial

affidavit

and

that of his

witnesses

trrougrr

mandlt.ed

,,,d.'

section

9

of

the

Judicial

Affidavit

rule.

The

iact

that

the

presiding

judge

has

full

knowledge

of

the

fact

that

what

he

issued

was

an

unjust

order

can

be

gieaned

in

the

following

discussions;

32:

SurprisinglY,

on

February

18'

2Ot4

'

'

during

the

scheduled

pre-trial,

the

presiding

judgL

who

consistently

denied

the

accused.

for

several

mon-th"

of

ftl=

option

to

defer

submission

of

his

judicial

affidavits

as

mandated

under

the

rule'

unexpectedly

contradicted

hi=

o*r,

written

orders

and

suddenly

recognized

the

option

of

the

accused

to

defer

submission

of

his

affidavits

and

dlclared

in

oPen

court,

thus:

"Court:

Perhaps,YoUhavealreadyconsideredthejudicial

affidavits

because

even

if

it

will

be

here

or

in

'another

court,ajudicialaffidavitwillbeneeded.Didyounot

considerd.raftingormakingajudicialaffidavit?

\,t,,,j

AttY.

Luis:

;."r-

"*

*.*.r.",

-.

victorino

Der

Mundo,

GR

Nos.

11g9G4-69,

september

20,

1995'

ffiking

and

notorious

Uehaoior

of

the

Presiding

judge

in

favor

of

the

Prosecution

15lPage



f

-'j

+,i\U

\i_."

Yesyourhonor.Weacknowledgethemandatory

character

of

the

judicial

affid"avit"

However,

as

if

I

may

reiterate,

thoughitwasdeniedalready,yourhonor,aSprovidedund'er

section

9,

paragraph

c,

we

believe

that

the

accused

as

in

all

other

courts,

th"

*"",rsed

has

the

option

to

submit or not

to

submit

judicial

affidavit

after

receipt

of

the

judicial affidavits

submittedbytheprosecution,yourhonor.So,itisolrr

readings,

your

honor

that

the

accused

has

the

option

to

"ri*r,

b"ior"

the

trial,

I mean,

before

the

presentation

of

the

defense'

evidence,

Yollr

honor'

Court:

So,

You

are

not

going

to

submit

now?

AttY.

Luis:

No,yourhonor.Byvirtueofthedenia]Ireadthis

morning

from

ih"

.orrt,s

record,

your

honor,

we

are

asking

a

ten

(10)

day

period.

within

which

to

submit

the

judicial

affidavit

of

the

accused.

AttY.

Carullo:

Yourhonor,maylrefreshthememoryofthepartiesand

this

court,

your

honor?

I will

quote

from

the

order

of

this court

dated

January

1O,

2OL4,

your

Honor,

"Despite

being

granted

a

new

ten

day

period

to

file

r,i"

.l.,aicial

affidavits

even

though

the

period

given

to

rrim

under

the

judicial affidlYit'-t:1".'

already

lapsed'

he

never

took

advantage

of

the

same

and

{i1e

ihis

intended

judicial

affidavit,

youi

honor".

so,

it

is

very

clear,

your

honor,

that

the

ten

day

period

given

to

them

to

file

their

judicial affidavit'

alreadr

lapsed,

Your

honor'

Court:

16lPage



**j-

Well,

as

stated'

the

accused

has

judicial

affldavit

or

not'

Now'

I

was

asking

intends

to

submit

a

judicial

alfidavit'

Atty.

Luis:

YeP

Your

honor'

the

oPtion

to

file

a

the

accused

if

he

stil1

was

still

Pondering

the

presiding

judge

to

submit

additional

(1O)

daYs

after

the

fact

even

included

in

the

written

18,

2014,

thus:

Court:

Anyway,YoUcanfileyourjudicialaffidavitwhenyou

presentyoufevidence.Wewillallowthat,ifthatisyourthinking

now.

But

we

will

continue

with

the

pre-trial'"

33.

