GR L 16135; (October,1961) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-16135. October 19, 1961. NAPOLEON R. MALOLOS, petitioner, vs. HON. ANDRES REYES, ETC., ET AL., respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Napoleon R. Malolos, a lawyer, was convicted of direct contempt by respondent Judge Andres Reyes and sentenced to suffer ten days imprisonment and pay a fine of one hundred pesos. This Court, in a decision dated February 25, 1961, affirmed the judgment of the lower court. Malolos now files a motion for reconsideration, pleading for mercy and specifically requesting the elimination of the jail sentence, though not seeking full acquittal.
In support of his plea, Malolos avers that soon after being adjudged guilty by the respondent judge, he withdrew the contemptuous statements and offered an apology, which was sternly denied. He further cites his standing as a member of the Bar since 1940, his current positions as a law professor at San Sebastian College and Arellano University, and his clean record as a practitioner, this being his first such incident. He implores the Court to consider the mitigating circumstances to spare him the stigma of imprisonment on himself and his family.
ISSUE
Whether the penalty of imprisonment imposed upon the petitioner for direct contempt should be eliminated on the grounds of mitigating circumstances.
RULING
Yes, the penalty of imprisonment is eliminated, modifying the Court’s prior decision. The legal logic rests on the Court’s discretionary power to consider mitigating factors in contempt proceedings to temper the severity of a penalty. The Court compared the nature of Malolos’s contemptuous utterances with those in cited precedents (Lualhati v. Albert, Salcedo v. Hernandez, In re Sotto, and In re Franco) where respondents were penalized with fines ranging from P100 to P200 without imprisonment. The Court found his statements “not as serious and derogatory” as those in the cited cases. This comparative gravity analysis provided a legal benchmark for leniency.
Furthermore, the Court accorded significant weight to the attendant circumstances as valid mitigating factors: his prompt apology and withdrawal of the statements demonstrated contrition, and his previously unblemished record as a long-standing member of the Bar since 1940 indicated that the contempt was an isolated incident. The combination of the less severe nature of the contempt and these personal mitigating circumstances justified the exercise of judicial clemency. Consequently, the Court resolved, albeit not without dissent, to modify the sentence by eliminating the ten-day imprisonment, thereby reducing the penalty to a fine of P100 only.