A.M. No. 2224-CFI August 31, 1981
Edna Baguyo, complainant, vs. Hon. Oscar Leviste, District Judge, CFI, Branch II, Roxas City.

FACTS

Complainant Edna Baguyo charged Judge Oscar Leviste with grave abuse of authority and violation of Section 5 of the Judiciary Act of 1948. The charges stemmed from his handling of Criminal Case No. 768 for rape, where the complainant was the victim. The case was submitted for decision on September 26, 1978. Judge Leviste rendered a decision on March 20, 1979, convicting the accused. However, on March 30, 1979, before the decision became final, he issued an “Amendment to Decision” motu proprio, acquitting the accused without any motion for reconsideration from the defense. The amendment contained clerical errors, citing the wrong case number and being sent to the wrong fiscal. Furthermore, the complainant alleged a violation for deciding the case 174 days after submission, exceeding the 90-day period mandated by law.
In his comment, respondent judge explained that the case records were only submitted to him on January 19, 1979, hence the delay. He asserted that amending a decision before it becomes final is within judicial prerogative to correct errors and conform to the evidence. He attributed the clerical mistakes in the amendment to his staff and argued the amendment was legally justified as the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, noting the lack of injury on the victim and that the complaint was initiated by the victim’s mother.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Oscar Leviste committed grave abuse of authority and violated the Judiciary Act.

RULING

The Court found no grave abuse of authority but admonished the judge for undue delay. On the amendment of the decision, the Court ruled that a judge has the inherent power to modify or set aside a judgment of conviction before it becomes final under Section 7, Rule 121 of the Rules of Court. Judge Leviste’s act of amending his decision motu proprio was a legitimate exercise of this prerogative to correct a perceived error upon re-evaluation, specifically his initial failure to properly apply the presumption of innocence and the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt. His detailed reasons for the acquittal, based on the evidence, demonstrated a judicial reconsideration, not an abuse of authority. The clerical errors in the amended order were not attributable to him.
However, the Court found him administratively liable for the delay in rendering judgment. The case was submitted on September 26, 1978, and decided on March 20, 1979, a delay of 174 days violating the 90-day constitutional mandate. His explanation that the records were submitted late was deemed insufficient to excuse the entire period of delay. Consequently, the Court ADMONISHED Judge Oscar Leviste with a warning that a repetition would be dealt with more severely.