G.R. No. RTJ-97-1394 December 17, 1997
Romeo Sta. Ana, complainant, vs. Judge Graciano H. Arinday, Jr., Regional Trial Court, Branch 69, Silay City, Negros Occidental, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Romeo Sta. Ana filed a letter-complaint against respondent Judge Graciano Arinday, Jr. for delay in resolving Criminal Cases Nos. 3094-69 and 3095-69 for estafa and violation of B.P. Blg. 22 against Minerva Ercilla. The prosecution rested its case on October 11, 1994, and the accused was considered to have waived her right to present evidence. Despite this, no decision was rendered for years. Respondent judge, in his comment, admitted the cases were submitted for resolution on October 11, 1994, and that he had only started assessing the evidence upon receipt of the complaint. He explained that he delayed decision, hoping for an amicable settlement, as complainant’s counsel had manifested openness to settlement, and complainant had settled similar cases before. Complainant replied that it was the judge who suggested settlement, and the accused’s failure to respond should have prompted him to decide, and that he withdrew other cases due to the judge’s “lukewarm attitude” and “apparent partiality.”

ISSUE

Whether respondent judge is guilty of delay in deciding the criminal cases.

RULING

Yes, respondent judge is guilty of delay. The Court found his excuse of waiting for an amicable settlement unpersuasive, as three years was more than enough to realize the futility of settlement. Judges are required by the Constitution and the Code of Judicial Conduct to decide cases within three months from submission. Delay erodes public faith in the judiciary. Considering the number of cases transferred to his sala upon assumption, the Court imposed a fine of P2,000.00, with a warning, and directed him to resolve the subject criminal cases with deliberate speed.