School Work

2) Buzon vs. Velasco

Buzon vs. Velasco
of 8
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
  BUZON vs. VELASCO A.M. No. RTJ-94-1209; Feb. 13 199! PANGANIBAN, J. In a letter dated May 6, 1994, Reymualdo Buzon, Jr. charged respondent  Judge Tirso .!. elasco o# Branch $$, Regional Trial !ourt o# %uezon !ity &ith gross ignorance o# the la& and alleged 'illegal acts' and(or irregularity in granting )ail to the accused amounting to gross partiality in !riminal !ase *o. %+$9+1- entitled 'eople o# the hilippines /s. 0ernando Tan', alias ing' #or murder, &hich &as pending in the said court.2#ter receipt o# the respondents !omment, the !ourt on June 6, 1993, re#erred this case to 2ssociate Justice !onrado M. asuez, Jr. o# the !ourt o# 2ppeals #or in/estigation, report and recommendation.In his report dated ecem)er 11, 1993, Justice asuez narrated the #acts as#ollo&s52#ter a preliminary in/estigation, the 7ce o# the !ity rosecutor o# %uezon !ity 8led the In#ormation :;hi)its 1 and <, 0ormal =er> #or Murder in !riminal !ase *o. %+$9+1- against accused 0ernando Tan ? 'ing' #or the death o# Reymualdo Buzon, @r. 2pparently, the corresponding &arrant o# arrest &as issued against the accused )ut could not )e ser/ed. n May A1, 19$9, the case &as ordered archi/ed :;hi)it A, supra> and an alias &arrant o# arrest 2nne; <, complaint> issued. *ota)ly, no )ail &as recommended in the &arrant.@ometime in 0e)ruary o# 1991, accused Tan sur#aced and 8led a motion that he )e granted )ail on the ground that the !ity rosecutor recommended in the criminal charge sheet against him a 3-,---,-- )ail #or his pro/incial sic> li)erty. 2cting on the motion, on 0e)ruary <-, 1991, the respondent  udge granted )ail to the accused in the amount o# 3-,---.-- :;hi)it 4, 0ormal =er> and accordingly recalled the &arrant o# arrest :;hi)it 3> on 0e)ruary <3, 1991 a#ter the accused had posted the reuired )ond. It is &orth&hile stating that the Motion #or Bail &as granted &ithout a hearing norcomment #rom the prosecution.2ccused &as su)seuently arraigned on March $, 1991 :;hi)it 6, supra> andtrial &as set #or se/eral postponed hearings at the instance o# )oth the prosecution and the accused :;hi)its , +a, $, and $+a, supra>n 0e)ruary 1-, 199<, the prosecution su)mitted Motion to !ancel Bail Bond :;hi)it 1-, supra> alleging, inter+alia, that the In#ormation 8led &as tampered )ecause the In#ormation srcinally stated '*o Bail Recommended'.Co&e/er, the &ord '*o' &as sno&paDed and the 8gures 3-,---,-- added a#ter the &ord 'recommended', to read5 'B2IE R:!MM:*:5 3-,---.--'.   The prosecution &ent #urther asserting that the o=ense o# Murder is punisha)le )y Reclusion erpetua &here )ail is not a matter o# right.2ccused initially 8led his opposition through his la&yer C. J. a)lo, III :;hi)it 11, supra>. Eater, 2tty. Moises 2. @amson posted a *otice o# 2ppearance :;hi)it 1<, supra> as co+de#ense counsel simultaneously reuesting #or time to su)mit supplemental opposition to the Motion To !ancel Bail and the postponement o# the scheduled hearings o# the case. The supplemental opposition &as not at all 8led ,> neither &as the Motion to !ancel Bail Bond resol/ed )y the respondent e/en until a#ter the prosecution had rested its case on @eptem)er <A, 199< :;hi)it <4, supra>.2longside &ith sic> the prosecutions resting its case, in open court the accused &as granted lea/e o# court to 8le a emurrer to :/idence. *onetheless, on cto)er 3, 199<, &hat the accused 8led &as a #ormal Motion0or Eea/e to 0ile Motion to ismiss By Fay o# emurrer To :/idence :;hi)it <3, supra> &hich surprisingly &as met )y the prosecution &ith an 'ppositionto emurrer to :/idence'. 