Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=45947:am-mtj-01-1348&amp;catid=1459&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 08:58:13+00:00

Document:
JUDGE DOLORES L. ESPAÃ‘OL and OPHELIA G. SULUEN, Complainants, v. JUDGE LORINDA T. MUPAS, Respondent.
EMPLOYEES OF THE METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, DASMARIÃ‘AS, CAVITE, Complainants, v. JUDGE LORINDA T. MUPAS, Respondent.
Before the Court are four consolidated administrative cases: three involving Judge Lorinda T. Mupas, Municipal Trial Court (MTC), DasmariÃ±as, Cavite, docketed as A.M. Nos. MTJ-01-1348, MTJ-01-1352 and MTJ-01-1358; and one relating to the Report on the Judicial Audit on Search Warrants at the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of DasmariÃ±as, Cavite, presided by Judge Dolores L. EspaÃ±ol, docketed as A.M. No. 01-2-100-RTC.
1) MTJ-01-1348 - alleged irregularities in the processing and approval of bailbonds (sic) in the Municipal Trial Court of DasmariÃ±as, Cavite with the knowledge and tacit consent of the respondent Judge Lorinda T. Mupas.
2) MTJ-01-1352 - utilizing employees in respondent Judge's court to perform domestic chores in her household whenever she has no house helps; corruption by demanding bribe money before rendering her decisions, citing the case of one Atty. Estrella Laysa to whom respondent Judge sent her sheriff to ask for "lagay" in connection with a simple case for ejectment in her sala; dismissing a drug case against Melvin Lasangue after receiving a sizeable amount for the accused which was later reviewed by Assistant Provincial Prosecutor who did not succumb to respondent Judge's offer of money and free plane ticket for abroad.
3) MTJ-01-1358 - irregular dismissal by respondent Judge of Criminal Case No. 97-0038 against Marcelino Diana for violation of Republic Act No. 6425, despite the fact that shabu and drugs paraphernalia were seized from the accused's residence pursuant to a Search Warrant issued by Honorable Judge Dolores L. EspaÃ±ol, on the flimsy pretext that glaring irregularities in the conduct of the search rendered the prohibited drugs confiscated totally inadmissible as evidence, the amount of P500,000.00 in cash and a jeep valued at P200,000.00 allegedly having changed hands in consideration of the dismissal of the case; allowing her clerk of court to conduct preliminary investigations of cases filed in her court; and unjustified refusal to approve the surety bond of an applicant for release from detention upon complaint of Wilma Go Amposta and Medy Patricio.
The cases were initially assigned to Retired Justice Romulo S. Quimbo, Consultant in the Office of the Court Administrator for investigation. Justice Quimbo, however, later voluntarily inhibited himself. Retired Justice Conrado M. Molina, Consultant, Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), was designated in his stead in the Resolution2 of September 26, 2001.
and Ophelia G. Suluen v.
The complaint of Judge EspaÃ±ol stemmed from the dismissal by Judge Mupas of Criminal Case No. 97-0038 entitled "People of the Philippines v. Marcelino Diana" for Violation of Section 16, Article II, Republic Act No. 6425. Diana was apprehended on 16 January 1997 by virtue of Search Warrant No. 334 issued by Judge EspaÃ±ol where the search yielded, among others, 249.2 grams of shabu wrapped in twenty-seven (27) plastic sachets, and two (2) decks of shabu wrapped in aluminum foil weighing 1.5 grams.
On 17 January 1997 a criminal complaint against Diana was filed before the MTC of DasmariÃ±as. A preliminary investigation was conducted by Judge Mupas on 22 and 30 January 1997 involving prosecution witnesses PO2 Enrico Set, a member of the searching party from the PNP DasmariÃ±as, Cavite, and Barangay Kagawad Joey Carungcong who was invited to witness the search in the house of Diana.
