Case Digest (Adm. Matter No. P-2328, P-2386)
Facts:
Executive Judge Ernesto P. Valencia of the Court of First Instance of Aurora filed two administrative matters against Salvador Lopez, Jr., then Formerly Acting Officer-in-Charge, Office of the Clerk of Court, involving missing court exhibits under his custody. In Adm. Matter No. P-2328, a Tamaya Transit exhibit in Criminal Case No. 193 was discovered missing on April 21, 1979, but Lopez advised the security guard to keep quiet and report only when the exhibit would be withdrawn for trial; it was reported to the Executive Judge only on September 24, 1979.In Adm. Matter No. P-2386, Lopez was implicated in the disappearance and subsequent pawn/transfer of an Actus wrist watch exhibit in Criminal Case No. 553. Testimony and findings showed the watch was taken from the safe steel cabinet in September 1978, was seen being worn and pawned during 1978–1979, and was only returned to the clerk’s office on October 9, 1979, after which it was placed in another safe cabinet.
Issues:
- Whe
Case Digest (Adm. Matter No. P-2328, P-2386)
Facts:
- Nature of the administrative cases
- The Court considered two (2) administrative cases arising from the loss and mishandling of court exhibits that were in the official custody of Salvador Lopez, Jr., then formerly acting officer-in-charge, Office of the Clerk of Court, Court of First Instance of Aurora.
- Administrative Matter No. P-2328 involved the loss of one (1) unit of “Tamaya Transit” as an exhibit in Criminal Case No. 533.
- Administrative Matter No. P-2386 involved the loss and alleged pawning or sale of a wrist watch as an exhibit in Criminal Case No. 553.
- Administrative Matter No. P-2328 (loss of “Tamaya Transit”)
- Discovery of the loss
- The Court found that a Tamaya Transit was discovered missing in the Office of the Clerk of Court on April 21, 1979, through the report of Edwin C. Bijasa, a security guard.
- Bijasa reported the matter to Salvador Lopez, Jr. who was then the Officer-in-charge.
- Response of the respondent
- Instead of inquiring or reporting the loss to the Executive Judge, the respondent advised Bijasa to keep quiet and wait until the exhibit would be withdrawn for trial.
- The fact of loss was reported to the Executive Judge only on September 24, 1979, through Manuel D. Sindac, a clerk in the court.
- Investigation by Judge Ernesto Valencia and factual findings
- Pre-loss incident involving removal and display of the exhibit
- The investigation found that, sometime before April 21, 1979, Security Guard Bijasa took the Tamaya Transit out of the lower section of a big wooden cabinet and placed it on top of the table of Clerk III Manuel D. Sindac.
- The reason for taking it out was described as Bijasa’s intention to let Mr. Gimena view it and to “peep through it for fun,” despite the Executive Judge’s prohibition against moving or touching the exhibits.
- The record showed that Messrs. Bijasa, Gimena, and Cortez peeped through the transit while Clerk III Salvador Lopez, Jr. was typing with his back turned.
- After the peeping, Bijasa returned the transit to its place.
- The investigation described the custody arrangement of exhibits, including that the wooden cabinet had a lock but could be opened easily, and that exhibits were kept in separate places in the wooden cabinet, a steel safe cabinet, and steel cabinet.
- April 21, 1979 incident and respondent’s directive to conceal
- On April 21, 1979 (Saturday) at about 9:30 in the morning, Bijasa noticed the transit missing while looking for an ax.
- Bijasa told court stenographers Isabel Q. Ferreras and Helen T. Querijero that he was worried and that he was not the assigned one but Mr. Gimena.
- Bijasa went to tell Mr. Gimena at the house where the baptismal celebration of Mr. Cortez’s son was being prepared; Cortez advised Bijasa to report to the officer-in-charge.
- Gimena told Bijasa to report because Gimena was the one who found it missing.
- Bijasa asked the arrival janitor Ferreras whether he transferred the transit; Ferreras said he did not.
- When Lopez, Jr. arrived, Bijasa reported the missing transit in the presence of Ferreras, Gimena, Mrs. Ferreras, and Lopez, Jr.
