G.R. No. 149685 - JUDGE PROCESO SIDRO, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND SANDIGANBAYAN, 5TH DIVISION. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Court finds the accused, JUDGE PROCESO SIDRO Y CESISTA, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019, as amended and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of SIX (6) years and ONE (1) month, as minimum, to SEVEN (7) years, as maximum, and also perpetual disqualification from public office. He is furthered ordered to pay private complainants the amount of P1,000.00, and to pay the costs of suit. The Clerk of Court is hereby directed to furnish the Office of the Court Administrator, Supreme Court of the Philippines, Manila, a copy of this decision. [41] The petitioner seeks the reversal of the decision of the Sandiganbayan, contending as follows: The 5th Division of the Honorable Sandiganbayan erred in finding that the petitioner committed evident bad faith in accepting the money posted as cash bond in favor of Roque Vicario in Criminal Case No. 5671; in failing to deposit the said amount with the Clerk of Court, and; in retaining possession of the money even after the provisional dismissal of Criminal Case No. 5671 on September 14, 1990; 2. The 5th Division of the Honorable Sandiganbayan erred in finding that the petitioner had caused undue injury to Roque Vicario, and Fe and Agustin Cardenas for the latter were deprived of the use and possession of the One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00) deposited as cash bond for the temporary liberty of Vicario after the case against said Vicario was dismissed, for said petitioner continued to hold the money illegally. [42] Considering that the assigned errors are interrelated, the Court shall delve into and resolve the same simultaneously. The petitioner asserts that he was not proscribed by law or by the Rules of Court from receiving the cash bail and directing the court stenographic reporter to deposit the same in the Office of the Municipal Treasurer of Mondragon, for and in behalf of Vicario who was in jail. He contends that he is not even proscribed from receiving Vicarios cash bail because Rule 114, Section 14 of the Rules of Court is merely directory and not mandatory. When the municipal treasurer refused to accept the cash bond, he decided to accept it so that Vicario would be released from jail. The petitioner, likewise, asserts that he cannot be faulted for exercising his broad judicial power in Rule 133, Section 5 of the Rules of Court. He acted in good faith when he accepted the P1,000 cash bail, as he even issued a receipt for the amount. There was no way he could have misappropriated the amount because though he kept the money from June 5, 1990 to October 30, 1990, he remitted the amount to the Clerk of Court for deposit with the Municipal Treasurers Office. The petitioner asserts that he had not known of the Municipal Treasurers policy of rejecting deposits of cash bonds from those charged in the Municipal Trial Court. Furthermore, he cannot be faulted for keeping the money even after the provisional dismissal of th