A.M. No. CA-15-53-J - Re: Catherine Damayo

An administrative complaint was filed by Catherine Damayo, represented by her mother Veniranda Damayo, against Associate Justice Marilyn Lagura-Yap of the Court of Appeals-Visayas, Cebu City.
The complaint alleges that Justice Lagura-Yap rendered a false decision and committed judicial fraud in connection with Criminal Case No. DU-14740 filed for estafa.

On October 2, 2006, an Information for estafa (Criminal Case No. DU-14740) was filed before the Regional Trial Court of Mandaue City, Branch 28, which was then presided over by Justice Lagura-Yap.
Complainant, Catherine Damayo, was arraigned on November 23, 2006.
The pre-trial was held on February 8, 2007, and trial commenced on April 10, 2007.
On November 3, 2011, the trial court rendered a judgment finding Catherine Damayo guilty of estafa with the misappropriated amount of P17,274.35, and imposed an indeterminate penalty ranging from 4 years and 2 months to 6 years and one day of prision mayor, along with accessory penalties and a civil liability for the said amount plus interest.

Due to the accused’s failure to attend the promulgation, the judgment was promulgated on November 24, 2011 by recording the dispositive portion in the criminal docket.
On December 6, 2011, a Notice of Appeal was filed by counsel on behalf of the complainant.
The appellate court dismissed the appeal on January 18, 2013 because, instead of submitting an appellant’s brief, the complainant filed a petition for review under Rule 42—an incorrect mode of appeal for a judgment rendered in the exercise of the trial court’s original jurisdiction.
The motion for reconsideration filed on November 21, 2014 was denied, confirming the error in the mode of appeal adopted by the complainant.

Complainant asserted that the judgment erroneously stated that she pleaded “aguilty” when in fact her plea during arraignment was “anot guilty.”
It was further alleged that Justice Lagura-Yap made a detailed narration of the case to sustain the misstatement regarding the plea and that the judgment was not properly promulgated, as the complainant only became aware of it upon personal inquiry at the trial court.
Respondent, in her comment, admitted that the first page of the judgment contained an inadvertent error stating “aguilty” but clarified that the body of the judgment and the trial record affirmed that the plea was “anot guilty.”
Respondent maintained that the promulgation was properly carried out under Section 6, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court due to the complainant’s failure to appear at the scheduled promulgation despite prior notice.

Whether the erroneous reference to the plea (“aguilty” instead of “anot guilty”) in the judgment amounts to judicial fraud or warrants the imposition of administrative sanctions against the judge.

Does the error evidence deliberate misconduct or bad faith on the part of Justice Lagura-Yap?
Can such an inadvertent error be used as a basis for dismissing the complainant’s administrative grievance?

Whether the promulgation of judgment in absentia, pursuant to Section 6, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court, was properly executed given the complainant’s non-appearance despite receiving notice.

Is the procedure for recording and promulgating the judgment in the docket legally justified in this case?

If the complainant’s administrative complaint is a valid substitute for a lost appeal or is merely an unfounded attempt to challenge judicial acts that were executed in good faith.