- Edgardo Mabelin, a legal researcher for an RTC branch in Albay, was charged with dishonesty and incompetence for his handling of a firearm submitted as evidence in a criminal case. After the defendant was acquitted, Judge Sañez inquired about the firearm's whereabouts, as it was missing from court records. Mabelin claimed he transferred the firearm to Judge Villanueva per his request.
- An investigation found Mabelin sold the firearm to Judge Villanueva for 4,500 pesos instead of turning it over to the proper authorities. Judge Villanueva also claimed to have later used the firearm to pay off a 5,000 peso debt. M
- Edgardo Mabelin, a legal researcher for an RTC branch in Albay, was charged with dishonesty and incompetence for his handling of a firearm submitted as evidence in a criminal case. After the defendant was acquitted, Judge Sañez inquired about the firearm's whereabouts, as it was missing from court records. Mabelin claimed he transferred the firearm to Judge Villanueva per his request.
- An investigation found Mabelin sold the firearm to Judge Villanueva for 4,500 pesos instead of turning it over to the proper authorities. Judge Villanueva also claimed to have later used the firearm to pay off a 5,000 peso debt. M
- Edgardo Mabelin, a legal researcher for an RTC branch in Albay, was charged with dishonesty and incompetence for his handling of a firearm submitted as evidence in a criminal case. After the defendant was acquitted, Judge Sañez inquired about the firearm's whereabouts, as it was missing from court records. Mabelin claimed he transferred the firearm to Judge Villanueva per his request.
- An investigation found Mabelin sold the firearm to Judge Villanueva for 4,500 pesos instead of turning it over to the proper authorities. Judge Villanueva also claimed to have later used the firearm to pay off a 5,000 peso debt. M
* - When the determination of the whereabouts of the
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, complainant, firearm subject of the criminal case came about, he vs. EDGARDO A. MABELIN, respondent. desperately tried to locate his friend but to no avail. He does not, however, know if the firearm sold to him is CARPIO-MORALES, J.: the same firearm subject of the criminal case.
ANTECEDENT FACTS: Upon the conclusion of Justice Atienza’s investigation
Edgardo A. Mabelin, Legal Researcher II of the RTC, during which Judge Villanueva appeared, the Justice, Branch 14, Ligao, Albay, was charged with Dishonesty crediting Judge Villanueva’s explanation, recommended and Incompetence in the performance of duty by the that respondent be charged administratively for Dishonesty Office of the Court Administrator (OCA). and that Atty. Quiñones be directed to file a criminal complaint for Malversation of Government Property with WHY? the Office of the Ombudsman for Luzon. An information for Illegal Possession of Firearm and Ammunitions was filed against Zaldy Lizano. The firearm As Acting Branch Clerk of Court, Mr. Mabelin received the was described in the Information as “COVINA model, Cal. COVINA firearm, Cal. 22 with Serial No. F-00797 when it 22, Serial No. F00797.” was submitted in evidence by reason of the duties of his During the trial of the criminal case conducted by Judge office. The firearm eventually became a government Sañez, of the Albay RTC at Ligao, the firearm was property after the decision has become final and executory. submitted in evidence and entrusted to the custody of Mr. Mabelin failed to produce the firearm after he received Mabelin who had been Acting Clerk of Court of Branch 14 the letter of Judge Sañez. His failure to produce the firearm of the court since 1989. upon receipt of the letter of Judge Sañez is a prima facie Finding that the prosecution failed to prove that the firearm evidence that appropriated the missing firearm to his subject of the case was the same firearm seized from the Personal use. accused and, finding that the firearm was inadmissible in evidence, the accused was acquitted. By Supreme Court Resolution dated August 25, 1998 the case against Mabelin was treated as an Administrative FACTS: Complaint for “Dishonesty and Incompetence in the More than 5 years after the decision in the criminal case Performance of Duty” and was docketed as ADM-98- was promulgated, Judge Sañez, then already the Executive 1275, the subject of the present case. Judge of the RTC at Ligao, sent a letter addressed to the Branch Clerk of Branch 14 of the court requesting a written OMB: In the meantime, the OCA referred the criminal aspect of report on the whereabouts of the COVINA firearm subject the case to the Ombudsman for the filing of appropriate court of the criminal case after finding out that the same was proceeding against Mabelin. neither in the custody of the court nor with the Firearms and - The case, docketed as OMB-1-98-1963, was, Explosives Unit (FEU) of the PNP. however, closed and terminated in view of the fact that The letter was received by Atty. Quiñones, who was Atty. Quiñones, who was directed to file a