THIRD DIVISION
A.M. No. RTJ-03-1792 March 10, 2004
EMILIANA M. GARCIA, complainant,
vs.
JUDGE FLORENCIO P. BUESER, Regional Trial Court, Branch 33, Siniloan, Laguna, respondent.
D E C I S I O N
VITUG, J.:
In a verified complaint, dated 25 February 2002, Emiliana M. Garcia has charged Judge Florencio Bueser of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 33, of Siniloan, Laguna, with "Ignorance of [the] Law, Manifest Bias, Tampering, and Disrespect for and Refusal to Obey the Supreme Court."
Complainant found herself the widow of Francisco Lanting, a policeman, who, on 17 December 2001, was shot several times in the town of Siniloan, Laguna. A criminal complaint for murder, docketed Criminal Case No. 5696, was filed against Mayor Felix Carpio and Vice-Mayor Judeo Carpio of Mabitac, Laguna, and one Jose Era. The case was raffled to the sala of respondent Judge Florencio Bueser. After their arraignment, the three accused filed a motion to admit bail. Hearings were conducted thereon. On 21 April 2001, the prosecution moved for a change of venue due to threats on the life of the witnesses. On 24 May 2001, Judge Bueser issued an order denying the motion to fix bail on the basis of his finding that the evidence of guilt was strong. On 25 May 2001, the accused filed a motion for reconsideration of the order.
In the interregnum, or on 27 June 2001, the Supreme Court issued a resolution granting the petition for a change of venue and directed respondent Judge to transfer the records of the case to the Calamba City Regional Trial Court. Instead of complying with the directive of the Court, Judge Bueser issued an order on 21 August 2001 fixing bail for the accused. The order, according to herein complainant, was antedated "06 August 2001" by respondent in order to make it appear that he had signed the issuance before receiving the Supreme Court resolution on 07 August 2001. Complainant stated that the accused were freed without a release order from the Calamba City Regional Trial Court.
In his comment, Judge Bueser explained that the assailed order was dated "06 August 2001" because he, at the time, really had intended to release it on that day but he was able to issue the order on 21 August 2001 only after having been through with some revisions thereon. Judge Bueser claimed that shortly after a motion was filed for the reconsideration of the order which had denied the application for bail, he received two menacing undated and unsigned letters. He added that, almost every night thereafter, he would receive phone calls from strangers who threatened him and his family with death. According to respondent Judge, he thought of just letting another judge decide the matter but that, after consultation with some friends, fear for his safety and that of his family got the better of him and he finally decided to rule on the motion. On the allegation that the prosecution had not been furnished with a copy of the subject order, respondent Judge said that a copy was personally served, on 22 August 2001, to the prosecution.
On 16 November 2002, the Court referred the complaint to the Court of Appeals for its investigation, report and recommendation. The case was assigned to Associate Justice Bernardo P. Abesamis, and hearings thereon were conducted on 31 March 2001, 01 April 2001 and 02 April 2001. During the hearings, Atty. Nelson Loyola represented complainant while Attys. Federico A. Bellosillo and Atty. Ildefonso B. Malveda appeared for Judge Bueser.
On 21 July 2003, the Investigating Justice submitted to the Court his report which, in part, read:
"From the facts stipulated at the scheduled hearings in this case, it shows that the motion for reconsideration was deemed submitted on June 4, 2001. The assailed Order dated August 6, 2001 was alleged to have been antedated to date before receipt of the Resolution which granted the change of venue of the criminal case on August 7, 2001. The alleged antedating is denied by the respondent and asserted that there was a delay in the release of the Order due to revisions and/or corrections made therein and his having conferred with other judges whether to release the Order or not. On the other hand, complainant had not presented any evidence to substantiate the alleged antedating of the order.
"However, having released respondent’s assailed Order despite receipt of the Supreme Court’s Resolution dated June 27, 2001, is a manifestation of his defiance of the order of the superior court which makes him liable for misconduct and violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
"x x x x x x x x x
"The charge for alleged partiality for having granted the motion for reconsideration on the petition for bail where the accused did not present any evidence/witness is belied by the discussion contained in the Order dated August 6, 2001. The matter falls within the ambit of exercise of judicial appreciation of evidences presented by parties to the case. The complainant correctly applies for the appropriate judicial remedy when they filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Order dated August 6, 2001. (Exhibit `N,’ complaint). The charge should therefore not be favorably considered for lack of sufficient basis."
On the basis of the results of the investigations and his findings, the Investigating Justice concluded:
"ACCORDINGLY it is respectfully recommended that respondent judge be held liable for GROSS MISCONDUCT and violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct and a FINE amounting to TWENTY THOUSAND PESOS (P20,000.00) be imposed upon him with STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar act(s) will be dealt with more severely."1
A judge is always looked up as being the visible representation of law and, from him, the people draw much of their will and awareness to obey legal mandates. He is also seen as the personification of justice between two conflicting interests. It is fitting for the judge then to return that regard by himself weaving an example for others to follow.2 The nature of his position demands equanimity, prudence, fortitude, and courage3 in almost everything that he does.
Respondent Judge fell short of this burden. Judge Bueser violated the code of judicial conduct required of him by defying the Court’s resolution of 27 June 2001. Respondent Judge admitted having received the Supreme Court resolution on 07 August 2001 which tasked him to transfer the records of the case to the Calamba Regional Trial Court. Despite the directive, he issued the assailed order which set the bail for the accused in Criminal Case No. 5696. Respondent Judge averred that he was constrained to reverse himself on the motion for reconsideration due to the death threats he had received.
While this Court recognizes the predicament respondent judge must have been in that possibly has brought him mental and emotional stress, it, nonetheless, cannot completely excuse him from his sworn duty to uphold that to which he is held bound. The independence of the judiciary would be no more than a myth4 if judges were to allow themselves to be cowered by anyone. In accepting their exalted positions, Judges are expected to be fearless in rendering justice, to be unafraid to displease any person, interest or power, and to be equipped with a moral fiber strong enough to resist the challenges of the office.
The Code of Judicial Conduct commands that a judge must not succumb to attempts to influence his judgment and must resist any pressure from whatever source5 in order to uphold the integrity and independence of the Judiciary.6 The Code projects that a judge is an embodiment of incorruptibility and non-subservience. The future of any society, to a great extent, depends upon the maintenance of justice pure and unsullied.7
The Court is thus constrained to accept the recommendation of the Investigating Justice.
WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Judge guilty of MISCONDUCT and of having transgressed the Code of Judicial Conduct and hereby imposes upon him a fine of TWENTY THOUSAND PESOS (P20,000.00) with a WARNING that the commission of an infraction in the future will be dealt with severely.
SO ORDERED.
Sandoval-Gutierrez, Corona, and Carpio-Morales, JJ., concur.
Footnotes
1 Ibid., p. 8.
2 Arban v. Borja, A.M. No. R-281-RTJ, 26 August 1986 (143 SCRA 634); Marces, Sr. v. Arcangel, A.M. No. RTJ-91-712, 09 July 1996 (258 SCRA 503).
3 See J. Perfecto’s dissent in Summers vs. Ozaeta, 81 Phil. 754.
4 De Llana v. Alba, L-57883, 12 March 1982 (112 SCRA 294).
5 Rule 1.03, Canon 1, Code of Judicial Conduct.
6 Canon 1, supra.
7 see Preamble, Canons of Professional Ethics
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
