Republic
of the Philippines
SUPREME
COURT
Manila
EN BANC .
.
SANGGUNIANG BAYAN
OF GUINDULMAN, BOHOL,
Petitioner,
A.M.
No.
MTJ-03-1487
December 1, 2003
-versus-
JUDGE MANUEL A.
DE
CASTRO, ACTING PRESIDING
JUDGE,MCTC,
GUIDULMAN-DUERO,
BOHOL,
Respondent.
R E S O L U T I
O N
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Before Us is an Administrative
Complaint against Judge Manuel A. de Castro, Acting Presiding Judge,
Municipal
Circuit Trial Court (MCTC), Guindulman-Duero, Bohol for violations of
Administrative
Circular
No. 3-99, Section 1(f), Rule 116 of the Revised Rules on Criminal
Procedure
and Rule 2.01 of the Code of Judicial Conduct; for arbitrary release of
the accused in Criminal Case No. G-1912[1]
and for not imposing the proper penalty provided for in Sec. 90, R.A.
No.
8550, otherwise known as The Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On May 20, 2002, the
Sangguniang Bayan of Guindulman, Bohol (Sangguniang Bayan for brevity)
passed Resolution No. 2002-05-109 requesting the Executive Presiding
Judge
of the Regional Trial Court of Bohol and the Chief Justice of the
Supreme
Court of the Philippines to conduct and initiate an investigation
regarding
the alleged arbitrary release of the accused in Criminal Case No.
G-1912.
Said request was made as a consequence of the series of events which
began
in the early morning of May 17, 2002 when lawmen apprehended the boat
captain
and eight crew members of the fishing boat B/B Junida-J who were
fishing
within the vicinity of the municipal waters and fish sanctuary of
Basdio,
Guindulman, Bohol with a ring net (known locally as "licom"). Charges
for
violation of Sections 86, 90 and 96 of Republic Act No. 8550 were
immediately
filed with the MCTC, Guindulman-Duero, Bohol, presided over in an
acting
capacity by Judge Manuel A. de Castro (hereinafter referred to as
respondent).
In the morning of the very next day, a Saturday, two of the accused,
namely:
Narciso J. Jusay, Jr. (boat owner) and Rolando T. Amistoso (boat
captain)
were released from detention upon order of respondent. It appears that
respondent held a court session on May 18, 2002, despite the fact that
it was a Saturday, and proceeded to arraign both accused who pleaded
guilty.
A certain SPO1 Floro P. Felicia acted as prosecutor. Thereupon,
respondent
issued an Order dated May 18, 2002, which We quote verbatim:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Before summons could
be served, accused Narciso J. Jusay, Jr. (Owner), Rolando T. Amistoso
(Boat
Captain), of B-B Junida-J, requested the court for an immediate
arraignment
because they will plead guilty and pay the penalty of fine as first
offenders
of the above-mentioned charged for Violation of Section 86, 90 and 96,
RA 8550.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Accordingly, the Court
conducted immediate arraignment of the said accused, and after they
plead
guilty, the Court sentenced them to pay a fine in the total sum of Five
Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00), which is the fine imposable on first
offenders
of the above-mentioned charge:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE,
let the persons of the accused Narciso J. Jusay, Jr. and Rolando T.
Amistoso,[2]
be released immediately from detention upon receipt of this order, and
let also the fishing boat "B/B Junida-J, which was impounded by the
Police
authorities of Guindulman, Bohol, be turned-over to the boat owner.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.
Guindulman, Bohol,
Philippines,
May 18, 2002.
MANUEL A. DE CASTRO
Acting MCTC Judge
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Fine paid under O.R.
No. 12390582
In the amount of Five
Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00)
Dated May 18, 2002[3]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Surprised by such turn
of events, the Sangguniang Bayan passed the aforementioned Resolution
No.
2002-05-109 on May 20, 2002, and a copy thereof was received by the
Office
of the Chief Justice, Supreme Court on June 25, 2002. The same was
referred
to Deputy Court Administrator Zenaida N. Elepaño.
On August 5, 2002,
DCA Elepaño referred the matter to Executive Judge Dionisio R.
Calibo,
Jr., Regional Trial Court, Loay, Bohol for comment/appropriate action.
Judge Calibo required respondent to submit his Comment/Explanation on
the
alleged arbitrary release of the accused in Criminal Case No. G-1912.
