EN BANC
P/C
SUPT. LUCAS
M.
MANAGUELOD,
Complainant,
A.M.
No.
RTJ-02-1726
(Formerly OCA I.P.I.
No. 01-1221-RTJ.)
December 12, 2003
-versus-
JUDGE
FERNANDO M.
PACLIBON, JR., REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT, BRANCH 28,STA. CRUZ, LAGUNA
AND JUDGE
FRANCISCO J. GO, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT,PILA, LAGUNA,
Respondents.
R E S O L U T I O
N
PER
CURIAM:
In a letter-complaint
dated April 14, 2000, complainant Atty. Lucas M. Managuelod, Police
Chief
Superintendent then stationed in Camp Vicente Lim, Calamba, Laguna,
charged
respondents Judge Fernando M. Paclibon, Jr. of the Regional Trial
Court,
Branch 28, Sta. Cruz, Laguna and Judge Francisco J. Go of the Municipal
Trial Court of Pila, Laguna, with having committed procedural lapses in
granting bail to accused Ariel Palacol in Criminal Case No. SC-8235,
entitled
People vs. Palacol, and in quashing the search warrants issued in
connection
with Criminal Case No. 7604, entitled People vs. Jaime Manambit, et al.
and Criminal Case No. 7603, entitled People vs. Ferdinand
Pagkaliwanagan. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In Criminal Case No.
SC-8235, complainant averred that, pursuant to a search warrant issued
by respondent Judge Francisco Go, the police confiscated 214.40 grams
of
shabu from Ariel Palacol who was arrested and criminally prosecuted for
violation of R.
A. 6425, the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended by R.
A. 7659. Considering the amount of shabu confiscated from the
accused,
the offense committed should have been treated as a heinous and
therefore
non-bailable crime. However, on March 17, 2000, accused Palacol filed a
motion to fix bail which respondent Judge Go granted on the same day
without
conducting any hearing thereon. He fixed the bail for the provisional
liberty
of the accused at P200,000. In the same order, respondent Judge Go
inhibited
himself from further hearing the case. On March 16, 2000, respondent
Judge
Fernando Paclibon, Jr. issued an order for the release of accused
Palacol.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Complainant further
alleged that, in Criminal Case No. SC-7604, respondent Judge Go issued
two search warrants, pursuant to which 214.57 grams of shabu were
confiscated
by the police from the accused Jaime Manambit et al. The corresponding
criminal case was then filed in court. However, on motion of the
accused,
the search warrants were quashed by respondent Judge Go because they
allegedly
took on the nature of general warrants, hence unconstitutional. On
appeal,
respondent Judge Paclibon affirmed the findings of Judge Go.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The same thing happened
in Criminal Case No. SC-7603, where the shabu confiscated weighed
225.03
grams.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In his comment dated
July 27, 2000, respondent Judge Go explained that in Criminal Case No.
SC-8235, the weight of the confiscated shabu was not yet determined at
the time the accused filed his motion to fix bail. In fact, the shabu
seized
from the accused was forwarded to the PNP Crime Laboratory for
examination
only on March 13, 2000. He further averred that the receipt of the
seized
article specified only "one piece transparent plastic with suspected
shabu"
and not one plastic bag of shabu. He justifies his action that, in case
of doubt, it should be resolved in favor of the accused. As regards
Criminal
Case Nos. SC-7604 and SC-7603, he clarified that the search warrants he
issued were quashed based on the pleadings submitted.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Respondent Judge Paclibon,
on the other hand, explained that, in ordering the release of accused
Palacol,
he merely relied on the March 17, 2000 order of respondent Judge Go
fixing
the bail at P200,000. Nevertheless, when Criminal Case No. 8235 was
eventually
raffled to his sala, he issued another order, dated May 5, 2000, which
set aside the assailed order of Judge Go and directed the issuance of a
warrant of arrest for the apprehension of accused Palacol. By virtue
thereof,
Palacol was arrested and detained at the Laguna Provincial Jail.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Regarding Criminal Case
Nos. SC-7604 and SC-7603, respondent Judge Paclibon attached to his
comment
copies of the orders he issued in those cases which he alleged could
very
well explain the rationale of his decisions therein.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In a resolution dated
October 9, 2002, the Third Division of this Court dismissed the charges
against Judge Paclibon, Jr., as recommended by the Office of the Court
Administrator, for lack of evidence, it appearing that his only
participation
in Criminal Case No. SC-8235 was the alleged irregular and hasty
issuance
of the order of release, a copy of which was not even attached to the
records.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
What is left now to
be resolved by this Court is the recommendation of the Office of the
Court
Administrator to suspend respondent Judge Go for three months, without
pay, effective upon notice, for having failed to conduct a hearing on
the
application for bail by accused Palacol.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The duties of a judge,
in case an application for bail is filed, are to:
(1) notify
the prosecutor of the hearing on the application for bail or require
him
to submit his recommendation;
(2) conduct a
hearing
on the application for bail whether or not the prosecution presents
evidence
to show that the guilt of the accused is strong, to enable the court to
exercise its discretion;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(3) decide whether
the
evidence of guilt of the accused is strong based on the summary of
evidence
of the prosecution, and
(4) if the guilt
of
the accused is not strong, discharge the accused upon the approval of
the
bailbond.[1]
In this case, the
records
do not reveal that respondent Judge Go ever conducted any hearing on
the
motion to fix bail filed by accused Palacol before he allowed him to
post
bail. Respondent Judge Go merely relied on the comment filed by
Provincial
Prosecutor Dan B. Rodrigo favoring the fixing of bail as prayed for by
the accused in his motion. We find it highly suspicious that respondent
Judge Go granted bail and fixed the amount thereof on the very same day
the accused filed his motion. Thereafter, he inhibited himself from
further
hearing the case. The weight of the shabu confiscated was more than 200
grams, thereby qualifying the offense as a heinous crime, pursuant to R.