'[I]n her own terms, she [Judge Mupas] claimed that detention prisoners left in the cell are those who are already "pigang-piga na" and one way of doing this is to threaten to transfer them to the Provincial Jail in Trece Martires, Cavite. This matter is corroborated when Judge Mupas raised this issue in her letter to me dated April 30, 1999, stating that "In one case, in People v. Marcel Morales, docketed as Criminal Case No. 98-0726, I ordered his commitment from the Municipal Jail of DasmariÃ±as, Cavite to the Provincial Jail of Trece Martirez City only to find out later that you have already approved his application for bail and ordered his release from custody;"
According to Suluen, between 10:00 to 10:30 a.m. of April 27, 1999, Ricardo Pabillar, a jail guard at the municipal jail of DasmariÃ±as, Cavite, came to their court to inquire about the bail bond of one Rogelio Drio, which she had received the day before. Drio was detained for a case pending in the MTC, DasmariÃ±as, Cavite, in the sala of the respondent judge. She then referred the matter of Drio's bail bond to Judge EspaÃ±ol, who, in turn, called jail guard Pabillar to her chambers. Pabillar then told Judge EspaÃ±ol that detention prisoners applying for bail preferred the jailers to process their bail bond papers as the latter charged only 15% of the prescribed bail, whereas the staff of the respondent judge would ask for "processing fees" equivalent to 20% of the recommended bail. Only 10%-11% would go to the bonding company while the rest was pocketed by the respondent's staff. Judge EspaÃ±ol, thereafter, approved the bailbond of Drio in an Order9 dated April 27, 1999.
During the hearing of the case, Suluen testified that Judge EspaÃ±ol acted on bail bond applications for cases pending in other courts in Cavite, such as Criminal Cases Nos. 99-0435, 01-2020 and 01-2022, all pending in the respondent judge's sala. Suluen also admitted in open court that persons following up bail bonds used to give them P100 to P200 for snacks for the staff, which included Judge EspaÃ±ol. She explained on redirect examination that although Judge EspaÃ±ol was also given snacks bought with the money in question, the latter had not known the source of the money.
Ma. Lourdes M. Sapinoso, Court Clerk III, RTC, Branch 90, in her Affidavit10 dated November 20, 2001, stated that people who come to their court for approval of bail bond applications often complained about employees of other courts, particularly those from the sala of the respondent judge, who asked for amounts equivalent to 30% of the required bond. This was apparently the consideration for the approval of the bond and the issuance of the order of release of the accused. There were also instances when requests for copies of the complaint were denied, allegedly for the purpose of compelling people to post their bail bond before the municipal trial court. Because of this and for "humanitarian considerations," Judge EspaÃ±ol approved bailbond applications of cases pending before the sala of the respondent judge.
Pilarica Baldejera also testified for the complainant judge. In her Affidavit11 dated April 15, 2002, she deposed that the accused in Criminal Cases Nos. 99-0892, 99-1129 and 02-0609, Rodel Baldejera y Villo, was her son, and that the said cases were pending before the sala of the respondent judge. She testified that on April 14, 2002, she went to the office of Judge EspaÃ±ol with a certain Eric from the Governor's Office. She returned to the complainant judge the next day at about 1:00 to 1:30 p.m. and told her about her son's bail problem. She was advised to see the respondent judge at her office in DasmariÃ±as. Baldejera arrived there at about 3:00 p.m., and personally requested the respondent judge to allow her son to post bail. The respondent told her to raise a cash bond of P30,000 and to deliver the money to her (the respondent's) office. The latter subsequently told her to see one Inday Carreon at the PNP station. The witness waited for two hours but no one came.
For your reference, hereunder are (sic) the lists (sic) of cases filed before my sala for preliminary investigation whose applications for bail were approved by Judge EspaÃ±ol and thereafter, upon her orders, the accused were released from custody.
Hereunder are (sic) the lists (sic) of cases under my exclusive jurisdiction whose bail and release from custody were also approved and ordered by Judge EspaÃ±ol.
The respondent judge went on to say that the instant complaint was an apparent desperate move to support Judge EspaÃ±ol's firm stand that she had the power and authority, as Executive Judge, to act on the application of bail bonds of detention prisoners whose cases were pending before the MTC, DasmariÃ±as, Cavite and to continue her personal crusade to embarrass and humiliate the respondent before the Supreme Court. Furthermore, a perusal of the complaint would readily show that it was but a reiteration of the April 28, 1999 and May 5, 1999 Letters of Judge EspaÃ±ol.
