[A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 05-2405-RTJ.
RICKY A. SONEJA, et
al. v.
First Division
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court
dated
A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 05-2405-RTJ (Ricky A. Soneja, et al. v.
Considering the Report of the Office of the Court Administrator,
to wit:
Received by this Office is the verified complaint-affidavit dated June
7, 2005 of Ricky A. Soneja and Marilou Soneja Tendenilla charging respondent
Judge Philbert I. Iturralde, RTC, Branch 58, Angeles City with Violation of
R.A. Nos. 3019 and 6713 relative to Criminal Case No. 04-051 entitled "People of the Philippines vs. Philmark
Iturralde."
In August 2003, herein complainant Ricky Soneja filed with the
Provincial Prosecution Office of Rizal a criminal
complaint for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Serious Physical Injuries and
Damage to Property against Philmark Iturralde, the son of respondent judge.
Complainant Ricky alleges that while he was still confined at the Philippine
General Hospital in
"Puede[ng] kong paabutin ng 10 taon ang kaso[ng]
ito at iyong hinihingi ninyong P500,000.00 para sa kabayaran ng lahat ng damages sa kaso ay wala ng halaga."
Complainants further raised the issue on the delay in the filing of
the Information with the court as well as the delay in the resolution of the (reopened)
investigation by the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor. Ricky alleges that his criminal complaint was
assigned to a prosecutor for investigation in August 2003. The prosecutor prepared its resolution on
EVALUATION: The
complaint should be dismissed.
Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, as amended, provides:
"SECTION 1. How
instituted. - Proceedings for the discipline of Judges of regular and
special courts and Justices of the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan
may be instituted motu proprio by
the Supreme Court or upon a verified complaint,
supported by affidavits of persons who have personal knowledge of the facts
alleged therein or by documents which may substantiate said allegations, or
upon an anonymous complaint, supported by public records of indubitable
integrity. xxx" (emphasis supplied)
In the instant case, complainants filed a Joint Affidavit stating
that while complainant Ricky was confined at the Philippine General Hospital, Manila,
respondent Judge Philbert Iturralde met complainant Marilou at the office of
Congressman Willy Alvarado in Batasan, Quezon City and told her "Puede[ng] kong paabutin ng 10 taon ang kaso[ng] ito
at iyong hinihingi ninyong
P500,000.00 para sa kabayaran ng lahat ng damages sa kaso ay wala
ng halaga." However, there was no affidavit executed by a third
person to support the allegation of the complainants. This, alone, is sufficient to warrant the
dismissal of the complaint.
This notwithstanding, and in order to see if there is a need to
look further into the allegations, the Office of the Court Administrator opted
to secure the comment of Judge Iturralde. Without dwelling on his discussion as regards
the issue on whether or not the constitutional rights of his son had been
violated and all other matters which are judicial in nature, worthy of
consideration is his argument, which reads in part:
"On the issues stated in the Complaint-Affidavit, the undersigned
vehemently denies such malicious acts imputed against his person and likewise
any insinuations of alleged Grave Misconduct. Apparently the herein complainants appears to
be frustrated on the legal processes of their complaints which I have no
control of (being still in the preliminary investigation stage with the
Department of Justice) but which to their xxx minds should be blamed on me
apparently because of my being a Judge, the owner of the motor vehicle involved
in the accident and not to mention being the father [of] Philmark, the driver involved
in the accident. Surprisingly and in
fairness to the Public Prosecutors who handled the case, said complainants even
included them (Hon. Provincial Prosecutors of Pasig) in this xxx complaint, who
have even resolved the case in their favor by filing a RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE CASE
against my son Philmark (sic). "
"I[t] must be emphasized that at the very inception of the case[,]
my son is being ably represented by the Sagayo, Tacardon
and Yulo Law Office as can be seen on the pleadings filed.
By reason of the above, it is therefore
said law office that has taken full control on the defense of the case and not
the undersigned. xxx"
Moreover, the seeming delay in the filing of the information against
the son of respondent judge as well as the delay in the termination of the
(reopened) investigation conducted by the Provincial Prosecutor Office of Rizal should not be blamed on the respondent judge. Records do not show that respondent judge has
influence, political or otherwise, over the prosecutors of Rizal. Corrolarily, the imposition of sanctions, if
so warranted, on the delay incurred in: (a) the filing of the information; and (b)
the conduct of the (reopened) investigation by the concerned prosecutors, who
are officers of the Department of Justice (DOJ), is within the realm of the
DOJ.
RECOMMENDATION: Respectfully
submitted for the consideration of the Honorable Court is our recommendation
that the complaint against Judge Philbert I. Iturralde, RTC, Branch 58,
and finding the evaluation and
recommendation therein to be in accord with law and the facts of the case, the
Court approves and adopts the same.
It is an established rule in administrative cases that
complainant bears the onus of
establishing or proving the averments in his complaint by substantial evidence.[1]
ACCORDINGLY, the
administrative complaint against Judge Philbert I. Iturralde is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA ESGUERRA-VIDAL
Clerk of Court
First Division