FIRST DIVISION
[A.M. No. RTJ-14-2380. March 3, 2021.][Formerly OCA IPI No. 10-3344-RTJ]
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, petitioner, vs.JUDGE TERESA P. SORIASO, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 27, MANILA [FORMERLY A.M. NO. 09-11-480-RTC] (IN RE: DECISION DATED JUNE 5, 2009 OF THE SUPREME COURT [THIRD DIVISION] IN G.R. NO. 167710, ENTITLED "PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. DE GRANO, ET AL."), respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedMarch 3, 2021which reads as follows:
"A.M. No. RTJ-14-2380 [formerly OCA IPI No. 10-3344-RTJ] — OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, petitioner, v. JUDGE TERESA P. SORIASO, Regional Trial Court, Branch 27, Manila [formerly A.M. No. 09-11-480-RTC] (In re: Decision dated June 5, 2009 of the Supreme Court [Third Division] in G.R. No. 167710, entitled "People of the Philippines v. De Grano, et al."). — This refers to an administrative complaint against Judge Teresa P. Soriaso (Judge Soriaso) of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 27 filed by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) pursuant to the Resolution of this Court's Third Division dated April 19, 2010 in A.M. OCA IPI No. 10-3344-RTJ.
The Antecedents
On November 28, 1992, an information was filed before the RTC, Branch 6, Tanauan, Batangas against Joven de Grano (Joven), Armando de Grano (Armando), and Estanislao Lacaba (Lacaba), together with Leonides Landicho, Domingo Landicho (Domingo), and Leonardo Genil who were at-large. 1
Later, the case was transferred to the RTC of Manila for the reason that one of the accused was the incumbent Mayor of Laurel, Batangas when the crime was committed. The case was raffled to Branch 27. 2
After the presentation of the parties' respective set of evidence, the RTC rendered a Decision 3 dated April 25, 2002, finding several of the accused guilty of the crime charged. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:
WHEREFORE, CONSIDERING ALL THE FOREGOING, this Court finds the accused JOVEN DE GRANO, ARMANDO DE GRANO, DOMINGO LANDICHO and ESTANISLAO LACABA, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of MURDER, qualified by treachery, and there being no modifying circumstance attendant, hereby sentences them to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua, and to indemnify the heirs of Emmanuel Mendoza the sum of P50,000.00 and to pay the costs.
The case as against accused Leonides Landicho and Leonardo Genil is hereby sent to the files of archived cases to be revived as soon as said accused are apprehended.
Let alias warrant of arrest be issued against accused Leonardo Genil and Leonides Landicho.
SO ORDERED. 4
During the promulgation of the decision, only Lacaba was present despite due notice to the other accused. 5
On May 9, 2002, all of the accused, thru counsel, filed a joint motion for reconsideration praying that the April 25, 2002 decision be reconsidered and set aside and a new one be issued acquitting them based on the following grounds:
I.
THE HONORABLE COURT ERRED IN BASING THE DECISION OF CONVICTION OF ALL ACCUSED SOLELY ON THE BIASED, UNCORROBORATED AND BASELESS TESTIMONY OF TERESITA DURAN, THE COMMON-LAW WIFE OF THE VICTIM.
II.
THE HONORABLE COURT ERRED IN NOT GIVING EXCULPATORY WEIGHT TO THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE DEFENSE, WHICH WAS AMPLY CORROBORATED ON MATERIAL POINTS.
III.
THE HONORABLE COURT ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PRESENT REBUTTAL EVIDENCE RENDERS THE POSITION OF THE DEFENSE UNREBUTTED;
IV.
THE HONORABLE COURT ERRED IN ADOPTING CONDITIONAL OR PRELIMINARY FINDING OF TREACHERY OF THE SUPREME COURT IN ITS RESOLUTION DATED JULY 12, 1999; AND
V.
THE HONORABLE COURT ERRED IN RENDERING A VERDICT OF CONVICTION DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED WERE NOT PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. 6
On May 29, 2002, the prosecution filed its opposition pointing out that while the accused jointly moved for reconsideration of the decision, all of them, except Lacaba, were at-large. According to the prosecution, the accused, having opted to become fugitives and thus are beyond judicial ambit, they lost their right to file such motion and ask for whatever relief from the court. 7
On April 15, 2004, the RTC issued an Order 8 modifying its earlier decision by acquitting Joven and Armando, and downgrading the conviction of Domingo and Lacaba from murder to homicide. The dispositive portion of thereof reads:
WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the Court modifies its decision and finds the accused DOMINGO LANDICHO and ESTANISLAO LACABA, "GUILTY" beyond reasonable doubt, as principal of the crime of Homicide, and in default of any modifying circumstances, sentences them to an indeterminate prison term SIX (6) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of Prision mayor, as minimum, to TWELVE YEARS [and] ONE DAY of Reclusion Temporal as maximum. Said accused shall be credited with full period of their preventive imprisonment pursuant to B.P. Blg. 85.
Accused ARMANDO DE GRANO and JOVEN DE GRANO are hereby ACQUITTED on the basis of reasonable doubt. They are likewise declared free of any civil liability.
To the extent herein altered or modified, the Decision dated April 25, 2002 stands.
SO ORDERED.9
On May 21, 2004, the Public State Prosecutor filed a motion for reconsideration 10 which was denied by the RTC in its Order 11 dated September 28, 2004.
On January 11, 2005, a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court was filed by the prosecution before the Court of Appeals (CA) docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 88160. It was dismissed outright in a resolution dated January 25, 2005. OCA filed a motion for its reconsideration but the same was denied by the appellate court in its April 5, 2005 resolution. 12
The prosecution filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court before this Court, docketed as G.R. No. 167710. 13
On June 5, 2009, this Court promulgated its Decision 14 granting the petition. The dispositive portion of the decision states:
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Resolutions dated January 25, 2005 and April 5, 2005 issued by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 88160, are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The pertinent portions of the Order dated April 15, 2004 issued by the Regional Trial Court, convicting Domingo Landicho of the crime of Homicide and acquitting Armando De Grano and Joven De Grano are ANNULLED and DELETED. In all other aspects, the Order stands.
To the extent herein altered or modified, the pertinent portions of the Decision dated April 25, 2002 of the Regional Trial Court are REINSTATED.
The Office of the Court Administrator is DIRECTED to INVESTIGATE Judge Teresa P. Soriaso for possible violation/s of the law and/or the Code of Judicial Conduct in issuing the Order dated April 15, 2004 in Criminal Case No. 93-129988.
SO ORDERED. 15
Pursuant to the Decision of this Court in G.R. No. 167710, the OCA filed a formal administrative complaint 16 against Judge Soriaso to which she filed her comment 17 thereon.
In her comment, she denied having deliberately committed violation of law or the Code of Judicial Conduct. 18 She alleged that all the modifications made were backed-up with evidence, testimonial and documentary, to justify the order. 19 She admitted that the erroneous acquittal was a result of an admitted error and oversight on her part and was never deliberately made in blatant disregard of the Rules. 20 She further claimed that she lost sight of the fact that Section 6, Rule 20 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure had already been amended. 21 Following such belief, she thought that the accused had not lost their standing in the case even if they were at-large and convicted. 22
The matter was referred to the OCA for evaluation, report and recommendation. 23 The Court Administrator complied and recommended that Judge Soriaso be found guilty of gross ignorance of the law, and that she be suspended from office without salary and other benefits for six months. 24
Issue
Whether Judge Soriaso is guilty of gross ignorance of the law when she issued her order granting the joint motion for reconsideration of all the accused despite the fact that most of them were at-large.
Ruling of this Court
We adopt the findings and recommendations of the OCA.
Section 6, Rule 120 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure states:
Section 6. Promulgation of judgment. — The judgment is promulgated by reading it in the presence of the accused and any judge of the court in which it was rendered. However, if the conviction is for a light offense, the judgment may be pronounced in the presence of his counsel or representative. When the judge is absent or outside of the province or city, the judgment may be promulgated by the clerk of court.
If the accused is confined or detained in another province or city, the judgment may be promulgated by the executive judge of the RTC having jurisdiction over the place of confinement or detention upon request of the court which rendered the judgment. The court promulgating the judgment shall have authority to accept the notice of appeal and to approve the bail bond pending appeal; provided, that if the decision of the trial court convicting the accused changed the nature of the offense from non-bailable to bailable, the application for bail can only be filed and resolved by the appellate court.
The proper clerk of court shall give notice to the accused personally or through his bondsman or warden and counsel, requiring him to be present at the promulgation of the decision. If the accused was tried in absentia because he jumped bail or escaped from prison, the notice to him shall be served at his last known address.
In case the accused fails to appear at the scheduled date of promulgation of judgment despite notice, the promulgation shall be made by recording the judgment in the criminal docket and serving him a copy thereof at his last known address or thru his counsel.
If the judgment is for conviction and the failure of the accused to appear was without justifiable cause, he shall lose the remedies available in these rules against the judgment and the court shall order his arrest. Within fifteen (15) days from promulgation of judgment, however, the accused may surrender and file a motion for leave of court to avail of these remedies. He shall state the reasons for his absence at the scheduled promulgation and if he proves that his absence was for a justifiable cause, he shall be allowed to avail of said remedies within fifteen (15) days from notice. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Verily, the Rules expressly provides that an accused, who jumped bail or escaped from prison and was absent at the promulgation of the judgment for his conviction despite notice and without any justifiable cause, shall lose the remedies available in the Rules.
Judge Soriaso claimed that she lost sight of the fact that Section 6, Rule 120 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure had been amended. She explained that the erroneous acquittal in her order modifying her decision was never deliberately made in blatant disregard of the Rules. 25 According to her, such was evident in her order when she explicitly imported and quoted the old rule in her resolution. 26 She further alleged that she would have never quoted and used the wrong Rule if she knew that she would be sanctioned for doing so. 27
Contrary to her claim that she did not blatantly disregard the Rules, this Court noticed that when the prosecution filed its opposition to the joint motion for reconsideration of the accused, it was clearly pointed out that all of the accused except Lacaba were at-large and thus, having opted to become fugitives and being beyond the judicial ambit, they lost their right to file a motion for reconsideration to ask for whatever relief from the court. 28 Despite the prosecution's argument, Judge Soriaso issued her order modifying her earlier decision downgrading the conviction of Lacaba and Domingo from murder to homicide and acquitting Joven and Armando of murder.
Later, when the prosecution filed the motion for reconsideration dated May 18, 2004, the argument based on the provisions of Section 6, Rule 120 of the Rules was reiterated. However, Judge Soriaso still denied the motion and still relied upon the old rule which was long been amended by the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. 29
It may be true that she had no updated knowledge of the amendments to the rule at the time she issued the order, however, the prosecution glaringly pointed out the same in its opposition and its subsequent motion. Hence, Judge Soriaso cannot feign ignorance of the amended rule. She cannot claim that she was unaware thereof since it was clearly brought to her attention not just once but twice. It is revolting to think that she merely ignored it and did not even exert efforts to verify whether the rule was indeed amended. 30
As already ruled in People v. De Grano, et al.: 31
It is to be stressed that judges are dutybound to have more than a cursory acquaintance with laws and jurisprudence. Failure to follow basic legal commands constitutes gross ignorance of the law from which no one may be excused, not even a judge. The Code of Judicial Conduct mandates that "a judge shall be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence." It bears stressing that competence is one of the marks of a good judge. When a judge displays an utter lack of familiarity with the Rules, he erodes the public's confidence in the competence of our courts. Such is gross ignorance of the law. Having accepted the exalted position of a judge, he/she owes the public and the court the duty to be proficient in the law. 32 (Citations omitted)
WHEREFORE, the Court finds Judge Teresa P. Soriaso GUILTY of GROSS IGNORANCE OF THE LAW and SUSPENDS her from office for six (6) months without salary and other benefits, and STERNLY WARNS her that a repetition of a similar offense in the future shall be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED."Peralta, C.J., no part; Delos Santos, J., designated Additional Member per Raffle dated February 1, 2021.
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, p. 1.
2.Id.
3.Id. at 31-84.
4.Id. at 84.
5.Id. at 2.
6.Id. at 85-86.
7.Id. at 133-134.
8.Id. at 143-147.
9.Id. at 147.
10.Id. at 148-165.
11.Id. at 167-174.
12.Id. at 3.
13.Id. at 3.
14.Id. at 6-27; penned by Associate Justice Diosdado M. Peralta (now Chief Justice of this Court) with Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno (now a retired Member of this Court), Associate Justices Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, Antonio T. Carpio (both now retired Members of this Court) and Renato C. Corona (former Chief Justice of this Court).
15.Id. at 26-27.
16.Id. at 1-5.
17.Id. at 177-179.
18.Id. at 177.
19.Id. at 178.
20.Id.
21.Id.
22.Id. at 190.
23.Id. at 185.
24.Id. at 193.
25.Id. at 178.
26.Id.
27.Id.
28.Id. at 133.
29.Id. at 192.
30.Id.
31. 606 Phil. 547 (2009).
32.Id. at 571-572.