Title
Sealana-Abbu vs. Madrono
Case
A.M. No. 92-1-084-RTC, MTJ-90-486
Decision Date
Oct 20, 1992
Judge Madrono improperly granted bail without notifying prosecution and mishandled confiscated goods, leading to dismissal for gross misconduct and forfeiture of benefits.
dismissal from service
retirement benefits
leave credits
A

Case Summary (A.M. No. 92-1-084-RTC, MTJ-90-486)

Factual Background: A.M. No. 92-1-084-RTC (Bail)

In A.M. No. 92-1-084-RTC, Asst. Provincial Fiscal Florencia Sealana-Abbu complained that respondent judge had improperly applied and/or granted bail bonds. The complaint was filed before acting executive judge Alfredo J. Lagamon of the Regional Trial Court of Misamis Oriental, who was tasked to investigate it.

The controversy traced to People vs. Nepomuceno Valerio, docketed as Crim. Case No. 8041, filed by the complainant assistant fiscal before the court presided by respondent judge. The accused was charged with illegal possession of firearms. Under Sec. 1, P.D. 1866, as amended, the offense was punishable by reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua. The accused applied for bail.

Respondent judge granted bail in the amount of P5,000.00. Subsequently, P/Maj. Aquilino C. Ipan, Station Commander of Balingasag, Misamis Oriental, filed a motion for reduction of bail on behalf of the accused. The motion was reportedly made without notice to the prosecution. Respondent judge then reduced the bail for the accused’s provisional release to P3,000.00, again without notice to the prosecution.

Acting executive judge Lagamon’s report dated June 2, 1992 recommended that respondent judge be reprimanded for precipitately granting and/or reducing bail without prior notice to the prosecution.

Executive Judge Lagamon’s Findings and Recommendation in A.M. No. 92-1-084-RTC

Acting executive judge Lagamon found that, because illegal possession of firearms under Sec. 1 of P.D. 1866 carried a penalty ranging from reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua, the prosecution’s guideline-based recommendations were relevant. He noted that offices of the Provincial Prosecutor and City Prosecutor in Cagayan de Oro City generally recommended either between P170,000.00 to P300,000.00, or no bail, following Department of Justice Circular 10-8, which directed prosecutors to recommend P10,000.00 per year of imprisonment.

He further found that the reduced bail order, at P3,000.00, was “much too low.” He held that the court had only preliminary jurisdiction and that sound practice required notifying the Provincial Prosecutor of motions to allow bail or reduce bail. In the case at hand, he stated that the Provincial Prosecutor was never notified.

The report also stressed that the complaint against respondent judge was initiated by Asst. Provincial Prosecutor Florencia D. Sealana-Abbu. It further observed that when respondent judge issued the warrant of arrest dated August 6, 1986, he already fixed bail at P5,000.00, and there was no showing that the amount was upon recommendation or with the acquiescence of the prosecution. Finally, it treated the accused’s non-flight as a mitigating circumstance.

Based on these findings, acting executive judge Lagamon recommended reprimand for respondent judge.

Disposition in A.M. No. 92-1-084-RTC (Mootness)

The Court “agreed with the findings and recommendation” of acting executive judge Lagamon in A.M. No. 92-1-084-RTC. However, the Court ruled that the matter had become moot because respondent judge had already been dismissed from service in Administrative Matter MTJ-90-833, titled Venustiano Saburnido vs. Judge Florante Madrono, promulgated June 15, 1992. Thus, while the Court accepted the factual and evaluative conclusions on the bail-related impropriety, it did not grant further dismissal-related relief in this bail case due to the dismissal already effected in the earlier administrative proceeding.

Factual Background: A.M. No. MTJ-90-486 (Custody, Substitution, Delay, and Disposition of Seized Goods)

The second administrative matter, A.M. No. MTJ-90-486, was initiated by Venustiano and Rosalia Saburnido. In a letter-complaint dated April 10, 1990 addressed to the then executive judge Celso P. Largo, Venustiano Saburnido alleged that on March 22, 1989, he was a member of a police patrol team aboard a pumpboat that seized and apprehended smuggled goods—new and foreign-made—while patrolling Misamis Oriental waters. The following day, the seized goods were deposited in the respondent judge’s office upon the filing of a criminal case for smuggling against the perpetrators. That criminal case was docketed as Crim. Case No. 8398, People vs. Antigua.

Respondent judge issued a receipt for the seized goods containing 21 small TV sets, 12 big TV sets, 5 tires, and 1 Toshiba refrigerator. The complainant claimed that the deposited items later could no longer be found, amid reports that the television sets were sold and that some were borrowed.

