People v. Capin

Ruling

WHEREFORE, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the accused is hereby meted the penalty of 6 months and 1 day as MINIMUM to 3 years, 6 months and 20 days as MAXIMUM Indeterminate Penalty. [7] He failed to deny these divergent actions. Instead, when required by the Court to comment, he merely stated that "the open court sentence should prevail, and the Indeterminate Sentence Law will not apply." He made it worse. It should be the written decision, not the one dictated in open court, that should prevail. Besides, a straight penalty is imposable only if it does not exceed one year of imprisonment. Deciding case in absence of records and hearing Not only did Judge Coliflores display gross ignorance of the law and procedure, he was also less than candid in explaining the circumstances surrounding the promulgation of his decision in Criminal Case No. 108731-R . The judicial audit team found that he decided the case on March 18, 2003 despite the absence of its records and a scheduled hearing on that date. It was established that the records were inadvertently attached to the records of Criminal Case No. 108730-R , which was decided by Judge Coliflores on September 12, 2000. On February 6, 2003, the case folder of Criminal Case No. 108730-R was brought for safekeeping, without knowing that the records of Criminal Case No. 108731-R were attached to it. It was only on May 27, 2004 that the records of Criminal Case No. 108731-R were retrieved from the Office of the Clerk of Court after a futile search in the premises of Branch 1. In his June 11, 2004 letter, Judge Coliflores admitted that he decided Criminal Case No. 108731-R even though the case "was not included in the calendar for that date, March 18, 2003, by the Interpreter due to the fact that the calendar of the court was prepared three (3) days ahead of schedule, but on the said date the record was discovered." However, in his comment dated January 6, 2005, he stated that he decided the case "with the duplicate copy of the original records as certified by the affidavit of REBECCA L. ALESNA, Court Interpreter of MTCC, Br. 1, Cebu City x x x." A close examination of said affidavit reveals that Alesna merely attested to the circumstances surrounding the promulgation of judgment in Criminal Case No. 108731-R without categorically stating that the proceeding was undertaken with the duplicate copy of the original records at hand. Moreover, the fact that there was no scheduled hearing on March 18, 2003 and the absence of the minutes of the supposed proceeding render the decision highly questionable. Taking cognizance of petitions without jurisdiction Judge Coliflores likewise failed to satisfactorily explain his acts of (a) granting petitions for bail; (b) ordering the confinement and rehabilitation of drug dependents; and (c) ordering the release of drug dependents from the drug rehabilitation center, although these cases had not been assigned by raffle to his court, as required under Circular No. 7 d