[A.M.
No. RTJ-01-1643. July 3, 2002]
HUENEFELD
vs. JUDGE CONSULTA
FIRST DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a
resolution of this Court dated 03 JUL 2002.
A.M. No. RTJ-01-1643 [formerly OCA IPI No.
01-1186-RTJ] (Richard Huenefeld vs. Judge Gregorio A. Consulta, Regional Trial
Court, Branch 4, Legazpi City.)
This case
originated from a sworn letter-complaint filed by Richard Huenefeld against
Judge Gregorio A. Consulta charging the latter with gross ignorance of the law
and conduct unbecoming a judge relative to his actuations in Criminal Case No.
8982 (People vs. Honrado, et al.) where Huenefeld was the private complainant.
Complainant alleged that respondent Judge issued a warrant of arrest
simultaneous with the order of release of the accused despite the fact that the
accused was not arrested, had not surrendered nor posted bail. He further
alleged that respondent Judge allowed Atty. Wilfredo M. Peñaflor, Assistant
Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), to act as counsel for the
accused. Complainant was likewise challenging respondent Judge’s order granting
a reinvestigation of the case by the Ombudsman even after the accused had
posted bail which, according to him, prevented him from filing a motion for the
inhibition of respondent Judge from further hearing the case. In addition,
complainant was questioning the order of respondent Judge requiring him to
return, on pain of contempt of court, the photocopies of the warrant of arrest
he secured from the branch clerk of court. Finally, complainant averred that
respondent Judge used language and exhibited conduct unbecoming a judge.
Respondent Judge denied the charges against him. He countered that the
warrant of arrest and the order of release of the accused were done on the same
day because the accused voluntarily appeared before the court and posted bail
on even date. He denied any knowledge that Atty. Peñaflor was the Assistant
Secretary of the DAR. Respondent Judge averred that he no longer received the
motion for his inhibition because the records of the case were already
transmitted to the Office of the Ombudsman as the case was under
reinvestigation. He admitted having issued an order recalling the photocopies
of the warrant of arrest secured by complainant but explained that it was only
due to his standing policy that inquiries relating to any case pending before
his sala must be brought to his
attention to prevent any complication later. Respondent Judge also admitted
having used language that might be inappropriate from the point of view of the
complainant, but he explained that he only meant to emphasize his abhorrence
against clandestine moves by litigants. He offered his apologies should this
Court find his language harsh.
In the Court’s resolution, dated August 6, 2001, the case was docketed
as a regular administrative matter. In compliance with the same resolution, the
parties filed their respective manifestation submitting the case for resolution
on the basis of the pleadings filed.
In an administrative proceeding, the complainant has the burden of
proving, by substantial evidence, the allegations in his complaint.[1] After evaluating the records of this case,
the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), through Deputy Court Administrator
Jose P. Perez, found no basis to subject respondent Judge to disciplinary
action. However, the OCA recommended that respondent Judge be reprimanded for
allowing Atty. Peñaflor to appear as counsel for the accused, and for his use
of intemperate language. While the Court subscribes to the findings of the OCA,
it cannot fully adopt its recommendation.
The OCA correctly stated that there was nothing irregular with the
issuance of the warrant of arrest and the order of release of the accused on
the same day. It would appear from the records of this case that on the date
the warrant of arrest was issued, the accused voluntarily appeared before the
court and posted bail. Hence, the order for their release on that same date was
properly issued.
We likewise agree with the OCA that the grant of reinvestigation even
after the accused had posted bail is not contrary to the Rules of Court.
Section 26, Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure particularly
provides that “(a)n application for or admission to bail shall not bar the accused
from x x x assailing the regularity x x x of a preliminary investigation x x
x.” Hence, the accused were not barred from asking for a reinvestigation of the
case filed against them.
As regards the motion for inhibition, the OCA correctly stated that respondent
Judge could not have acted thereon since the case was already referred to the
Office of the Ombudsman and the records were no longer with the trial court.
Respondent Judge was correct in disclosing the contents of the “letter” of
complainant asking for his inhibition. Such letter, contrary to the assertion
of complainant, could not be treated as “privileged and confidential” but must
be addressed as a motion. It was only proper that such letter be answered via a court order.
However, the Court is not convinced that respondent Judge can be held
liable for allowing the appearance of Atty. Peñaflor as counsel for the
accused.
Complainant assails the appearance of Atty. Peñaflor as one of the
counsels for the accused who are mostly officials and employees of the DAR and
some recipients of lands. The records show that Atty. Peñaflor works in the
Policy, Planning and Legal Affairs Office of the DAR. However, it could not be
gleaned therefrom that there was an express prohibition for Atty. Peñaflor to
act as counsel for the accused. Indeed, it would appear from the order, dated
May 12, 2000, that Atty. Peñaflor manifested that he could represent the
accused land recipients. The Court is inclined to believe the assertion of
respondent Judge that while his attention was called that Atty. Peñaflor was a
government employee, he was not informed that he was in fact an assistant
secretary of the DAR and that he was proscribed from acting as counsel for the
accused.
Finally, the Court views the refusal of respondent Judge to allow any
visitor inside his chambers, and his policy of confronting all visitors within
hearing distance of his staff to demand what their business was in court, as
means to protect the integrity of his sala.
His refusal to give any photocopy of the records without his permission
might be viewed as a strict stance but hardly unbecoming a judge. In his order,
dated April 14, 2000, respondent Judge explained the rationale for his recall
of the certified true copies of the warrant of arrest secured by complainant, i.e., to avoid the danger of duplicitous
or multiple arrests. The apprehension of respondent Judge seemed to be
justified. Indeed, the records would show that complainant furnished the PNP of
Legaspi and Camalig of the certified true copies of the warrant of arrest,
which led to the arrest of some of the defendants.
Nevertheless, the Court still would like to remind respondent Judge to
be more prudent in his choice of words to avoid any misunderstanding in the
future. A magistrate must always strive to exercise patience and courtesy to
those appearing before him.
WHEREFORE, the instant
administrative case is DISMISSED for lack of merit. Respondent Judge Gregorio
A. Consulta is ADMONISHED to be more circumspect in his language in the future.
Very
truly yours,
(Sgd.)
VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court