A.M. No. MTJ-95-1056 - Siawan vs. Inopiquez, Jr.

Case Summary (A.M. No. MTJ-95-1056)

Factual Background: Criminal Case No. 584 and Related Events

For Criminal Case No. 584, entitled People of the Philippines v. Julia Enriqua Seco, the investigating judge found that the accused Julia Enriqua Seco had been charged with usurpation of authority and official functions under Art. 177 of the Revised Penal Code, arising from a “paquiao” contract where the accused allegedly signed as Barangay Captain of Brgy. Cansuso, Matag-ob, Leyte. After the prosecution had presented its witnesses, the complaint was dismissed on the basis of an Affidavit of Desistance executed by complainant Restituto C. Pedrano before Provincial Prosecutor Rosario D. Beleta on June 4, 1992 (Exh. “R”). The investigating judge emphasized that this affidavit was inconsistent with an earlier affidavit executed by Pedrano dated March 17, 1997.

The investigating judge also traced the respondent’s handling of a motion for inhibition. On May 20, 1987, prior to the issuance of the affidavit of desistance, the accused filed before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court a motion for inhibition against the respondent. The motion alleged that the father-in-law of the respondent was conspicuously present in the proceedings and had consulted the complainant, who was described as his political leader and protegee. The accused signed the motion with the “conforme” of counsel Atty. Camilo Superable. The respondent denied the motion for inhibition.

After the dismissal of the criminal case, the accused sued Pedrano for damages in a separate civil action, Civil Case No. 3167-0 before the RTC Ormoc City (later elevated to the Court of Appeals). About a year after the dismissal of Criminal Case No. 584, Pedrano, through counsel Atty. Eusebio Otadoy, Jr., filed an Omnibus Motion (Exh. “T”) dated November 4, 1993, seeking to revive the criminal case against Seco. Seco opposed it, contending that the court had lost jurisdiction because the order of dismissal had long become final and that the motion was signed by the private prosecutor without authority from the public prosecutor.

The respondent then issued an order on January 20, 1994 (Exh. “V”) withdrawing Pedrano’s affidavit of desistance from the record, recalling the December 22, 1992 order dismissing the case, and reinstating the criminal case in the court’s calendar. As a consequence of reinstatement, Seco’s counsel requested bail, and the respondent fixed bail at P4,000.00 in an order dated February 24, 1994 (Exh. “W”). The investigating judge noted that the record reflected that a warrant of arrest had been issued, although respondent’s counsel claimed that the record was bereft of a warrant of arrest.

Respondent reconsidered and, by an order dated March 29, 1994 (Exh. “X”), voluntarily inhibited himself from further taking cognizance of the case, citing delicadeza. The order’s text included the statement that, if the private complainant wanted to revive, he should refile anew, and that the crime had not yet prescribed and double jeopardy would not apply because the accused had not yet been arraigned. Thereafter, a new complaint was filed, denominated Criminal Case No. 1181 (Exh. “Y”), based on essentially the same facts and offense as Criminal Case No. 584, and filed by Pedrano before the same court. The new complaint was filed on April 21, 1994.

On April 28, 1994, about a week after filing of Criminal Case No. 1181, respondent issued an order inhibiting himself on the ground that the counsel for the offended party was related to the presiding judge. The RTC Ormoc City denied the inhibition in an order dated September 1, 1994 (Exh. “7”), after which the respondent dismissed Criminal Case No. 1181 on September 5, 1994, reasoning that the case had been instituted by the offended party without the intervention of the public prosecutor or station commander, and that since usurpation of authority and official function is a public offense and the offended party was the People of the Philippines, the case had not been instituted by the proper party. Subsequent motions for reconsideration were litigated, and Criminal Case No. 1181 was finally laid to rest on February 17, 1995.

Findings of Partiality and Irregularity: Inhibition and the Affidavit of Desistance

The Court adopted the core findings that respondent acted with “obvious partiality” for Pedrano and those helping him. The Court noted that although respondent claimed he was not related within the fourth degree to Atty. Otadoy and asserted he could not trace their relationship, the evidence showed respondent’s relationship not only to counsel Atty. Otadoy but also to individuals associated with the private complainant. These included Guillermo Laurente, respondent’s father-in-law, and Atty. Felix Sun, respondent’s brother-in-law. The Court highlighted that accused Seco had moved for disqualification on May 20, 1987 on the ground that Atty. Sun actively participated in the prosecution and that Guillermo Laurente was often present as the complainant’s political protegee.

The Court held that respondent’s response showed calculated inconsistency. The respondent had denied the inhibition on the pretext that the motion was filed with the assistance of Atty. Camilo A. Superable, who allegedly was then not counsel of record. The Court characterized the initial denial as not addressing the merits of the disqualification issues raised by the accused. Respondent then dismissed the case on the basis of the affidavit of desistance. Yet, because the accused sued Pedrano for damages for filing the criminal case, respondent ordered the withdrawal of the desistance affidavit from the record and recalled the dismissal order. The Court further found that respondent later revived Criminal Case No. 584 and reinstated it on the basis of Pedrano’s omnibus motion, while insisting that double jeopardy would not attach because the accused had not been arraigned.