According to the respondent, as judge of the MTC, DasmariÃ±as, she is authorized under the Rules of Court to conduct a preliminary investigation of any offense committed within her territorial jurisdiction, and to release, commit or bind any person charged with any offense. She alleged that it was Judge EspaÃ±ol who erred whenever she acted on application for bail on criminal complaints still pending preliminary investigation in her (the respondent's) court, and every time she imposed bail for offenses which did not require it, such as violation of municipal ordinances. Moreover, when Judge EspaÃ±ol approved Drio's application for bail, she acted in excess of jurisdiction in the guise that she had administrative supervision over the MTC of the same municipality.
1. The subscribed Letter of Atty. Estrella O. Laysa of Laysa Law Office, dated September 10, 1999, together with attachments, which is self-explanatory.
2. Letter of one, Rosemarie Carmen Perey-Duque, dated 14 September 1999, also with pertinent attachment. On the side, Atty. Perey-Duque admitted that a round trip ticket was offered to her by Judge Mupas plus P30,000.00 as pocket money which according to the latter is just the downpayment of the whole deal. These offers were declined by Atty. Perey-Duque who is an Assistant Provincial Prosecutor in Cavite.
3. Pictures taken of two (2) of the three (3) residential places of Judge Mupas. One is located at Brgy. Mataas na Burol, Silang, Cavite and the other, which is very recently completed, is at Brgy. San Jose, Tagaytay City.
The person who took the pictures promised to complete his research and investigation including the verification of titles and the cars being used by the couple. Should additional documents be submitted, they will likewise be forwarded to your office.
4. Discreet investigation conducted of people who may have some information regarding the subject, indicated that some of the records of some drug cases are indeed discarded in order to hide the irregular dispositions thereof, meaning they were never forwarded to the Provincial Prosecutor's Office, nor the courts.
In this regard, it would be appropriate if a management audit of the cases filed thereat could be conducted by your office.
However, in a Verified Letter22 dated April 4, 2001, the employees23 of the MTC of DasmariÃ±as, Cavite disowned the "poison letter" against the respondent judge, and alleged that they had never authorized any person to file such a complaint. According to them, the respondent judge was very competent and honest. As such, the contents of the said letter were baseless and malicious, intended for harassment purposes.
5. Contrary to the discreet and unverified findings made by Special Police Officer 4 Rommel G. Macatlang, the houses that he took photographs of are owned by my parents and aunt. The house that SPO4 Macatlang saw in Silang, Cavite is owned by my father who acquired it through an exchange he made with one of his sisters, the late Guadalupe Toledo. The other house located in Tagaytay City is owned and registered in the name of my aunt, Ms. Corazon Bayas, as evidenced by Free Patent No. (IV-2) 16747. The house located in Cavite City where my family and I reside was built in 1993 before I was appointed Judge of the Municipal Trial Court, DasmariÃ±as, Cavite on a land that my husband and I purchased in 1988.
Attached as Annexes D and E are copies of Tax Declaration No. 20942 consisting of 3,667 square meters and Free Patent No. (IV-2) 16747, respectively, and made as integral parts hereof.
6. I never had the fortune of owning a Mercedes Benz. It was my father who did along (sic) time ago. The first car that I had was a 1977 Toyota Corolla that my father allowed me to use until that old car was sold. Thereafter, my father again gifted my husband and I in 1995 with a second-hand 1993 Nissan Vanette that my family continue[s] to use. The only car that my husband and I purchased was [a] 1997 Nissan Sentra.
On the allegations made by Atty. Miriam S. Clorina-Rentoy in her Affidavit25 dated September 5, 2002 enumerating certain "practices"26 of the respondent judge, the latter claimed that the charges were completely false. She insisted that she could not remember asking Atty. Clorina-Rentoy to submit a draft decision in Criminal Case No. 99-0840, and that there was no indication that she had any hand in its preparation, or that she made such a request.
