A.M. No. P-93-797 August 11, 1994
LUZVIMINDA E. GARCIA, complainant, vs. ANATOLIO NAPE, Court Interpreter, MTC, Pio Duran, Albay, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Luzviminda E. Garcia charged respondent Anatolio Nape, a Court Interpreter, with: (1) grave misconduct/conduct prejudicial to the service by acting as counsel for the accused in Criminal Case No. 1441, preparing counter-affidavits, and filing them in the court where he works; (2) drinking during office hours; (3) knowingly releasing court funds to persons not entitled thereto; and (4) misrepresenting authority by making it appear he wielded influence over the presiding judge. The Court initially severely censured respondent for acting as counsel. An investigation by Executive Judge Emmanuel R. Real was ordered for the other charges. The investigation report exonerated respondent on the charges of drinking during office hours and misappropriating court funds due to lack of evidence. However, he was found guilty of grave misconduct prejudicial to the service regarding the charge of misrepresenting authority. The evidence for this charge consisted of testimonies from Blandino Pavia and Caridad Obejas. Pavia testified that respondent facilitated the settlement of his son’s homicide case (Criminal Case No. 1414) in respondent’s house, where Pavia paid the victim’s wife P17,000.00, and respondent prepared the Affidavit of Desistance and Motion to Dismiss. Obejas testified that after she arranged bail for Marvin Monilla in a rape case, respondent told her Monilla had an obligation to pay for food during detention, which she knew was supplied by the municipal government. When she reported this to the judge, respondent reacted angrily and tried to box her.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Anatolio Nape is guilty of grave misconduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

RULING

Yes, respondent is guilty of grave misconduct. The Court upheld the investigating officer’s recommendation. Respondent intervened in the prosecution of a criminal case by convincing the accused’s father to settle, receiving payment in his presence, and preparing the affidavit of desistance and motion to dismiss. Furthermore, his statement to Caridad Obejas regarding a detainee’s alleged obligation to pay for food, which was supplied by the municipality, constituted an attempt to make money and placed his integrity under a cloud of doubt. These acts constitute grave misconduct. The Court resolved to SUSPEND respondent Anatolio Nape for three (3) months without pay.