Canon 1

CANON 1 OCA v. FLORO Please see separate attachment  PEOPLE v. VENERACION VENERACION (see Canon 1 Section 1)  A judge found defendants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape with Homicide. However, he sentenced the accused with reclusion perpetua instead of death, as unequivocally required by RA 7659.  A court of law is no place for a protracted debate on the morality or propriety of the sentence, where the law itself  provides for the sentence of death as a penalty in specific & well defined instances. *may digest na itech*  TAHIL v. EISMA (see Canon 1 Section 2) The discretion of Court to grant bail must be based on the Court’s determination as to whether or not the evidence of guilt is strong. This discretion may be exercised only after the evidence has been submitted at the summary hearing conducted pursuant to Sec. 7 Rule 114. Respondent’s admission that he granted bail to an accused upon the request of aCongressman, despite his belief that the evidence of guilt against said is strong is indeed reprehensible. FACTS:  FACTS:  Hadjirul Tahil charged MTC Judge of Sulu Eisma of dishonesty for failing to report to work contrary to his daily time record. Judge Felix B. Barbers instituted an “investigation, report and recommendation”. The findings were: Eisma was regularly present except for certain days when he marked himself absent; correspondingly his salary is deducted from. The alleged falsification of his daily time and record had no credibility. The charge was filed out of hatred, anger, and revenge. They were friends but Tahil‟s pleas weren‟t granted. Then Barbers went into detail that the Judges when they decide do not look at friends or foes. His actions must be prescribed by law and whether he acted judiciously and not influenced. Complainant became wrathful and wrath must be channeled properly or else they lead to grave injustice. Tahil once brought a bailbond for murder for his nephew Bakkal Ilahal for Eisma to approve. But Eisma denied it because the bondsmen did not appear in court. Barbers said that this was correct procedure and adds, that the signature of the principal Ilahal was not on the bond. There was also no verification if the taxes of the real properties offered as bond were paid. They lack the procedural attaching of receipts or a certification of the municipal treasurer. Tahil also has a bone to pick when his motion to dismiss the illegal possession of firearms filed for his nephew was denied. The denial was because the evidence testified by Lt. Rodialo Gumtang was strong against the certified true copies of documentary evidence given by Tahil. The documents‟ validity and originality were also in question, but is welcome to be presented in the trial. But Barbers said

that, this too was correct and Eisma acted legally. But Eisma admitted to having granted bail to the accused, Ilahal for murder upon the request of a congressman, even if he strongly believes on the latter‟s guilt. It is recommended that he be fined for a month‟s salary and warned against any repetition. ISSUE: WON Eisma is liable for his admission to granting bail upon request of a congressman. HELD: YES but he shouldn‟t be fined in this case for lack of proper charge and investigation. The consti all persons before conviction are bailable except those charged with capital offenses when evidence of guilt is strong. The court must determine the weight of the evidence in a summary hearing pursuant to §7 Rule 114 of the Rules. When Eisma admitted to granting bail even if he thought the evidence was strong, his act is reprehensible. But it is not clear on record if a summary hearing was instituted. Nor was Eisma charged and investigated for this. Therefore, the court lacks specific finding if Eisma committed Gadalej, and can‟t impose a fine against him. Dismissed. but considering his admission, he is admonished to demonstrate a greater degree of competence, intellectual courage and independence in the discharge of his judicial duties to merit the confidence and support of the people. PADILLA v. ZANTUA FACTS: Complaint was filed against Judge Zantua for serious irregularities and grave misconduct in the performance of his duties for (1) failure to decide cases within the prescribed period; (2) unreasonable delay in the disposition of cases which have been prejudicial to litigants; (3) manifest partially in favor of a litigant and; (4) fraternizing with lawyers who have pending cases in his sala. In compliance with the Resolution of the court, judge Zantua denied all the allegations against him. He said that numerous postponements were made provided that both parties were notified with the said postponements; that Atty. Schneider has never been a counsel in those cases; that hearings were actually conducted; postponements postponements was due to nonappearance of the counsel of both parties; denied that he is fraternizing with lawyers with pending cases in his sala but said that it is just natural being friendly with Atty. Schneider but it has never been a hindrance to the proper disposition of the cases in his sala and remains neutral. Court administrator recommended the dismissal of charges against him. HELD: The HELD: The court agreed with the dismissal of charges with Judge Zantua with respect to failure to decide cases within the prescribed period and the charges of unreasonable delay in the disposition of cases. The complaint in the instant case failed to specifically cite any of the cases referred to in the complaint which remained undecided after the lapse of the required 90 day period to decide cases; hence the dismissal of the charges of the violation of the 90 day period is in o rder.