Judge de Castro
submitted
his Comment/Explanation on August 27, 2002.[4]
He stated that at around 8:00 in the morning of May 18, 2002, a
Saturday,
SPO1 Floro P. Felicia arrived at his house and informed him that
accused
Narciso J. Jusay, Jr. and Rolando Amistoso are requesting for an
immediate
arraignment because they learned that respondent judge only serves the
court of Guindulman on Fridays, and if they wait until that day, then
the
other nine crew members would be placed in the predicament of not
having
enough for their daily sustenance while the accused remain in detention
and because they fear that their fishing boat, which has no safe
anchorage,
would be damaged; that they intend to plead guilty and pay the fine
imposed
by the court. Relying on such representation, respondent judge acceded
to the request and commanded SPO1 Felicia to fetch the Clerk of Court
for
the formal arraignment of the accused.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Respondent held court
session that Saturday and called the subject criminal case for
arraignment,
with SPO1 Felicia acting as prosecutor. While the complaint was being
read,
respondent noticed that although the charges were for violation of
Sections
86, 90 and 96 of R.A. No. 8550, the facts alleged in the body of the
complaint
as well as in the affidavits of prosecution witnesses made out a case
for
violation of Section 90 of the aforementioned law only, that is,
fishing
with the use of ring net or "licom". Thus, respondent arraigned accused
only on charges of violation of Section 90.[5]
Accused Jusay, Jr. and Amistoso waived their right to counsel and
pleaded
guilty. Respondent then issued the Order in question and upon payment
of
the fine of P5,000.00, both accused were released from jail.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Reacting on the
Comment/Explanation
of respondent, the Sangguniang Bayan sent a letter dated October 2,
2002
to Executive Judge Calibo, Jr. and raised several issues, to wit:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Now with the
explanation
of Judge Manuel de Castro, specific salient points/questions surfaced
as
follows:
1. Whether
an immediate arraignment on a Saturday is appropriate for a case as
major
as illegal fishing;
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
2. Whether the
problem
on subsistence of the accused is sufficient reason to conduct an
immediate
arraignment;
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
3. Whether the
alleged
arraignment was proper even if the Chief of Police was not informed and
his supposed representative was not authorized and the
prosecution witnesses
were not called to attend;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
4. The complaint as
filed by SPO1 Henry Salada, PNP and approved by SPO4 Juanito Janiola,
Acting
Chief of Police, involved 3 principal accused and 9 accessories and yet
only 2 accused pleaded guilty;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
5. There is no
satisfactory
reason in reducing the three violations of the accused as pointed out
by
the prosecution to only one; and
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
6. In the transcript
of the stenographic notes during the immediate arraignment, the
representative
of the prosecution seemed not to act as one.[6]
On November 19, 2002,
Executive
Judge Calibo, Jr. accordingly conducted an investigation. He ordered
the
police officers involved to appear before the court so as to shed
additional
light on the incident.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SPO1 Felicia testified
as follows: At around 8:30 in the morning of Saturday, May 18, 2002, he
was called upon by respondent to attend the arraignment of the accused
because they will plead guilty. He denied the claim of respondent that
it was he (SPO1 Felicia) who approached respondent Judge to request for
an immediate arraignment for the accused. He was the one who
represented
the prosecution because at that time, the Acting Chief of Police was
absent
and there were no other senior policeman to appear for the prosecution.
It was normally police investigator SPO1 Henry Salada who is designated
to act as prosecutor, but at that particular time, Salada was also out
on a follow-up patrol to locate the errant fishing boat, thus, he was
the
one who appeared for the prosecution, which he has already done several
times in the past.[7]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SPO1 Henry Salada
testified:
It was the first time that an arraignment was conducted by the MCTC on
a Saturday. He stated that SPO1 Felicia is not authorized to appear as
prosecutor in the arraignment of cases, although it has been the
practice
of respondent judge to just call any of the policemen, in the absence
of
the Chief of Police, to represent the prosecution, usually in
collaboration
with a lawyer as private prosecutor. Moreover, SPO1 Felicia would
appear
for the prosecution only during regular hearings and never for an
arraignment.
This incident is the very first time that respondent judge called a
police
officer other than himself (Salada) to prosecute a case even if there
is
no private lawyer present during the hearing. During the arraignment,
the
Fish Wardens who assisted in arresting the accused and their crew were
neither notified nor required to attend.[8]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SPO4 Juanito Janiola,
Acting Chief of Police of Guindulman Municipal Police, testified, as
follows:
He had no knowledge about the arraignment held on that particular
Saturday
because he was out trying to locate the fishing boat. What was taken
into
custody were only the icer and the service pump boat, not the fishing
boat
itself, thus, the fishing boat was able to get away. When he returned
to
the police station at around 3:00 in the afternoon of that Saturday, he
was surprised when SPO1 Salada asked him why the accused were released.