Judge EspaÃ±ol cited Atty. Estrella O. Laysa as her source of information regarding the alleged proclivity of respondent Judge to ask for "lagay" before deciding her cases. Replying to Judge EspaÃ±ol's letter Atty. Laysa wrote back (Exh. "F," pp. 116-118, Id.) that as counsel for the plaintiff in an ejectment suit she prepared a decision in favor of her client at the bidding of the respondent Judge but the decision would not come out because, as an employee of the court told her, she has not given something to the judge. Because her client would not agree to bribing or entrapping the respondent she just filed a motion to decide, and within fifteen days the decision was promulgated which was an adoption of the draft that she had prepared.
Obviously, the foregoing account of Judge EspaÃ±ol of the alleged illegal and corrupt practices of the respondent judge is based wholly on incompetent hearsay and double hearsay evidence. It is on record that upon application of the complainant two subpoenas were issued and served on Atty. Laysa but the lawyer shunned the investigation.
Justice Molina also made a finding that Atty. Clorina-Rentoy was, likewise, less than an impartial witness, considering that she decided to testify against the respondent and executed her affidavit only after the administrative case she filed against the latter was dismissed by this Court. Relying on the Order30 dated August 13, 2002 issued by Executive Judge Lucenito N. Tagle, RTC Branch 20, Imus, Cavite, in SP. Proc. No. 982-02, a petition31 for habeas corpus, Justice Molina also found that the respondent judge grievously erred in ordering the arrest and detention of the accused in six criminal cases filed in her court.
Justice Molina concluded that the respondent judge was liable for gross ignorance of the law.
The charges of Wilma Go Amposta and Medy Patricio relate to an incident where Amposta claims to have tried to seek the approval of a surety bond for the release of a relative from the sala of the respondent judge. The respondent and her staff allegedly berated Amposta, saying that the judge did not approve bonds not issued through her court. She was instructed to retrieve the surety bond that was earlier filed and to apply for a new bond through her (the respondent's) court instead.
Justice Molina concluded that the charges in the instant complaint were not substantiated.
One of the requisites for a valid search warrant is that the judge issuing the warrant must have personally examined in the form of searching questions and answers, the applicant and his witness and take down their written depositions.
1. MTJ-01-1348 be dismissed for lack of merit.
b) For gross ignorance of the law by ordering the arrest of the accused in criminal cases before the expiration of the ten-day period she gave them to file their counter-affidavits, before the preliminary investigation was concluded, and without any finding of probable cause, as found by the RTC, Branch 20, Imus, Cavite, in Special Proceedings No. 982-02, Petition for Habeas Corpus, the respondent Judge Lorinda T. Mupas be fined in the amount of P5,000.00.
In this case, Justice Molina found that the accusations of Judge EspaÃ±ol against the respondent were not substantiated. While Judge EspaÃ±ol claimed to have "verified" the contents of the anonymous complaint against the respondent, she admitted that she did not talk to any of the MTC, DasmariÃ±as court employees, the supposed complainants therein.45 Aside from the fact that the said employees executed an affidavit denouncing authorship of the said complaint, not one of them came forward to testify on the veracity of the contents of the said complaint.
1. Judge Mupas issued a Resolution recommending the dismissal of Criminal Case No. 97-0038, against Marcelino Diana, for lack of probable cause, the judge ruling that there was a clear violation of the constitutional right of the accused against unreasonable search and seizure, and that the glaring irregularities in the search rendered the prohibited drugs confiscated from the house of the accused inadmissible as evidence.
2. The Resolution of Judge Mupas was reviewed by the Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Elmer C. Madriaga who affirmed the recommendation of Judge Mupas to dismiss the case for lack of probable cause.
Judge EspaÃ±ol ought to have known that the best way to verify the ownership of the houses in question was to refer to the certificates of title in the Register of Deeds. There was no need to resort to taking photographs of the properties alleged to be owned by the respondent, if, in the first place, the ownership thereof had not yet been satisfactorily established.
2. Since the filing of the aforesaid Complaint and the subsequent complaint filed earlier by the "Employees of MTC-DasmariÃ±as, Cavite against the same Respondent Judge, under Adm. Matter No. MTJ-01-1352, there were additional instances of "gross misconduct, conduct unbecoming a judge and violation of R.A. 3019," showing the propensity of said respondent thereby placing the judiciary and the public interest in jeopardy. Considering that the nature of the acts complained of are similar but cumulative in nature, this Supplemental affidavit is being submitted as evidence of the unabated practices of the respondent.
