AM 573 Mj; (June, 1974) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.M. No. 573-MJ June 28, 1974
LUIS BALANTAKBO, complainant, vs. MUNICIPAL JUDGE ERNESTO S. TENGCO, respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Luis Balantakbo charged Municipal Judge Ernesto S. Tengco of Liliw, Laguna, with oppression, partiality, and persecution. The first allegation concerned two separate criminal complaints for qualified theft (Criminal Cases Nos. 920 and 925) filed for the theft of coconuts occurring on the same day and involving substantially the same accused. Balantakbo alleged the judge allowed two separate complaints to unduly favor Pio Arsenal, president of the cooperative that owned the coconuts and who was also the judge’s client in a separate civil case. The second allegation was that after Judge Tengco had inhibited himself from the cases due to his relationship to some accused (the Balantakbos), and after Judge Pedro Urrea had been designated to take over, Judge Tengco, without any request, unilaterally reduced the bail bond of accused Romeo Banay in Criminal Case No. 925 from P2,000 to P1,000 and ordered his release. The complainant asserted this was done to gain the favor of the accused’s father, Jaime Banay, so he would testify favorably for Judge Tengco in a separate administrative case.
ISSUE
Whether the acts of respondent Judge Ernesto S. Tengco constitute oppression, partiality, and persecution warranting administrative sanction.
RULING
The Court dismissed the charges and approved the investigating judge’s recommendation. On the first charge, the investigation established that while the thefts occurred on the same day, they involved the taking of coconuts from two distinct and separate parcels of land in different locations. This factual finding demonstrated the acts were not the product of a single criminal impulse, justifying the filing of two separate criminal complaints. There was no evidence of partiality in this procedural action.
Regarding the reduction of bail, the investigation revealed valid and humanitarian reasons for Judge Tengco’s action. The accused, Romeo Banay, was only twelve years old and was feverish at the time, making his immediate release from detention necessary. While Judge Urrea was the designated judge, the urgent plea of the father, the minor’s physical condition, and the practical difficulty of contacting Judge Urrea, who resided twelve kilometers away, presented extenuating circumstances. The Court found no proof of any improper motive, such as attempting to influence the father’s testimony. Absent evidence of corrupt intent or gross ignorance of the law, the act, undertaken under these pressing conditions, did not constitute a sufficient basis for administrative liability. The charges were therefore ordered dismissed.