AM MTJ 93 782; (May, 1995) (Digest)
A.M. No. MTJ-93-782. May 12, 1995. YOLANDA CRUZ, complainant, vs. JUDGE FILOMENO S. PASCUAL, Municipal Trial Court, Angat, Bulacan, respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Yolanda Cruz, the offended party in Crim. Case No. 2139 for trespass to dwelling, charged respondent Judge Filomeno S. Pascual with abuse of authority, incompetence, partiality, and ignorance of the law. She alleged that after trial concluded on October 23, 1992, the judge violated the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure by failing to decide the case within the mandated 30-day period, only setting promulgation for January 6, 1993. On that date, the accused and counsel were absent, but the judge read only the dispositive portion acquitting the accused. Complainant asserted she was deprived of knowing the judgment’s legal basis and questioned the promulgation procedure.
In his comment, respondent Judge pleaded good faith, claiming he granted an accused’s motion to submit a legal guide-note to avoid prematurely disclosing his verdict, believing the 30-day rule was merely directory. He argued the accused’s presence was unnecessary for an acquittal’s promulgation, that reading the dispositive portion sufficed, and that a copy was furnished to the public prosecutor, thus not depriving complainant of due process.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Judge is administratively liable for the delay in deciding the case and for the procedure followed in promulgating the judgment of acquittal.
RULING
Yes, respondent Judge is administratively liable for the delay but not for the promulgation procedure. The Court adopted the Office of the Court Administrator’s recommendation. On the delay, while Section 17 of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure is directory, making a decision rendered beyond the 30-day period still valid, it subjects the defaulting judge to administrative sanction to enforce the rule’s expeditious intent. The judge’s excuses—granting the accused’s motion and treating the rule as permissive—were flimsy. The motion was unnecessary, and he could have denied it to avoid delay. His anxiety over premature disclosure and misapprehension of the rule’s nature misled him. However, absent malice or improper motive, the culpability was not grave. A fine of P3,000.00 was imposed, with an admonition to be more conscientious.
Regarding promulgation, the judge did not err. In a verdict of acquittal, the accused’s presence is not indispensable as the judgment is immediately final. The reading of the sentence to counsel or furnishing a copy suffices. The parties were duly notified, and the accused’s failure to appear was inconsequential. Furthermore, a copy was given to the public prosecutor, so complainant’s due process claim lacked basis. The other charges of partiality and incompetence were found unmeritorious.