3. To show that the respondent has demonstrated without compunction, unlawful practices, some of the Sworn Statements of the complaining witnesses are enumerated chronologically hereunder and copies thereof are attached for the consideration of this Honorable Tribunal.
a) Certified Photo Copy of the Original letter of Perlita Auditor, Accused in Criminal Case No. 4856-97, dated August 20 1996, alleging that she was only able to put together P6,000.00 for her temporary liberty, while under detention for preliminary investigation in the Municipal Trial Court of DasmariÃ±as, and praying that Judge Lorinda T. Mupaz (sic) accept the said amount, copy of which is attached as Annex "A;"
b) A letter dated July 20, 2001, addressed to the undersigned, enumerating the irregularities being committed by the respondent and even calling the same as "racket," copy of which is attached as Annex "B;"
c) A Sinumpaang Salaysay of one, Berlin Alberto, detailing the participation of the respondent in fixing bail bond and imposing unnecessary requirements in order to force the applicant in coughing up cash amount for the "premium of the bail bond," alleged on page two thereof.
d) Affidavit of one, Rolando Gadia, dated August 3, 2001, showing that the respondent has personal interest in the processing of bail bond applications, copy of which is attached as Annex "D;"
i) Subsequently, on November 19, 2001, based on the surety bond presented to the Court for both accused were approved under Criminal Complaints Nos. 01-2020, 01-2021 and 01-2022 with the Complaints filed with the respondent court on November 8, 2001, and the space below the jurat was merely stamped with "Original Signed" attached as Annex "H-1" and Annex "H-2." The space "Noted by" for the Prosecutor is unsigned and no amount of bail recommended appears on the copy of the Complaint, showing that the detention of the respondent for preliminary investigation is unlawful.
k) Mrs. Ilaya who followed up the posting of surety bond for her son, Michael Ilaya y Castro, failed to come back for her Sworn Statement which she promised to present on December 18, 2001, is attached as Annex "J." The Order alleges the circumstances on how the accused has been kept under detention without the preliminary investigation conducted since he was apprehended on June 18, 2001, while the Criminal Complaint No. 01-1045 was filed with the Municipal Trial Court of DasmariÃ±as on June 19, 2001.
Mrs. Ilaya, a widow, hails from Cebu City and came all the way to secure the release of her son for the holidays. She alleged that she could not immediately come to Manila, since she is a single parent. However, she was made to go back and forth in order to secure a copy of the Criminal Complaint as a requirement for the posting of the surety bond, which was finally traced at respondent's residence. Copy of the Order is attached as Annex "J."
Patently then, the charges of irregularities in the processing of approval of bail bonds, corruption, utilizing employees as household help against the respondent judge and attempting to influence the resolution of a criminal case should be dismissed for lack of merit.
From the facts of the case, it is crystal clear that detainees were given ten (10) days by respondent Judge to file their counter-affidavits from receipt of her Orders dated July 23, 2002. But even before the expiration of the ten-day period, another Order was issued by respondent Judge ordering their arrest. Evidently, the issuance of the warrants of arrest was highly irregular and unwarranted. As shown by the evidence, the preliminary investigation of the cases against them has not yet been concluded. Moreover, there is no finding yet of "probable cause" against the detainees.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is hereby GRANTED. Accordingly, the Jail Warden of the DasmariÃ±as PNP, DasmariÃ±as, Cavite, is directed to release Eden Esplago and Rowena Esplago from detention.
Furnish copies hereof to respondent Judge Lorinda T. Mupas and to petitioner's counsel.
Clearly then, the respondent judge displayed gross ignorance of the law in failing to observe the requirement of a finding of probable cause before ordering the arrest of the accused in a criminal case. Section 8, Rule 140 of the Revised Rules of Court, as amended, classifies administrative charges as serious, less serious, or light. Gross ignorance of the law or procedure and gross misconduct constituting violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct are classified as serious charges.
Judge Mupas counter-charged that Judge EspaÃ±ol herself acted on applications for bail and ordered the release of the accused in some cases pending before the sala of Mupas for preliminary investigation although the latter was not on leave of absence.