2dding to the miscommunication, the respondent denied the emurrer to :/idence in its rder o# cto)er 13, 199< :;hi)it <, supra>.2ny&ay, on *o/em)er 1<, 199<, the accused 8led a Motion #or Reconsideration :;hi)it <9, supra> stating that5 1> he has not yet 8led a emurrer to :/idence as &hat he had su)mitted &as only a simple Motion 0or Eea/e to 8le one emurrer to :/idence>G and <> that the e/idence presented )y the prosecution is insu7cient to con/ict the accused. The prosecution opposed the motion claiming that the accused tried to put one o/er the court &hen he stated that he has not yet 8led a emurrer to :/idence and that the de#ense allegation that the prosecutions e/idence is insu7cient to pro/e the guilt o# the accused )eyond reasona)le dou)t is contrary to the #acts on record. n ecem)er <, 199<, :;hi)it A<, supra> theMotion #or Reconsideration &as granted in such a &ay that the accused &as gi/en ten 1-> days to 8le a emurrer to :/idence &hich &as ultimately 8led on ecem)er 19, 199< :;hi)it AA, supra>.:/entually, the emurrer to :/idence together &ith> its Motion #or Reconsideration &ere respecti/ely denied on January <1, 199A :;hi)it A6, supra> and on March 3, 199A, :;hi)it 4A, supra>. In the meantime, pre/ious settings #or de#ense e/idence &ere cancelled #or #ailure o# receipt o# the denial o# the emurrer to :/idence.n May 11, 199A, the reception o# de#ense e/idence &as held in a)eyance :;hi)it 46, supra> pending 8nal resolution )y the !ourt o# 2ppeals on the etition #or !ertiorari and Mandamus 8led )y the accused in !2+H.R. @ *o. A-66, assailing the denial o# the emurrer to :/idence. n 2ugust <A,  199A, !2+H.R. @ *o. A-66 &as dismissed :;hi)it 3-, supra> and its Motion #or Reconsideration denied on January 3, 1994 :;hi)it 3>. The accused did not stop there. The matter &as ele/ated to the @upreme !ourt under H.R. *o. 11A33 :;hi)it 3$, supra>. n @eptem)er <6, 1994 :;hi)it 6, supra> the @upreme !ourt denied &ith 8nality the Motion #or Reconsideration o# the resolution dated 2ugust A, 1994 denying the etition #or Re/ie&.In the mean&hile, on *o/em)er <A, 199A, prior to the denial o# the Motion #or Reconsideration in !2+H.R. @ *o. A-6 and the 8ling o# H.R. *o. 11A33 )e#ore the @upreme !ourt, the prosecution su)mitted )e#ore the respondent  Judge a Motion to !ancel Bail To Reiterate Motion dated 0e)ruary , 199<> :;hi)it 3<, supra> duly opposed )y the accused :;hi)it 34, supra> and met &ith a Reply :;hi)it 33, supra> )y the prosecution. n ecem)er <-, 199A, the Motion to !ancel Bail &as denied :;hi)it 36, supra> )y the respondent, ruling50or resolution )e#ore this !ourt is the MTI* T !2*!:E B* 8led )y> plainti= thru the 2ssistant !ity rosecutor, the pposition To Motion to !ancel Bail> 8led )y accused thru counsel, the R:E T @ITI* T MTI* T !2*!:E B2IE and the reasons relied upon )y the parties &hich this !ourt :*I:@ #or lacD o# merit. The )ail )ond &hich the accused has posted &as pursuant to the recommendation o# the prosecution &hich the Rules o# !ourt allo&s to )e posted as long as it is in accord &ith the amount 8;ed )y the court or recommended )y the 8scal &ho in/estigated or 8led the case. The amount recommended &as 3-,---.