RECIT CASE

US v. GACUTAN - THEFT OF HORSE, paid carabao to

justice of peace for favourable decision
FACTS:
– This case is an appeal from a judgement of the CFI Cagayan convicting the
accused of the crime of BRIBERY (ART 386 and 389 of the Penal
Code)

—> According to the facts of the case, on July 20, 1912, Domingo Pascua filled
in appellant’s court, a complaint against Elias Pagulayan for a THEFT OF A
HORSE. The accused being the Justice of Peace in the Municipality of Cagayan.

—> On July 13, 1912, before the said case was decided — Pascua at the request
of the accused made several weeks before the trial of said case, gave to accused
a female carabao worth 80 php. The said carabao was delivered to accused and
that thereafter, the accused decided AGAINST Pagulayan, convicting him of
LACERNY (unlawful taking/theft) and sentencing him 6 most imprisonment and
pay the cost of the trial.

—> On the defense of the accused, he claims to have proved by his witness and
by Pascua’s declaration that Pascua owed the accused 20 php, and in case of
failure to repay the sum loaned, he would give the accused a carabao as
settlement. Thereof, the said carabao in question was for the pursuance of the
said agreement.

HELD:
● It was held that having examined the record, the court is unable to say
under what section of the Penal Code the accused was tried or
convicted.
– Case was cited: US. Mariano: that in every criminal case the court should
not only make a statement of facts upon w/c the judgement is founded but
should also refer to the sections of the Penal code or the statutes.

● The Solicitor-General found himself in the difficulty to which we have

just referred when he attempted to sustain the judgment and sentence of
the trial court
 ● Even the carousel for the accused was uncertain as to the article
under which the accused was convicted.

● On final decision, the SC held that the accused should’ve been convicted
under ART 382 of the Penal code
– The acts of the accused which was raised in the court is as follows;
". Accused promised Pascua to convict Pagulayan regardless of the evidence in
the case and apparently carried out his promise
$. He was to receive and indeed received a carabao worth 80 php which is an
act of injustice for judicial officers to decided a cases pending before him
regardless of what the evidence may show.
– Defendant should have been punished with Presidio Correccional in its Med
and Min periods and sentence to pay a fine of not less than the value of the
gift but not more than 3x its value.

● Accused cannot be convicted within ART 381 and 347 of the Penal code
because;
– the act w/c the accused agrees to commit must be criminal.
– The act w/c he agreed to convict the accused is not a criminal act. We do not
know whether the decision was a just on an unjust decision.

DE VERA v. HON. BENJAMIN PELAYO -

FACTS:
– Petitioner has filed with the Office if the Ombudsman an AFFIDAVIT
COMPLAINT against respondent Judge. Thus, the Ombudsman acts
in accordance w/ the law and Jurisprudence and referred the case
to the Supreme for appropriate actions.

—> According to the facts of the case, De Vera not being a member of the Bar
but possessing some knowledge of legal principles and procedure, represents
himself for this petition.

—> Aug 28, 1996, he instituted w/ RTC Pasig a SPECIAL CIVIL action for;
". Certiorari
$. Madamus
%. Prohibition
However, the initial Judge inhibited himself and the case was re raffled to now
respondent Judge.

—> July 9, 1998, The Trial Court denied petitioners application for
temporary restraining order. Petitioner then moved for reconsideration
but the court denied the same.

—> Sept of the same year, the petitioner filed w/ the OFFICE of Ombudsman
and affidavit complaint against respondent judge for violating ART 206
and 2017 of RPC and RA 3019 (Anti graft & Corrupt Practices Act)
– The Associate Graft Investigation Officer submitted an Evaluation report
recommending referral of said complaint to the Supreme Court. On which
was approved by the Assistant Ombudsman.
– On Oct of that year, the Office of Ombudsman REFERRED the case to
the Court Administrator, SC. The Petitioner moved for the reconsideration
of the Evaluation Paper on which the Ombudsman DENIED the motion.
Hence, this petition.

ISSUE: The issue is whether or not the Ombudsman has jurisdiction to entertain
criminal charges filed against a judge of the RTC in connection with his handling
the case

HELD:
● The Supreme Court Denied the petition.
– The court has not found any grave abuse of discretion committed by
the Ombudsman. The latter did not exercise his power in arbitrary or
despotic manner and that there was no evasion of positive duty.

● The SC also agrees with the Solicitor General.

