Case Digest (A.M. No. MTJ-02-1431)
Facts:
SPO2 Jose B. Yap v. Judge Aquilino A. Inopiquez, Jr., A.M. No. MTJ-02-1431, May 09, 2003, the Supreme Court En Banc, Sandoval‑Gutierrez, J., writing for the Court.Complainant SPO2 Jose B. Yap filed an administrative complaint on July 12, 1999 against Judge Aquilino A. Inopiquez, Jr., then presiding judge of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Kananga‑Matag‑ob, Leyte, charging grave abuse of authority and acts unbecoming a judge. Yap alleged that on March 6, 1999 he arrested Antonio Laurente, Jr. pursuant to an alias arrest warrant for an offense pending in the Metropolitan Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) at Ormoc City, and that respondent judge nonetheless issued two Orders of Release dated March 6, 1999 — one purportedly based on a cash bond and the other on a property bond — although the cash bond was supported by Official Receipt (O.R.) No. 9215725 dated March 8, 1999 and the property bond was subscribed and sworn only on March 10, 1999.
Respondent Judge Inopiquez denied culpability in his October 27, 1999 comment. He asserted that the cash bond had in fact been posted on March 6, 1999 and that Clerk of Court Servando O. Veloso, Jr. later altered the O.R. date to March 8 to avoid an altercation with complainant; he also maintained the property bond had been filed the same day and that bondsmen and court personnel presented prepared release orders for his signature. Complainant countered that the documentary evidence showed the bonds were posted only after the March 6 release orders, and that respondent was related to the accused by affinity.
Pursuant to this Court’s Resolution of March 21, 2001, the matter was referred to Executive Judge Fortunito L. Madrona, RTC Ormoc City, for investigation, report and recommendation. Executive Judge Madrona’s Report and Recommendation (September 3, 2001) found the Clerk of Court’s testimony credible, concluded there was “no substantial basis” for the complaint on the issuance of the release orders, and recommended dismissal of the charges but suggested a reprimand for failure to avoid the appearance of impropriety under Section 11, Rule 114 (annotation requirement for property bonds).
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), through Deputy Court Administrator Zenaida N. Elepano, in a March 5, 2002 Report adopted many of Executive Judge Madrona’s factual findings but recommended re‑docketing as an administrative case and imposing a fine of P3,000 on respondent for giving unwarranted favor; it also recommended disciplinary explanations and modest fines for Clerk Veloso and Interpreter Pedro M. Beltran. The OCA Report noted respondent’s prior disciplinary record (Siawan v. Judge Inopiquez, A.M. No. MTJ‑95‑1056).
This Court re‑docketed the matter as an administrative case, required explanations from Veloso and Beltran, and placed respondent’s optional retirement benefits on hold (S.C. Resolution May 28, 2002). Veloso admitted altering the O.R. date from March 6 to March 8 to avoid further argument with complainant; Beltran admitted assisting litigants in preparing bail bonds with respondent’s knowledge but ceased doing so after notice. The parties were given opportunity to submit the case for decision on the pleadings; respondent agreed and complainant’s silence was deemed consent to decide on p...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did Judge Aquilino A. Inopiquez, Jr. order the release of the accused despite the fact that the cash or property bond for the accused’s temporary liberty had not been posted and a...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)