Title
Botigan-Santos vs. Gener
Case
A.M. No. P-16-3521
Decision Date
Sep 4, 2017
Clerk of Court fined for neglect after firearms, retained as exhibits post-case termination, were stolen in a 2014 court robbery.
Font Size:

Case Digest (A.M. No. P-16-3521)

Facts:

Background and Incident:
On August 7, 2014, a robbery occurred at the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of San Ildefonso, Bulacan. Judge Maria Cristina C. Botigan-Santos, the presiding judge, reported the incident via a letter dated August 28, 2014. At the time of the robbery, Judge Botigan-Santos was on an Immersion Program, having been appointed as judge on June 16, 2014, and sworn in on June 30, 2014.

Lost Exhibits:
The investigation revealed that, apart from stolen money, the court lost two .38 caliber firearms serving as exhibits in Criminal Case Nos. 7310 and 7007, which had been dismissed over 16 years prior. These exhibits remained in the court’s custody despite the termination of the cases in 1998.

Respondent’s Position:
Leticia C. Gener, the Clerk of Court, was appointed to the MTC in 1998 and promoted to Clerk of Court in April 2005. She claimed she was not formally informed of the custody of the exhibits or the termination of the related cases. She also stated that she conducted regular inventories but was unaware of the connection between the missing firearms and the terminated cases. She argued that a formal proceeding was necessary to turn over the firearms to the PNPA-FEU, which could not be done before the robbery due to the new presiding judge’s appointment.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • (Unlock)

Ratio:

Role of the Clerk of Court:
As the custodian of court records and exhibits, the Clerk of Court is responsible for ensuring their safekeeping, completeness, and proper disposal when no longer needed. Section 7 of Rule 136 of the Rules of Court explicitly mandates this duty. Respondent’s failure to dispose of the firearms, despite the termination of the related cases in 1998, constituted a violation of this responsibility.

Neglect of Duty:
Respondent’s claim of conducting regular inventories was inconsistent with her ignorance of the connection between the missing firearms and the terminated cases. Her failure to comply with the 2002 Revised Manual for Clerks of Court, which directs the turnover of firearms to the proper authorities after case termination, showed neglect in her duties.

Mitigating and Aggravating Circumstances:
Respondent’s length of service was not considered a mitigating factor, as her experience should have made her more efficient in managing court records. The medium penalty for simple neglect of duty (one month and one day to six months suspension) was adjusted to a fine to avoid hampering her office’s operations.

Impact on the Judiciary:
The Court emphasized that the Clerk of Court’s role is critical to the Judiciary’s image. Negligence in handling court exhibits undermines public trust in the judicial system. Thus, disciplinary action was necessary to uphold the integrity of the courts.


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.