While

the

counsel

for

the

accused

why

tk

e

suaaan

ai"tegard

of

his

written

orders'

on

the

same

occasion?irected

the

prosecution

3rrAicl"f

affidavits

of

their

witnesses

within

ten

tonclusion

of

the

Pre-trial;

34.

Such

direction

was

1n

order

of

the

Court

dated

FebruarY

,,The

pre-trial

conference

was

conductea

ana

concluded

today'

A

pre-trial

orderwillbeissued.uponthetranscriptionof

tod"aY's

Proceedings'

The

prosecution

is

hereby

dirpcted

tosubmittheJudicialAffidavitsofother

respective

witnesses

within

ten

(10)

days

from

todaY."

Copyoftheord.erdated.FebruarylB,2014isheretoattached

as

Annex

ttlt';

35.

In

fact,

it

was

even

thru

the

initiative

of

the

court

that

the

prosecution

will

belatedly-

*.,U*it

its

judicial

affidavits'

The

lTlPage



,

l';;'i---r

ir

iV

\r:

und.ersigned

cor]nsel

attempted"

to

qnestion

the

actuations

of

the

;;idi"?

judge

in

open

cou;t4

but

to

no

avail'

thus:

"Court:

WhenCanyollsubmittheirjudicialaffidavits?

A-trI

Carullo:

As

contained

in

the

Judicial

Affidavit

Ru1e,

your

Honor,

we,

will

furnish

the

adverse

counsel

0f

at

least

five

days

before

the intended hearing

days'

your

Honor'

Atty.

Luis:

a;

YourHonor,theprivilegebeingavailed'bythegood

counsel

here

is

not

a

privil"gu

gr*nted

to

the

pf,osecution'

yourHonor,thatprivilegeisgranted"onlytotheaccused'Jrour

honor.

The

obligation

or

trtJ

prosecution

to

submit

judicial

affidavits

is

only

ten

days

prior

to

the

pre-trial'

your

honor'

and

under

the

Judicial

Affidavit

rule,

your

honor'

failure

to

submitjudicialaffidavitsshallbedeemedasawaiverofthe

right

of

the

prosecution

to

submit

such'

your

honor'

Pros.

Sagsago:

Your

honor,

just to

expedite

the-

proceedings,

may

\Me

request

that

we

be

given

at

ieast

ten

days

from

today

within

which

to

submit

a

copy

of

the

judicial

affidavits?

Anyway'

we

have

not

started

with

the

trial'

Atty.

Carullo:

Yes

Your

honor,

if

this

honor

and

I

think

it

is

court

will

allow

them

very

unfair

for

us,

Your

to

submit their

judicial

4

lbid.,

pages

10

-11.

lSlPage



a-flidavits

deprived

ai'ri l

terr

days

before

the

intended

hearing

and

ure

are

of

such

Process'

Your

honor'

CoPY

of

the

Pertinent

1O

to

11)

is

hereto

attached

Court:

We

vd1l

give

You

ten

daYs

affidavits.

Atty.

Carullo:

Thank

You,

Your

honor'

to

sr-rbmit

those

judicial

transcript

of

stenographic

notes

(pages

as

Annex

'3Jt';

36.

The

contention

of

the

undersigned

counsel

in

open

court

carne

from

the

fact

that

for

several

gruLfing

mol \b,

the

accused

fought

for his

rtsht to

defer submission of his

judicial

affidavits

on

the

basis

of

";fii;it

provisions

of

rrre

Judiciat

Aflidavit

rule.

But

this

right

of

11.e

aJcused

though

mandated

by

the

rules

was

"o"*i"tintly

denied

through

written

court

orders;

37.

This

exclusive

privilege

to

.

submit

judicial

affidavits

Af"fER

pre-trial,

howev.r,

*hi"h

pertain

solely

to

the

accused

was

in

fact

granted.

by

the

presiding

judge

in

no

time

and

without

any

effort

at

all

to

the

prosecutionJ

*fro

are

already

barred

under

the

sarne

rule.

This

behavior

of

tt

u pr.siding

judge,

in

fact,

made

the

accused

understand

why

he

was

suddenly

verbatly

allowed

in

open

court

to

defer

submission

of

his

judicial

affidavits

desplte

written

orders

of

denials;

3S.TheCaSeofLUCILATANvS.JudgeMAXWELS.

