consti 2 - non imprisonment of debt

7/26/2019 Consti 2 - Non Imprisonment of Debt

1/10

A.M. No. 297-MJ September 30, 1975

AVELINA SERAFIN, compl!""t,

#$.

M%NI&I'AL J%()E SAN*IA)+ LIN(AA), re$po"e"t.

*EEAN/EE, J.:

The Court finds from the documentary evidence and established facts of the case that respondent municipal judge grossly

failed to perform his duties properly and is unfit for the office and therefore orders his separation from the service. It is self-

evidentfrom the very faceof the "criminal complaint" for estafa, and the supporting sworn statements filed with and sworn

to before him as well as the very notes of preliminary examination taen by him that the "criminal" charge against

complainant showed no vestige of the essential elements of estafa but simply recited complainant!s failure to pay the

creditors as alleged offended parties a simple indebtedness. espondent judge!s subse#uent crass attempt at exculpation

by the submission of spurious evidence to cover up his liability is more reprehensible than his guilt under the charge and

shows his unworthiness for the office.

Complainant originally filed on $ctober %&, %&'% with the (ecretary of )ustice the instant administrative complaint for

capricious and malicious admission in his court of a criminal complaint for estafa against complainant and causing her

wrongful arrest and detention, against respondent (antiago *indayag, municipal judge of +uiguinto, ulacan. $n

ecember /, %&'%, then 0xecutive )udge 1ndres (ta. 2aria to whom the administrative complaint had been referred

sent his indorsement to the epartment of )ustice recommending the exoneration of respondent on the ground that

complainant, assisted by her counsel, had filed a motion to withdraw her complaint.

3o further action was taen until )anuary &, %&'4 when the epartment of )ustice forwarded the record of the case to

this Court. 1fter the transfer to this Court of the power of administrative supervision over all inferior courts with the power

to discipline and dismiss judges under the %&'4 Constitution,1the Court, in view of the gravity of the charges as borne out

by the documentary evidence, referred anew on $ctober &, %&'4 the complaint to the istrict )udge of aliwag, ulacan

for investigation and report, notwithstanding the previously reported withdrawal of the complaint. The Court per its

esolution of ecember %&, %&'4 denied respondent!s petition to "consider the matter close and terminated" by virtue ofthe previous recommendation in %&'% of )udge (ta. 2aria and directed the istrict )udge to proceed with the

investigation.

$n 5ebruary %%, %&'6, the Court received the overly long and detailed 46-page 7single-space8 report 2of the investigation

conducted by )udge )uan 5. 0chiverri of the aliwag court of first instance. The complaint with its documentary evidence

the Investigator!s eport and record of the proceedings and the evidence of record amply substantiate the complaint,

notwithstanding complainant!s desistance because she afterwards too pity on respondent and no longer wanted to be

involved in the case, as manifested by her when she appeared at the hearing and submitted the documentary evidence

supporting her complaint, pursuant to the process issued by the Investigating )udge for her attendance.

The criminal complaint for estafa against complainant 7doceted as Criminal Case 3o. %9:8 was filed on )uly %, %&'%

with respondent judge by then +uiguinto chief of police )uan ;. 0strella at the instance of Carmelito 2endo


2/10

The supporting statementsexecuted and sworn to by the 2endo


3/10

due to the loss of some of the records of the said Criminal Case 3o. %9:, attributed by respondent to damage wrought

by the %&' floods.

(trangely enough, however, the motion to #uash filed by complainant through counsel which was eventually granted by

respondent after two months was allegedly never found. (aid motion to #uash would have been most liely on the self-

evident ground that thefacts charged do not constitute an offense since no evidence whatever was presented by herein

complainant in support thereof and respondent!s order of (eptember 4:, %&'% granting the same and dismissing the case

made no mention of any counter-evidence from complainant but simply granted the same as "meritorious and well-

taen".9 If so, the motion to #uash would have further reinforced the complaint that respondent either out of ignorance orpartiality and malice issued the baseless warrant of arrest. espondent, notwithstanding the hearing given him on

(eptember %, %&'6 by the Court and a further opportunity to submit a memorandum which was filed by him on

3ovember %%, %&'6, did never clarify or explain to the Court!s satisfaction this matter as well as his other anomalous

actions, as set forth in this decision.

