Case Digest (A.M. No. RTJ-07-2059)
Facts:
Augusto C. Caesar v. Judge Romeo M. Gomez, A.M. No. RTJ-07-2059 (formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 06-2419-RTJ), August 10, 2007, the Supreme Court En Banc, Nachura, J., writing for the Court.Augusto C. Caesar (complainant) was the private complainant in a criminal information for estafa against Norman Victor M. Ordiz (accused), docketed as Criminal Case No. 04-02-2578 and raffled to Branch 25 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Maasin City, Southern Leyte, presided over by Judge Romeo M. Gomez (respondent). The information was filed in March 2004; arraignment was delayed by several postponement motions by Ordiz which the respondent granted. Pre-trial was conducted on January 31, 2005, and the case was set for the prosecution’s presentation of evidence.
Before trial Ordiz allegedly promised to return portions of the money Caesar had paid and to pay attorney’s fees, but allegedly failed to fully honor that promise; a rumor also circulated that Ordiz paid the respondent P200,000 to secure dismissal. On April 11, 2005, Ordiz filed a Motion to Dismiss (after pre-trial) asserting novation and denying commission of estafa. Caesar opposed, arguing the pleading was procedurally improper (akin to a motion to quash under Section 1, Rule 117), that the asserted grounds were defenses for trial, and that novation does not extinguish criminal liability.
On July 18, 2005, Judge Gomez granted the Motion to Dismiss, finding that the parties’ transactions were novated (partial return of monies) and that the instrument was an agreement to sell rather than a perfected sale; he concluded Ordiz could not be held liable under Article 316(1) of the Revised Penal Code. Caesar moved for reconsideration and for inhibition, which Judge Gomez denied. Caesar then filed an administrative complaint against Judge Gomez with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), alleging grave misconduct (bribery) and gross ignorance of the law.
The OCA, in its Report and Recommendation, found the bribery charge unproven but recommended administrative sanction for gross ignorance of the law because the dismissal was effected before the prosecution had presented its evidence and was based on merits (n...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the complainant prove the bribery/grave misconduct charge against Judge Gomez?
- Did Judge Gomez commit gross ignorance of the law by granting the Motion to Dismiss before the prosecution had rested and by dismissing the case on the basis of...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)