SECOND DIVISION
|
JOCELYN
DATOON, |
A.M. No. RTJ-10-2247 |
|
Complainant, |
(Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 09-3143-RTJ) |
|
- versus - |
Present: CARPIO,
J., Chairperson, VELASCO,
JR.,* ABAD,
and MENDOZA,
JJ. |
|
JUDGE
BETHANY G. KAPILI, Presiding Judge of Regional Trial
Court, Branch 24, |
Promulgated: |
|
Respondent. |
March 2, 2011 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
MENDOZA,
J.:
Before this
Court is a verified Complaint[1]
filed on March 17, 2009, by complainant Jocelyn Datoon (Datoon) charging respondent Judge Bethany G. Kapili (Judge
Kapili), Presiding Judge of Regional Trial Court Branch 24, Maasin City (RTC), with Conduct Unbecoming a Member
of the Judiciary, and Gross Misconduct amounting to Violation of the Code of
Judicial Conduct, relative to an incident which occured at the Salvacion Oppus
Yñiguez Memorial Hospital (SOYMH) in
Maasin City, Southern Leyte.
On
Datoon
testified on her own behalf but presented no other witnesses. She also
submitted the following documents: her verified Complaint to which were
attached the Incident Report of the guard-on-duty, her Affidavit, the Affidavit
of her father, Jose Gagan; her verified Reply;[2]
and verified Sur-Rejoinder.[3]
Judge
Kapili also testified on his own behalf and presented, as additional witnesses,
Judge Ma. Daisy Paler-Gonzales (Judge Paler-Gonzales), Efledo
Hernandez (Hernandez), and Rodulfo Orit (Orit). He also submitted the following documents: the
Affidavit[4]
of Judge Paler-Gonzales, the Affidavit[5]
of Hernandez and the Affidavit[6]
of Orit.
The
facts as borne out by the records and findings of the Investigating Justice are
as follows:
Datoon averred
that on
Q:
When you saw the man who was carrying
a gun, what was your reaction?
A:
I was frightened.
Q: You said earlier he went inside the
delivery room. Before he went inside the labor room and then he went inside the
delivery room. After the delivery room, what happened next?
A: A little later, he went inside the labor
room.
Q: What happened next when the man went back
inside the labor room?
A: I looked at the man and he pointed the gun
at me and uttered the words, “Unsa man, ha?” So I pleaded, “Ayaw tawon, sir,
maluoy ka.” Then I heard someone saying, “Dra. was in the other room.”
Q: After uttering those words, “Unsa man, ha,”
your reply was?
A: “Ayaw tawon, sir, maluoy ka.”
Q: When the man pointed the gun at you, where
were you then?
A: I was in bed, lying.
Q: Where was the man positioned when he
pointed the gun at you?
A: He was standing at the left side of the bed
near my head.
Q: When the man pointed the gun at you and you
said, “Ayaw tawon, sir, maluoy ka,” what happened next?
A: The gun was still pointing at me when I
heard somebody said, “Si doctora, toa sa pikas nga room.”
Q: When you heard the voice saying, “si
doctora, toa sa pikas nga room,” what happened next?
A: He went outside.
Q: You said your father was inside the labor
room. Where was your father at that time?
A:
He was opposite my bed.[7]
In
his Comment,[8]
Judge Kapili admitted being at SOYMH on
Judge Kapili
further asserted that he did not have a gun and was only carrying a clutch bag,
which Datoon might have mistaken as containing a firearm. He also stated that Gagan
was not in the labor room and the only persons present were Datoon and a
midwife named Ermelinda Costillas, who was the woman who informed him that his
wife was resting in the doctors’ lounge and whose Affidavit[10]
was attached to the Comment. He was unaware that he had created any disturbance
as he had not received any notice of such until more than four months later, or
on
Judge Kapili was
of the belief that the complaint might have been orchestrated and financed by
the hospital administrator, Cielveto Almario (Almario), in retaliation for
the various letters he wrote to the hospital management and to various government
agencies criticizing the services of the hospital.
In her verified
Reply, Datoon stated that Judge Kapili came from an influential family and had
been sending emissaries to convince her to drop the complaint. She noted that
Judge Kapili did not make any categorical denial of her claim that he was drunk
on the night of the incident.
In
his Rejoinder, Judge Kapili claimed that Datoon told a co-worker, Flordeliza
Marcojos (Marcojos), that he did not really point a gun at her and that
Datoon was made to sign a prepared complaint in exchange for employment in the
government office in the P150,000.00
for the dropping of the case. The affidavits of Marcojos[11]
and Orit[12]
were attached to his Rejoinder.
In
her Verified Sur-Rejoinder, Datoon denied entering into any agreement with the
hospital administrator, Almario, in exchange for the filing of the complaint.
She insisted that she fully understood the allegations in the complaint and
denied the assertion that she was only trying to extort money from Judge
Kapili.
Judge
Paler-Gonzales of RTC, Branch 25, Maasin City, testified that she went to see
Datoon in the Provincial Library where the latter was working at the time; that
Datoon told her that the Complaint and Affidavit were already prepared by
Almario; and that she could not be certain if what was stated in her affidavit
was true because she was experiencing labor pains at that time.