ROSETE,5

is

worth

mentioning,

thus:

We

have

rePeatedlY

admonished

our

judges

to

adhere

to

the

highest

tenets

of

September

B,

2004-l;

(Formerly

A'M'

OCA

IPI

No'

02-1207-MTD;

le.u.

No.

MTf-04-1563.

19

lI'ag*



w

judicial

conduct'

TheY

must

be

the

embodiment

of

competence'

integrity

and

irrd.p"rrdence.

Like

Caesar's

wife''

a

judge

j

must

not

oily

be

pure

but

above

suspicion'

This

is not

without

reason'

The

exacting

stand.ards

oi

conduct

demanded

from

judges

ur"

a"*igned

to

promote

public^confidence

in

it

"

inte[rity

urra

impartiality

of

th9

judiciarly

'

because

the

people's

confidence

in

the

judicial

;;J";

is

foundld

not

only

on,

the

magnitude

;'f

-1.grl

t

t

oJ"ag"

an{

the

diligence

of

the

memberu

of

th.

b-ench,

but

also

on

the

highest

standard

of

integrity

and

moral

uprightness

they

a-re

expecteJto

-possess'

When

the

judge

himself

tetmes

the

transgressof,

of'

any

i"*

*nrcft

he

is

sworn

to

aFPlYr

he

places

hisofficeindisrepute,.encourages

disrespect

for

the

law

and

impairs

pulfic

conlidenceintheintegrityandirnpartiality

of

the

5uAiciary

itself'

It

is

therefore

paramorrrt-if'"t

i

i"dg"'*

personal

behavior

both

in

the

performance

of

his

duties

and

his

daily

life,

b;

free

frorn

any

appea-rance

of

i*ptopoiety

as

to

be beyond

reproach'

39.

It

is

also

the

submission

of

herein

accused

that

tlre

order

d'atedJanuarylo,2ol4**,"abytheHonorableCourt,again

denying

the

ifu*o.

of

the

u.""r*"d

to

defer

submission

of

his

Judicial

Affidavit,

was

"oi

p'up*"d

^bI

the

presiding

judge rror

emanated

from

his

office

by'r"r"ort

of

the

following

circumstances

k;t

observed

bY

herein

accused;

40.

First,

the

order

received

by.herein

accused'

through

mail

was

written

in

a

hond

paper and

nof

in

an

onion

skin

paper

where

the

order

of

-ttris

corirt

-

is

customarily

written and

is

normally

received

bY

herein

Petitioner;

<

Dubious

"ourt

otd"i

dated

January

1o'

2OL4

unknown

to

the

accused

but

was

i.r"

f""*"

to

the

private

comPlainafi

20lPage



r:li

l\

,''-

)

\:.'

ti-

4l.Second'Consid.eringthatSuChorderwoulddictate

whether

the

pre-trial

o,

r"u.Irry

18,

2Ol4

would

proceed

or

be

deferred,

and

further

considering

ift"1

the

undersigned

counsel

who

would

attend"

such

pre-trial

would

still

come

from

Manila'

,.pr.*"rrtatives

of

the

counsels

for

herein

accused

were

never

remiss

in

their

follow

ups

regarding

the

issuance of

such

court

order;

42.

In

fact,

several

days

before

the

scheduled

hearing

date

on

February

18,

20i4,

th"

*""rltrry

of

Atty.

Rosanne

Rarang,

inquired

as

to

the

existence

of

u11y

co"urt

o,dtt

regarding

the

accused''s

motion

for

inhibition,

but

found

none;

43.Suddenly,theord.erdatedJanuarylo,2ol4cameinto

being

on

rruruury"

18,

2oL4

during

the

scheduled

hearing

for

pre-

trial;

44.Thecounselforhereinaccusedwassosurprisedto

discover,

when

she

went

over

the

court

records

in

the

early

morning

of

Februarjr

18,

2014

that

such

order

was

appafently issued

as

early

as

Janu"o'to,

2ot4

but

no

copy

was

sent

to

the

parties;

45.