-- &hich this !ourt 8nds as appropriate #or purposes o# the motion in uestion and under the present circumstances, and since the #oregoing is in accord &ith @ection 11, Rule 114, Rules o# !ourt,2!!RI*HE this !ourt 8nds no merit in the a#oresaid MTI* T !2*!:E B* and must per#orce :* the same.'@ R:R:.'n June <A, 1994, the pri/ate complainant 8led a Motion #or Inhi)ition :;hi)it 6<, supra> o# the respondent Judge )ecause o# this 2dministrati/e case.In the rder o# 2ugust 9, 1994 :;hi)it 63, supra> The Motion #or Reconsideration o# the rder denying the Motion to !ancel Bail Bond &as denied &hile the Motion #or Inhi)ition &as granted. @aid the respondent5In the instant case, the posting o# the )ail )ond &as appro/ed pursuant to the recommendation o# the 8ling rosecutor. @ec. <, Rule 114 o# the Rules o#  !ourt pro/ides #or the conditions imposed on the )ail)ond &hich upon appro/al remains in #orce at all stages o# the case until its 8nal determination, unless the proper court directs other&ise. !onsidering that the accused has not /iolated any condition imposed therein and has su)mitted himsel# to the urisdiction o# the court )y regularly appearing at the hearings o# the case, this !ourt 8nds no cogent reason to reconsider the uestioned order.Fith regards the Motion #or Inhi)ition, liDe&ise 8led )y the pri/ate complainant, 8nding that he has clearly lost his trust and con8dence in the residing Judge o# this !ourt in the impartial disposition o# this case, #or the peace o# mind o# the complainant, this !ourt grants the motion and the residing Judge here)y /oluntarily inhi)its himsel# #rom hearing this case. To complete the picture, the case &as re+raed to Judge 2gustin @. @ison o# Branch $- o# the same court )ut &ho liDe&ise inhi)ited himsel# due to close #amily relations &ith a mem)er o# the la& 8rm appearing as pri/ate prosecutor.Re+raed to Judge Hodo#redo E. Eegaspi o# Branch 9 the Motion To !ancel Bail &as granted in an rder dated March <-, 1993 :;hi)it 6$+a, supra>.  Then again, a#ter issuing the rder, Judge Eegaspi /oluntarily inhi)ited himsel# #rom hearing the case &ithout acting on the Motion #or Reconsideration 8led )y the accused to the rder cancelling his )ail )ond. The case &as re+assigned to Judge Eucas . Bersamin o# Branch 96 &ho, on 2pril <-, 1993 :;hi)it 6$+), supra>, &ho sic> reconsidered Judge Eegaspis rder cancelling the )ail )ond o# the accused increasing, ho&e/er, the )ail to1--,---.-- #or the pro/isional li)erty o# the accused.Kltimately, on June 1, 1993, complainant Romualdo sic> Buzon, Jr. sho&ed his disgust )y 8ling a motion to inhi)it Judge Bersamin :;hi)it 6$+c, supra>. 2#ter #a/ora)ly acting on the motion, Judge Bersamin sent the records o# the case to the 7ce o# the :;ecuti/e Judge o# the Regional Trial !ourt o# %uezon !ity #or re+rae to another )ranch.Knder the a#orementioned en/ironmental #acts, respondent Judge is no& administrati/ely charged &ith gross partiality and gross ignorance o# the la&. Justice asuez #ound no )asis #or the charge o# gross partiality, reasoning out that5 The procedural #acts o# the case as earlier chronologically listed do&n in this report )etrays the accusation o# partiality. 2ll proceedings &ere apparently conducted in the most usual and regular manner. Fhile there may)e some delays, the same are eually attri)uta)le to )oth the accused and to the
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks

We need your sign to support Project to invent "SMART AND CONTROLLABLE REFLECTIVE BALLOONS" to cover the Sun and Save Our Earth.

More details...

Sign Now!

We are very appreciated for your Prompt Action!