– Also Cited the case of IN RE: JOAQUIN BORROMEO: on which the rule
laid down that before a civil or criminal action against a judge for violation of
ART 204 and 205 can be entertained, there must be a FINAL
AUTHORITATIVE JUDICIAL DECLARATION and that decision in question id
indeed unjust.
– The pronouncement may result either;
". action for certiorari or prohibition in a higher court impugning the
validity of the judgement
$. administrative proceeding in the SC against the judge

– Likewise, the determination of whether a judge has maliciously delayed the

disposition of the case is also an exclusive judicial function.
 ● Final ruling of the court is to dismiss the petition. The Ombudsman
acted according tot he law and jurisprudence

CORTES v. SANDI - Real property auctioned

without permission
FACTS:
– This is an administrative case through a verified Letter of Complaint
against 3 Justices of Sandiganbayan 5th Division.
". Manita Chico-Nazarrio
$. Rodolfo Peralta
%. Ma. Cristina Cortez-Estrada
– For violation of Supreme court Resolution No. 2-9 2002, gross and
culpable violation of RA 3019 and RA 6713 (Code of Conduct and
Ethical Standard Standards for Public Officials & Employees.) This is
relative to the case of PEOPLE v, DOLORES;
● On which the complaint was filed for violation of RA 3019 against Dolores
Reyes, et al. According to the complainant the accused took advantage of
their official duties, withe evident bad faith, and caused the sale of his
property, Lt No 2179, at a PUBLIC AUCTON. He said that the sale
made was w/o legal authority as real property taxes were duly paid
ute to the year of 1994 and that he was not not notified of the said
auction.
● the complainant claimed to have paid taxes in about 21,114.42K in 1996 to
one Roman Castro. But petitioner alleged that Mr. Castro was forced to resign
to cover up said anomaly.

—> Going back to the instant administrative complaint. The complainant claimed
that the proceedings before the sandiganbayan was IRREGULAR, as it
terminated the case without the defense having to conduct cross examinationto
rebut the testimonies against the accused.
– He however admitted that clarifactory questions were presented on
him on where he narrated the events that transpired prior to the public
auction
– He also admitted to testify in a civil aspect of the case where he
averred that the public auction caused him to suffer high blood pressure and
lost business transaction amounting to 45M
– Complainant also questions the pronouncement made by the SB on which
the court said that “he has slept in his rights” and failed to redeem the
 –

questioned property w/in 1 year period required by the law.

– He also imputes the irregularity on the part of the SB when it
reconsidered its resolution. Complainant alleged that it was
reconsidered by the SB denying the Demurrer to Evidence of the
accused is that for the counsel of the accused Atty Lazarro
negotiated for its reversal.

—> The 3 Justices gave their consolidated respond stating that;

". They DENIED the charges against them
$. The complaints against them are based on the reconsideration of the
resolution.
%. The complaint on RA 3019 deserves no consideration because it is
false and utterly unsubstantial. For the RA 6713, it did not set out
distinctly the alleged serious misconduct or the provisions of the
Code of Ethics w/c they violated
&. The complainant also made it to the point to indiscriminately charge ALL
person involved in the case, either directly or indirectly.

HELD:
● On Nov 2003, OCA (office of the court administration) made an
evaluation and held that the instant case should be dismissed FOR
LACK OF MERIT.
– The complainant’s theory was completely w/o factual basis and failed to
adduce any evidence to support his allegation.

● The Supreme Court agrees w/ the foregoing recommendation and

states that;
– Acts of judge in his official capacity are not subject to disciplinary
action. He cannot be subjected to liability fo any of his official acts no
matter how erroneous AS LONG AS ACTED IN GOOD FAITH.
– Only those Judicial error tainted w/ FRAUD, DISHONESTY and BAD FAITH
will be administratively sanctioned.

● Also the provision of ART 204 refers to INDIVIDUAL JUDGES who does
in any case submitted to him for decision and HAS NO
APPLICATION TO THE MEMBERS OF THE COLLEGIATE COURTS
(such as CA and Sandiganbayan and its division) bec these courts
reach judgement collectively by 3 or en banc.
● The remedy of the aggrieved party is NOT to file an administrative complaint
against the judge but elevate it to the higher court for review and correction
● The Court lastly reiterated that the complainant lost his every
opportunity accorded to him by the law to uphold his rights and
claims when;
". Failed to file a protest regarding the assessment of the taxes on the
questioned property0
$. Also, if the said auction was made w/o due notice, its legality should have
been questioned before the proper court
%. and he also failed to redeem the property w/in 1 year period provided by the
law

● Wherefore, complaint against respondent justices is hereby

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF MERIT