The

fact

that

such

order

came

into

being

instantly

in

the

court

records

and

no

copies

were

sent

to

the

parties

as

of

February

1g,

2OL4

could

be

round

on

the

envelope

of

a

recently

received

registered

mail

by

the

undersigned

from

the

court

indicating

a

reftstered

stamp

ifr"t

such

mail

was

sent

by

tJle

Court

to

the

post

offrce

in

B"gUi;

City only

on

February

24,

2Ot4

'

Copy

of

the

envelope

is

hireto

attached

as

Annex

"K"'

46.

Orders

issued

by

the

court

a].e

normally

being

received

by

Atty.

n*"rrg

l"o*.orrr*.i

fot

the

accused),

whose

office

is

located

ngar

the

court]for

only

few

days

after

its

issuance

or at

times,

even

through

personal

*"r,oi"".

Couit

orders

after

its

issuance

were

also

normally

released

by

the

court

for

mailing

in

no

time

and

are

being

received

by the

undersigned counsel

thnr

mail

in

less

than two

(2)

weeks;

21

|

l'a

g

e



t,

47.

As

of

February

18,

2014,

the

scheduled

pre-trial

hearing',

both

counsels

for

the

accused,

eity

Rosanne

Rarang

a1rd

herein

undersigned counsel

did

not

receive

any

mail

of

such

order

dated

JanuaryLO,2014andhadnocopyoftleesarne;

48.

Despite

the

fact

that

such

order

was

not

released

to

parties,

'it

iu

-irit.

surprising

that

-the

counsel

for

the

private

complainant

fraa

the

copy

of

th"

said

6rder

and

even'

had

the

temerity

to

quote

said

ood"t

in

open

court

on

Februar5r

18,2014

pre-trial

hearing,

thus:

*Your

honor,

may

I

refresh

the

memory

of

the

parties

and

.

this

court,

your

honor'

I

will

quote

'fro*

the

order

of

this

bourt

dated

January

1O'

ioi+,

your

honor.

"Despite

being

granted

a

new

ir"-a"V

period

to

file

his

judicial

affidavits

)co("

49.

Third,

the

format,

the font

used,

the

lens.thy

order

or

styre

of

writingl;**a

were

not

the

usual

writings

pertaining

to

the

presiding

judg?

compa-red

to

the

array

of

order:s

already

issued

by

the

court;

50.

However,

the

other

order

issued

by

tl.e

court

on

Januar5r

13,

2014,

which

was

issued

three

3

days

after

the

issuance

of

t]1e

contested

order

on

Januarlr

10,

2OL4,

was

mailed

in the

re$47

course

of

business

by

the

court

to

the

post

office

on

Januar5r

16,

2OL4

and

the

onion

skin

copy

of

the

order

was

also

custornarily

received

by

our

office

on

January

24,2OL4.

Copy

of the

mailing

"rrrr*top"

i*

hereto

attached

as Annex

"Ltt'

Thus,

it

is

quite

surprising

how

such

contested

order

skipped

the

court's

release

for

*ritirrg

,ra

was

suddenly

inserted

in the

court's

records;

51.

In

brief,

the

order

dated

JanuarY

1O,

2014

is

an

order

not

customary

to

the

court

insofirr

as

it

was

belatedly

released

for

mailing,

aia

not

immedlately

exlst

on

regord

afiter

its

alleged

issiance,

not

written

ln an

onlon

skin

nofmally

sent

to

p"rii""

and

not

in

the

usual

font

and

style

of wrltlng

pertalning

to

the

presiding

judge;

22

lPage



ii l.,J

52.

Fourth,

during

the

hearing

for

pre-trial

on

February

18,

2O 4,

the

undersigned

counsel

keenly

observed

that

the

presiding

judge

was

not

so

aware

with

the

said

written

order

dated

January

tO,

2OL4

and such

observation

was

further

bolstered

by

the

fact

that

the

same

presiding

judge

who

issued

said

written

order

verbally

contradicted

his

own

orders

in open

court;

53.