The Court found that this justification was untenable. Respondent admitted that when he dismissed Criminal Case No. 584, the prosecution had already presented its evidence. In the Court’s view, this meant the accused had already been arraigned at the time of dismissal, so the later refiling and revival placed the accused in jeopardy of being punished twice for the same offense. The Court also stressed that respondent had delayed recusal until only after a letter-complaint against him was prepared and drafted. The Court treated this sequence as too coincidental to inspire confidence, especially given that judges may, in their discretion, disqualify themselves for other just and valid reasons when impartiality might reasonably be questioned, even if the statutory inhibition based on relation to counsel within the fourth degree was not strictly applicable.

Election Case Nos. 333 and 292: Failure to Inhibit and Misapplication of the Election Code

For the two election cases, the investigating judge found that the respondent consistently failed to inhibit himself in inclusion and exclusion proceedings involving relatives, except for a single instance involving his sister-in-law. The record showed that respondent’s relatives ran for public office in multiple elections, including his brother-in-law (Mayor candidacy in the January 18, 1988 elections), his son (SK Chairman of Brgy. Riverside on December 4, 1992 elections), and his daughter (SK Chairman candidacy on May 6, 1996). Yet respondent generally did not inhibit himself when petitions for inclusion and exclusion affected parties connected to his family.

With respect to Election Case No. 333, the petitioner was retired RTC judge Ponciano Inopiquez, respondent’s uncle. Respondent did not inhibit himself, and he justified this by claiming the petition was meritorious and that the hearing included testimony on residency and voter qualifications. The Court rejected this justification. It cited Rule 137, Sec. 1 of the Rules of Court, which provides that no judge shall sit in any case where he is related to either party within the sixth degree of consanguinity or affinity or to counsel within the fourth degree, among other grounds, without the written consent of all parties in interest. The Court also relied on Rule 3.12 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which requires a judge to take no part in a proceeding where impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including when the judge is related by consanguinity or affinity to a party litigant within the sixth degree. The Court held that the purpose of the inhibition requirement was not confined to actual conflict of interest. It extended to preventing the appearance of impropriety and maintaining public confidence in judicial impartiality.

With respect to Election Case No. 292, the petitioners sought inclusion and the respondent had granted the petition in an order dated March 4, 1992. The Court held that the respondent did not decide the election cases solely on their merits. It found that respondent disregarded the provisions of the Omnibus Election Code (B.P. Blg. 881). The Court quoted Section 139 on petitions for inclusion, emphasizing that a petition for inclusion may be filed only by a person whose application for registration was disapproved by the board of election inspectors or whose name was stricken from the voters’ list. It found that the inclusion petition presented by Ponciano Inopiquez did not fall within the coverage of the law because it did not allege that the board disapproved his registration application or that his name had been ordered stricken from the list. The Court reasoned that good reason for failure to register could not substitute for the statutory grounds.

The Court further found that respondent disregarded the procedural requirements under Section 143 of the Omnibus Election Code governing petitions for inclusion, exclusion, and correction of names. The Court noted that the records showed neither election petition named the board of election inspectors as a party and that there was no showing that th

Case Syllabus (A.M. No. MTJ-95-1056)

The complainant, Datu Inocencio C. Siawan, filed an administrative complaint against Judge Aquilino A. Inopiquez, Jr. of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Kananga-Matag-ob, Leyte.
The complaint accused the respondent judge of gross ignorance of the law, gross abuse of power, and misconduct in connection with the handling of one criminal case and two election cases involving the inclusion of voters.
Two identical complaints were originally filed against the respondent.
The first complaint was referred to this Court by the Department of Justice, the National Bureau of Investigation, the Commission on Elections, and the Government Service Insurance System.
The second complaint, docketed as O.C.A.I.P.I. No. 95-54-MTJ, was referred to this Court by the Office of the President.
O.C.A.I.P.I. No. 95-54-MTJ was dismissed by the First Division on October 25, 1995.
The other complaint, docketed as O.C.A.I.P.I. No. 95-25-MTJ, was redocketed as Administrative Matter No. MTJ-95-1056.
The Second Division referred the matter to Acting Executive Judge Fortunito L. Madrona of the Regional Trial Court of Ormoc City, Leyte, for investigation, report, and recommendation.
Acting Executive Judge Madrona submitted the report on September 15, 1997.
The Court resolved the administrative matter based on the factual findings and recommendations of both the investigating judge and the Office of the Court Administrator.