The alleged loss of some records of the case furthermore furnished respondent the occasion to include in the records of

the case 7as submitted by him to the Investigator8 a purported 1mended Complaint 10allegedly executed and sworn to

before him by police chief 0strella on the same date as the original criminal complaint 7which would introduce the element

of estafa by alleging that complainant borrowed the sum of ;%,A::.:: from the 2endo


4/10

3ovember %%, %&'6, there is, however, submitted as 1nnex "1" a photocopy of an affidavit purportedly executed on

(eptember 4:, %&'6 by 0strella attesting to his having executed an 1mended Complaint and as to the genuineness of his

signature thereon, notwithstanding the evident dissimilarity and disparity thereof, to the naed eye, with his admittedly

genuine signature on the original complaint. This matter shall be referred to the 3ational ureau of Investigation for the

determination of the genuineness of said signature on the purported 1mended Complaint, as now belatedly claimed by

0strella in his affidavit and contrary to the Investigator!s finding, which claim if determined to be untrue, would warrant his

criminal prosecution.

This referral, however, can in no way affect the disposition of the case at bar. (uch belated affidavit of 0strella can not beadmitted at this stage. 3evertheless, assuming that there were such a purported amended complaint and a second

preliminary examination conducted by respondent on the basis thereof, still a judge of discernment and circumspection

would have been wary of such a second sworn complaint on the very same day totally contradictory of the first complaint

which referred to a plain indebtedness and was manifestly oblivious of the sacredness of an oath and intended to mae

out a case of instant estafa regardless of the true facts, as recited by the alleged offended parties in their original sworn

statements and demand letter for payment.

0ven prescinding from the aggravation of the cover-up, the Court finds that the penalty of dismissal is called for, in line

with the precedents and standards set by it.

In the analogous case of Carreon vs. Flores, 1the Court ordered therein respondent municipal judge!s separation from

the service for having rendered a verdict of conviction against therein complainant for alleged theft of about a cavan of

palay which could in no way be factually or legally justified, in that the essential elements of unlawful taing and that the

property stolen belonged to another were lacing.

1s stressed therein by the Court citing other precedents, "718 judge who disregards deliberately or is ignorant of the basic

fundamentals of law and justice is unfit to continue in office. espondent!s separation from the service is thus called for, in

line with the Court!s action in adiar vs. Caces177dismissing therein respondent judge for dereliction of duty in resolving a

motion to dismiss a criminal case only after %/ months and failing to file the same and serve a copy thereof on the

prosecution8 and in Municipal Council of Casiguran Que!on vs. Morales17dismissing therein respondent judge for

unjustified absences from his station and being "unmindful of the exigencies of the public service and neglectful of his

duties to the prejudice of the residents of Casiguran"8."

1CC$I3+*F, respondent is hereby dismissed from the office of municipal judge of +uiguinto, ulacan.

The Cler of Court is directed to endorse to the Chief, 3ational ureau of Investigation, the original complaint and

purported amended complaint both allegedly executed by former +uiguinto chief of police )uan ;. 0strella as per his

affidavit submitted with respondent!s memorandum of 3ovember %%, %&'6 as well as other pertinent documents and

exhibits for comparison and determination of the genuineness of said signatures and for the filing of the proper crimina

prosecution should the findings of the 3ational ureau of Investigation so warrant.

($ $00.


5/10

).R. No. L-2509. No#ember 29, 19.4

NIL(A S%RA, !" er bel6 " !" bel6 o6 er m!"or c!l VI&EN*E MAR*IN, JR., Plaintiff-Appellee, #. VI&EN*ESILVES*RE MAR*IN, SR., Defendant-Appellant.

rtolome S!m. 'lm 6or Appellee.

Ar!" . V!ll$!$ " 'lr!el S. /tlb$, 6or Defendant-Appellant.

SLLA%S

%. 020I1* *1ED )?+203T(D 51I*?0 T$ C$2;*F EIT> 1 5I31* 13 0C*11T$F )?+203T, 3$TI($0I03C0 T$ 0 C$3(I00 I3I0CT C$3T02;T. The orders for the arrest and imprisonment ofdefendant for contempt for failure to satisfy a judgment to pay past and future support are illegal because such judgmentis a final disposition of the case and is declaratory of the rights or obligations of the parties. ?nder (ection 47b8, ule '% ofthe ules of Court, the disobedience to a judgment considered as indirect contempt refers to a special judgment which isdefined in (ection &, ule 4& of the ules of Court, as that which re#uires the performance of any other act than thepayment of money, or sale or delivery of real or personal property which must be enforced by proper contempproceedings.