That was the only time he was handed a copy of the assailed Order of
respondent
judge. SPO1 Felicia never informed him of the arraignment that took
place.
He did not leave instructions that in major cases, only someone who
knows
how to prosecute should represent his office because he did not expect
that arraignment could be done on a Saturday. He was then surprised
that
the arraignment was done on a Saturday. That was the first time it
happened
and, in his opinion, the incident can be considered as an irregularity.[9]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Provincial Legal
Officer of the Province of Bohol also submitted his Comments.[10]
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On January 27, 2003,
the Office of DCA Elepaño received Executive Judge Calibo, Jr.'s
"Investigation Report Relative to MCTC Crim. Case No. G-1912 as
Requested
by the Sangguniang Bayan of Guindulman, Bohol in its Resolution No.
2002-05-109"
with the following findings:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
1. There
seems
to be a discrepancy between the claims of Judge de Castro and SPO1
Felicia.
Judge de Castro's claim that it was SPO1 Felicia who informed him about
the request of the accused for an early arraignment was denied by SPO1
Felicia who claims that it was the other way around, i.e., it was Judge
de Castro who had him fetched to attend the arraignment;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
2. There is no
mention
in the affidavit of SPO1 Felicia (Annex "N") as well as in the joint
affidavit
of the municipal fish wardens (Annex "O") that Narciso Jusay, Jr., the
registered fishing boat owner, was among those apprehended by the team;
in fact, he is not even mentioned by SPO1 Felicia in his affidavit.
Yet,
all of a sudden, at 8 a.m. of that Saturday, he was suddenly in court
and
allegedly arraigned together with the boat captain (as the diesel
mechanic
was at large). There is no way of finding out if the one who appeared
in
court as Narciso Jusay, Jr. was in fact not an impostor as he and the
boat
captain were not required to sign the judgment;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
3. Judge de Castro
should have issued a "Decision" not a mere "Order" (Annex "P");chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
4. Although the
"Order"
mentions that the accused will plead guilty "as first offenders of the
above-mentioned charged (sic) for Violation of Section 86, 90 and 96,
R.A.
8550" (which involves three violations, and therefore, three separate
sentences),
he does not explain in his "Order" (actually, a Decision) why he
imposes
a total fine of only P5,000 for three offenses;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
5. There is nothing
in the court record to show that the accused were duly informed about
their
constitutional right to counsel. The "Order" does not even mention if
someone
appeared for the prosecution;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
6. It was not correct
for the judge to conclude in his "Order" that the sum of P5,000.00 "is
the fine imposable on first offenders of the above-mentioned charge
inasmuch
as the amount arrived at was purely the result of judicial discretion;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
7. The judge may have
exaggerated the right of the accused to a speedy trial and negated the
equally important right of the prosecution to their day in court and to
due process. He could have given the prosecution a chance to amend its
complaint, e.g. to expressly specify the violations committed under
Sections
86 and 96 of R.A. 8550. For that matter, he could have waited for SPO1
Salada (whom he knows to be the police investigator-prosecutor of
PNP-Guindulman
and the one who prepared the complaint) to report on Monday. After all,
as he pointed out, the arraignment would not take too much time and he
can afford to be a little late in the other sala he has to attend to.
In
other words, his actuations did make him look like he was acting more
like
the counsel for the accused;
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
8. The Provincial
Legal
Officer, Atty. Angel Ucat, notes in his Comments (Annex "L") that the
earlier
copy (Annex "Q") of the questioned Order (Annex "P") which his staff
procured
from the 9th MCTC (following the SB request to investigate the
incident)
does not contain the alleged superimposition of the name Rolando T.