formal appointed Branch 14 Clerk of Court. Since respondent was complaint under oath against respondent, had ceased the Acting Clerk of Court of Branch 14 at the time the to be connected with the Ligao RTC (in 1999), hence, criminal case was tried and decided, Atty. Quiñones “the absence of a vital witness to warrant further forwarded the letter to him. proceedings.” In reply to the query of Judge Sañez, Mabelin explained that in the later part of 1992, Ligao RTC Branch 13 Presiding In his Comment Mabelin admits that: Judge Romulo Villanueva, who was designated Acting - while it was his duty to deliver the firearm to the proper Presiding Judge of Branch 14 of the court verbally authorities, he submits, there was no order issued to requested that the custody of the firearm be transferred to that effect by the trial court as provided for in the him to which he acceded. Manual for Clerks of Court; - he transferred the custody of the firearm to Judge Judge Sañez thus brought the matter to the OCA by letter Villanueva in obedience to the order of a superior; with the suggestion that an investigation be conducted - there is no truth to the claims of Judge Villanueva who thereon. should be faulted for violation of the Canons of - The OCA, in turn, directed Consultant Justice Narciso Professional and Judicial Ethics, the Code of Ethical Atienza to conduct a fact finding investigation Standards for public officials and employees, the Anti- Graft and Corrupt Practices Law and allied penal laws; Judge Villanueva was later to claim during the investigation - it was unlikely and inappropriate for a judge to enter, of the present case conducted by Justice ATIENZA as without being suspicious, into a sale transaction follows: involving an “unlicensed/unregistered” firearm by - He bought the firearm from Mabelin for P4.5k upon the merely relying upon his (respondent’s) alleged his representation that he owned it and was a loose misrepresentations. firearm. - he was “embarrassed” or ashamed to ask Judge - He, thereafter, gave the firearm to a friend who had it Villanueva to acknowledge in writing the turn over to tested and volunteered to have it registered in his him of the firearm. (Judge Villanueva’s) name. - About 4 months later, this same friend visited him to CA: Investigating Justice Cruz found respondent guilty as collect a P5k debt but as he (Judge Villanueva) had no charged. cash and the firearm had not been registered in his - A Clerk of Court must, at all times, exhibit the highest name yet, he offered to his friend, and the latter agreed, sense of honesty and integrity. He should be the to set-off his debt with the firearm. embodiment of competence, honesty and probity, charged as he is with safeguarding the integrity of the court and its proceedings. However, respondent has fault respondent for brazenly carrying in public view an miserably failed to live up to these standards. unlicensed firearm? Would he who “bought” the firearm for - Instead of turning over the COVINA firearm to the FEU, P4,500.00 in three installments (in 1992) just set it off for a respondent malversed the same. Representing that he P5,000.00 debt just because he allegedly did not have cash was the owner of the firearm and that it was not to settle it? involved in any crime or case, he sold the same to Would not the version of respondent that the Judge asked Judge Villanueva who paid P4,500.00 for it. Judge that the firearm be turned over to him be more in Villanueva is a purchaser in good faith and for value. accordance with human experience, given the Judge’s - The act (selling the COVINA firearm) and omission (not ascendancy over respondent? turning over the firearm to the FEU for an unreasonable Would not respondent’s claim of embarrassment or length of time) of respondent, who is involved in the “shame” prevent him from asking the Judge to acknowledge administration of justice, violated the norm of public in writing the turn-over of the firearm to him more plausible? accountability and diminished the people’s faith in the judiciary. His blatant attempt to place the blame But if there are nagging doubts about which version should on a member of the bench demonstrates non-remorse be credited, the corroboration of Mabelin’s version by a and proclivity to send innocent parties to perdition for Branch 12 utility worker, Froilan R. Riñon, when he testified his own wrongdoing. during the investigation before Justice Cruz, prods this Court to give respondent the benefit of the doubt. ISSUE: WON Mabelin is guilty of dishonesty and incompetence - Thus, Riñon, who had been a utility worker at Judge in the performance of his duty – YES. Villanueva’s sala with his consent, declared: o In May of 1992, he was asked by Judge RULING: Villanueva to fetch Mabelin from his office at In administrative proceedings, the quantum of proof Branch 14 and relay to him that he wanted to necessary for a finding of guilt is only substantial see the firearm-exhibit in People v. Gacer, the evidence—such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind criminal case. might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. o He accordingly fetched Mabelin and the two After going over the records of the case, this Court is not of them repaired to Judge Villanueva’s prepared to hold that respondent represented to Judge chambers at Branch 12. Villanueva that the firearm was his and that Judge o Once inside, Judge Villanueva ordered him to Villanueva in good faith “bought” it. prepare coffee as he did during which he - Judge Villanueva was a public prosecutor for 10 years heard the Judge say “This is a nice kind of gun before he joined the judiciary. His detailed account of Ed, for the meantime just leave it here with the circumstances which led to his alleged purchase of me, I’ll take care of this and make the the firearm is simply incredulous. transfer/turnover of this gun to the proper - Thus he claimed: authorities” o On seeing respondent inside the chambers of Branch 14 where he (the judge) was detailed, In fine, this Court does not thus find respondent guilty with a firearm tucked in his waist, his curiosity of DISHONESTY. It finds him, however, guilty of was aroused. He thus asked respondent to INCOMPETENCE IN THE PERFORMANCE OF DUTY. show the firearm to him. - Which is the manifest lack of adequate ability and o As requested, respondent, claiming that he fitness for the satisfactory performance of official duties owned the firearm, albeit it was not licensed, by reason of the officer’s vice or vicious habits. showed it to him. Respondent added that it - This has reference to any physical, moral or intellectual could be licensed as it was a loose firearm. quality the lack of which substantially incapacitates one o Respondent then offered to sell the firearm to to perform the duties of an officer. him and as respondent was not his “enemy” - Incompetence amounts or is equivalent to “inefficiency” and EO 107 allowed loose firearms to be which is descriptive of respondent’s actuations. licensed, he brought it home and kept it for 3 days without, however, scrutinizing or playing Manual for Branch Clerks of Court explicitly mandates: with it or “thoroughly” remembering its brand, - that all exhibits used and turned over to the Court and model, caliber or serial number. before the case/s involving such evidence shall have o He then passed on the firearm to a friend of been terminated shall be under the custody and his, whose identity he withheld until the safekeeping of the Clerk of Court. investigation conducted by Justice Cruz when he revealed his name, Robert Chu. Yet respondent, who admittedly was aware of the above- o Chu had the firearm “test fired” and later told said manual, failed to keep the firearm in his custody and him that he could have it licensed in his safekeeping or to transfer it to the proper authorities. (Judge’s) name. He thereupon bought the - His excuse in failing to transfer the firearm and firearm and paid respondent P4.5k in 3 ammunitions to the FEU of the PNP—absence of an installments without any written memorandum order by the trial court for the purpose—does not lie. covering the transaction. - For the dispositive portion of the criminal case, quoted earlier, clearly stated that the firearm and the rounds of Would the Judge who had been a public prosecutor (in ammunition were “ordered forfeited in favor of the Rizal) for 10 years be unfamiliar or unacquainted with government, the same to be disposed of in accordance firearms that he would not even know the model, brand or with existing laws.” caliber of the firearm he “bought”? Would he readily believe that the unlicensed firearm In any event, if he was waiting for an order, he should have, belonged to respondent and, in any event, would he simply if he could not turn down the order of Judge Villanueva for allow his fancy on the firearm to overpower him and fail to him to turnover possession of the firearm, timely made a written memorandum of such turnover on the records of the criminal case or in the list of exhibits in his custody.
While an annotation of the transfer of possession of the gun
to Judge Villanueva appears on the back of the decision in the criminal case, Justice Atienza rejected the same as inadmissible “for being self-serving,” there being no date and signature. - If that annotation had indeed existed before Judge Sañez inquired on the whereabouts of the firearm, respondent could have readily proffered it in support of this reply to the query of Judge Sañez. But he did not.
Incompetence in the performance of official duties is, under
Section 52 of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (URAC), a grave offense punishable by suspension from the service for 6 Months and 1 Day to 1 Year when committed for the first time. There is no showing that respondent had earlier committed or was faulted for the same charge.
WHEREFORE, Edgardo A. Mabelin is found guilty of
INCOMPETENCE IN THE PERFORMANCE OF DUTY and is accordingly hereby SUSPENDED from the service for 6 Months without pay. SO ORDERED.