. I.D I.D 0G0C?TI$3 $5D I2;I($3203T 5$ 3$3-;1F203T $5 0T @I$*1TI@0 $5 T>0 C$3(TIT?TI$3. Ehere the sheriffHs return shows that the judgment debtor in an action for support was insolvent, the orders for the arrestand imprisonment of the defendant for failure to satisfy the judgment, in effect, authori00 I($0I03C0 $5 1 EIT $5 0G0C?TI$3 3$T C$3T02;TI*0. The writ of executionissued on the judgment with respect to past support re#uired "the sheriff or other proper officer" to whom it was directed7ule 4&, (ection /, ules of Court8 to satisfy the amount out of all property, real and personal, of the judgment debtor inthe manner specified in ule 4&, (ection %A of the ules of Court. The writ of execution was, therefore, a direct order tothe sheriff or other proper officer to whom it was directed, and not an order to the judgment debtor. In view thereof, the

judgment debtor could not, in the very nature of things, have committed disobedience to the writ, which justifies the arresand imprisonment of defendant for contempt of court.

( E & I S I + N


6/10

&A'IS*RAN+, J.8

1ppeal from the $rders of )anuary & and 5ebruary %, %&9A, of the Court of 5irst Instance of 3egros $ccidental orderingthe arrest and imprisonment of the defendant, @icente 2artin, (r., for contempt, "hasta #ue cumpla con la decision dictadaen esta causa."cralaw virtua%aw library

1ppellantHs statement of facts, accepted by the appellee, is as follows=jgc=chanrobles.com.ph

"In Civil Case 3o. AA/: of the Court of 5irst Instance of 3egros $ccidental entitled, 3I*1 (?1, In her behalf and inbehalf of her minor child, @IC03T0 21TI3, )., plaintiffs, versus @IC03T0 (I*@0(T0 21TI3, (., defendantH,

judgment was rendered on )une :, %&9%, amended on )uly %A, %&9%, as follows=chanrob%es virtual %aw library

03 20IT$( 0 T$$ *$ 0G;?0(T$, el )u


7/10

guilty of contempt of court. $n 3ovember /, %&96, the Court issued the following order=chanrob%es virtual %aw library

1?T$

1 peticion del abogado (r. @illasis #ue representa al demandado, y con la conformidad del abogado (r. Tupa


8/10

78 The sheriffHs return shows that the judgment debtor was insolvent. >ence the $rders of )anuary & and 5ebruary %,%&9A, in effect, authori


9/10

$n )anuary ', %&//, the respondent judge granted the motion to #uash. The order was anchored on the premise that atrust receipt transaction is an evidence of a loan being secured so that there is, as between the parties to it, a creditor-debtor relationship. The court ruled that the penal clause of ;residential ecree 3o. %A on the Trust eceipts *aw isinoperative because it does not actually punish an offense mala prohibita. The law only refers to the relevant estafaprovision in the evised ;enal Code. The Court relied on the judicial pronouncements in#eople v. Cuevo$ %:6 (C1 4%M%&/%N where, for lac of the re#uired number of votes, this Court upheld the dismissal of a charge for estafa for a violationof a trust receipt agreementD and in %ia v. #eople$ %% (C1 9AA M%&/4N where we held that the violation merely gives riseto a civil obligation. 1t the time the order to #uash was issued or on )anuary ', %&//, these two decisions were the onlymost recent ones. >ence, this petition.

The private respondent adopted practically the same stance of the lower court. (he liewise asserts that ;.. %%A isunconstitutional as it violates the constitutional prohibition against imprisonment for non-payment of a debt. (he arguesthat where no malice exists in a breach of a purely commercial undertaing, ;.. %%A imputes it.

This Court notes that the petitioner ban brought a similar case before this Court in +.. 3o. /6&A, entitled&llied 'ankingCorporation v. (on. %ecretary %edfrey )rdo*e! and &lfredo Ching which we decided on ecember %:, %&&: 7%& (C1698. In that case, the petitioner additionally #uestioned, and we accordingly reversed, the pronouncement of the(ecretary of )ustice limiting the application of the penal provision of ;.. %%A only to goods intended to be sold to theexclusion of those still to be manufactured.

1s in +.. 3o. /6&A, we resolve the instant petition in the light of the Court!s ruling in +ee v. "odil$ %'A(C1 %:: M%&/&and %ia v. Court of &ppeals$ %99 (C1 94 M%&//N. Ee have held in the latter cases that acts involving the violation of

trust receipt agreements occurring after & )anuary %&'4 7date of enactment of ;.. %%A8 would mae the accusedcriminally liable for estafa under paragraph % 7b8, 1rticle 4%A of the evised ;enal Code 7;C8 pursuant to the explicitprovision in (ection %4 of ;.. %%A.

The relevant penal provision of ;.. %%A provides=

(ec. %4 of ;.. 3o. %%A provides=

. . . #enalty clause. The failure of an entrustee to turn over the proceeds of the sale of the goods,documents or instruments covered by a trust receipt to the extent of the amount owing to the entruster oras appears in the trust receipt or to return said goods, documents or instruments if they were not sold ordisposed of in accordance with the terms of the trust receipt shall constitute the crime of estafapunishable under the provisions of 1rticle Three >undred and 5ifteen, paragraph one 7b8 of 1ct 3umbered

Three Thousand 0ight >undred and 5ifteen, as amended, otherwise nown as the evised ;enal Code.If the violation or offense is committed by a corporation, partnership, association or other juridical entitiesthe penaltyprovided for in this ecree shall be imposed upon the directors, officers, employees or otherofficials or persons therein responsible for the offense, without prejudice to the civil liabilities arising fromthe criminal offense.

(ection % 7b8, 1rticle 4%A of the ;C under which the violation is made to fall, states=

. . . %windling 7estafa8. 1ny person who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned hereinbelow . . . =

xxx xxx xxx

b. y misappropriating or converting, to the prejudice of another, money, goods, or any other personalproperty received by the offender in trust or on commission, or for administration, or under any otherobligation involving the duty to mae delivery of or to return the same, even though such obligation betotally or partially guaranteed by a bondD or by denying having received such money, good, or otherproperty.

The factual circumstances in the present case show that the alleged violation was committed sometime in %&/: or duringthe effectivity of ;.. %%A. The failure, therefore, to account for the ;%%6,//6. balance is what maes the accused-respondent criminally liable for estafa. The Court reiterates its definitive ruling that, in the Cuevo and%ia 7%&/48 casesrelied upon by the accused, ;.. %%A was not applied because the #uestioned acts were committed before its effectivity.7*ee v. odil, supra$ p. %:/8 1t the time those cases were decided, the failure to comply with the obligations under thetrust receipt was susceptible to two interpretations. The Court in %iaadopted the view that a violation gives rise only to a


10/10

civil liability as the more feasible view "before the promulgation of ;.. %%A," notwithstanding prior decisions where weruled that a breach also gives rise to a liability for estafa. 7;eople v. Fu Chai >o, A4 ;hil. /'6 M%&&ND (amo v. ;eople, %%A;hil. 469 M%&9ND ;hilippine 3ational an v. 1rroijos de

1ngel )ose, 94 ;hil. /%6 M%&49N8.

Contrary to the reasoning of the respondent court and the accused, a trust receipt arrangement does not involve a simpleloan transaction between a creditor and debtor-importer. 1part from a loan feature, the trust receipt arrangement has asecurity feature that is covered by the trust receipt itself. 7@intola v. Insular an of 1sia and 1merica, %A% (C1 A'/M%&/'N8 That second feature is what provides the much needed financial assistance to our traders in the importation or

purchase of goods or merchandise through the use of those goods or merchandise as collateral for the advancementsmade by a ban. 7(amo v. ;eople, supra8. The title of the ban to the security is the one sought to be protected and notthe loan which is a separate and distinct agreement.

The Trust eceipts *aw punishes the dishonesty and abuse of confidence in the handling of money or goods to theprejudice of another regardless of whether the latter is the owner or not. The law does not see to enforce payment of theloan. Thus, there can be no violation of a right against imprisonment for non-payment of a debt.

Trust receipts are indispensable contracts in international and domestic business transactions. The prevalent use of trustreceipts, the danger of their misuse andOor misappropriation of the goods or proceeds reali

consti 2 - non imprisonment of debt

Documents