As

was

hbld

in

the case

against

Judge

Jaurigue6,

djudge

charged

with

knowingly

rendering

an

unjust

judgment

can

not

Iind

refuge

in

the

shortcoming

of

his

staff.

In

order

to

keep

track

of

the

"orrt'"

business,

the

judge

should

have

adopted

a

system

of

checklisting

atl

matters

submitted

for

resolution, including

the

dates

when

these

were

resolved

and

served

on

the

parties.

Failing

this,

it

is difficult

to

dispel

the

impression

that

the

Orders

were

ante-dated;

,

F.4.

The

above

behavior

smacks

of

dishonesty

which

is

a

serious

charge

or

offense

under

Sectiofl

B,

Rule

140

of

the Rules

of

Court.

It

is

also

violative

of Canon

3

of

the

Code of

Judicial

Conduct

which

commands

judges

to

perform official

duties

honestly.

7

The

accused

as

of

this

writirrg

is

preparing

both

an

administrative

and

criminal

complaint

against

the

presiding

judge

who

consistently

displays

his

interest

over

the

case

by

clinging

on

unto

the

instant

case

fsr

obvious

reasons

despite

several

motions

for

inhibitions.

The

accused

is

thus

constrained

to

file

the

instant

motion

not

only

to

avoid

mockery

of

justice

but

to

avoid

the

sham

trial

before

the

sala

of

the

presiding

judge;

u

[A.M.No:

RTJ-04-1834.

March

31,2004.];

(Formerly

ocA-IPI-02-1591-RTJ.);

CHI

CHAN

fipU

@,,CI{AN

QUE,"

and

HUI

LAO

CHUNG

@

"LEOFE

SENGLAO",

complainants,

vs'

HON. nfOCHTfCIO

M.

JAURIGUE

in

his

capacity

as

Presiding

Judge,

RTC,

Branch

44,

Mamburao,

Occidental

Mindoro,

respondent'

7Ibid.

23

lPage



55.

During

the

sched"uled

pre-trial

hearing

on

February

18'

2014;"[:irr."parties

*"r"-

*rppo*"d"

to

r'gt"Jon

the

scheduled

triat

dates,

the

extraordinary

pressure

imposed

upon

the

undersigned

co,nsel

to

meei

tfre

iniention

of

the

presiding

judge

to

rush

the

termination

of

the

case

is

utterly

obvious,

thus:

,1)

I l::\ ri

I

r

\---r'

"Court:

:

No,

We

will

accommod'ate

you

on

April

2'

Atty.

Luis:

We

have

a hearing

Your

honor'

Atty.

Carullo:

In

Manila

your

honor,

in

another

case'

Atty.

Luis:

APril

16?

Court:

We

will

be

on

leave'

Atty.

Luis:

,

APril

23

Your

honor?

ffi"

imposed

to

the

counsel

for

the

accused

urith

the

ohvious

intention

to

rush

the

termination

of

the

case'

Court:

24lPage



Weffi

Atty.

Luis:

I

cannot,

5rour

honor'

Court:

You

are

your evidence

3 and

4.

supposed

to

terminate

within

six

month.

That

the

presentation

of

is rnandated.

June

2,

Atqy.

Carullo:

Available,

Your

honor'

Atty.

Carullo:

Yes,

YoIJr

Honor.

Court:

If

there

are

judicial

affidavits

that

you

the

proceedings

will

be

facilitated'

It's

identifying

arrd

then

cross-examination'

will

be

just

a

submitting,

matter

of

Court:

:

How many

days?

Ten

daYs?

Atqf.

Camllo:

,

Just

to

be

safe,

Your

honor'

i.

Court:

How

maflY

daYs

are

those

alreadY?

26lPage



we

will

be

on

leave

until

May

16.

We

can

start

with

the

MaY

12,

13,

14."

56.

Considering

that

the

presiding

judge

will

b3

on

leave

until

May

t6,

2014,

the

und.ersigrr.a

"o..rrru.l

wal

thereafter

constrained

to

meet

the

desired"

scheduG

of

the

court

to

rush

the

termination

of

the

case,

thus:

"Court:

MaY

L2, 20

and

26?