After the filing of the administrative complaint, acting executive judge Lagamon investigated and, in his report dated June 8, 1992, summarized the events leading to the investigation. The earlier executive judge, Celso P. Largo, referred the Saburnidos’ complaint to the Regional Director, NBI, Region 10, requesting immediate investigation due to rumors that the TV sets might have been sold or substituted with damaged or destroyed ones bearing different serial numbers. On July 4, 1990, Executive Judge Celso P. Largo wrote to respondent judge Madrono about an anticipated physical audit, which was conducted by NBI personnel and a COA-NBI State Audit Examiner.

During the ocular inspection, the investigators found in respondent judge’s sala: five (5) television sets, three (3) used tires, and one (1) refrigerator. The report stated that the TV sets and tires were unserviceable and beyond economical repair. It also noted the existence of eighteen (18) acknowledgment receipts of TV sets borrowed by different persons. These receipts were described as not being the official memorandum receipts (General Form No. 32-A) and as lacking indications as to the complete specifications of the borrowed TV sets.

Testimony and Respondent Judge’s Defenses in A.M. No. MTJ-90-486

Venustiano Saburnido testified that he identified the receipt issued by respondent judge showing the original inventory of items deposited in court. He reported the matter to Executive Judge Celso P. Largo after learning that some television sets were sold and others borrowed. He also alleged that the items deposited in court could no longer be found in respondent judge’s office.

Respondent judge admitted that there were thirty-three television sets deposited in his office and that, by the time of the NBI inspection, twenty-seven television sets had been borrowed by several persons under his responsibility. He explained that the station commander recommended placing the TV sets in the possession of several persons for safekeeping because his sala allegedly had shared access with PopCom, Comelec, and the Municipal Assessor, and because the courtroom became crowded and hampered court functions. He claimed he was not aware that the smuggled items should be delivered to the Bureau of Customs because the smuggling case was allegedly a case of first impression in his sala. He also asserted that there was no purpose other than securing the items for trial, and he stated that he was “selective” as to who would take custody.

Respondent judge denied selling any television set. He stated that, if evidence showed he sold a single item, he would plead guilty. He further asserted that none of the deposited TV sets was lost. After the administrative complaint was filed, respondent judge issued an order for the persons who had borrowed the items to turn them over, and some were delivered directly to the NBI for custody and safekeeping. Respondent judge also claimed that the thirty-three TV sets were in the possession of Crispin G. Wong, a supply officer of the Bureau of Customs at the Port of Cagayan de Oro City, and he presented a receipt dated April 14, 1992 at 11:00 A.M. At the time of the administrative investigation, respondent judge said that Criminal Case No. 8398 was still pending because the PNP allegedly had not complied with an order to turn over a pump boat.

Ocular Inspection Findings and the Specification of the Alleged Misconduct

Upon motion of complainants, the Court ordered an ocular inspection scheduled for May 19, 1992 at 10:00 o’clock in the morning, covering the television sets, refrigerator, and tires then deposited in the Bureau of Customs. Neither complainants nor respondent judge appeared despite receipt of the Court order. During the ocular inspection, the investigators found twelve (12) big TV sets and fifteen (15) small TV sets, but no big double-screen TV sets. The ocular inspection report described the TV sets as old vintage, unserviceable, non-functioning, and beyond economical repair.

The ocular inspection also evaluated the tires. The report listed five tires by brand, serial numbers, size, ply rating, and manufacturing origin, stating that all were Philippine-made. It found evidence of prior recapping and asserted that two tires had suffered explosions. It concluded that the tires were worn out, beyond economical repair, and mostly showed signs inconsistent with “brand-new” tires earlier claimed to have been deposited.

The report contrasted these findings with the testimony of station commander Tagotongan, who had claimed the tires deposited with the court were brand-new. It also stated that pictures were taken of the TV sets and tires and attached to the records.

Findings and Charges in A.M. No. MTJ-90-486

Based on the investigating materials, the Court-appointed or investigating judge found respondent judge guilty of several acts forming grounds for gross misconduct, including: (a) failure to comply with Memorandum Order No. 225 issued by President Corazon C. Aquino dated March 17, 1989, and Section 602(g) of the Tariff and Customs Code, for failure to turn over the confiscated articles to the Bureau of Customs; (b) failure to comply with a Warrant of Seizure and Detention dated May 31, 1989 and a letter from the district collector of customs to respondent judge dated August 30, 1990 concerning turnover of apprehended

...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