Sta. Maria v. Zamuco
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Danilo M. Sta. Maria of the Philippine Constabulary filed an administrative complaint against Municipal Judge Anastacio T. Zamuco of Bugallon, Pangasinan. The complaint alleged that the respondent judge tampered with statements during a preliminary examination. Specifically, the testimony of Patrolman Alegrio Taoingan, taken before Sergeant Romeo Colet, was submitted to the respondent judge. During the preliminary examination, the respondent judge allegedly disregarded certain answers of Patrolman Taoingan deemed hearsay and unresponsive, substituting them with different answers despite the witness's objection. Patrolman Taoingan reported this to his superior, leading to the filing of the complaint. Procedural History: Respondent Judge Zamuco admitted to crossing out answers deemed unresponsive and hearsay, but claimed it was with the witness's consent and without malice or evil intention. He also asserted that the patrolman harbored a grudge against him. The matter was referred to Executive Judge Wilhelmo C. Fortun, who found that the respondent judge acted with the best of intentions and without malice, recommending dismissal of the complaint. The records of the Office of the Court Administrator showed that respondent Judge Zamuco reached compulsory retirement age on April 27, 1981. The Petition: The administrative complaint was filed by Danilo M. Sta. Maria against Municipal Judge Anastacio T. Zamuco.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge committed misconduct in altering the testimony of a witness during a preliminary examination. Whether the case should be dismissed on the ground of mootness due to the respondent judge's compulsory retirement.
Ruling
The case against respondent Judge Anastacio T. Zamuco is dismissed on the ground of mootness due to his compulsory retirement. However, an admonition is to be spread on his record regarding his conduct during the preliminary examination.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of misconduct in altering testimony: The Court acknowledged that respondent Judge Zamuco admitted to crossing out answers of the policeman-witness for being unresponsive and hearsay. While the respondent judge claimed this was done with the witness's consent and without malice, the Court emphasized that a judge could have exercised greater prudence. The Court stated that to preclude any semblance of plausibility to the charge of failing to maintain an accurate and truthful account of proceedings, the judge should retain whatever answer is given to any question asked. The original answers must not be altered. The judge is free to propound questions that would remove doubt or uncertainty as to the nature of the answer given or make it responsive. This principle is crucial for maintaining the integrity of court records and ensuring fairness in proceedings. On the issue of mootness due to compulsory retirement: The Court noted that the respondent judge had reached the compulsory age of retirement. Ordinarily, this would render the case moot and academic, especially in light of the Executive Judge's recommendation for dismissal. However, the Supreme Court has, under certain circumstances, deemed it proper to act on such matters by way of setting guidelines for the conduct of members of the bench. Therefore, while accepting the report recommending dismissal, the Court found it necessary to impress upon the respondent judge the importance of exercising greater prudence and adhering to proper procedure in handling witness testimonies.
Main Doctrine
While a municipal judge may ask clarificatory questions during a preliminary examination, original answers must not be altered. The judge should retain all answers given and may propound further questions to remove doubt or uncertainty, rather than substituting answers.