The delay was not entirely in the fault of the respondent judge. The delay was due to numerous postponements made by both prosecution and the defense. However, as regards the allegations of manifest partiality in favor of a litigant a nd fraternizing with lawyers who have pending cases in his sala, respondent Judge d oes not deny his close friendship and association with Atty. Augusto Schneider. Constant company with a lawyer tends to breed intimacy and camaraderie to the point that favors in the future may be asked from respondent judge which he may find hard to resist. The actuation of respondent Judge of eating and drinking in public places with a lawyer who has pending cases in his sala may well arouse suspicion in the public mind, thus tending to erode the trust of the litigants in the impartiality of the judge. This eventuality may undermine the people’s faith in the administration of justice. “x x x to so conduct themselves as to be beyond r eproach and suspicion, and be free from a ny appearance of impropriety in their personal behavior not only in the discharge of their official duties but also in their everyday life, for as we have earlier stressed, „no position exacts greater demand on moral righteousness and uprightness of an individual than a seat in the Judiciary‟ so that (a) magistrate of the law must comport himself at all times in such a manner that his conduct, official or otherwise, can bear the most searching scrutiny of the public that looks up to him as the epitome of integrity and  justice.”7 Public confidence in the Judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct of judges. A judge must avoid all impropriety and the appearance thereof. Being the subject of constant public scrutiny, a judge should freely and willingly accept restrictions on conduct that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen. Respondent admonished with a warning.

TAN v. ROSETE Respondent’s act of sending a member of his staff to talk w/ complainant and show copies of his draft decisions and his act of meeting with litigants outside the office premises beyond office hours violate the standard of judicial conduct required to be observed by members of the Bench

FACTS: Before the cases were decided, respondent judge allegedly sent a member of his staff to talk to complainant. The staff member told complainant Tan that Judge Rosete was asking for P150,000.00 in exchange for the non-dismissal of the cases. She was shown c opies of respondent judge‟s decision in the criminal cases, both still unsigned, dismissing the complaints against the accused. She was told that respondent  judge would reverse the disposition of the cases as soon as she remits the amount demanded. Complainant, however, did not accede to respondent‟s demand because she believed that

she had a very strong case, well supported by evidence. The criminal cases were eventually dismissed by respondent judge. HELD: The court has repeatedly admonished judges to adhere to the highest tenets of judicial conduct. They must be the embodiment of competence, integrity and independence. The exacting standards of conduct demanded from judges are designed to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary because the people‟s confidence in the judicial system is founded not only on the magnitude of legal knowledge and the diligence of the members of the bench, but also on the highest standard of integrity and moral uprightness they are expected to possess. When the judge himself becomes the transgressor of any law which he is sworn to apply, he places his office in disrepute, encourages disrespect for the law and impairs public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary itself. It is therefore paramount that a judge‟s personal behavior both in the performance of his duties and his daily life, be free from any appearance of impropriety as to be beyond reproach.

DIMATULAC V. VILLON

Judge Villon --- Acting with deliberate dispatch, set the date of arraignment without even perusing the records (otherwise he would‟ve known among others, that there was a motion to defer proceedings because of an appeal pending in the DOG, there was an order giving petitioners 10days to file a petition with the CA, the filing of such petition, order of the CA directing respondent accused to comment on the petition to show cause why the application for a write of preliminary injunction should not be granted…etc.,).  All the foregoing demanded from any impartial mind a cautious attitude as these were unmistakable indicia of the probability of a miscarriage of justice should arraignment be precipitately held. While it may be true that he was not bound to await the DOJ's resolution of the appeal his judicial instinct should have led him to peruse the documents to initially determine if indeed murder was the offense committed; or, he could have directed the private prosecutor to secure a resolution on the appeal within a specified time. Given the totality of circumstances,  judge Villon should not have merely acquiesced to the findings of the public prosecutor.

IMPORTANT: The judge "should always be imbued with a high sense of duty and responsibility in the discharge of his obligation to promptly and properly administer  justice." He must view himself as a priest, for the administration of justice is akin to a religious crusade . Thus, exerting the same devotion as a priest "in the performance of the most sacred ceremonies of religious liturgy," the judge must render service with impartiality commensurate with the public trust and confidence reposed in him. Although the determination of a criminal case before a  judge lies within his exclusive jurisdiction and competence, his discretion is not unfettered, but rather must be exercised within reasonable confines. The judge's action must not impair the substantial rights of the accused, nor the right of the State and offended party to due process of law.