A.M. No. MTJ-90-383 - Saburnido vs. Madrono

On the morning of November 23, 1989, Pfc. Venustiano Saburnido, a member of the Integrated National Police stationed at Balingasag, Misamis Oriental, was disturbed by his son, Charliemen Saburnido, who reported that Judge Florante Madrono and two companions had arrived at his residence.
The judge was accompanied by two CAFGU members, namely Zosimo Panimdim and Ruel Hebe, all of whom were armed with high-powered firearms: Judge Madrono with an M-16 Armalite Rifle, Panimdim with an M-14, and Hebe with a pistolized carbine.

Upon arrival, Judge Madrono ordered the complainant to halt, pointing his firearm at him and demanding that he cease his approach.
The judge accused Saburnido of uttering defamatory or disrespectful remarks the previous night—allegedly made while Saburnido was intoxicated—and demanded an explanation for such words.
In the ensuing confrontation, Judge Madrono ordered Saburnido to raise his hands and surrender, his firearm continuously aimed at him.
Fearing for his life due to the menacing display, Saburnido complied, begged for forgiveness, and eventually lost consciousness during the exchange.

The complainant’s narrative, supported by the testimonies of his son Charliemen and a neighbor Teodocia Penton, maintained that the judge had aggressively and unlawfully used his firearm as a means of intimidation.
In contrast, Judge Madrono, in his answer, claimed that he acted out of a pre-existing provocation—referring to previous defamatory remarks by Saburnido during periods of drunkenness—and asserted that his actions were aimed at de-escalating a potential duel between Saburnido and armed CAFGU personnel.
The investigating judge, Executive Judge Celso P. Largo, compiled a report which found inconsistencies in the respondent’s version, noting that a mere scolding would not have incapacitated a well-trained policeman, thereby lending credibility to the complainant’s account.

The incident was recorded in police records including a police blotter and was supported by documentary evidence such as police and barangay clearances presented by the complainant.
Witness testimonies, especially those by Charliemen Saburnido and Theodocia Penton, were pivotal, as they corroborated the narrative of an armed and aggressive confrontation, with the firearm pointed directly at an unarmed law enforcement officer.

The core allegation was that Judge Madrono’s conduct in carrying and displaying his firearm in a threatening manner constituted a grave act of misconduct and impropriety.
His actions were seen as violating the ethical standards expected of members of the judiciary and in direct contravention of judicial conduct rules.

Whether Judge Madrono, by displaying and menacingly pointing his high-powered firearm at an unarmed police officer, constituted a direct threat to the complainant’s life.
Whether such an act fulfills the criteria for grave impropriety and misconduct under the established Code of Judicial Conduct.

Whether the respondent’s claim of acting to avert a duel between oppositely armed individuals sufficiently justifies his presence and aggressive manner at the complainant’s residence.
Whether taking the law into his own hands—as opposed to delegating the matter to appropriate police authorities—exemplifies a misuse of judicial authority.

Whether the manner in which the judge conducted himself, by parading with a high-powered firearm and engaging in private confrontation, undermines the public’s confidence in the judiciary.
Whether his conduct, given his position as a judge, deteriorates the reputation and standards expected of the judicial office.