Case Digest (A.M. No. MTJ-00-1309)
Facts:
Fredesminda Dayawon v. Judge Maximino A. Badilla, A.M. No. MTJ-00-1309 (Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 98-503-MTJ), September 06, 2000, Supreme Court Third Division, Purisima, J., writing for the Court.Complainant Fredesminda Dayawon delivered pieces of Schiaparelli fashion jewelry to Delia Alamo to be sold on commission; the parties understood that Alamo would remit proceeds within one month or return unsold items. When Alamo failed to remit proceeds or return unsold goods despite demand, Dayawon filed a criminal complaint for estafa on October 11, 1995 (Criminal Case No. 5434).
Alamo moved to dismiss, asserting that she had paid the account on November 17, 1995 directly to the manager of Peak Marketing, the alleged main distributor of Schiaparelli products. After trial, respondent Judge Maximino A. Badilla rendered judgment on November 6, 1997 acquitting Alamo of estafa but finding her civilly liable for P1,227.00 and stating that Alamo had acted in bad faith. The judge thus declined criminal conviction despite admissions and a finding of bad faith.
On January 9, 1998 Dayawon filed an administrative complaint against Judge Badilla for "Gross Ignorance of the Law and Incompetence," contending the criminal facts and the judge's own finding of bad faith warranted conviction for estafa. Judge Badilla filed a comment dated May 29, 1998 denying culpability; he maintained that criminal intent was lacking because Alamo had made payments either to the complainant or to the company, and he explained that he had authority to recall an order requiring Alamo to file a comment on the motion for reconsideration.
The matter was referred to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA). The OCA report of January 31, 2000 concluded that Judge Badilla committed gross ignorance of the law and inefficiency: it found the payment was belated and made to Peak Marketing, not to the complaining witness; that there was no contract with Peak permitting such payment; and that the elements of estafa under subdivision 1, par. (b), Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code were present. ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was respondent Judge Maximino A. Badilla guilty of gross ignorance of the law and inefficiency warranting administrative sanction?
- Does estafa under subdivision 1, paragraph (b), Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code require proof of intent to defraud?
- Does a belated payment by an accused, made during the pendency of the criminal case and to a third party, extinguis...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)