A.M. No. MTJ-02-1431 - Yap vs. Inopiquez, Jr.

Case Summary (A.M. No. MTJ-02-1431)

Factual Background

On March 6, 1999, pursuant to an alias arrest warrant, SPO2 Jose B. Yap arrested Antonio Laurente, Jr., the accused in Criminal Case No. 8458 pending before the Metropolitan Trial Court in Cities at Ormoc City. On that date the respondent judge issued two Orders of Release in favor of the accused: one allegedly based on a cash bond and another on a property bond. The cash bond was evidenced by Official Receipt No. 9215725, which bears the date March 8, 1999. The property bond bore a jurat showing it was subscribed and sworn on March 10, 1999, although the date on the face of the bond was altered to show March 6. Complainant alleged that both release orders were issued prematurely on March 6, 1999, because the cash bond and the property bond were posted only thereafter.

Procedural History

Complainant filed a sworn affidavit-complaint on July 12, 1999. The Court referred the matter to Executive Judge Fortunito L. Madrona, Regional Trial Court, Ormoc City, for investigation, report and recommendation. Executive Judge Madrona submitted his Report and Recommendation on September 3, 2001. The Office of the Court Administrator, through Deputy Court Administrator Zenaida N. Elepano, submitted reports on March 5, 2002 and January 10, 2003. The respondent applied for optional retirement, granted by a May 28, 2002 Resolution, but the Court directed that his retirement benefits be withheld pending resolution of the administrative case. The matter was re-docketed as a regular administrative case and was resolved on the basis of the pleadings.

Investigations and Reports

Executive Judge Madrona found the testimony of Clerk of Court Servando O. Veloso, Jr. credible as to the issuance and alteration of Official Receipt No. 9215725 and recommended dismissal of the administrative complaint for lack of merit, while suggesting a reprimand for the appearance of impropriety because of the familial relation between the accused and respondent’s wife. The OCA adopted Executive Judge Madrona’s factual findings but recommended that respondent be fined PHP 3,000.00 for giving unwarranted favor by approving two bonds and issuing two release orders, and that Clerk Veloso and Court Interpreter Pedro M. Beltran be directed to explain and possibly be sanctioned for altering the receipt date, failure to cancel the first cash bond after substitution by a property bond, and for preparing bail bonds without authority.

Parties’ Contentions

Complainant maintained that the cash bond was posted on March 8, 1999 as shown by O.R. No. 9215725 and that the property bond was filed on March 10, 1999 as shown by its jurat, hence both Orders of Release dated March 6 were premature. Respondent denied wrongdoing. He asserted that the cash bond was actually posted on March 6 and that Clerk Veloso altered the O.R. date to March 8; he further claimed that the property bond was filed on March 6 and that the later jurat date reflected only ministerial manipulation. Clerk Veloso admitted altering the date on the O.R. to avoid further argument with complainant. Interpreter Beltran admitted assisting in the preparation of bail bonds and ceased the practice upon Court directive.

Issue Presented

The sole issue was whether respondent judge ordered the release of accused Antonio Laurente, Jr. on March 6, 1999 although the cash or property bond for his temporary liberty had not yet been properly posted and approved in violation of Rule 114, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Findings on Evidence

The Court resolved the critical factual questions against respondent. It gave primacy to documentary evidence over conflicting oral testimony. The Official Receipt No. 9215725 showed March 8, 1999 as the date of issuance for the cash bond. The jurat on the property bond positively showed subscription and swearing on March 10, 1999, and the face alteration to March 6 was apparent. Both Orders of Release bore the date March 6, 1999. The Court found that respondent issued the two Orders of Release on March 6 before any cash or property bond had actually been posted or filed and approved.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court relied on Section 3, Rule 114 which permits release only after the corresponding cash or property bond has been properly posted. It found that respondent violated that rule by ordering release prior to posting. The Court also noted respondent’s failure to require annotation of the lien on the certificate of title and corresponding tax declaration within ten days after approval, in violation of Section 11, Rule 114. The Court observed that respondent attempted to conceal culpability by changing document dates, conduct the Court characterized as acting in bad faith. It invoked the standard that judges must observe exacting standards of conduct to promote public confidence in the judiciary and cited authorities on the consequences when a judge transgresses the law. The Court referred to its prior exposition in Canson v. Garchitorena on

Case Syllabus (A.M. No. MTJ-02-1431)

Parties and Procedural Posture

SPO2 Jose B. Yap, Complainant filed an administrative complaint for grave abuse of authority and acts unbecoming a judge against Judge Aquilino A. Inopiquez, Jr., Respondent.
The case was referred for investigation to Executive Judge Fortunito L. Madrona, Regional Trial Court, Ormoc City, and later re-docketed as a regular administrative matter by this Court.
The Office of the Court Administrator, through Deputy Court Administrator Zenaida N. Elepano, submitted reports and recommendations to the Court.
Judge Aquilino A. Inopiquez, Jr. applied for optional retirement which this Court approved while withholding his retirement benefits pending resolution of the administrative case.
The case was resolved on the basis of the pleadings after complainant failed to timely manifest opposition to decision on pleadings.

Key Factual Allegations

Complainant alleged that on March 6, 1999, pursuant to an alias arrest warrant, he arrested Antonio Laurente, Jr., the accused in Criminal Case No. 8458 for violation of B.P. Blg. 22, pending in the MTCC, Ormoc City.
Complainant alleged that Respondent issued two Orders of Release dated March 6, 1999, the first purportedly based on a cash bond and the second on a property bond.
Complainant alleged that the cash bond was in fact posted on March 8, 1999, as shown by Official Receipt No. 9215725, and that the property bond was actually sworn on March 10, 1999, as shown by the jurat, and that dates were altered to appear as March 6.
Complainant alleged that the accused was a relative of Respondent's wife and that the release orders were issued prematurely and improperly to favor the accused.

Procedural History

The sworn affidavit-complaint was dated July 12, 1999, and Respondent filed a comment on October 27, 1999, denying culpability.
This Court, by Resolution dated March 21, 2001, referred the matter to Executive Judge Madrona for investigation, report and recommendation.
Executive Judge Madrona submitted his Report and Recommendation on September 3, 2001, finding no substantial basis for the complaint but recommending a reprimand for the appearance of impropriety.
The Office of the Court Administrator submitted its Report on March 5, 2002, adopting the investigatory findings but recommending re-docketing as an administrative case and administrative fines against Respondent, Clerk of Court Servando O. Veloso, Jr., and Court Interpreter Pedro M. Beltran.
This Court approved Respondent's optional retirement on May 28, 2002, while withholding his retirement benefits pending resolution of the instant administrative case.
Deputy Court Administrator Elepano filed a supplemental report on January 10, 2003, reiterating recommendations for fines against Respondent, Clerk Veloso, and Interpreter Beltran.

Investigations and Report Findings

Executive Judge Madrona credited the testimony of Clerk of Court Servando O. Veloso, Jr. that the Official Receipt No. 9215725 had been issued on March 6, 1999 and later altered to March 8, 1999.
Executive Judge Madrona concluded that the factual controversy over the issuance date of the official receipt was resolved in favor of Clerk Veloso and recommended dismissal of the complaint for lack of merit, but suggested a reprimand for appearance of impropriety.
Deputy Court Administrator Elepano adopted Executive Judge Madrona’s factual findings but recommended fines and further administrative action against Clerk Veloso and Interpreter Beltran for their respective roles.
Clerk Veloso