Amistoso
in Annex "P" submitted by Judge de Castro to the undersigned;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
9. Curiously, Judge
de Castro states in his Order "Let the fishing boat which was impounded
by the police authorities of Guindulman, Bohol, be turned over to the
boat
owner." Actually, as SPO4 Janiola, SPO1 Salada, and SPO1 Felicia
admitted,
the fishing boat was never impounded as it disappeared after the
incident;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
10. Finally, and what
could probably be the blatant and undeniable irregularity in the
questioned
Order is why the respondent judge chose to impose only Penalty No. 2
(the
fine) and ignore the Penalty Nos. 1 and 3 of Section 90, R.A. No. 8550.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
x
x
x
x x
x
x x x
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In other words, the
non-imposition[11]
of Penalty Nos. 1 and 3 is expressly provided by law; hence, not
included
in the discretion of the judge. Accordingly, the boat captain should
have
been slapped a penalty of imprisonment; only the owner should have been
fined, not the boat captain; and the Order should have included the
confiscation
and forfeiture of the fish catch.[12]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
x
x
x
x x
x
x x x
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On April 8, 2003, this
Court issued a Resolution noting Resolution No. 2002-05-109, dated May
20, 2002 of the Sangguniang Bayan and treating the same as an
administrative
complaint against respondent and directing him to file his Comment on
the
matters raised in said Resolution No. 2002-05-109.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On June 9, 2003, we
received respondent's Comment/Explanation dated May 19, 2003 which
merely
reiterated the statements he made in his Comment/Explanation dated
August
23, 2002, submitted to the investigating judge.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The matter was referred
to the Office of the Court Administrator for evaluation, report and
recommendation,
and in a Memorandum dated September 16, 2003, the Court Administrator
found
respondent judge administratively liable for the following acts:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(a)
Violation
of Administrative Circular No. 3-99 dated 15 January 1999 when he
arraigned
the accused on a Saturday. The aforesaid circular provides that court
sessions
should be held on Mondays to Fridays;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(b) Violation of Sec.
1(f), Rule 116 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure which
requires
the presence of the private offended party at the arraignment for
purposes
of plea bargaining, determination of civil liability and other matters
requiring his presence;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(c) Imposing a
penalty
of fine to the boat captain, who should have been meted the penalty of
imprisonment of two (2) years to six (6) years, as provided in R.A. No.
8550; andchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(d) Committing undue
haste in conducting the arraignment of the accused, thus giving the
impression
that he is partial in favor of the accused[13]recommending
that respondent judge be fined in the amount of P20,000.00 for Gross
Ignorance
of the Law or Procedure with a stern warning that commission of similar
acts in the future will be dealt with more severely.chan
robles virtual law libraryhan robles virtual law library
We approve the
foregoing
findings and recommendations except as to the recommended penalty and
some
other modifications as will be discussed forthwith.
Verily, respondent
judge committed serious irregularities in the procedures laid down by
the
Supreme Court, thereby giving the impression that he is favoring the
accused
to the detriment of the interests of the State.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Respondent set the
arraignment of the accused the day following their arrest which is a
Saturday.
The holding of court session on a Saturday is a blatant violation of
Administrative
Circular No. 3-99, which provides that "[t]he session hours of all
Regional
Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial
Courts
shall be from 8:30 in the morning to noon and from 2:00 to 4:30 in the
afternoon, from Monday to Friday."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Worse, respondent
failed
to send a written notice of said arraignment to the offended party.
Sec.
1(f), Rule 116 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure requires such
notice, to wit:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(f) The
private
offended party shall be required to appear at the arraignment for
purposes
of plea bargaining, determination of civil liability, and other matters
requiring his presence. In case of failure of the offended party to
appear
despite due notice, the court may allow the accused to enter a plea of
guilty to a lesser offense which is necessarily included in the offense
charged with the conformity of the trial prosecutor alone.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Considering that the
offended party is the State, its representative, in this case, are the
deputized Municipal Fish Wardens.[14]
Respondent had no justifiable reason why he failed to notify them.
Their
names are mentioned at the bottom portion of the complaint. By setting
the arraignment on a Saturday and failing to notify them, respondent
eroded
public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the Judiciary,
clearly
in violation of Rule 2.01 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which
provides:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A judge should behave
at all times as to promote public confidence in the integrity and
impartiality
of the judiciary.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Absent a written notice
duly sent to all parties concerned necessarily produces an impression
of
partiality of the court in favor of the accused. Respondent must know
that
it is not only the accused who has rights. The prosecution likewise has
the right to a fair trial. Thus, in Dimatulac vs. Hon. Villon,[15]
we held:
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The judge's action
must not impair the substantial rights of the accused, nor the right of
the State and offended party to due process of law.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Indeed, for justice
to prevail, the scales must balance; justice is not to be dispensed for
the accused alone. The interest of society and the offended parties
which
have been wronged must be equally considered. Verily, a verdict of
conviction
is not necessarily a denial of justice; and an acquittal is not
necessarily
a triumph of justice, for, to the society offended and the party
wronged,
it could also mean injustice. Justice then must be rendered
even-handedly
to both the accused, on one hand, and the State and offended party, on
the other.[16]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Furthermore, the
indecent
undue haste with which the accused were arraigned, the arbitrary
imposition
of penalties on the accused, the consequent release of the accused and
termination of the case, constitute a patent denial of the prosecution
of the opportunity to fully protect the interest of the State.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Moreover, we note that
respondent failed to comply with the basic and fundamental
constitutional
mandate that no decision shall be rendered by any court without
expressing
therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is
based.[17]
The "Order" issued by the respondent Judge fell short of the standard.
