A.M. No. 1393-CTJ - JANUARY 1977 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE A.M. No. 1393-CTJJanuary 20, 1977 Rodrigo Cortez vs. J. Avelino Constantino G.R. No. L-30103January 20, 1977 People of the Philippines vs. Benjamin Cunanan G.R. No. L-41333January 20, 1977 Restituto Villapando vs. J. Elviro Q. Quitain G.R. No. L-43257January 20, 1977 Restituta Gindoy vs. Lauro L. Tapucar G.R. No. L-44740January 20, 1977 Dojose, Domel Trading vs. Secretary of Labor G.R. No. L-28521January 21, 1977 Alfredo Aberin vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-29313January 21, 1977 Luzon Surety Co., Inc. vs. Roman Mirasol, Jr. A.M. No. 1106January 24, 1977 Armando B. Cledera vs. Delfin Vir. Sunga G.R. No. L-45018January 24, 1977 Alejandro V. Ratilla vs. Lauro L. Tapucar, et al. A.M. No. 88-MJ.January 25, 1977 Alejandro B. Suerte vs. Mun. Judge Marcial G. Ugbinar G.R. No. L-36545January 26, 1977 Esso Phils., Inc. vs. Malayang Manggagawa Sa Esso A.M. No. 1352January 31, 1977 Calixto Ballos vs. Atty. Paquito G. Balasabas A.M. No. 1601January 31, 1977 Dionisio C. Requio vs. William Dy-Liaco A.M. No. P-16January 31, 1977 Sec. of Justice vs. Antoliano R. Pacis A.M. No. P-274January 31, 1977 Rosendo Ladores vs. Isauro Tuazon G.R. No. L-22795January 31, 1977 Dangwa Transportation Co., Inc. vs. J. Malcolm G. Sarmiento G.R. No. L-28506January 31, 1977 People of the Philippine vs. Anatalio Lingao, et al. G.R. No. L-32256January 31, 1977 People of the Philippine vs. Rotillo Jamero, et al. G.R. No. L-32441January 31, 1977 San Vicente Shipping, Inc. vs. Public Service Comm. G.R. No. L-32752-3January 31, 1977 People of the Philippine vs. Miguel D. Baluyot, et al. G.R. No. L-40817January 31, 1977 San Miguel Corp. vs. Sec. of Labor, et al. G.R. No. L-41288January 31, 1977 Philippines Labor Alliance Council (Plac) vs. Bureau of Labor Relations, et al. G.R. No. L-41886January 31, 1977 Ramon Castro vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission G.R. No. L-42255January 31, 1977 Wilfredo D. Bael vs. Workmen's Compensation Comm. G.R. No. L-42390January 31, 1977 Eunila Marapo vs. Philippine Packing Corp., et al. G.R. No. L-42925January 31, 1977 People of the Philippine vs. Ricardo D. Galano G.R. No. L-43089January 31, 1977 Cirila Legason vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission G.R. No. L-43681January 31, 1977 Antonio B. Justo vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Rodrigo Cortez vs. J. Avelino Constantino People of the Philippines vs. Benjamin Cunanan Restituto Villapando vs. J. Elviro Q. Quitain Restituta Gindoy vs. Lauro L. Tapucar Dojose, Domel Trading vs. Secretary of Labor Alfredo Aberin vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Luzon Surety Co., Inc. vs. Roman Mirasol, Jr. Armando B. Cledera vs. Delfin Vir. Sunga Alejandro V. Ratilla vs. Lauro L. Tapucar, et al. Alejandro B. Suerte vs. Mun. Judge Marcial G. Ugbinar Esso Phils., Inc. vs. Malayang Manggagawa Sa Esso Calixto Ballos vs. Atty. Paquito G. Balasabas Dionisio C. Requio vs. William Dy-Liaco Sec. of Justice vs. Antoliano R. Pacis Rosendo Ladores vs. Isauro Tuazon Dangwa Transportation Co., Inc. vs. J. Malcolm G. Sarmiento People of the Philippine vs. Anatalio Lingao, et al. People of the Philippine vs. Rotillo Jamero, et al. San Vicente Shipping, Inc. vs. Public Service Comm. People of the Philippine vs. Miguel D. Baluyot, et al. San Miguel Corp. vs. Sec. of Labor, et al. Philippines Labor Alliance Council (Plac) vs. Bureau of Labor Relations, et al. Ramon Castro vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission Wilfredo D. Bael vs. Workmen's Compensation Comm. Eunila Marapo vs. Philippine Packing Corp., et al. People of the Philippine vs. Ricardo D. Galano Cirila Legason vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission Antonio B. Justo vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.

