Case No. 1 - Rule 119 - Visbal vs. Vanilladocx
Case No. 1 - Rule 119 - Visbal vs. Vanilladocx
Case No. 1 - Rule 119 - Visbal vs. Vanilladocx
FACTS:
The complainant alleged that at the time the respondent judge ordered the criminal
case archived, the witnesses for the Prosecution were able, ready, and willing to testify, with
due notice to the accused after he had been arraigned. The first witness, the complainant
himself, had already testified. He maintained that the respondent's act seriously violated
Paragraph 2, Sections 14 and 16 Article III of the Constitution and Section 2, Rule 119 of the
Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure.
The respondent in his comment explained that at the hearing on October 9, 2003, the
return of the subpoena indicated that the accused changed address without informing the
court which prompted the court to issue a warrant for the arrest of the accused for his failure
to appear; thus “there was no setting of the hearing in the meantime, for it was not known when the
accused would be arrested and, for practical purposes, he ordered that the case be archived to be
revived upon the arrest of the accused."
ISSUE:
Whether or not Respondent’s order archiving the case because of the absence of the accused
is correct.
RULING:
NO. Respondent's order archiving the case is patently erroneous. SC agreed with the
OCA’s Report and Recommendation and findings that respondent judge showed gross
ignorance of the law when he archived Criminal Case No. 2000-08-00-01 immediately after
the warrant of arrest was issued against the accused.
Respondent should have proceeded with the trial pursuant to Article III, Section 14
(2) of the Constitution which authorizes trials in absentia provided the following requisites
are present: (a) that accused has been arraigned; (b) that he has been notified; and (c) that his
failure to appear is unjustified.
All the requisites are present in the case. Accused was arraigned on January 28, 2003.
He is deemed to have received notice of the hearings considering that he has not notified the
court of a change in address. The inability of the court to notify him did not prevent it from
continuing with the trial because accused has waived his right to present evidence and to
confront and cross-examine the witnesses who testify against him. (People vs. Salas, 143
SCRA 163, 167, People vs. Nazareno, 160 SCRA 1, 6-7).
x x x It is obvious that the trial court forgot our rulings in Salas and Nazareno. We thus take
this opportunity to admonish trial judges to abandon any cavalier stance against accused
who escaped after arraignment, thereby allowing the latter to make a mockery of our laws
and the judicial process. Judges must always keep in mind Salas and Nazareno and apply
without hesitation the principles therein laid down, otherwise they would court disciplinary
action.
Moreover, respondent violated Administrative Circular No. 7-A-92, which allows the
archiving of a criminal case if, after the issuance of the warrant of arrest, the accused
remains at large for six (6) months from delivery of the warrant to the proper peace officer.
3
_____________________________________________________________________________
Administrative Circular No. 7-A-92 provides that a criminal case can be archived if
after the issuance of the warrant of arrest, the accused remains at large for six (6) months
from delivery of the warrant to the proper peace officer.
However, the court may motu propio or upon motion of any party, archive a
criminal case when proceedings therein are ordered suspended for an indefinite period
because of the following reasons:
a. the accused appears to be suffering from an unsound mental condition which effectively
renders him unable to fully understand the charge against him and to plead intelligently, or
to undergo trial, and he has to be committed to a mental hospital;
b. a valid prejudicial question in a civil action is invoked during the pendency of the
criminal case unless the civil and criminal cases are consolidated;
d. when the accused has jumped bail before arraignment and cannot be arrested by his
bondsman.
The Order of October 9, 2003 directing the case to be archived was issued on the
same day respondent ordered the issuance of the warrant of arrest in violation of the 6-
month period required under the Circular. Neither does the case fall under the
circumstances where the court may archive the case motu propio.
GROSS IGNORANCE
We agree with the OCA's findings that respondent judge showed gross ignorance of the law
when he archived Criminal Case No. 2000-08-00-01 immediately after the warrant of arrest
was issued against the accused. He violated Administrative Circular No. 7-A-92, which
allows the archiving of a criminal case if, after the issuance of the warrant of arrest, the
accused remains at large for six (6) months from delivery of the warrant to the proper peace
officer. Everyone, especially a judge, is presumed to know the law; when the law is
sufficiently basic or elementary, not to be aware of it constitutes gross ignorance of the
law. However, for full liability to attach for ignorance of the law, the assailed order, decision
or actuation of the judge in the performance of official duties must not only found to be
erroneous; more importantly, it must be established that he was motivated by bad faith,
dishonesty, hatred or some other similar motive.
Under Canon 1.01 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, a judge must be "the embodiment of
competence, integrity and independence." A judge is called upon to exhibit more than just a
cursory acquaintance with statutes and procedural rules; it is imperative that he be
conversant with basic legal principles and be aware of well-settled authoritative
doctrines. He owes to the public and to this Court the duty to be proficient in the law. He is
expected to keep abreast of laws and prevailing jurisprudence. Judges must not only render
just, correct, and impartial decisions, resolutions, and orders, but must do so in a manner
4
free of any suspicion as to their fairness, impartiality, and integrity, for good judges are men
who have mastery of the principles of law and who discharge their duties in accordance
with law.
Under Section 8 of A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC amending Rule 140 of the Rules of Court on the
Discipline of Justices and Judges, which took effect on October 1, 2001, gross ignorance of
the law is classified as a serious charge punishable by either dismissal from service,
suspension of more than one year or a fine of more than P20,000.00 but not
exceeding P40,000.00. In this case, considering that no malice or bad faith has been
established and that this is the respondent judge's first administrative offense, we deem it
just and reasonable to impose upon him a fine of P10,000.00.