As it is, the entire proceedings undertaken by respondent Judge in
Criminal
Case No. G-1912 is tainted with irregularity.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Further, as correctly
pointed out by the investigating judge, if indeed the complaint was
duplicitous,
respondent could have given the prosecution a chance to amend its
complaint,
pursuant to Section 14, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure,
to wit:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SEC. 14. Amendment.
— The information or complaint may be amended, in substance or form,
without
leave of court, at any time before the accused pleads; and thereafter
and
during the trial as to all matters of form, by leave and at the
discretion
of the court, when the same can be done without prejudice to the rights
of the accused.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
x
x
x
x x
x
x x x
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
If it appears at any
time before judgment that a mistake has been named in charging the
proper
offense, the court shall dismiss the original complaint or information
upon the filing of a new one charging the proper offense in accordance
with Section 19, Rule 119, provided the accused would not be placed
thereby
in double jeopardy and may also require the witnesses to give bail for
their appearance at the trial.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Finally, the penalty
of only a fine of P5,000.00 imposed by respondent on both accused in
the
subject criminal case reflects his gross ignorance or absolute
disregard
of the provisions of Republic Act No. 8550.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In the case of In Re:
Joaquin TBorromeo, We held:
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
This Court
has repeatedly and uniformly ruled that a judge may not be held
administratively
accountable for every erroneous order or decision he renders. To hold
otherwise
would be nothing short of harassment and would make his position doubly
unbearable, 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.
The error must be gross or patent, deliberate and malicious, or
incurred
with evident bad faith; it is only in these cases that administrative
sanctions
are called for as an imperative duty of the Supreme Court.[18]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In the instant case,
the complained acts of the respondent judge are gross, deliberate and
patently
prejudicial to the interest of the judiciary.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Section 90 of said
law, as earlier reproduced in the early part of herein Resolution,
clearly
enumerates the penalties that should be imposed on violators thereof.
It
specifically imposes a penalty of imprisonment from two years to six
years
on the boat captain and master fisherman of the vessel, a fine ranging
from P2,000.00 to P20,000.00 on the boat owner/operator; and,
confiscation
and forfeiture of the catch. Clearly therefrom, the trial court may
only
exercise its discretion as to the amount of fine to be meted out on the
boat owner, in this case, accused Jusay, Jr., but it is not within the
discretion of the court whether or not to impose the penalty of
imprisonment
on boat captain Amistoso. Upon a finding of guilt, it is mandatory for
the court to impose the penalty of imprisonment on the accused boat
captain
Amistoso. Respondent, in imposing only a fine of P5,000.00 for both the
boat owner and boat captain, has not been able to justify why he
disregarded
with impunity the proper penalties that should have been imposed on the
guilty offenders.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The actuation of respondent
is a clear example of gross ignorance of the law or procedure. In De
Guzman,
Jr. vs. Sison[19]
the Court held thus:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
To
reiterate,
observance of the law, which he is bound to know is required of every
judge.
When the law is sufficiently basic, a judge owes it to his office to
simply
apply it; anything less than that would be constitutive of gross
ignorance
of the law. A judge should be the embodiment of competence, integrity
and
independence. It is a pressing responsibility of judges to keep abreast
with the law and the changes therein for ignorance of the law, which
everyone
is bound to know, excuses no one, not even judges. Indeed, it has been
said that — when the inefficiency springs from a failure to consider so
basic and elemental a rule, a law or a principle in the discharge of
his
duties, a judge is either too incompetent and undeserving of the
position
and the title he holds or is too vicious that the oversight or omission
was deliberately done in bad faith and in grave abuse of judicial
authority.[20]
(Emphasis
supplied)chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
And although a judge
may not always be subjected to disciplinary action for every erroneous
order or decision he renders, that selective immunity is not a license
to be negligent or abusive and arbitrary in performing his adjudicatory
prerogative.[21]
In the present case, respondent impudently misused his authority to
impose
the penalty under the law which we cannot countenance. If judges
wantonly
misuse the powers vested in them by law, there will not only be
confusion
in the administration of justice but even also oppressive disregard of
the basic requirements of due process.[22]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Thus, we also find
respondent judge guilty of the serious charge of Gross Ignorance of the
Law or Procedure under paragraph 9, Sec. 8, Rule 140 of the Rules of
Court,
as amended, punishable with sanctions enumerated under Section 11, Rule
140 of the same Rules, to wit:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Sec. 11.
