Title
Juliano vs. Sandiganbayan
Case
G.R. No. 100487
Decision Date
Mar 3, 1997
Judge Juliano and Clerk Vera Cruz convicted for delaying a rental withdrawal motion to extort money, violating anti-graft laws, upheld by the Supreme Court.
civil case
violation
accepting money
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 100487)

Antecedent Facts: The Rentals, the Ex Parte Motion, and the Alleged Delay

The complainant spouses de la Cruz and Erese were the lessees of a portion of Lot 11-B in Binan, Laguna, and they owned a two-storey commercial building constructed on the land. The building was leased to Carlito Morales and Felisa Ong, with a monthly rental of One Thousand Pesos. When the lessees failed to pay rentals for August, September, and October 1983, the spouses de la Cruz filed an ejectment case on January 13, 1984 before the Municipal Trial Court of Binan, Laguna, where Judge Arturo Juliano presided and Renato Vera Cruz served as Clerk of Court.

During the pendency of the case, Romeo de la Cruz filed an ex parte Motion to Withdraw Consigned Rentals amounting to P10,000.00 deposited by Morales, covering rentals from September 1983 to June 1984. The motion was filed on August 2, 1984 but was not acted upon promptly. The order allowing the withdrawal was issued only on December 26, 1984. Subsequently, on February 5, 1985, the trial court rendered its decision ordering Morales to vacate the premises and to pay back rentals starting October 27, 1983 up to the time they leave.

On January 2, 1986, Romeo de la Cruz filed a complaint before the Office of the Tanodbayan against Judge Arturo Juliano and Renato Vera Cruz. The complaint charged, in substance, that Judge Juliano had refused, after due demand and without justification, to act within a reasonable time on the motion for withdrawal, allegedly for the purpose of obtaining material or pecuniary benefit. It also alleged that both accused, through evident bad faith, manifest partiality, inexcusable negligence, or ignorance of the law, had caused undue injury in the discharge of their judicial functions.

The Complaint’s Theory and the Alleged Extortion Through the Clerk of Court

De la Cruz alleged that the motion to withdraw the deposited rentals remained unresolved for weeks because the accused had made known that a substantial portion of the money should be given to them before the motion would be granted. He claimed he sought assistance from Barangay Captain Alberto Almeda and even asked help from Dona Josefa Marcos, the mother of then President Ferdinand Marcos, who wrote the accused judge to request resolution of the motion. De la Cruz further alleged that he learned from an alleged reliable source that he might even lose the case if he did not comply with the accused’s demand.

When he agreed, the order allowing withdrawal was issued. He averred that he met Renato Vera Cruz about the withdrawal twice and that, when he agreed to the proposal, he met Vera Cruz at the Municipal Building on December 26 or 27, 1984, accompanied by friend Vicente Cea. He claimed that Vera Cruz already held the order, and they proceeded to the treasurer to obtain the money. De la Cruz then alleged that he handed the money to Judge Juliano in the latter’s office. He claimed P9,500.00 was for Judge Juliano, while P500.00 was given to Vera Cruz and Alberto Almeda for snacks. He also alleged that the judge assured him the case would be decided during the first week of January 1985, yet it was decided only on February 5, 1985.

De la Cruz stated he received a copy the day after promulgation, felt cheated because there was no award of back rentals, and then went back to Vera Cruz, who denied reading the decision but allegedly assured him that he would speak to the judge. De la Cruz claimed that on February 13, 1985, he received by mail another decision, also dated February 5, 1985, but containing an award of back rentals.

Testimonial Evidence Presented in the Sandiganbayan

Alberto Almeda, a prosecution witness, testified during the preliminary conference that he had accompanied de la Cruz to the Office of the Municipal Treasurer and had seen the latter counting the money, and that he had been given P500.00 for lunch. During trial, however, Almeda allegedly became forgetful and began denying his earlier statements, attributing his lapses to illness, having diabetes.

Another prosecution witness, Mario Faraon, testified that he saw Vera Cruz handing a document to the treasurer and then saw de la Cruz counting the money and wrapping it with paper.

Judge Juliano testified in his defense. He admitted that he allowed withdrawal after de la Cruz told him he was in dire need of money. He explained the delay in issuing the order by stating that only one copy of the motion had been filed, and he allegedly waited for additional copies that “were probably never filed.” He also cited other duties attending to two additional courts. Judge Juliano denied receiving money from the complainant. He further asserted that the decision dated February 5, 1984 was not immediately released because when Vera Cruz was about to affix the dry seal, he noticed that it lacked provisions on back rentals; he therefore prepared another decision that was allegedly released the same day.

Sandiganbayan’s Conviction and the Petitioners’ Assignments of Error

The Sandiganbayan found both Judge Juliano and Renato Vera Cruz guilty beyond reasonable doubt as co-principals of the offense charged under Section 3 (f) of Republic Act No. 3019. The Sandiganbayan’s conviction relied mainly on de la Cruz’s testimony that Judge Juliano had received money. The court found the accused’s explanation for the delay insufficient and concluded that de la Cruz’s narration deserved credence over the denials offered by the petitioners.

Both petitioners filed separate petitions for review on certiorari, contending essentially that the Sandiganbayan erred in finding them guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Judge Juliano challenged de la Cruz’s credibility, asserting that the conviction was based on a single witness and that there was no adequate basis to prove any conspiracy between him and Vera Cruz. He also argued that the alleged 116-day delay could not alone establish extortion so as to convict under Section 3 (f) of Republic Act No. 3019 and that the complainant’s testimony was not credible.

The Motion to Quash Based on Death and the Court’s Treatment

After the petitions were filed, Flora Vera Cruz, wife of petitioner Renato Vera Cruz, submitted a motion to quash on the ground that her husband died on January 13, 1995. The Court, however, stated that the petitions had to fail. It characterized the petitions as raising mainly factual questions that had already been extensively considered by the court below, and it proceeded to affirm the Sandiganbayan ruling.

The Sandiganbayan’s Evidentiary Assessment: Credibility and Lack of Justification for Delay

In reviewing the petition, the Court focused on the factual issue of witness credibility. It noted that Judge Juliano failed to justify his inaction on the motion for 116 days. The petitioners’ asserted reasons were not persuasive to the court below. Judge Juliano’s explanations were treated as inadequate because, first, the Sandiganbayan observed that the motion was resolved even though the alleged missing copies were not produced. Second, the motion was ex parte, and the matter was not contested; the P10,000.00 deposited in court represented rentals in dispute in the ejectment case, and de la Cruz’s motion sought withdrawal consistent with the relief he pursued, since Morales did not contest the withdrawal. Third, the court below observed that the judge nevertheless resolved the motion even if de la Cruz’s counsel did not set the incident for hearing.

The Court accepted that there was no valid reason for the delay. It then contrasted de la Cruz’s account with the accused’s denials. It held that Judge Juliano’s denial, unaccompanied by clear and convincing

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms