A.M. No. 392.

July 31, 1975

LUISA DE NACIONAL, Complainant, v. HON. JUDGE SEGUNDO M. ZOSA, Respondent.

MARTIN, J.:

FACTS

Respondent Judge was administratively charged with "miscarriage of justice" for

imposing a penalty much lower than that provided for by law. It appears that
respondent credited accused with the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender
and drunkenness without proof, because the fiscal readily agreed to the consideration
of the said circumstances; and the mitigating circumstance of "plea of guilty" after the
prosecution had already presented its evidence.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not proof is required in consideration of mitigating circumstance.

2. Whether or not drunkiness is considered as mitigating circumstance.
3. Whether or not a plea of guilty is considered after presentation of evidence.
4. Whether or not judges can be administratively accountable for erroneous ruling.

RULING

The Supreme Court held that respondent judge erred in considering said mitigating
circumstances for it is well established that mitigating or aggravating circumstances
should be proven before they can be considered in the imposition of the proper penalty.
And, although there is nothing wrong in allowing the accused to change his plea of "not
guilty" to that of "guilty" even after the prosecution had presented its evidence, it was a
clear error to consider the final "plea of guilty" as a mitigating circumstance. In view,
however, of the lack of bad faith on the part of respondent judge, the administrative
charge is dismissed, but, respondent is admonished.

SYLLABUS

1. The rule is well established that the mitigating or aggravating circumstances should
be proven before they can be considered in the imposition of the proper penalty. Thus,
in considering voluntary surrender as a mitigating circumstance, it is not enough for a
judge to ask the arresting policeman in open court without even placing him under
oath, whether the accused surrendered to him voluntarily or he had to arrest him; and
the explanation that no hearing was conducted to determine said mitigating
circumstance because the fiscal did not object when it was proposed, is highly
untenable.
2. Respondent judge committed an error in considering the mitigating circumstance of
drunkenness, by relying solely on the manifestation of the policeman, who was not
even placed under oath, that the accused smelled of liquor when arrested, without
verifying whether the condition of the accused was habitual or incidental to embolden
him to commit the crime.

3. Although there is nothing wrong in allowing the accused to change his plea of "not
guilty" to "guilty" even after the prosecution had presented its evidence, it was a clear
error on the part of the judge to consider the final "plea of guilty" as a mitigating
circumstance.

4. A judge cannot be held administratively triable for mere error of judgment, because
to hold a judge administratively accountable for every erroneous ruling or decision he
renders, assuming that he has erred, would be nothing short of harrassment and would
make his position unbearable.