Atty.

Carullo:

Available

on

ttle

26th

your honor,

27ty'

your

honor.

Court:

27

and

28th?

How

many

daYs

are

those?

lnterpreter:

OnlY

six

Atfy.

Luis:

pouryourhonor.MarchL2,May12'20and26'your

honor.

Interpreter:

Including

27

arrd

28'

Atty.

Carullo:

I,m

available

your honor

on

the

27t'[

and

28th

25

lPage



w

Interpreter:

Seven,

your

honor,

including

June

2'

3'

and

4'

Atty.

Luis:

June

4,

Your

honor'

Court:

Makeyourselvesavailablealreadyonthesedates

because

we

cannot

just

accommodate

everybody

here-

June

9

and

10.

How

many

days

are

those?

ti(

,j

t,.X

Interpreter:

Seven,

Your

honor'

Court:

"-

-

Includ'ing

9

and

1o?

Interpreter:

Yes,

Your

honor.,

June

4,

9

and

10'

Court:

16

and

L7,

we

will

have

to

make

these

setting

now

because

we

have

to

meet

the

deadline

of

the

supreme

Court.

AttJ.

Carullo:

Available,

Your

honor'

Atty.

Lrris:

I

think

seven

days

will

be

sufficient'

27lP

age



il

\'l\ ?

Atty.

Carullo.

Yes,

Your

honor.

Court:

The

defense,

how

marly

trial

dates?

lri

i

..- :r-l

Atty.

Luis:

Considering

that

we have five

witnesses'

seven

days

also,

your

honor,

or

Iive

days'

maybe,

a-round

Court:

JulY

3O,

August

5,

6,

I

L,

L2

and

13'"

copy

of

the

transcript

of

stenographic

notes

(pages

14

to

17)

is

hereto

attached

as

Annex

'3Jtt;

57

.

The

above

directives

of

the

presiding

judge

would

yield

an

inevitable

conclusion

that

so

much

pressurc

is

being

imposed

;;;;h.

undersigned

counsel

who

fas

her

family

and

living

in

Manila

to

attend

a

hearing

in

Baguio

every

ureek

and

be

constrained

to

stay

in

Baguio

Clty

foinot

a day

or

two

but

even

for

three

"oo*"".itive

ary"

regardless

of

her

previously

set

schedule;

58.r

A

perusal

of

the

court

records,

specifically

the

assailed

orders

would

show

that

the

presiding

judge

in

the

performance

of

his

functions

and

issuanc.

bf

the

contested

orders

was

obviously

moved

by

bad

nultt

,

fraud",

dishone*ty

-rrd

corruption,

enough

for

the

pr"*ldirrg

judge

to

be

held

liable

for

knowingly

rendering

an

un3ust

orde6,

gross

ignorance

of

the

law,

manifest

partiality

and

milconduct

in

the

perfonnalLce

of

official

duties;

59.

As

was

held

in

the

case

of

chief

state

Prosecutor

JOVENCITO

R.

ZUNO,

complainant,

vs.

Judge

ALEJANDRINO

C'

23lliage



i: i

i

\\,t'

t-'

\J

CABEBEs,

in

order

to

tre

held

liable

for

knowingly

rendering

an

unjust

judgment

or

order,

respondent

judge

must

have

acted

with

malice

of

in

willful

disregard

of

the

right

of

a

litigant,

as

what

evidently

transpired

in

the

case

at

bar;

PRAYER

isesconsid'ered,complainantmost

HEREFORE,

Prem

respectfully

pray"

th.t

a

judgment

be

is_sued

imposing

disciplinary

sanctions

against

herein

respondent

for

knowingly

rendering

unjust

orders,

man-ifest

partiality,

giaft and

corrupt

practices

and

manifest

misconduct.

complainant

also

prays

for

such

other

measures

of

relief

and

remedies

which

are

jusf

and

equitable

under

the

premises'

RESPECTFULLY

SUBMITTtrD.

MakatiCityfortheCityofManila,May28,2oL4.

