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.”
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.
The nature of his position demands equanimity, prudence, fortitude, and courage
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 myth
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 source
in order to uphold the integrity and independence of the Judiciary.
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.
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.