SECOND DIVISION
[A.M. No. 2128-JC. August 31, 1978.]
CONSTANTE PIMENTEL, Petitioner. Request for the designation of another judge to hear the Motion for Reconsideration and/or Petition for Relief from the decision rendered in Criminal Case No. 310-C, People v. Ruben de la Cruz, of the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Sur, Branch IV, Candon, Ilocos Sur.
SYPNOSIS
The trial court acquitted the accused in a criminal case of Homicide with serious Physical Injuries and Damage to Property thru Reckless Imprudence. Later, in contemplation of the filing of a motion for reconsideration of the decision upon the ground that one of the exhibits presented therein had been falsified, and in lieu of filing a motion to disqualify, the private prosecutor requested the Supreme Court to order another judge to hear and resolve the motion for reconsideration for the reason that the incumbent judge had induced and encouraged the falsification complained of.
The Supreme Court denied the request stating that the procedure prescribed for the disqualification of judges (Rule 137) must be substantially followed, and that the mere allegation in an unverified letter that a judge had committed an act of falsification is not sufficient for the Supreme Court to designate another judge to hear the petitioner’s action for reconsideration and/or petition for relief from judgment.
SYLLABUS
1. JUDGES; DISQUALIFICATION; PROCEDURE MUST BE FOLLOWED. — The procedure prescribed for the disqualification of Judges (Rule 137) must be substantially followed. Objection to the competency of the judge should be filed with him in writing, and the judge shall determine his qualifications. The mere allegation in an unverified letter that the incumbent judge had committed an act of falsification is not sufficient for the Supreme Court to designate another judge to hear the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration and/or relief from judgment.
2. ADMINISTRATIVE CHARGES; UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT. — The Supreme Court cannot give due course to an unverified complaint for falsification or misconduct against a judge. And a letter which states that "the complaining witness and surviving spouse of the deceased is presently preparing the corresponding charge of falsification and administrative case against the judge as well as the court interpreter which may be filed before the end of the week", cannot be considered as an administrative complaint.
2. ADMINISTRATIVE CHARGES; UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT. — The Supreme Court cannot give due course to an unverified complaint for falsification or misconduct against a judge. And a letter which states that "the complaining witness and surviving spouse of the deceased is presently preparing the corresponding charge of falsification and administrative case against the judge as well as the court interpreter which may be filed before the end of the week", cannot be considered as an administrative complaint.
R E S O L U T I O N
CONCEPCION, JR., J.:
On June 24, 1975, a vehicular accident took place in Candon, Ilocos Sur, involving a jeep driven by Rizal Tilan, and a passenger bus, operated by Ruben de la Cruz, which resulted in the death of Kin Sang Lim and physical injuries upon Natividad Que Lim, both passengers of the jeep. As a consequence thereof, Ruben de la Cruz was prosecuted for the crime of Homicide with Serious Physical Injuries and Damage to Property Thru Reckless Imprudence. 1 After appropriate proceedings, Ruben de la Cruz was acquitted of the charges.
On November 25, 1977, the private prosecutor, petitioner herein, filed a notice of appeal from the decision insofar as the civil liability of the accused is concerned, but which he withdrew on December 5, 1977. 2
On January 9, 1978, the private prosecutor, in contemplation of the filing of a motion for the reconsideration of the decision rendered in the case upon the ground that one of the exhibits presented therein had been falsified, and in lieu of filing a motion to disqualify the judge, which procedure he considered cumbersome, requested the Court to designate another judge or to order the return of Judge Alfredo Lazaro to Branch IV, to hear and resolve the motion for reconsideration for the reason that the incumbent Judge Daniel C. Macaraeg had induced and encouraged the falsification complained of.
