A.M. No. 1567-MJ. December 28, 1981. DANILO STA. MARIA, complainant, vs. HONORABLE ANASTACIO T. ZAMUCO, Municipal Judge of Bugallon, Pangasinan, respondent.
FACTS

Complainant Danilo Sta. Maria, a Philippine Constabulary officer, filed an administrative complaint against Municipal Judge Anastacio T. Zamuco for alleged tampering with testimony during a preliminary examination. The case stemmed from a statement given by Patrolman Alegrio Taoingan to Sergeant Romeo Colet, which was subsequently submitted to Judge Zamuco. During the preliminary examination conducted by the respondent judge on February 1, 1977, Patrolman Taoingan adopted the statement as his testimony. Judge Zamuco, however, found certain answers within the statement to be hearsay and unresponsive. He disregarded these answers, crossed them out, and substituted different ones over the objection of the witness. Patrolman Taoingan reported the incident to his superiors, leading to the filing of the complaint.
In his answer, respondent Judge Zamuco admitted to crossing out the answers but claimed he did so with the witness’s consent, after which the witness allegedly provided proper answers. He asserted he acted without malice, believing he was correcting defective testimony, and suggested the complainant and witness bore a grudge against him. The case was referred to Executive Judge Wilhelmo C. Fortun for investigation. Judge Fortun found that respondent judge acted with the best of intentions and without malice, recommending dismissal of the complaint. It was also noted that Judge Zamuco had reached compulsory retirement on April 27, 1981.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Anastacio T. Zamuco is administratively liable for crossing out and altering answers in a witness’s sworn statement during a preliminary examination.

RULING

The Court dismissed the case as moot and academic due to the respondent judge’s compulsory retirement. However, it seized the opportunity to set important guidelines for judicial conduct. The Court accepted the investigative finding of Executive Judge Fortun that Judge Zamuco acted without malice, citing precedents where judges were exonerated for procedural errors made in good faith. Nevertheless, the Court strongly admonished the respondent judge for his lack of prudence.
The legal logic centers on the imperative duty of a judge to maintain the integrity and accuracy of court records. While a judge possesses the prerogative to ask clarificatory questions to elicit responsive and competent testimony, he must not physically alter the original record of a witness’s answers. The proper procedure is to retain all original answers in the record. If an answer is deemed unresponsive or objectionable, the judge should propound follow-up questions to clarify, correct, or complete the testimony on the record, not substitute his own version. This safeguards the proceedings from any plausible charge of tampering or fabrication, ensuring the record remains a truthful account. The admonition was entered into Judge Zamuco’s record to underscore this fundamental principle of judicial conduct.