Petitioner Judge Juliano failed to justify his inaction on the motion for 116 days. His first reason was that there was only one copy of the motion. The motion was, however, resolved without the additional copies. Another reason posited by petitioner was that the counsel for the complainant did not set the incident for hearing. Yet, as observed by the court a quo: Firstly, as its title expressly states, the motion was ex parte. Secondly, the matter involved in the motion was not contentious. The P10,000.00 was deposited in court by Morales as rentals for the premises in dispute in Civil Case No. 2217 from September 1983 to June 1984, because de la Cruz allegedly refused to accept payment. And the latter was precisely praying in his Complaint for payment of back rentals from August 1983 until Morales vacated the premises. In fact, at no time did Morales contest the motion or the grant thereof. Thirdly, Judge Juliano resolved the motion even if de la Cruz’s counsel did not set the incident for hearing. Admittedly, there was indeed no valid reason for the delay in the disposition of the motion and the complainants testimony that petitioner, through Vera Cruz, had extorted money from him. De la Cruz further stated that on the day he was able to withdraw the money, he handed P9,500.00 thereof to Vera Cruz, who turned it over to petitioner Judge Juliano in the latter’s office. To this accusation, petitioner merely offered bare denials. Petitioner’s defense was weak. His denial, not supported by clear and convincing evidence, is at most self-serving and therefore, cannot be given weight and greater value over the positive testimony of the complainant. While there may be some inconsistencies in complainant’s testimony, as pointed out by the petitioner, the same did not suffer from any major discrepancies and did not affect his credibility. Moreover, there was no showing that de la Cruz, who only finished fourth grade, had been moved by improper motive to prosecute the petitioner. Well-established is the rule that where there is no evidence to indicate that the prosecution witness was actuated by improper motive, the presumption is that he was not so actuated and that he would not prevaricate and cause damnation to one who brought him no harm or injury (Judeg Juliano v. Sandiganbayan et al., G.R. No. 100487, March 3, 1997).
;
No comments:
Post a Comment