On the matter of where applications for bail should be filed, Judge EspaÃ±ol argued that there is no law or rule prohibiting her from approving bail even if the case is already pending in other courts. She cited Section 17(c), Rule 114 of the Rules of Court, which states that "any person in custody who is not yet charged in court may apply for bail with any court in the province, city or municipality where he is held."
There appears a need for the Court to clarify and settle the issue that has become an irritant in the official relations between the complainant and the respondent. Judge Mupas questions the legality or propriety of Judge EspaÃ±ol's propensity in acting on applications for bail and ordering the release of detention prisoners whose cases are pending in and falling under the original and exclusive jurisdiction of her court, the MTC of DasmariÃ±as, Cavite, even if she (Judge Mupas) is present in her court. She further asserts that Judge EspaÃ±ol requires and approves bail even for violations of municipal ordinances.
The Court shall thus settle the matter of the issuance of bail bonds.
SEC. 5. Duty of investigating judge. - Within ten (10) days after the conclusion of the preliminary investigation, the investigating judge shall transmit to the provincial or city fiscal, for appropriate action, the resolution of the case stating briefly the findings of facts and the law supporting his action, together with the entire records of the case, which shall include: (a) the warrant, if the arrest is by virtue of a warrant; (b) the affidavits and the other supporting evidence of the parties; (c) the undertaking or bail of the accused; (d) the order of release of the accused and cancellation of his bailbond (sic), if the resolution is for the dismissal of the complaint.
Should the provincial or city fiscal disagree with the findings of the investigating judge on the existence of probable cause, the fiscal's ruling shall prevail, but he must explain his action in writing furnishing the parties with copies of his resolution, not later than thirty (30) days from receipt of the records from the judge. If the accused is detained, the fiscal shall order his release.
Sec. 17. Bail where filed. - (a) Bail in the amount fixed may be filed with the court where the case is pending, or, in the absence or unavailability of the judge thereof, with another branch of the same court within the province or city. If the accused is arrested in a province, city or municipality other than where the case is pending, bail may be filed also with any other regional trial court of said place, or, if no judge thereof is available, with any metropolitan trial judge, municipal trial judge or municipal circuit trial judge therein.
The powers of an executive judge relate only to those necessary or incidental to the performance of his/her functions in relation to court administration.
However, considering that Judge EspaÃ±ol compulsorily retired from the service on January 9, 2004 after fourteen (14) years of service in the judiciary, she can no longer be charged for the aforesaid acts.
Let this be a reminder to judges and executive judges alike not to arrogate upon themselves the authority of issuing orders which do not properly belong to their respective jurisdictions. Such conflicts and hostilities between judges serve no purpose but to put the Court in a bad light, a situation we can ill afford during these difficult and trying times.
WHEREFORE, conformably to Section 11(A) of Rule 14070 of the Revised Rules of Court, as amended, for gross ignorance of the law and violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct, respondent Judge Lorinda Mupas is meted a FINE of Twenty-One Thousand Pesos (P21,000).
1 Joint Report and Recommendation, pp. 2-3.
Amelia G. Rivor, Clerk of Court II; Adelina B. Olaes, Court Interpreter I; Belen S. Guanco, Court Stenographer I; Marivic C. Francisco, Court Stenographer I; Susana B. Villena, Court Stenographer I; Ma. Rowena V. Jarin, Clerk II; Giovanni R. Reintegrado, Process Server; and Edgardo B. Bisente, Utility I.
5.1 In quite a number of instances, in hearings for arraignment of criminal cases before her, she would call the parties in front of her in open court and ask - in an audible voice for everyone to hear - them to settle their cases and if the accused refused, she would say "sige pakulong ka na lang," and if it is the complainant who refused to settle she would say, "bahala ka, kung gusto mong ituloy, hindi naman makukulong ito, ang liit-liit na kaso!" effectively prejudging the cases. Even lawyers are not exempted from her sharp tongue, as she would on occasion utter unsavory words against the lawyers and litigants.
5.2 In one case (People of the Philippines v. Bienvenido Dimailig, Criminal Case No. 99-0840, For: Violation of BP 22), Judge Mupas sent a note through my client, which reads "draft decision" (A copy of the said note is hereto attached marked as Annex "A" and made an integral part hereof). Since this is unethical, I did not draft the decision.
