A.M. No. 440-CFI September 30, 1974
REMEDIOS I. JUGUETA,
complainant,
vs.
JUDGE ALEJANDRO R. BONCAROS, Court of First Instance, Tarlac, respondent.
MUÑOZ PALMA, J.:p
In a letter-complaint dated July 12, 1973, and filed with Hon. Juan Ponce Enrile, Secretary of National Defense, Remedios I. Jugueta, charged Judge Alejandro R. Boncaros of the Court of First Instance, Branch IV, Tarlac, with "favoring and/or giving due interest in favor of the accused in Criminal Case No. 526" which was pending before said Judge. The complaint was forwarded to this Court for disposition pursuant to Sec. 6, Art. X of the 1973 Constitution,1 and upon receipt thereof, We required respondent Judge to answer, after which the case was referred to Hon. Justice Pacifica de Castro of the Court of Appeals for investigation, report and recommendation.
The following incidents are not in dispute:
Marissa Jugueta was the offended party in a criminal complaint for rape filed with the Court of First Instance of Tarlac against Ruben Domingo. (Criminal Case 526) The case was set for hearing on June 6, 1973, in Branch IV presided by respondent Judge Boncaros. Before the trial, the prosecuting fiscal, Wilfredo Macaraeg, called the accused, Ruben Domingo and the offended party, Marissa Jugueta, to the chambers of Judge Boncaros. Marissa's mother, Remedios Jugueta, who was in the Courtroom was not however invited by the Fiscal to be present at the conference. Ruben and Marissa seated themselves in front of the table of Judge Boncaros who at the time was seated by his desk. Ruben talked to Marissa and proposed marriage but Marissa declined the offer. After a brief conversation, Marissa stood up to leave the room and when she was near the door Ruben kissed her on the cheek. Seeing that act of Ruben, Judge Boncaros remarked: "Bakit sa pisngi hindi sa labi" meaning: "why the cheek not the lips." Marissa reported what transpired inside the chambers of the Judge including the remark of the latter, to her mother Remedios Jugueta, who at that time was in the courtroom waiting for the trial of Marissa's complaint. Believing that the prosecuting fiscal and the trial Judge were favoring the accused, Ruben Domingo, as shown in their attempt to settle amicably the criminal case, Remedios Jugueta filed the instant complaint against Judge Boncaros.
At the hearing conducted by Justice Pacifica de Castro, Remedios Jugueta did not appear; however, her husband, Alfonso Jugueta was present and manifested that he was representing his wife who was no longer interested in proceeding with the complaint especially since respondent Judge had inhibited himself from trying the rape case.2 Notwithstanding this manifestation, the Investigator proceeded to hear the testimony of Marissa Jugueta concerning the incident complained of, and that of respondent. On the basis of his investigation, Justice de Castro recommends the dismissal of the complaint for lack of merit.
Although we concur with the finding of Justice Pacifico de Castro that the incident of June 6, 1973, inside the chambers of respondent Judge is not sufficient to substantiate the complaint that respondent was "favoring the accused Ruben Domingo" in the rape case, nevertheless, there are certain aspects of respondent's actuations which call for an admonition from this Court.
In his testimony given before the Investigator, respondent claims that he simply allowed the fiscal to call the accused and the offended party for a talk inside his office, that he did not take part in their conversation and so he was not aware of any proposal of marriage, and that when he made that remark "bakit sa pisngi hindi sa labi" he did so in anger when he saw Ruben kiss Marissa.