Manila

SECOND DIVISION

A.M. No. 1393-CTJ January 20, 1977

RODRIGO CORTEZ,complainant,
vs.
CITY JUDGE AVELINO CONSTANTINO, Branch XII, Manila,respondent.

R E S O L U T I O N

FERNANDO,J:

From a judgment of acquitting an accused in a criminal case, respondent City Judge Avelino Constantino of Branch XII, Manila had to face an administrative complaint for grave abuse of discretion from Rodrigo Cortez, the aggrieved party in a case for slight physical injuries against one Cerilo Regala. In an eleven-page decision of acquittal, respondent Judge explained in some detail why the version of the accused Regala as to how the fist fight resulting in the injuries inflicted arose, was more credible. Thus: Pitted against the testimony of the complainant, the Court finds the store of the accused to be the more credible version. Witness Cortez insists that he was not drunk, but his own medical certificate (Exhibit "A") states that he had alcoholic breath (Exhibit "A-l") which belies his claim that he had only a small sip of hard drinks. The Court is thus persuaded that he stayed longer than five minutes with his friend Ricardo San Diego who invited him for a drink. His testimony that he waited two hours to get that short ride from Concepcion to the PWU bears a closer look. San Diego was not presented to support the alleged five minutes-only drink with complainant. His earlier statement that he did not drink at the eatery near the PWU * * *, he contradicted on rebuttal as he testified that he did take a small quantity of alcohol in that restaurant at the back of PWU * * *. A five-minute sip of liquor would not be enough to register a positive finding of alcoholic breath when examined several hours later. He was found to have alcoholic breath, because he had imbied such quantity of liquor sufficient to put him in that condition where the outward manifestation is seen in a person when he is tipsy. The legs become shaky and he is no longer firm in his steps. His reflexes are generally slow and he is prone to be clumsy. A misstep resulting in a stumble or falling down is very likely. He is not yet intoxicated or dead drunk, as more commonly known, because if he is at this state, he can no longer move on his own unaided. It was in this inebriated state when he failed the Blumentritt-bound jeepney and while on board, he was exhibiting the signs of a person who was going to vomit. Emphasis is place on Cortez's condition, because it was the root cause of the incident. He had been sober, the accused would have normally and easily alighted from the jeepney which is being done everyday by thousands of front seat jeepney passengers. But because a co-passenger has absorbed so much alcohol as to adversely affect his movement and his thinking, a misunderstanding arose on the trivial matter of alighting. At this point, it is a touch-and-go situation on the question of credibility of the protagonists. Complainant would say that he was simultaneously pushed and boxed as he was not quick to alight in order to give was to the accused. The latter maintains that complainant slipped while alighting. Angered because of his fall which he blames on the accused, he took a punch at him. A fist fight ensued as the accused retaliated. The complainant, in the condition that he was, naturally got the worse of the fisticuffs. Cortez claims that the beating he received was the result of mauling by Regala and 2 alleged bystanders who aided the accused. This was denied by Regala and it appear[s] in the records that he was indeed alone. The crime report (Exhibit "D"), which embodies the complaint of Cortez, does not make mention of any confederate. The information did not say that accused was in company with others when the alleged offense was committed. Moreover, it was raining hard that evening and it was not likely that a mere and innocent bystander would join the fray just for the fun of it. Verily, people usually [avoid] and [shy] away from trouble. Similarly, those who are drunk are avoided and kept at a distance by sober men and so, it is hard to believe that the accused would deliberately pick on the complainant and [engage] him in a fist fight, except to defend himself. Under the above facts and circumstances, the Court can find no clear guilt in the accused."1

The verdict, as noted, was one of acquittal. From the above excerpt of the assailed decision, it is quite evident why the administrative complaint for grave abuse of discretion lacks legal foundation. So Acting Judicial Consultant Lorenzo Relova recommended. We agree.

It certainly would be less than fair if a judge, who had so meticulously examined the evidence and had so carefully a decision explaining why he came to the conclusion he did, could be found liable for grave abuse of discretion.ℒαwρhi৷This is another one of those instances where the leading In re Horilleno decision2of Justice Malcolm finds application. Respondent can in wise be held to have laid himself open to the accusation that his act was corrupt or "inspired by an intention to violate the or [was] in persistent disregard of well-known legal rules.3Far from it.

WHEREFORE,the administrative complaint against respondent Manila City Judge Avelino Constantino is dismissed. Let a copy of this resolution be spread on the record.

Barredo, Antonio and Concepcion Jr., JJ., concur.

Footnotes

Separate Opinions

AQUINO,J.,concurring:

There is no showing that the judgment of acquittal is an unjust judgment rendered maliciously or by reason of inexcusable negligence or ignorance. (In re Climaco, Adm Case No. 134-J, January 21, 1974, 55 SCRA 107).