In Rolly Pentecostes v. Atty. Hermenegildo Marasigan, the Supreme Court held that a Clerk of Court is responsible for the safekeeping of evidence under their custody. When a Clerk of Court transfers custody of evidence without prior authorization from the court, they can be held administratively liable for simple misconduct, particularly if the evidence is lost or mishandled. This ruling underscores the importance of diligence and adherence to protocol in handling court property.
The Case of the Missing Motorcycle: Accountability in Court Custody
This administrative case was filed by Rolly Pentecostes against Atty. Hermenegildo Marasigan, the Clerk of Court VI of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Kabacan, North Cotabato. The charge was grave misconduct and conduct unbecoming a public officer due to the loss of Pentecostes’ motorcycle, which was evidence in a criminal case and placed under Marasigan’s care. The central question revolved around the extent of responsibility a Clerk of Court has over evidence entrusted to their custody and the consequences of failing to properly safeguard such evidence.
The sequence of events began when Pentecostes’ Kawasaki motorcycle was recovered by the Philippine National Police (PNP) from suspected carnappers. Following a court order, the motorcycle was turned over to Atty. Marasigan on August 1, 1995. After hearings to determine the motorcycle’s true owner, the trial court ordered its release to Pentecostes on November 15, 2000. However, when Pentecostes sought to retrieve his motorcycle, Atty. Marasigan repeatedly delayed its release, leading to the filing of the administrative complaint.
In his defense, Atty. Marasigan claimed that after receiving the motorcycle, he instructed a utility worker, Alex Pedroso, to inspect it. He then directed Pedroso to transfer the motorcycle to the Kabacan police station, preparing a receipt for the turnover. Marasigan stated that Pentecostes refused to accept the motorcycle when the court ordered its release, alleging it had been “cannibalized.” He further claimed that he accompanied Pentecostes to the police station in 2004 to find that the motorcycle was missing. Supporting his claim, Marasigan presented sworn statements from Pedroso and SPO4 Alex Ocampo, affirming the transfer of custody to the Kabacan chief of police.
Pentecostes refuted Marasigan’s account, asserting that the motorcycle was in good condition when delivered to Marasigan. He accused Marasigan of attempting to shift blame to the PNP, emphasizing that Marasigan was the designated custodian responsible for its safekeeping. The fact that there was no record of the turnover in the Kabacan police blotter further supported Pentecostes’ argument.
The case was referred to the Executive Judge of RTC, Kabacan, North Cotabato, for investigation. The investigating judge recommended the dismissal of the complaint, finding that the motorcycle was transferred to the PNP of Kabacan and that there was no proof of Pentecostes’ claim that it was “cannibalized” while under Marasigan’s custody. However, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) disagreed with the recommendation to fully dismiss the complaint, noting that while the turnover to the PNP was substantiated, Marasigan had failed to secure prior authorization from the trial court for this transfer.
The Supreme Court focused on the duty of a clerk of court regarding the safekeeping of court property. The Court cited Section D (4), Chapter VII of the 1991 Manual For Clerks of Court (now Section E, paragraph 2.2.3, Chapter VI of the 2002 Revised Manual for Clerks of Court), which states:
All exhibits used as evidence and turned over to the court and before the case/s involving such evidence shall have been terminated shall be under the custody and safekeeping of the Clerk of Court.
The Court also cited Section 7 of Rule 136 of the Rules of Court, which provides:
SEC. 7. Safekeeping of property. – The clerk shall safely keep all record, papers, files, exhibits and public property committed to his charge, including the library of the court, and the seals and furniture belonging to his office.
Building on these provisions, the Court emphasized that Marasigan, as Clerk of Court, was responsible for the custody and safekeeping of Pentecostes’ motorcycle. The Court noted that Marasigan failed to offer a valid explanation for transferring the motorcycle without prior consultation with or approval from the trial court. Furthermore, the loss of the acknowledgment receipt documenting the turnover of the motorcycle from the trial court to the Kabacan police station reflected poorly on the safekeeping of court records. The Court pointed out that the motorcycle was in serviceable condition when delivered to Marasigan, as evidenced by the Joint Affidavit of SPO2 Guadalupe and Police Inspector Banaybanay, who stated it was in “good running condition.”
The Court highlighted the critical role of clerks of court in the judicial system, emphasizing their duty to efficiently manage court records and safeguard exhibits and public property. Failure to fulfill these duties undermines the integrity of the court and the administration of justice. By transferring the motorcycle without authorization, Marasigan neglected his duty and was therefore liable for misconduct.
The Court distinguished between grave and simple misconduct, noting that grave misconduct involves elements of corruption or willful intent to violate the law. In this case, since there was no evidence of such elements, Marasigan was found guilty of simple misconduct. Under the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, simple misconduct is a less grave offense punishable by suspension. Considering that this was Marasigan’s first offense and there was no evidence of bad faith, the Court deemed a 15-day suspension without pay appropriate.
FAQs
| What was the key issue in this case? | The key issue was whether a Clerk of Court could be held administratively liable for the loss of evidence placed under their custody, particularly when they transferred custody without prior authorization from the court. |
| What was the evidence that was lost in this case? | The evidence that was lost was a Kawasaki motorcycle, which was the subject matter of a criminal case for carnapping. The motorcycle was initially recovered by the police and placed under the custody of the Clerk of Court. |
| What was the Clerk of Court’s defense? | The Clerk of Court claimed that he had transferred the motorcycle to the local police station for safekeeping and that the complainant had initially refused to accept the motorcycle upon its release due to its allegedly poor condition. |
| What did the Court find regarding the Clerk of Court’s actions? | The Court found that the Clerk of Court was liable for simple misconduct because he transferred custody of the motorcycle without obtaining prior authorization from the court, violating his duty to safeguard court property. |
| What is simple misconduct? | Simple misconduct is a transgression of an established rule of action by a public officer, but without the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of established rules that would characterize grave misconduct. |
| What was the penalty imposed on the Clerk of Court? | The Clerk of Court was suspended for 15 days without pay, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar act would be dealt with more severely. |
| Why is it important for court personnel to properly handle evidence? | Proper handling of evidence by court personnel is crucial for maintaining the integrity of the judicial system and ensuring that justice is administered fairly and efficiently. Mishandling or losing evidence can undermine the entire legal process. |
| What should court personnel do if they cannot safely keep evidence in their custody? | If court personnel cannot safely keep evidence in their custody, they should seek prior authorization from the court to transfer its custody to another appropriate authority or location, ensuring that proper documentation and safeguards are in place. |
This case serves as a reminder to all court personnel, especially Clerks of Court, of their crucial role in safeguarding court property and maintaining the integrity of the judicial process. Adherence to established rules and protocols is essential to prevent similar incidents and uphold public trust in the justice system.
For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.
Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: ROLLY PENTECOSTES VS. ATTY. HERMENEGILDO MARASIGAN, A.M. NO. P-07-2337, August 03, 2007