- The respondent ordered silence and said the loss should be discovered only when the exhibit would be withdrawn for trial, with a warning that disclosure might result in removal from employment.
- The respondent gave Bijasa time to locate the transit and instructed diligent effort with a formal report to him as to the result.
- Failure to report and subsequent actions
- The investigation found that Lopez, Jr. never reported immediately or thereafter to the Executive Judge because he pitied the security guards.
- The investigation found that Lopez, Jr. dissuaded reporting to the District Judge and repeatedly reminded the guards—five times, with the last being in September—to exert efforts and report formally.
- On September 19, 1979, Bijasa reported to Sindac that the transit was missing.
- Because time had elapsed, Sindac verbally reported the matter to Philippine Constabulary personnel Sgts. Taneza and Brameje, Policeman Celso Leynes of Baler, and PFC Jose Galam of Maria Aurora.
- On September 24, 1979, Sindac filed a letter addressed to the Executive Judge reporting that the transit was discovered missing by Bijasa on April 21, 1979.
- Judge Valencia’s recommendations in Administrative Matter No. P-2328
- No evidence established that someone took the transit, so Judge Valencia stated that no charge could be recommended against anyone for taking.
- Judge Valencia identified two stand-out matters:
- The taking of the transit by Bijasa out of the wooden cabinet and the act of exhibiting it on a table facilitated its disappearance.
- The deliberate failure of Lopez, Jr. to report the loss from April 21, 1979 to September 24, 1979 hindered the solution of the crime.
- The investigation concluded that Bijasa was “meddlesome and officious,” leading to non-renewal of his temporary appointment as court security guard; his appointment expired on January 2, 1980, after which he was out of government service.
- Judge Valencia admonished Lopez, Jr. for failure to report immediately, stating that as clerk-in-charge on April 21, 1979, he should have known that immediate reporting to the Executive Judge was necessary so that proper steps could start at once.
- Administrative Matter No. P-2386 (wrist watch exhibit)
- Initiation of investigation after testimony
- While Administrative Matter No. P-2328 was being investigated, court stenographer Helen T. Querijero testified that Bijasa mentioned that respondent allegedly took out of the court a wrist watch which was an exhibit in Criminal Case No. 553, then pawned it to several persons one after the other.
- Judge Valencia conducted an investigation based on the testimony.
- Judge Valencia’s factual findings in Administrative Matter No. P-2386
- September 1978 discovery and respondent’s admission
- Judge Valencia found that in September 1978, after Clerk III Manuel D. Sindac returned from leave, he discovered that the Actus calendar wrist watch—an exhibit in People vs. Wilfredo Azarias for theft—was no longer in the safe steel cabinet where it was kept separately.
- Sindac approached Clerk III Salvador Lopez Jr.; the record stated that Lopez, Jr. admitted taking the watch but did not return it.
- Sindac asked Lopez to return the watch many times, almost every day from then on, and insisted on receiving a receipt.
- Judge Valencia stated that in the same month of September, Lopez gave Sindac a receipt acknowledging receipt of the watch on that date.
- Judge Valencia reported Lopez’s stated reason for not reporting to the Executive Judge: believing the case was already terminated, and that the case would “crop” only when the owner would file a motion to withdraw the exhibit, and believing a receipt had already been issued, making him “safe.”
- Observations of the watch in public and pawn transactions
- In November 1978, court stenographer Henry P. Gofredo saw the watch being worn by a stout prostitute whom he supposed to be Elizabeth Luzon, who came to the courthouse almost everyday.
- In 1979, security guard Edwin C. Bijasa saw respondent wear the watch outside.
- Bijasa also saw Elizabeth Luzon wear the watch when Bijasa and security guard Rudy Gimena went to their restaurant near the public market of Baler; she said the watch came from a woman in a beer house and warned that if Lopez did not pay his debts, she would bring the watch to the judge.
- In February 1979, Gofredo saw the watch in Max Repair Shop of Maximo in the stall of Anita Quijano in the public market in Baler; Maximo an...(Subscriber-Only)