A, 6425 as amended by R.
A. 7659.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
It is imperative that
judges be conversant with basic legal principles and possess sufficient
proficiency in the law. In offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua or
death, the accused has no right to bail when the evidence of guilt is
strong.[2]
Respondent Judge Go should have known the procedure to be followed when
a motion for admission to bail is filed by the accused. Extreme care,
not
to mention the highest sense of personal integrity, is required of him
in granting bail, specially in cases where bail is not a matter of
right.[3]
The fact that the provincial prosecutor interposed no objection to the
application for bail by the accused did not relieve respondent judge of
the duty to set the motion for bail for hearing. A hearing is of utmost
necessity because certain guidelines in fixing bail (the nature of the
crime, character and reputation of the accused, weight of evidence
against
him, the probability of the accused appearing at the trial, among other
things) call for the presentation of evidence. It was impossible for
respondent
judge to determine the application of these guidelines in an ex-parte
determination
of the propriety of Palacol's motion for bail. Thus, for his failure to
conduct any hearing on the application for bail, we hold respondent
Judge
Go guilty of gross ignorance of the law justifying the imposition of
the
severest disciplinary sanction on him.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Further, the actuations
of respondent judge in Criminal Case Nos. SC-7604 and SC-7603 were
likewise
highly dubious. In said cases, he issued several search warrants, only
to quash them later after the police authorities had already conducted
the search and seized a total of more than 400 grams of shabu. He
justified
his action by claiming that the search warrants he issued were in the
nature
of "general warrants," which were unconstitutional. He, however, never
explained why he, in the first place, issued such unconstitutional
warrants.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A judge is human; this
we acknowledge. But a judge is expected to rise above human frailties.[4]
The Court frowns on and will never countenance the conduct of
respondent
judge for he should know that his behavior must always be beyond
reproach
and free from any appearance of impropriety to protect the image and
integrity
of the judiciary, specially considering that drugs were involved.
Lamentably,
respondent judge failed to measure up to such exacting norm. Although a
judge may not always be subjected to disciplinary action for every
erroneous
order or decision he renders, that relative immunity is not a license
to
be negligent, abusive or arbitrary in the performance of his
adjudicatory
prerogatives.[5]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
No position in the government
service exacts a greater demand for personal honesty and integrity than
a seat in the judiciary.[6]
He must not sacrifice for expediency's sake the fundamental
requirements
of due process or to forget that he must conscientiously endeavor each
time to seek the truth, to know and correctly apply the law, and to
dispose
of controversies objectively and impartially - to the end that justice
is done to every party.[7]
Canon 2 of the Code
of Judicial Conduct provides that a judge should not only avoid
impropriety
but also the appearance of impropriety in all his acts. By the very
nature
of his work, he should always be imbued with a high sense of duty and
responsibility
in the discharge of his obligation to administer justice.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, respondent
Judge Francisco J. Go of the Municipal Trial Court of Pila, Laguna is
hereby
DISMISSED from the service, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits,
except accrued leave credits, and with prejudice to re-employment in
any
branch or instrumentality of the government, including government-owned
or controlled corporations. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
This resolution is immediately
executory.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno,
Vitug, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez,
Carpio,
Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio Morales, Callejo, Sr., Azcuna and
Tinga,
JJ., concur.chan
robles virtual law library
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
People vs. Cabral, 303 SCRA 361 [1999].chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[2]
People vs. Manes, 303 SCRA 231 [1999].chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Cruz vs. Yaneza, 304 SCRA 285 [1999].chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Lorena vs. Encomienda, 302 SCRA 632 [1999].chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
de Vera vs. Dames II, 310 SCRA 213 [1999].chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
Cruz vs. Yaneza, 304 SCRA 285 [1999].chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
Young vs. De Guzman, 303 SCRA 254 [1999].chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred |