Facts:

The complaint in this case was brought by William R. Adan against Judge Anita Abucejo-Luzano, who presided over two criminal cases (Nos. 2255 and 2256) involving accusations of Grave Oral Defamation. The respondent judge initially found the accused, Remedios and Belinda Saarenas, guilty and imposed sentences. However, upon a Motion for Reconsideration, Judge Luzano reversed her earlier decision, acquitting the accused on December 9, 1996. Adan asserts that the judge's reversal was based not on the record or evidence presented during the trial but rather on new, extrinsic information provided by the accused. He claims the judge conducted an ocular inspection of the crime scene without informing either party, thereby breaching the principles of due process. Moreover, it was alleged that the judge interviewed the accused privately, resulting in a lack of impartiality. Adan also stated he was not provided a copy of the acquittal order until six months later when he fortuitously

...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• William R. Adan filed two criminal cases (Nos. 2255 and 2256) for Grave Oral Defamation before the Municipal Trial Court of Lopez-Jaena, Misamis Oriental.
• In the original proceedings, accused Remedios and Belinda Saarenas were found guilty and appropriately sentenced, only to later be acquitted upon a Motion for Reconsideration.

Allegations Against the Respondent Judge

• Complainant alleged that Judge Anita Abucejo-Luzano modified the judgment not on the basis of the existing record but on “new” information provided by the accused.
• The judge conducted an ocular inspection of the crime scene without notifying or inviting the parties, even though such an inspection is part of a public trial.
• The judge is further accused of having met with and interviewed the accused privately, thereby procuring biased information.
• There was an accusation that the judge failed to furnish a copy of the Order of Acquittal dated December 9, 1996, leaving the complainant unaware of the judgment until he encountered the public prosecutor six months later.

Respondent Judge’s Defense and Actions

• The judge denied the allegations, asserting that neither of the accused was personally known to her.
• She maintained that her decision to reverse the conviction was driven by a sense of justice – noting the socio-economic and educational disparities between the accused and the complainant, who is the Chancellor of the Mindanao State University and head of its Institute of Fisheries and Research Development.
• The judge also claimed her efficiency in handling cases, emphasizing that she rarely waits for parties to seek her aid due to her low number of pending criminal and civil cases.

Administrative Investigation and Findings

• The case was referred to the Court Administrator for a thorough investigation, resulting in a recommendation to fine the judge Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) along with a stern warning regarding future similar offenses.
• Subsequent manifestations by both parties revealed their willingness to submit the case based on the pleadings and records on file.
• A careful review of the Order acquitting the accused identified that the judge had conducted an ocular inspection “on her way home” without informing the parties, and that the inspection was influenced by information provided by the accused regarding the crime scene.

Judicial Missteps

• The ex parte ocular inspection, conducted without prior notice or the participation of the prosecution or defense, was highly improper and contrary to the rules of due process.
• The judge’s unilateral action, including her private meeting with the accused, raised serious concerns of partiality and bias, thereby breaching the requirement for a judge to both be and appear impartial.
• Although the judge’s failure to furnish the copy of the acquittal order was noted, it was determined not to constitute a breach of judicial duty per se since the complainant could follow up with the prosecutor.

Issue:

Whether a judge may conduct an ex parte ocular inspection after a case has been decided without notifying the involved parties.

• Did the judge’s action of inspecting the crime scene “on her way home” without notice violate due process?
• Was the introduction of additional evidence in this manner procedurally proper?

Whether the judge’s private liaison with the accused constitutes an act of bias or partiality.

• Does a private meeting with accused individuals, outside the presence of the complainant or counsel, amount to a breach of judicial impartiality?
• How does such behavior conflict with the ethical standards expected of judges?

Whether the failure to furnish the complainant with a copy of the Order of Acquittal should be considered a judicial omission or misconduct.

• Is it the responsibility of the judge to provide the complainant with copies of judgments or orders?
• Should the lack of such action be included in the assessment of abuse of authority?

Whether the judge’s overall modification of judgment was rooted in malice or in a misguided sense of justice.

• Did the judge’s motivation influence the appropriateness of her actions despite procedural missteps?
• Can her decision, even if made in the name of justice, justify the departure from prescribed judicial procedures?

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)