Facts:

This case arises from an administrative complaint filed by Atty. Hugolino V. Balayon, Jr. against Judge Oscar E. Dinopol of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 24, Koronadal City, concerning alleged Gross Ignorance of the Law due to the issuance of Search Warrant No. 01-03. On January 6, 2003, Filoteo B. Arcallo, a public school teacher, submitted a sworn statement accusing Tito Cantor of Illegal Possession of Firearms. Following this statement, P/S Insp. Virgilio Carreon, an officer from the South Cotabato Police Provincial Office, applied for a search warrant against Cantor. Judge Dinopol issued the search warrant on January 13, 2003, which was executed the same day by law enforcement, resulting in no firearms being found at Cantor's residence. Complainant Balayon contended that the issuance of the search warrant contravened the requirements set forth in Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 126 of the Rules of Court and A.M. No. 02-1-06-SC. In response to the complaint, Judge Dinopol arg

...

Facts:

Background and Parties

• Complainant: Atty. Hugolino V. Balayon, Jr., a private practicing lawyer.
• Respondent: Judge Oscar E. Dinopol, Regional Trial Court, Branch 24, Koronadal City.
• Nature of the case: An administrative complaint for gross ignorance of the law filed against the respondent Judge for issuing Search Warrant No. 01-03 without complying with the mandatory procedural requirements.

Chronology of Events

• On January 6, 2003, Filoteo B. Arcallo, a public school teacher, submitted his sworn statement before SPO2 Carlito Lising, in which he accused Tito Cantor of illegal possession of firearms.
• Based on this sworn statement, P/S Insp. Virgilio Carreon, Intelligence and Investigation Officer of the South Cotabato Police Provincial Office, applied for a search warrant against Tito Cantor.
• On January 13, 2003, Judge Oscar E. Dinopol issued the search warrant.
• Later that same day, a police team headed by P/Supt. Fred Juan Bartolome implemented the search warrant at the residence of Tito Cantor, which resulted in a negative search (no firearm found).

Allegations and Procedural Concerns

• Complainant alleged that the issuance of the search warrant violated Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 126 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure and A.M. No. 02-1-06-SC because the necessary written examination of the complainant and his witnesses was not properly conducted.
• The respondent Judge acknowledged that no written searching questions and answers were recorded because a peace officer requested that the comprehensive oral inquiry not be transcribed to avoid tipping off the person to be searched.
• Complainant further contended that the respondent Judge exhibited a highly reprehensible attitude by:

- Failing to inform him of a requested extension for filing comments. - Neglecting to furnish him a copy of his comment. - Not complying with directives of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA).

Intervention of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA)

• On November 22, 2005, the OCA submitted its recommendation that the administrative complaint be re-docketed as a regular administrative case.
• The OCA recommended that Judge Oscar E. Dinopol be found guilty of gross ignorance of the law and be penalized with a fine of P20,000.00, coupled with a stern warning against repetition of similar infractions.

Clarification on Legal Standing

• Respondent Judge argued that the complainant was not the proper party to initiate the administrative complaint because he was neither the directly aggrieved party (Tito Cantor) nor a relative thereof.
• The Court found that under Section 1, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, as amended, the complaint need not be filed only by the aggrieved party but may be initiated upon verified or even anonymous complaints supported by appropriate documentary evidence.

Issue:

Jurisdiction and Standing

• Whether the complainant, though not the aggrieved party or relative of Tito Cantor, had legal standing to file the administrative complaint against the respondent Judge.
• The interpretation of Section 1, Rule 140 regarding the initiation of administrative proceedings against judges.

Compliance with Procedural Requirements

• Whether the respondent Judge complied with Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 126 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure which require:

- Personal examination under oath and affirmation of the complainant and any proposed witnesses. - The recording of written searching questions and answers.

Judicial Competence and Conduct

• Whether the respondent Judge’s failure to adhere to these basic legal requirements reflects a profound lack of knowledge or disregard for the law.
• The implications of such judicial conduct on the integrity of the judicial system and public confidence in the courts.

Appropriate Sanctions

• Whether the penalty of imposing a fine of P20,000.00 is justified under Section 11 of Rule 140, Section 8, and relevant jurisprudence.
• Consideration of precedents that impose similar sanctions for gross ignorance of the law.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)