People v.

Veneracion

Duty of a Judge to Impose Prescribed Penalty

On August 2, 1994, four accused were found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape with homicide of a seven
year old girl in the RTC presided by Judge Lorenzo P. Veneracion. Respondent judge however, refused to
impose the corresponding penalty of death and he rather imposed reclusion perpetua to each of the accused. The
city prosecutor filed a motion for reconsideration praying that the penalty of death be imposed upon the four
accused. The respondent judge refused to act.

ISSUE: Whether or not respondent judge can impose penalty lower than that prescribed by law.

HELD: The Supreme Court mandates that after an adjudication of guilt, the judge should impose the proper
penalty provided for by the law on the accused regardless of his own religious or moral beliefs. In this case the
respondent judge must impose the death penalty. This is consistent in the rule laid down in the Civil Code
Article 9 that no judge or court shall decline to render judgment by reason of the silence, obscurity, or
insufficiency of the laws.

Antonio Yu-Asensi vs. Judge Francisco D. Villanueva

A.M. No. MTJ-00-1245. January 19, 2000

Facts: Complainant charges Judge Villanueva for serious misconduct and/or inefficiency particularly violating
the Canons of Judicial Ethics on promptness and punctuality. Judge V had been consistently late for 45
minutes to 1 1/2 hours during scheduled hearings, thus delaying the cause of complainant where he was the
plaintiff in a reckless imprudence case. Due to his tardiness, C's lawyer had also been compelled to extend trial
even beyond the prescribed period provided for by law.

Held: GUILTY. Habitual tardiness amounts to serious misconduct and inefficiency in violation of the Canons of
Judicial Ethics. Several SC Circulars have been issued which enjoin judges to be punctual in the performance of
their judicial duties, recognizing that the time of litigants, witnesses, and attorneys are of value, and that if the
judge is not punctual in his habits, he sets a bad example to the bar and tends to create dissatisfaction in the
administration of justice. Furthermore, Rule 3.05 of the Code of Judicial Conduct mandates: "A judge shall
dispose of the court's business promptly and decide cases within the required periods."
Maceda v. Vasquez

Facts: Respondent Napoleon Abiera of PAO filed a complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman against
petitioner RTC Judge Bonifacio Sanz Maceda. Respondent Abiera alleged that petitioner Maceda has falsified
his certificate of service by certifying that all civil and criminal cases which have been submitted for decision
for a period of 90 days have been determined and decided on or before January 31, 1989, when in truth and in
fact, petitioner Maceda knew that no decision had been rendered in 5 civil and 10 criminal cases that have been
submitted for decision. Respondent Abiera alleged that petitioner Maceda falsified his certificates of service for
17 months.

Issue: Whether or not the investigation made by the Ombudsman constitutes an encroachment into the SC’s
constitutional duty of supervision over all inferior courts

Held: A judge who falsifies his certificate of service is administratively liable to the SC for serious misconduct
and under Sec. 1, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, and criminally liable to the State under the Revised Penal
Code for his felonious act.

In the absence of any administrative action taken against him by the Court with regard to his certificates of
service, the investigation being conducted by the Ombudsman encroaches into the Court’s power of
administrative supervision over all courts and its personnel, in violation of the doctrine of separation of powers.

Art. VIII, Sec. 6 of the Constitution exclusively vests in the SC administrative supervision over all courts and
court personnel, from the Presiding Justice of the CA down to the lowest municipal trial court clerk. By virtue
of this power, it is only the SC that can oversee the judges’ and court personnel’s compliance with all laws, and
take the proper administrative action against them if they commit any violation thereof. No other branch of
government may intrude into this power, without running afoul of the doctrine of separation of powers.

Where a criminal complaint against a judge or other court employee arises from their administrative duties, the
Ombudsman must defer action on said complaint and refer the same to the SC for determination whether said
judge or court employee had acted within the scope of their administrative duties.