Case Summary (A.M. No. CA-15-53-J)
Factual Background
On October 2, 2006, an Information for Estafa was filed against complainant Catherine Damayo before the Regional Trial Court of Mandaue City, Branch 28, with Justice Marilyn Lagura-Yap presiding over the case. Catherine was arraigned on November 23, 2006, pleaded not guilty, and the trial commenced on April 10, 2007. On November 3, 2011, the trial court convicted her of Estafa, sentencing her to an indeterminate penalty and ordering civil liability. Due to her absence at the promulgation, the judgment was recorded in the criminal docket on November 24, 2011. Complainant filed a notice of appeal on December 6, 2011, but the appeal was later dismissed for improper filing, as she submitted a Rule 42 petition instead of an Appellant's brief.
Allegations of Judicial Misconduct
Complainant alleged that the conviction was fraudulent, claiming the judgment incorrectly stated that she pleaded guilty instead of not guilty. She asserted that she was unaware of the judgment until later, leading her to file the administrative complaint against the respondent, alleging misconduct including false decision-making.
Response from Respondent
In her defense, Justice Lagura-Yap acknowledged the clerical error regarding the plea statement but insisted that it was a mere inadvertence, not indicative of fraud or malintent. She emphasized that the judgment was based on substantial evidence and that the conviction was appropriate given the proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Justice Lagura-Yap maintained that the judicial process followed was legally compliant, particularly regarding the promulgation of judgment in the absence of the accused.
Burden of Proof
The ruling underscored that in administrative cases against judges, the burden of proof lies with the complainant to substantiate allegations of misconduct. The Court stated that mere allegations of fraud are insufficient without clear and convincing evidence to support such claims. Judicial acts in good faith cannot be grounds for administrative action unless there is compelling evidence of malice or corrupt intentions.
Judicial Error and Liability
The decision reiterated that not all judicial errors subject judges to disciplinary measures. As long as acts are performed in good faith and without malice, judges enjoy immunity from civil, crimina
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.M. No. CA-15-53-J)
Introduction
- The case involves an administrative complaint filed by Catherine Damayo, represented by her mother, against Hon. Marilyn Lagura-Yap, Associate Justice 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.
Background of the Case
- An Information for Estafa was filed against Catherine Damayo on October 2, 2006, in the Regional Trial Court of Mandaue City, Branch 28, presided over by Justice Lagura-Yap.
- Catherine Damayo was arraigned on November 23, 2006, and pleaded not guilty.
- The trial commenced on April 10, 2007, and on November 3, 2011, the trial court found her guilty.
- The court imposed a penalty of 4 years and 2 months to 6 years and 1 day of prision mayor and ordered civil liability of P17,274.35 plus interest.
Promulgation and Appeal Process
- Catherine Damayo failed to attend the promulgation of judgment on November 24, 2011, which was recorded in the criminal docket.
- She filed a Notice of Appeal on December 6, 2011, but the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal on January 18, 2013, due to t