Valenzuela v. Bellosillo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Atty. Napoleon S. Valenzuela charged respondent Judge Reynaldo Blanco Bellosillo with gross violation of the constitutional right to assistance by counsel of one's choice, gross misconduct, oppression, partiality, and violation of the Code of Judicial Ethics. Complainant was hired as counsel for Ms. Meriam V. Colapo in a BP 22 case. Complainant filed a Manifestation praying for the accused to post bail. Respondent Judge allegedly spoke with the accused in his chambers in the absence of her counsel and, the following day, the accused informed complainant that the Judge had angrily ordered her to remove complainant as counsel and suggested Atty. Puhawan as a replacement. Consequently, complainant filed a Notice of Withdrawal with the client's conformity. Procedural History: The complaint was referred to the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City for investigation, report, and recommendation. The Executive Judge found the evidence insufficient and recommended dismissal. The Supreme Court Third Division reviewed the findings and recommendations. The Petition: The complainant sought the dismissal of respondent Judge from the service, alleging oppressive, arrogant, and grossly misconducting acts indicative of partiality and gross ignorance of the Constitution.
Issue(s)
Whether the evidence adduced by the complainant is sufficient to substantiate the charges against respondent Judge Bellosillo; and whether the affidavit of Meriam Colapo, without her presentation for cross-examination, can be the basis for finding respondent Judge guilty. Whether respondent Judge violated the constitutional right of the accused to choose her counsel.
Ruling
The Court finds merit in the findings and recommendations of the Executive Judge, dismissing the complaint for insufficiency of evidence. The dispositive portion states: "WHEREFORE, for insufficiency of evidence, the Complaint at bar against respondent Judge Reynaldo Blanco Bellosillo is hereby DISMISSED."
Ratio Decidendi
On the sufficiency of evidence, admissibility of the affidavit, and the right to due process: The Court held that the evidence adduced by the complainant was insufficient to substantiate the charges against respondent Judge Bellosillo. The primary basis of the complaint was the affidavit of the complainant's client, Meriam Colapo. However, Meriam Colapo was not presented by the complainant to testify. The Court emphasized that an affidavit is hearsay unless the affiant is presented for cross-examination. Adjudging respondent Judge guilty without affording him the chance to confront Meriam Colapo would infringe upon his right to due process. Sans the testimony of Meriam Colapo, the case against the respondent judge could not prosper. The Court cited People v. Canuzo and Molina v. People. On the alleged violation of the right to choose counsel: The complainant alleged that respondent Judge pressured his client to replace him. However, the complainant failed to present his primary witness, Meriam Colapo, to support this charge. Furthermore, the Executive Judge noted inconsistencies. The respondent denied the allegations and explained that PALAO lawyers are not allowed to represent accused in BP 22 cases. The complainant himself could not provide a clear reason for the alleged suggestion. Thus, without corroborating evidence and with the absence of the primary witness, the charge could not be proven.
Main Doctrine
An affidavit, being hearsay, cannot be given credence and is inadmissible in an administrative case unless the affiant is presented for cross-examination, to afford the respondent an opportunity to test the veracity of the allegations and to uphold the respondent's right to due process.