JUDITH

ZARRAGA

LUIS

LAW

FIRM

7256

J.

Victor

St.,

Barangay

Pio

del

Pilar

Makati

CitY

TellFax

Nos

.

822-4{-Og

l468-

ATTY.

JUDI

Z.

LUIS

PTR

No.

I.B.P.

ROLL

No.

MCLE

III

ComPliance

No.

9280944

I

OL

2B-t4l

Quezon

CitY

Lifetime

No.

0

951

Quezon

CILY

38963

ru-0018666;

APril

26,

2OL3

I

s

[A.M.

No.

ocA

03-1800-RTJ.

November

26,2004.);

(formerly

ocA

IPI No'

03-1675-RTJ);

Chief;

State

prosecutor

JOVENCITO

R.

ZUNb,

complainant,

vs.

Judge

ALEJANDRINO

C'



@,n*u*

drrfifLSH _lfiljrr'it{ii

PhiliPPine

Postal

Corporation

2014-06-09

3:43:39

PM

Sender

judical

zarraga

law

firm

Addressee/eReg'

No'

presiding

judge

Pr1,4L26A4424L54

Makati

Central

Batch,

No.

: N0435140609

Address

7256

j

victor

st

brgy

Pio

del

Pilar

makati

city

Address

edllberto

t

claravall,

branch

60

rtc

baguio

city,

Baguio,

Benquet

Office

4mina

Copy

flurnlshed:

Presiding

Judge

Edilberto

T.

Clal

Branch

60,

RTC

Baguio

City

Total

Amount

Total

No.

of

Mails

Amount

I

P

F6o

n

--

t-

P

160

1

This

serves

as

your

a{knowledgement

receipt

Thank

Youfcome

again

www'

Pt[lPost'com

E[(FtAIt^rr\rn

i

E

I

The

foregoing

Administratiue Complaint

has

been

filed

and

sen/ed

by

re-giste?ed

mail

due

to

distance,

time

constraints,

unpredictable

1rdn.

situation

and

lack

of

availabl2-messenq

to

personally

Iile

and

serve

the

same'

30lPage



${*--'

REPUBLIC

OT'THE

PHILIPPINES

}

ILUEZONGITI-

}

S.S.

with

address

at

No.

108,

Cenact,e

Drive,

sanville,

Tandang

sora,

Quezon

ciw'

;#;td;"',

"*or,

in

accordance

wiih

law,

hereby

deposes

and

states

that:

'i

i,

i

1.

,,

That

I

am

the

complainant

in

the

above

captioned

case

and

]rave

caused

the preparation of the

foregoing

Ad.tniniFtrative

corqplaint

and

I

have

read

and

know

the

contents

therir

"ia

tn"

"ttegations

contained

therein

are

true

and

correct

based

on

my

own

knowledge

and

authentic

records;

2.

T,,atl

have

not

heretofore

commenced

any

other

action

involving

the

same

issues

before

the

supr"*"-corrrt,

in

the

couit

of

Appeals

or

the

different

divisions

thereof,

or

any

other

tribunal

or

agency;

3.Iflshouldthereafterlearnthatasimilaractionorproceedinghas

been

filed

or

is

pending

before

the

supreme

court,

or

in

the

court

of

Appeals'

or

different

divisions

thereof,

or

".ty

other

tribunal

or

Agency'

I

hereby

undertake

to promptly inform

this

Honorable

court

and

the

aforesaid

tribunal

or

agency

within

five

(5)

days

therefrom'

I

have

hereunto

affixed

my

signature

this

(/t/"r6

*&

lv@"fu

Atty.

Ernesto

David

Llamas

De

Los

Santos

SUBSCRIBED

AND

SWORN

TO

berore

me

this

-

UHY"r1 JA]L

2ot4'

V

/dff,

''

dtitrerr

rllgt-t*q

un

*'*.'

uYHul'

r"

ent+

tJNf

,r.

lilrsL.'..

IN

day

CATION

F,

Urgent Omnibua Motion Cno.32306-R

Documents

Transcript of Urgent Omnibua Motion Cno.32306-R