Sanctions.
- A. If the respondent is guilty of a serious charge, any of the
following
sanctions may be imposed:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
1. Dismissal from the
service, forfeiture of all or part of the benefits as the Court may
determine,
and disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any public
office,
including government-owned or controlled corporations. Provided,
however,
That the forfeiture of benefits shall in no case include accrued leave
credits;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
2. Suspension from
office without salary and other benefits for more than three (3) but
not
exceeding six (6) months; orchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
3. A fine of more
than
P20,000.00 but not exceeding P40,000.00.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
However, We note that
there
is nothing on record to show that respondent had been administratively
charged with any wrongdoing in the past. Considering that this is his
first
offense and in the absence of proof that the acts were committed for
monetary
consideration, the Court finds it proper to temper the penalty to be
meted
out and extend liberality to respondent by imposing the penalty of fine
of P40,000.00.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, for Gross
Ignorance of the Law and Procedure and violation of Rule 2.01 of the
Code
of Judicial Conduct, respondent Judge Manuel A. de Castro is FINED
Forty
Thousand Pesos (P40,000.00) with a STERN WARNING that a commission of
similar
acts in the future will be dealt with more severely.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Davide, Jr., C.J.,
Puno, Vitug, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago,
Sandoval-Gutierrez,
Carpio, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., Azcuna and Tinga, JJ.,
concur.chan
robles virtual law library
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Entitled, "People of the Philippines, Plaintiff vs. Narciso J. Jusay,
Jr.
(Owner), Rolando TAmistoso (Boat Captain) and Alex Sanillo (Master
Diesel
Mechanic) At-large, Accused".
[2]
The name Rolando T. Amistoso appears to be merely inserted.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Annex "9" of Judge Manuel A. de Castro's Comment/Explanation, Rollo, p.
90.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Rollo, p. 111.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
Sec. 90. Use of Active Gear in the Municipal Waters and Bays and Other
Fishery Management Areas. — It shall be unlawful to engage in fishing
in
municipal waters and in all bays as well as other fishery management
areas
using active fishing gears as defined in this Code.
Violators of the above prohibitions shall suffer the following
penalties:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(1)
The boat captain and master fisherman of the vessels who participated
in
the violation shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment from two (2)
years
to six (6) years;
(2)
The owner/operator of the vessel shall be fined from Two thousand pesos
(P2,000.00) to Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) upon the discretion
of
the court.
If the owner/operator is a corporation, the penalty shall be imposed on
the chief executive officer of the corporation.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
If the owner/operator is a partnership the penalty shall be imposed on
the managing partner;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(3)
The catch shall be confiscated and forfeited.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
Annex "G", Rollo, p. 124.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
TSN, November 22, 2002.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
TSN, November 29, 2002.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
TSN, December 10, 2002.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
Rollo, p. 174.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]
Should read "imposition".chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[12]
Investigation Report, pp. 7–10, Rollo, pp. 101–104.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[13]
Memorandum dated September 16, 2003, p. 5, Rollo, p. 218.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[14]
Namely: Elpidio J. Pacatang, Jr., Demetrio F. Jandayan and Gualberto
Pacatang,
who had executed a Joint Affidavit that was the basis of the filing of
the respondent against the accused Boat owner Jusay, Boat Captain
Amistoso
and Master Diesel Mechanic Alex Sanillo (at-large).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[15]
G.R. No. 127107, October 12, 1998, 358 Phil. 333.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[16]
Id. at p. 365.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[17]
Sec. 14, Article VIII, 1987 Constitution.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[18]
241 SCRA 405, 464–465 (1995); Flores vs. Abesamis, 275 SCRA 302, 317
(1997).
[19]
A.M. No. RTJ-01-1629, 26 March 2001, 355 SCRA 69.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[20]
Id. at pp. 84–85.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[21]
De Guzman, Jr. vs. Sison, 355 SCRA 69, 82-83 (2001).
[22]
Id., p. 431.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred |