A.C. No. 242-J. July 29, 1972. Delfin M. Tobias, complainant, vs. Hon. Vicente G. Ericta, respondent.
FACTS

Complainant Delfin M. Tobias, the offended party in a criminal case for “Robbery Hold-up,” filed an administrative complaint against respondent Judge Vicente G. Ericta. The complaint alleged judicial ignorance and partiality, claiming the judge showed undue leniency towards the two accused, failed to notify the complainant of the arraignment, did not furnish him a copy of the decision, used incorrect legal terminology in the judgment, and erred by not imposing subsidiary imprisonment for non-payment of the civil indemnity. The case originated from an information filed against Remigio Nadonga and Rolando Tupaz, who, upon arraignment with the assistance of court-appointed counsel, pleaded guilty. Their counsel then presented evidence to prove the mitigating circumstance of drunkenness, which the prosecution did not rebut. Respondent Judge thereafter rendered a judgment of conviction.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Vicente G. Ericta is administratively liable for ignorance of the law, partiality, and procedural lapses as alleged by the complainant.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint and absolved respondent Judge. The Court meticulously examined each allegation and found them devoid of merit. On the charge of leniency, the ruling was fully in accord with the Revised Penal Code. The penalty for the crime was prision correccional maximum to prision mayor medium. The accused benefited from two mitigating circumstances (plea of guilty and drunkenness) without any aggravating circumstance, warranting a reduction by one degree under Article 64(5). The imposed penalty of one year was well within the resulting range (arresto mayor maximum to prision correccional medium), and the judge was not obligated to consider alleged unpleaded aggravating circumstances like recidivism.
The procedural complaints were likewise baseless. No law requires a judge to notify the offended party of an arraignment or to furnish them a copy of the decision. The use of the term “robbery” instead of the fiscally imprecise “Robbery Hold-up” was legally accurate for robbery with violence or intimidation. Finally, the judge correctly omitted subsidiary imprisonment for the civil indemnity, as Republic Act No. 5465 amended the Revised Penal Code to require subsidiary imprisonment only for non-payment of a fine, not for civil liability. The Court concluded that the respondent Judge acted in complete accordance with the law, and the complaint merely stemmed from the complainant’s lack of legal understanding. The Court also took the opportunity to underscore the constitutional duty to hear citizen grievances, however unfounded, to uphold public confidence in the judiciary.