Parties and Procedural Posture

The complainant was Datu Inocencio C. Siawan, who initiated the administrative prosecution of the respondent judge.
The respondent was Judge Aquilino A. Inopiquez, Jr., the presiding judge involved in the alleged irregularities.
The case proceeded as a judicial administrative complaint for discipline of a member of the judiciary.
The matter was investigated through the report and recommendation of Acting Executive Judge Fortunito L. Madrona.
The Office of the Court Administrator later submitted its own report.
During the pendency of the administrative case, the complainant died, per certificate of death issued on April 2, 1997, and the death occurred on April 1, 1997 while the case was being heard by the investigating judge.
The Court ultimately imposed administrative sanctions on the respondent judge.

Key Factual Allegations

The administrative complaint centered on three proceedings handled by the respondent: Criminal Case No. 584 (usurpation of authority and official functions), Criminal Case No. 1181 (revolving around the same accusation), and two election inclusion cases.
The allegations against the respondent were tied to failures to inhibit, improper handling of dismissal and revival of the criminal case, and disregard of procedural requirements in election petitions.
The respondent’s alleged bias and partiality were linked to his relationships with individuals connected to the private complainant in the criminal case and to petitioners in the election cases.

Criminal Case Handling

Criminal Case No. 584 was entitled “People of the Philippines v. Julia Enriqua Seco” and charged usurpation of authority and official functions under Art. 177 of the Revised Penal Code.
The accusation involved a “paquiao” contract where the accused Julia Seco allegedly signed as Barangay Captain of Brgy. Cansuso, Matag-ob, Leyte.
After the prosecution presented its witnesses, the case was dismissed based on an Affidavit of Desistance executed by complainant Restituto C. Pedrano and prepared and executed before Provincial Prosecutor Rosario D. Beleta on June 4, 1992.
The investigating judge found that the June 4, 1992 affidavit was opposite to an earlier affidavit of the same complainant dated March 17, 1997, which had been used as the basis of the criminal complaint.
Based on the desistance, the respondent judge issued an order dated December 22, 1992 dismissing the case.
Prior to the issuance of the desistance affidavit, the accused Julia Enriqua Seco filed a Motion for Inhibition on May 20, 1987.
The motion for inhibition alleged that the respondent’s father-in-law was conspicuously present during the proceedings and gave consultation to the complainant, whom the accused alleged to be the respondent’s political leader and protegee.
The accused signed the motion “conforme” with assistance from Atty. Camilo Superable as counsel.
The respondent judge denied the motion for inhibition in an order dated May 22, 1987.
After the dismissal, the accused sued Pedrano in a separate civil action for damages, which proceeded as Civil Case No. 3167-0 before the RTC, Ormoc City, and was later elevated to the Court of Appeals as CA-G.R. CV No. 51495.
Approximately one year after the dismissal, Pedrano’s counsel and private prosecutor, Atty. Eusebio Otadoy, Jr., filed an Omnibus Motion to revive the case.
The accused opposed, arguing that the court had lost jurisdiction because the order dismissing the case was already final and that the pleading was filed only by the private prosecutor without authority from the public prosecutor.
The respondent issued an order dated January 20, 1994 that withdrew Pedrano’s June 4, 1992 desistance affidavit from the record, recalled the December 22, 1992 dismissal order, and reinstated the case in the court’s calendar.
Because of reinstatement, the accused requested the fixing of bail, which the respondent fixed in an order dated February 24, 1994 at P4,000.00.
The respondent’s orders reflected a warrant of arrest issue, but the record cited conflicting positions: the accused testified that a warrant had been issued, while respondent’s counsel stated the record was “bereft of warrant of arrest.”
The respondent later reconsidered and issued an order dated March 29, 1994 where he voluntarily inhibited himself from further taking cognizance of the case for reasons of delicadeza.
The March 29, 1994 order indicated that if the private complainant wanted to revive the case, the complainant should refile it anew and that double jeopardy would not apply because the accused had not yet been arraigned.
After the March 29, 1994 inhibition, the private complainant filed Criminal Case No. 1181, involving the same offense and essentially the same complaint facts as Criminal Case No. 584.
Criminal Case No. 1181 was filed on April 21, 1994.
Within a week, on April 28, 1994, the respondent inhibited himself again on the ground that counsel for the offended party was related to the presiding judge.
The respondent’s April 28, 1994 inhibition was denied by the RTC, Ormoc City on September 1, 1994.
The RTC denied the inhibition while the respondent later dismissed Criminal Case No. 1181 on September 5, 1994.
The dismissal reason given was that the case was filed by the offended party without the intervention of the public prosecutor or station commander, and that because it was a public offense where the People of the Philippines was the proper party, the petition was not instituted by the proper party.
The respondent denied a first motion for reconsideration in an order dated November 14, 1994 and then issued further directions in a later order dated December 23, 1994.
The case was finally laid to rest on February 17, 1995, according to the complainant’s admission.

Election Cases and Inhibition Failures

The second set of alleged irregularities involved Election Case No. 333 and Election Case No. 292, both petitions for inclusion of voters.
The respondent admitted that retired RTC Judge Ponciano C. Inopiquez, Sr. was his uncle.
In Election Case No. 333, th