5.3 She has referred to me for handling a few cases for annulment. While the said cases were not before her sala, I found out that she was actually charging fees for the said cases, despite having referred them to me, as the client blurted out that the handling of her case was very expensive, when I had not even billed anything for my services! Moreover, she would even remind me to do things for these cases, such as draft, prepare and file pleadings or motions (as shown by a copy of her note dated 30 October 1997 hereto attached marked as Annex "B" and made an integral part hereof), which she referred to me, indicating that she was actually monitoring their development, as if she was supervising the conduct and the handling of the cases.
5.4 In a criminal case entitled "People of the Philippine[s] v. Eva Malihan, et al.," she granted bail to the accused Eva Malihan who is accused of a capital offense of Syndicated Estafa without conducting any hearing. She did this by issuing a resolution downgrading the charge to simple estafa, but which upon review by the Provincial Prosecutor was reversed (A copy of said review resolution dated 10 January 2002 is hereto attached marked as Annex "D" and made an integral part hereof), but unfortunately the respondents were by then able to hide and escape the charges. An administrative case has been filed with the Supreme Court docketed as Administrative Case No. 01-1116-MTJ (Rollo, pp. 126-127).
27 Joint Report and Recommendation, pp. 33-34; TSN, 9 August 2002, p. 47.
31 Entitled "In Re: Petition for Habeas Corpus of Detention Prisoners Eden Esplago and Rowena Esplago, Cherry Esplago v. The Municipal Jail Warden of DamariÃ±as PNP or the Officer-in-Charge of the Detainees and Hon. Judge Lorinda T. Mupas of the Municipal Trial Court, DasmariÃ±as, Cavite."
32 Joint Report and Recommendation, p. 42.
37 Joint Report and Recommendation, p. 44.
38 Abraham S. Pua v. Judge Julio R. Logarta, A.M. No. RTJ-92-867, August 31, 2004.
39 Araos v. Luna-Pison, 378 SCRA 247 (2002).
40 Ang v. Asis, 373 SCRA 91 (2002).
41 Lambino v. De Vera, 275 SCRA 60 (1997).
42 Adarlina G. Mataga v. Judge Maxwell Rosete, et al., A. M. No. MTJ-03-1488, October 13, 2004.
44 Judge Roberto Navidad v. Jose B. Lagado, Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Branch 9, Tacloban City, A.M. No. P-03-1682, September 30, 2004.
45 TSN, 9 August 2002, p. 7.
46 Joint Report and Recommendation, p. 43.
48 Supplemental Affidavit, pp. 2-4.
50 Emelie Taguba Lucero v. Judge Felino U. Bangalan, A.M. No. MTJ-04-1534, September 7, 2004.
51 Victor D. Ricafort v. Judge Rogelio C. Gonzales, A. M. No. RTJ-03-1798, September 7, 2004.
52 Carpio v. De Guzman, 262 SCRA 615 (1996).
53 379 SCRA 334 (2002).
55 Rule 2.01, Code of Judicial Conduct.
56 Rule 1.01, Code of Judicial Conduct.
57 Canon 1, Code of Judicial Conduct.
59 Joint Report and Recommendation, pp. 19-20.
60 See Cabatingan, Sr. v. Arcueno, 387 SCRA 532 (2002).
61 Depamaylo v. Brotarlo, 265 SCRA 151 (1996).
62 405 SCRA 521 (2003), citing Cruz v. Yaneza, 304 SCRA 285 (1999).
64 Pamaran, The 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, Annotated, 1995 ed., p. 237.
65 Panganiban v. Cupin-Tesorero, 388 SCRA 44 (2002).
66 Santiago v. Javellanos, 337 SCRA 21 (2000).
67 Atty. Hilario v. Hon. Ocampo III, 371 SCRA 260 (2001).
68 Judge Lorinda T. Mupas v. Judge Dolores L. EspaÃ±ol, Regional Trial Court, DasmariÃ±as, Cavite, Branch 90, July 14, 2004.
3. A fine of more than P20,000 but not exceeding P40,000.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.