Title
Carbonell vs. Cabading
Case
A.M. No. 34-MJ
Decision Date
Jan 17, 1975
Judge Simplicio Cabading was accused of assault by Remberto Carbonell over a payment dispute. Investigations found Cabading acted in self-defense; Carbonell desisted, citing misunderstanding. Supreme Court dismissed the case due to insufficient evidence.

Case Summary (A.M. No. 34-MJ)

Allegations and Responses

The complaint was filed with the Secretary of Justice and subsequently referred to the District Judge of the Court of First Instance of Ifugao. In his response, Judge Cabading denied all material allegations. He described the incident as one where he attempted to hire Carbonell for a transportation service. During their interaction, a dispute led to a physical altercation, which Cabading characterized as an act of self-defense against Carbonell, who he claimed was the aggressor and had attempted to attack him with a metal object.

Investigative Proceedings

Following the filing of the complaint, District Judge Francisco M. Abad conducted hearings to investigate the matter. Carbonell was absent from the initial hearing, with further postponements requested by him for subsequent hearings. A series of reports indicated that Carbonell had not presented evidence or witnesses to support his claims while Judge Cabading and a witness testified in his favor, portraying the event as one born out of a mutual misunderstanding.

Manifestation of Desistance

On April 10, 1973, Remberto Carbonell submitted a "Manifestation of Desistance," indicating a retraction of his complaint. He acknowledged that the injuries sustained were inadvertent and resulted from a misunderstanding, asserting that he had no legitimate cause of action against Judge Cabading and requesting the dismissal of the case.

Court Resolution and Subsequent Findings

Despite Carbonell’s withdrawal, the court chose not to terminate the proceedings but instead sought further investigation into the circumstances surrounding the desistance. A new District Judge, Angel A. Daquigan, later reviewed the matter and concluded that the complaint was rooted in a familial connection between the parties and supported the findings of the prior judge, affirming that Carbonell was the aggressor in the incident.

Conclusion of the Complaint

The Court determined that the evidence presented d

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.