RL: CONVIC1ION OI JUDGL ADORACION G.

ANGLLLS
A.M. No. 06-9-S4S-R1C, 3J January 2008, 1HIRD DIVISION,
(Nachura, J.)

ivce ]vage .vgete.` covrictiov of tbe crive of cbita abv.e i. cvrrevtt, ov aeat before tbe Covrt of .eat., tbe
.ave ba. vot ,et attaivea fivatit,. .. .vcb, .be .titt ev;o,. tbe cov.titvtiovat re.vvtiov of ivvocevce. t vv.t be
revevberea tbat tbe ei.tevce of a re.vvtiov ivaicativg tbe gvitt of tbe accv.ea aoe. vot iv it.etf ae.tro, tbe cov.titvtiovat
re.vvtiov of ivvocevce vvte.. tbe ivcvtativg re.vvtiov, togetber ritb att tbe eriaevce, or tbe tac/ of av, eriaevce or
etavatiov, rore. tbe accv.ea. gvitt be,ova a rea.ovabte aovbt. |vtit tbe accv.ea. gvitt i. .borv iv tbi. vavver, tbe
re.vvtiov of ivvocevce covtivve..
!itb re.ect to tbe tbe vatter ov .v.ev.iov evaevte tite agaiv.t ]vage .vgete., tbe Covrt i. of tbe re.otre tbat,
rbite it i. trve tbat rerevtire .v.ev.iov evaevte tite aoe. vot riotate tbe rigbt of tbe accv.ea to be re.vvea ivvocevt a. tbe
.ave i. vot a evatt,, tbe rvte. ov rerevtire .v.ev.iov of ;vage., vot barivg beev ere..t, ivctvaea iv tbe Rvte. of Covrt,
are avorbov. at be.t.
1he Regional 1rial Court ,R1C, o Quezon City rendered a decision conicting Angeles o
iolation o Republic Act ,R.A., 610. 1he criminal cases are now on appeal beore the Court o
Appeals. Meanwhile, Senior Sate Prosecutor Velasco ,SSP Velasco, o the Departmnt o Justice
expressed his concern regarding the coniction o Judge Angeles. le suggested to then Supreme Court
Chie Justice Artemio Panganiban the immediate suspension of Angeles in furtherance of public
interest. SSP Velasco posited that since Judge Angeles stands conicted o two counts child abuse, her
moral qualiication as a judge is in question. On the basis o SSP Velasco`s letter, the Oice o the Court
Administrator ,OCA, recommended Judge Angeles`s indeinite suspension. Judge Angeles iled an
Urgent Motion or Reconsideration o the aorementioned resolution, claiming that it was unjust since
she was not gien the opportunity to be heard. Moreoer, Judge Angeles maniested that she still enjoys
the presumption o innocence since the criminal cases are on appeal. A resolution liting the suspension
order against Angeles was rendered by the Court. lence, this petition.
ISSUL:
\hether or not the presumption o innocence exists i the judgment conicting an accused is on
appeal
HLLD:
Petition DLNILD.
Judge Angeles Still Lnjoys Constitutional Presumption of Innocence
In ^vve r. .tt,. .rtvro . ..torga, the Court held that the mere existence o pending criminal
charges against the respondent-lawyer cannot be a ground or disbarment or suspension o the latter. 1o
hold otherwise would open the door to harassment o attorneys through the mere iling o numerous
criminal cases against them.
By parity o reasoning, the act o Judge Angeles` coniction by the R1C does not necessarily
warrant her suspension. 1he Court agreed with Judge Angeles` argument that since her coniction o the
crime o child abuse is currently on appeal beore the CA, the same has not yet attained inality. As such,
she still enjoys the constitutional presumption o innocence. It must be remembered that the
existence of a presumption indicating the guilt of the accused does not in itself destroy the
constitutional presumption of innocence unless the inculpating presumption, together with all
the evidence, or the lack of any evidence or explanation, proves the accused's guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt. Until the accused's guilt is shown in this manner, the presumption of
innocence continues.
Preventive Suspension Pendente Lite Does Not Apply to Judges
Moreoer, it is established that any administratie complaint leeled against a judge must always
be examined with a discriminating eye, or its consequential eects are, by their nature, highly penal,
such that the respondent judge stands to ace the sanction o dismissal or disbarment. As
aorementioned, the iling o criminal cases against judges may be used as tools to harass them and may
in the long run create aderse consequences. 1he OCA, as well as SSP Velasco, ailed to proe that other
than the act that a judgment o coniction or child abuse was rendered against the respondent, which is
still on appeal, there are other lawul grounds to support the imposition o preentie suspension. Based
on the oregoing disquisition, the Court is o the resole that, while it is true that preentie suspension
evaevte tite does not iolate the right o the accused to be presumed innocent as the same is not a
penalty, the rules on preventive suspension of judges, not haing been expressly included in the
Rules o Court, are amorphous at best.