In
support of Judge Kapili’s position, Hernandez, Executive Assistant to the
Governor of Maasin City, stated in his Affidavit and testified that he talked
to Datoon upon the Governor’s instructions to verify the report that certain
persons were extorting money from Judge Kapili. During their conversation,
Datoon was said to have stated that Judge Kapili was carrying a clutch bag but
never pointed a gun at her and she did not know who prepared the affidavit for
it was only brought to her for her signature.
Orit,[13]
a Kagawad of Brgy. Mantahan, P150,000.00,
then they would meet him.
On
The Court adopts the findings and recommendation
of the Investigating Justice.
Administrative charges against
judges have been viewed by this Court with utmost care, as the respondent
stands to face the penalty of dismissal or disbarment. Thus, proceedings of
this character are in their nature highly penal in character and are to be
governed by the rules of law applicable to criminal cases. The charges in such
case must, therefore, be proven beyond reasonable doubt.[15]
In light of the
evidence submitted in this case, the Court is of the view that the charges
against Judge Kapili were not sufficiently substantiated by Datoon who has the
burden of proof in administrative proceedings.[16] The
evidence presented was not sufficient to compel the Court to exercise its
disciplinary powers over the respondent judge as mandated under Article VIII,
Section 6 of the 1987 Constitution.[17]
Datoon’s testimony was
uncorroborated. She failed to present any witness to support her charges.
Although she presented the affidavit of her father, Gagan, who allegedly witnessed
the incident, she did not present him as a witness to corroborate her
testimony, or to refute Judge Kapili’s testimony that they had attempted to
extort money from him, despite the fact that he was present during the hearing.
Neither did she present the old woman[18]
who, she claimed, was also in the room at the time of the incident.
The Court cannot help but notice
that Datoon’s testimony was also replete with inconsistencies. As to where the
gun was at the time Judge Kapili first entered the labor room, her Complaint[19]
and Affidavit[20]
stated that while she “was waiting to give birth in the labor room of the
hospital, a man, who was drunk and
holding a gun suddenly barged into the room looking for one Dr. Lorna
Kapili.” On the other hand, during her testimony,[21]
she stated that he was “carrying a gun
on his waist” when he first entered the labor room. She further testified
that Judge Kapili was later holding a gun and pointing it at her when he came
back into the labor room.
Furthermore, it was highly unlikely
that her crying would have caused Judge Kapili to pull out his gun and point it
at her, considering that he knew he was in the labor room of the hospital where
pregnant patients would be in labor and understandably in pain. Datoon’s
testimony is contradictory, inconsistent and contrary to human nature and
experience.
As to Judge Kapili’s alleged
intoxicated state, Datoon only surmised that he was drunk because his face was
flushed and his eyes were sleepy.[22]
This was an unfounded conclusion. His sleepy eyes could be attributed to the
fact that it was
Lastly, both Judge Paler-Gonzales[25]
and Hernandez[26]
testified that Datoon admitted to them that she signed the Complaint and
Affidavit without meeting the lawyers who prepared the same. Hernandez further bared
that Datoon admitted to him that Judge Kapili never pointed a gun at her.[27]
On her part, Judge Paler-Gonzales testified that Datoon admitted that she was not
sure if the contents of her Complaint and Affidavit were true because she was
in pain at the time of the incident.[28]
Datoon failed to address these
accusations as she was not presented for rebuttal. Section 26, Rule 130 of the
Rules of Evidence provides that admissions of a party may be given in evidence
against him or her. Datoon’s admission against her interest, as narrated by two
credible and neutral witnesses, militates against the credibility of her
charges. The presumption is that no person would declare anything against
himself unless such declaration were true.[29]
From all the foregoing, it is clear
that Datoon failed to prove her charges against Judge Kapili.
WHEREFORE, the
complaint against Judge Bethany G. Kapili is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
JOSE CATRAL
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
PRESBITERO
J. VELASCO, JR. MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO
Associate Justice Associate
Justice
ROBERTO A. ABAD
Associate
Justice
* Designated as additional member
in lieu of Associate Justice Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura per Special Order No.
933 dated
** Designated as additional member
in lieu of Associate Justice Diosdado M. Peralta per Special Order No. 954 dated
[1] Rollo, pp. 1-11.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15] Verginesa-Suarez v. Dilag, A.M. Nos. RTJ-06-2014 and 06-07-415-RTC,
[16] San Buenaventura v. Judge Malaya, 435
Phil. 19, 37 (2002); citing Narag v.
Narag, 353 Phil. 643, 655-656 (1998).
[17] Section 6. The
Supreme Court shall have administrative supervision over all courts and the
personnel thereof.
[18] Rollo, p. 126.
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29] Heirs of Bernardo Ulep v. Ducat, G.R. No. 159284, January 27, 2009,
577 SCRA 6, 18; citing, Rufina Patis
Factory v. Alusitain, 478 Phil. 544, 558 (2004).