1. Was it wise, prudent or discreet of respondent to allow the use of his chambers for a "talk" or conference between the prosecuting fiscal, the accused, and the victim of the rape case, in the absence of the latter's parent, she being a minor of seventeen years of age? Did not respondent by his act expose himself and the high office he holds to the suspicion that he was interested and was intervening in the settlement of the criminal complaint, for what could possibly be a reason for such a talk between the accused and the girl if it were not to explore such a possibility? The use of some amount of prudence would have deterred respondent from tolerating the act of the prosecuting fiscal in bringing together the parties in that criminal case to the exclusion of the victim's mother who all the time was in the courtroom, especially since under the law it is the marriage of the offender to the offended party which extinguishes the criminal action,3
and in this particular case, no marriage could have taken place without the parents' consent inasmuch as the victim of the rape case was below eighteen years of age.4
True enough, during their conversation in the chambers of respondent, Ruben Domingo offered to marry Marissa and to give her everything she wanted, but his proposal was rejected by the girl.5
2. When, upon seeing Ruben kiss Marissa on that occasion, respondent said: "bakit sa pisngi hindi sa labi", did he do so in an outburst of anger as claimed by him, or did he not say it by way of a frivolous remark? Respondent's assertion that he uttered those words because he was indignant over the act committed by Ruben inside his office, is unbelievable and borders on the ridiculous. Ire and indignation would have resulted in utterances, such as: "How dare you do that in my presence?" or "Don't you ever do that again in my office?", but surely not as what respondent said: "Why on the cheek not on the lips." For by those words respondent obviously encouraged rather than condemned the act of Ruben in kissing Marissa and, as a matter of fact, for him the kiss on the cheek was not even enough. Under the circumstances, we look upon this remark of respondent Judge not only uncalled for but also of unbecoming levity, offensive to and inconsiderate of the aggrieved feelings of the rape victim, Marissa.
One who occupies an exalted position in the administration of justice must pay a high price for the honor bestowed upon him, for his private as well as his official conduct must at all times be free from the appearance of impropriety.6 Here, respondent failed!
WHEREFORE, this administrative complaint against respondent Judge Alejandro R. Boncaros is dismissed. We, however, admonish respondent to observe at all times a norm of conduct which will inspire the community he serves with respect for and confidence in the office he holds.
Makalintal, C.J, Castro, Teehankee and Esguerra, JJ., concur.
Makasiar, J, is on leave.
Footnotes
1 Art. X, Sec. 6 The supreme court shall have administrative supervision over all courts and the personnel thereof.
2 Tsn. May 7, 1974. pp. 2-4.
3 Art. 344, Revised Penal Code. Prosecution of the crimes of adultery, concubinage, seduction, rape and acts of lasciviousness. —
xxx xxx xxx
In cases of seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness and rape, the marriage of the offender with the offended party shall extinguish the criminal action or remit the penalty already imposed upon him.
4 Art. 67, Civil Code: The marriage certificate in which the contracting parties shall state that they take each other as husband and wife, shall also contain:
(1) The full names and domiciles of the contracting parties;
(2) The age of each;
(3) A statement that the proper marriage license has been issued according to law and that the contracting parties have the consent of their parents in case the male is under twenty or the female under eighteen years of age; and
(4) A statement that the guardian or parent has been informed of the marriage, if the male is between the ages of twenty and twenty-five years, and the female between eighteen and twenty-three years of age. (emphasis Ours) Art. 85, Civil Code: A marriage may be annulled for any of the following causes, existing at the time of the marriage:
(1) That the party in whose behalf it is sought to have the marriage annulled was between the ages of sixteen and twenty years, if male, or between the ages of fourteen and eighteen years, if female, and the marriage was solemnized without the consent of the parent, guardian or person having authority over the party, unless after attaining the ages of twenty or eighteen years, as the case may be, such party freely cohabited with the other and both lived together as husband and wife;
xxx xxx xxx
5 Tsn. ibid, pp. 9-10.
6 Lugue vs. Kayanan, L-26826, August 29, 1969, 29 SCRA 165, 183; Conde vs. Superable, Adm. Case 812, September 30, 1969, 29 SCRA 727; Otero vs. Esguerra, Adm. Matter 655-MJ, May 23, 1974; Jakosalem vs. Judge Cordovez, Adm. Matter 13-MJ, July 18, 1974.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
