Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 78 views

    Sacmar Vs Carpio

    Uploaded by

    Nora Lupeba
    Linda Sacmar filed a complaint against Judge Agnes Reyes-Carpio for modifying the conviction of Zoren Legaspi from grave threats to other light threats, thereby reducing his criminal liability and the damages he had to pay. Judge Reyes-Carpio denied favoring Legaspi. The Supreme Court dismissed the case, finding no evidence that Judge Reyes-Carpio acted with fraud, dishonesty, corruption or bad faith in rendering her judgment. As judges are not infallible, their judicial acts are not subject to disciplinary action unless committed with such malice.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Sacmar Vs Carpio

    Uploaded by

    Nora Lupeba
    78 views1 page
    Linda Sacmar filed a complaint against Judge Agnes Reyes-Carpio for modifying the conviction of Zoren Legaspi from grave threats to other light threats, thereby reducing his criminal liability and the damages he had to pay. Judge Reyes-Carpio denied favoring Legaspi. The Supreme Court dismissed the case, finding no evidence that Judge Reyes-Carpio acted with fraud, dishonesty, corruption or bad faith in rendering her judgment. As judges are not infallible, their judicial acts are not subject to disciplinary action unless committed with such malice.

    Original Title

    Sacmar vs Carpio

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Linda Sacmar filed a complaint against Judge Agnes Reyes-Carpio for modifying the conviction of Zoren Legaspi from grave threats to other light threats, thereby reducing his criminal liability and the damages he had to pay. Judge Reyes-Carpio denied favoring Legaspi. The Supreme Court dismissed the case, finding no evidence that Judge Reyes-Carpio acted with fraud, dishonesty, corruption or bad faith in rendering her judgment. As judges are not infallible, their judicial acts are not subject to disciplinary action unless committed with such malice.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    78 views1 page

    Sacmar Vs Carpio

    Uploaded by

    Nora Lupeba
    Linda Sacmar filed a complaint against Judge Agnes Reyes-Carpio for modifying the conviction of Zoren Legaspi from grave threats to other light threats, thereby reducing his criminal liability and the damages he had to pay. Judge Reyes-Carpio denied favoring Legaspi. The Supreme Court dismissed the case, finding no evidence that Judge Reyes-Carpio acted with fraud, dishonesty, corruption or bad faith in rendering her judgment. As judges are not infallible, their judicial acts are not subject to disciplinary action unless committed with such malice.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    LINDA M. SACMAR vs. JUDGE AGNES REYES-CARPIO A.M. No. RTJ-03-1766 March 28, 2008 YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

    : FACTS: In the case filed by complainant Sacmar against Zoren Legaspi in the MTC of Pasig City, the latter was convicted for grave threats and was sentenced to arresto mayorand and to pay complainant moral damages of twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00). Upon appeal by Legaspi, RTC Judge Reyes-Carpio (herein respondent) modified the decision, finding the accused guilty only of Other Light Threats under Article 265 of the RPC, reducing the penalty to arresto menor and to pay moral damages of ten thousand pesos (P10,000). Complainant claims that respondent judge wittingly afforded unwarranted benefits to the accused which caused undue injury to her as private complainant in the case. She likewise avers that respondent judge exhibited manifest partiality towards the accused when she disregarded the evidence on record in modifying the decision of the MTC by downgrading the conviction of Legaspi from Grave Threats to Other Light Threats thereby reducing the criminal and civil liabilities of Legaspi.

    Respondent vehemently denied all the charges, claiming that she rendered her decision in good faith, without malice, and without any conscious and deliberate intent to favor a movie actor whom she does not even know.

    In her Reply, complainant pointed out that respondent judge, in her Comment, failed to explain why she unilaterally downgraded the conviction of accused Legaspi. In effect, respondent judge has impliedly admitted the charges against her when she failed to specifically challenge these charges. Complainant assailed the claim of respondent judge that the downgrading of the offense was rendered in good faith and without malice.

    ISSUE: Whether or not Respondent Judge rendered an unjust judgment pursuant to Art. 204, RPC and for violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

    HELD: Case dismissed for lack of merit.

    As a rule, the acts of a judge which pertain to his judicial functions are not subject to disciplinary power unless they are committed with fraud, dishonesty, corruption or bad faith. To hold otherwise would be to render judicial office untenable, for no one called upon to try the facts or interpret the law in the process of administering justice can be infallible in his judgment.

    You might also like