On January 13, 1978, the private prosecutor filed the proposed motion for reconsideration based upon the ground that the English translation (Exh. K-1) of the custodial declaration of Rizal Tilan (Exh. K) had been falsified in that there had been added the phrase "beside the jeep" between the words "following" and "bumped" (Line 24 of said exhibit) which materially changed the real meaning of the affidavit of Rizal Tilan and setting at naught all the testimonial and documentary evidence presented, and prayed that the judgment be set aside insofar as the civil liability of the accused is concerned and enter another condemning the said accused to pay the damages incurred by the offended party. 3
The procedure prescribed for the disqualification of judges (Rule 137) must be substantially followed. Objection to the competency of the judge should be filed with him in writing, and the judge shall determine his qualification. 4 The mere allegation in an unverified letter that Judge Daniel C. Macaraeg had committed an act of falsification is not sufficient for this Court to designate another judge to hear the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration and/or petition for relief from judgment.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary
For the same reason, the Court cannot give due course to the complaint for falsification or misconduct against Judge Macaraeg. Besides, the petitioner stated that "the complaining witness and surviving spouse of the deceased is presently preparing the corresponding charge of falsification and administrative case against the judge as well as the court interpreter which may be filed before the end of the week," 5 which indicates that his letter should not be considered as an administrative complaint.
WHEREFORE, the request should be, as it is hereby, DENIED.
Fernando (Chairman), and Santos, JJ., concur.
Barredo, J., concurs in that the motion should be denied by Us because it should first be addressed to the respondent judge.
Antonio, J., in the result.
Aquino, J., took no part.
On November 25, 1977, the private prosecutor, petitioner herein, filed a notice of appeal from the decision insofar as the civil liability of the accused is concerned, but which he withdrew on December 5, 1977. 2
On January 9, 1978, the private prosecutor, in contemplation of the filing of a motion for the reconsideration of the decision rendered in the case upon the ground that one of the exhibits presented therein had been falsified, and in lieu of filing a motion to disqualify the judge, which procedure he considered cumbersome, requested the Court to designate another judge or to order the return of Judge Alfredo Lazaro to Branch IV, to hear and resolve the motion for reconsideration for the reason that the incumbent Judge Daniel C. Macaraeg had induced and encouraged the falsification complained of.
On January 13, 1978, the private prosecutor filed the proposed motion for reconsideration based upon the ground that the English translation (Exh. K-1) of the custodial declaration of Rizal Tilan (Exh. K) had been falsified in that there had been added the phrase "beside the jeep" between the words "following" and "bumped" (Line 24 of said exhibit) which materially changed the real meaning of the affidavit of Rizal Tilan and setting at naught all the testimonial and documentary evidence presented, and prayed that the judgment be set aside insofar as the civil liability of the accused is concerned and enter another condemning the said accused to pay the damages incurred by the offended party. 3
The procedure prescribed for the disqualification of judges (Rule 137) must be substantially followed. Objection to the competency of the judge should be filed with him in writing, and the judge shall determine his qualification. 4 The mere allegation in an unverified letter that Judge Daniel C. Macaraeg had committed an act of falsification is not sufficient for this Court to designate another judge to hear the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration and/or petition for relief from judgment.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary
For the same reason, the Court cannot give due course to the complaint for falsification or misconduct against Judge Macaraeg. Besides, the petitioner stated that "the complaining witness and surviving spouse of the deceased is presently preparing the corresponding charge of falsification and administrative case against the judge as well as the court interpreter which may be filed before the end of the week," 5 which indicates that his letter should not be considered as an administrative complaint.
WHEREFORE, the request should be, as it is hereby, DENIED.
Fernando (Chairman), and Santos, JJ., concur.
Barredo, J., concurs in that the motion should be denied by Us because it should first be addressed to the respondent judge.
Antonio, J., in the result.
Aquino, J., took no part.
Endnotes:
1. Criminal Case No. 310-C of the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Sur, Branch IV.
2. Rollo, p. 104.
3. Rollo, p. 106.
4. Moran, Rules of Court, Vol. 6, p. 198, citing Joaquin v. Barretto, 25 Phil. 281 and Government of P.E. v. Heirs of Abella, 49 Phil. 374.
5. Rollo, p. 3.
