Case Digest (A.M. No. 2224-CFI)
Facts:
Edna Baguyo v. Hon. Oscar Leviste, A.M. No. 2224-CFI, August 31, 1981, Supreme Court First Division, Makasiar, J., writing for the Court.Complainant Edna Baguyo, with the consent of her mother Rosario C. Baguyo, filed a sworn administrative complaint on July 5, 1979, charging District Judge Oscar Leviste of the CFI of Capiz, Branch II, Roxas City, with "grave abuse of authority" and "violation of Section 5 of the Judiciary Act of 1948" (R.A. 296). The complaint attacked the handling of Criminal Case No. 768, People of the Philippines v. Fernando Azarraga, a rape prosecution in which Baguyo was the alleged victim.
The criminal information was filed August 15, 1977. After the prosecution rested and the accused waived his right to testify, defense counsel submitted the case for decision and the court ordered it submitted on September 26, 1978. A conviction was rendered on March 20, 1979, sentencing the accused to imprisonment; however, on March 30, 1979 — before the March 20 decision became final — respondent Judge Leviste issued an "Amendment to Decision of March 20, 1979" finding the accused not guilty for failure of the prosecution to prove the offense beyond reasonable doubt. No motion for reconsideration by the accused preceded the amendment. The amendment mistakenly bore Criminal Case No. 5567 and was furnished to the Provincial Fiscal instead of the City Fiscal of Roxas City.
Baguyo further alleged that the March 20, 1979 conviction was rendered 174 days after the case was submitted for decision, in violation of Section 5 of the Judiciary Act of 1948 (R.A. 296). In his comment (filed September 6, 1979), Judge Leviste explained that the transcript, exhibits and minutes were not supplied to him until January 19, 1979 by interpreter Sabiniano Mendoza, that clerical omissions affected certification and service, and that a judge may amend his judgment before it becomes final to conform it to the evidence. He also explained the reasons underlying his amendment: doubts as to proof of force or lack of consent, absence of physical injury, the alleged victim’s blouse showing no damage, and the possibility that the mother, not the victim, had instigated prosecution.
The Court (First Division) examined the record and found the original conviction to have been grounded on the judge’s evaluation of evidence and the principle that alibi does not prevail over positive prosecution testimony. The Court accepted Judge Leviste’s explanation for the amendment — invoking the judge’s prerogative to modify a judgment before finality and quoting Section 7, Rule 121 of the Rules of Court — and found no grave abuse of discretion in his amending motu proprio the judgment. The Court also found the 174-day delay in ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Procedurally, does the administrative complaint against Judge Leviste require a formal investigation or may it be resolved from the record?
- Substantively, did Judge Leviste commit grave abuse of authority by amending his March 20, 1979 judgment to acquit the accused before the judgment became final?
- Substantively, did the delay of 174 days in rendering the decision violate Section 5 of the Judiciary Act of 1948 (R.A. 296)...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)