Case Digest (A.C. No. 116)
Facts:
- Ambrosio Diamalon, also known as Ampuang Diamalon, filed a complaint against Judge Jesus Quintillan on March 29, 1967, alleging serious misconduct.
- Diamalon was included in a murder information without the opportunity to defend himself, leading to his unlawful detention due to a warrant issued by Judge Quintillan.
- The Supreme Court required Judge Quintillan to respond within ten days; he submitted his answer on June 21, 1967, denying the allegations.
- Judge Quintillan argued that he conducted a thorough investigation and that the absence of the accused did not violate due process, citing Rule No. 112, Section 13.
- The case was submitted for decision on August 30, 1967.
- On August 7, 1969, Judge Quintillan filed an urgent petition for dismissal, stating he resigned on August 12, 1967, and was seriously ill, which hindered his retirement gratuity processing.
Issue:
- (Unlock)
Ruling:
- The Supreme Court granted Judge Quintillan's urgent petition for dismissal on August 7, 1969.
- The Court determined that further investigation into the cha...(Unlock)
Ratio:
- The Court's decision was based on the principle that administrative proceedings depend on the individual holding a government office.
- Judge Quintillan's resignation, acce...continue reading
Case Digest (A.C. No. 116)
Facts:
The case involves Ambrosio Diamalon, also known as Ampuang Diamalon, as the complainant against Hon. Jesus Quintillan, a judge. The complaint was filed on March 29, 1967, alleging serious misconduct in office. The basis of the complaint was that Diamalon, who was merely an eyewitness, was included in an information for murder without being given the opportunity to appear and defend himself. This led to the issuance of a warrant of arrest by Judge Quintillan, which resulted in Diamalon's unlawful detention, allegedly without adhering to the due process of law. Following the filing of the complaint, the Supreme Court required Judge Quintillan to respond within ten days. In his answer, submitted on June 21, 1967, Judge Quintillan refuted the allegations, asserting that he had conducted a thorough investigation and believed that the presence of the accused was not necessary for the issuance of the warrant of arrest, citing Rule No. 112, Section 13. He argued that the law allowed for simultaneous preliminary examination and investigation, and thus, the absence of the accused did not violate due process. The case was submitted for decision on August 30, 1967. Subsequently, on August 7, 1969, Judge...