THIRD DIVISION
[A.M. No. MTJ-00-1298. August 3,
2000]
WILLIAM R. ADAN, complainant, vs. JUDGE ANITA
ABUCEJO-LUZANO, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Initao-Libertad, Misamis
Oriental, respondent.
D E C I S I O N
GONZAGA-REYES, J.:
William R. Adan is
the private complainant in two (2) criminal cases (Nos. 2255 and 2256) both for
Grave Oral Defamation filed with respondent Judge Anita Abucejo-Luzano of the
Municipal Trial Court of Lopez-Jaena, Misamis Occidental wherein the latter found
accused Remedios and Belinda Saarenas guilty of the said crime and were
sentenced accordingly. However, on Motion for Reconsideration, respondent judge
reversed her decision and rendered a judgment of acquittal.
In the present
case, herein complainant Adan alleges that respondent Judge modified the
judgment not on the basis of what was already on the record but on the basis of
"new", information supplied to her by the accused; that respondent
Judge conducted an ocular inspection of the place of the crime without inviting
or even informing the parties thereof despite the fact that such ocular
inspection is part of the public trial where both the prosecution and the
defense are present or represented; that respondent Judge even interviewed the
accused thus receiving biased information; and that respondent Judge failed to
furnish him a copy of the Order of acquittal dated December 9, 1996 and that he
came to know of the existence of the said order when he accidentally met the
public prosecutor on May 14, 1997 or six (6) months after the promulgation of
the judgment. Complainant charged respondent Judge with abuse of authority,
partiality and rendering an unjust judgment relative to the aforesaid criminal
cases.
Respondent Judge
denied the allegations in the complaint and claimed that neither of the accused
are personally known to her; that she modified the judgment upon finding that
she committed injustice to the accused who are poor and have less in life and
in education unlike the complainant who is the Chancellor of the Mindanao State
University (MSU) and the head of MSU's Institute of Fisheries and Research
Development. She further alleged that she is "one if not the only one
among the judges of the first level courts to have the least number of pending
criminal and civil cases filed as she does not wait for anybody to come and
seek her aid in the disposal of cases".
The case was
referred to the Court Administrator for investigation, report and
recommendation. The Court Administrator recommended that respondent Judge be
fined in the amount of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) with a warning
that the commission of the same or similar offense in the future shall be dealt
with more severely.
In the Resolution
dated January 31, 2000, this Court required the parties to manifest whether
they are willing to submit the case for resolution on the basis of the
pleadings/ records already filed and submitted.
Complainant and
respondent filed separate Manifestations stating that they are submitting the
case on the basis of the pleadings and/or records already filed.
A careful reading
of the Order dated December 9, 1996 acquitting the accused clearly shows that
indeed respondent Judge conducted an ocular inspection of the place of
the incident "on her way home" at which the accused were present and
wherein respondent Judge was informed by the accused that "the area was
fenced by the MSU".[1] It is not disputed that complainant or his counsel
was not informed of such ocular inspection. Respondent Judge should have known
that an ex-parte ocular inspection without notice to nor presence of the
parties and after the case had already been decided was highly improper. If
respondent Judge had entertained doubts that she wished to clarify after the
trial had already terminated, she should have ordered motu proprio the
reopening of the trial for the purpose, with due notice to the parties, whose
participation therein is essential to due process. Thus, it is error for the
judge to go alone to the place where the crime was committed and make an
inspection without previous knowledge or consent of the parties.[2] The conduct of the ex-parte inspection, the
result of which apparently influenced her to reconsider her earlier decision,
was highly improper as she, in effect, admitted additional evidence without
giving the prosecution a chance to object to its introduction or to controvert
the same. Respondent Judge has opened herself to charges of partiality and bias
by meeting with the accused privately. No matter how noble her intentions may
have been, it was improper for respondent Judge to meet the accused without the
presence of complainant. Respondent Judge has not only shown gross ignorance of
the law and procedure but failed to live up to the norm that "judges
should not only be impartial but should also appear impartial". She thus
violated Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct which provides that "a
judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all
activities."
Anent respondent
Judge's alleged failure to furnish complainant with a copy of the order of
acquittal, the same is untenable. It is not the judge's duty to do this.
Complainant should have coordinated with the public or private prosecutor in
charge of the cases to update himself of the status of the case.
The charge of
knowingly rendering an unjust judgment must likewise fail. As aptly pointed out
by the Court Administrator, the respondent’s decision was actuated more by her
misguided sense of justice rather than any evil motive to cause an injury to
complainant.
However, we believe
that the fine in the amount of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00)
recommended by the Court Administrator is too harsh and the same is reduced to
Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) as it was not shown that there was
malice or evil intent in respondent Judge's actuation.
WHEREFORE, for gross ignorance of judicial procedures,
respondent Judge Anita Abucejo-Luzano is hereby FINED in the amount of Ten
Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of
the same or similar act shall be dealt with more severely by this Court.
SO ORDERED.
Melo,
(Chairman), Vitug, Panganiban, and Purisima,
JJ., concur.