Case Digest (A.M. No. RTJ-09-2190)
Facts:
Hadja Sohurah Dipatuan v. Judge Mamindiara P. Mangotara, A.M. No. RTJ-09-2190 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 08-2909-RTJ), April 23, 2010, Supreme Court Third Division, Peralta, J., writing for the Court.Complainant Hadja Sohurah Dipatuan filed an Affidavit‑Complaint dated May 12, 2008 against respondent Judge Mamindiara P. Mangotara, then Presiding Judge, RTC Iligan City, Branch 1, charging him with gross ignorance of the law and grave abuse of authority in connection with his handling of Criminal Case No. 3620-01 (murder) pending before RTC Marawi City, Branch 10.
On September 5, 2001, Criminal Case No. 3620-01 for the killing of Elias Ali Taher was instituted against Ishak M. Abdul and Paisal Dipatuan (complainant’s husband) before RTC Marawi City, Branch 10 presided by Judge Yusoph Pangadapun. After Judge Pangadapun’s death the case was assigned to several judges designated by the Court: Judges Amer Ibrahim, Rasad Balindog, Macaundas Hadjirasul, Moslemen Macarambon and subsequently Judge Mamindiara Mangotara, and later Judge Lacsaman Busran.
By Administrative Order No. 201‑2007 (Nov. 16, 2007) the Supreme Court designated Judge Mangotara as Acting Presiding Judge of Branch 10. After Mangotara suffered a mild stroke, the Court, by Administrative Order No. 220‑2007 (Dec. 26, 2007), revoked the earlier designation and designated Judge Busran as Acting Presiding Judge. Despite that change, on December 28, 2007 Mangotara promulgated a Decision finding both accused guilty of murder and sentencing them to reclusion perpetua; the Decision also increased the bail bond from P75,000.00 to P200,000.00.
The accused filed a motion for reconsideration on January 21, 2008. In Orders dated February 1, 2008, Mangotara denied the motion and applied the increased bail bond to accused Abdul; later the same day he recalled those Orders. Complainant alleged bias and prejudice (based on alleged kinship/affinity with the victim and co‑residence in Maguing) and that Mangotara acted with grave abuse when he issued the December 28 Decision after his replacement had been designated.
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) required Mangotara to file a Comment (May 26, 2008); in his Comment (June 24, 2008) Mangotara maintained he acted in good faith, that his relationship to the victim was distant and not disqualifying under Rule 137, and that he received notice of his replacement only on January 26, 2008. The OCA’s memorandum (May 18, 2009) found him guilty of gross ignorance of the law and abuse of authority and recommended docketing the complaint as a regular administrative matter. The Court, in a Resolution dated July 22, 2009, re‑docketed the complaint as A.M. No. RTJ‑09‑2190 and referred it to Court of Appeals Associate Justice Portia Alino‑Hormachuelos as Investigating Justice for report and recommendation. The Court adopted the Investigating Justice’s recommendation and rendered judgment April 23, 2010.
Issues:
- Did complainant prove that Judge Mangotara was disqualified or displayed bias or partiality amounting to grave abuse of authority?
- Was Judge Mangotara guilty of gross ignorance of the law for increasing (rather than cancelling) the bail bond after conviction to reclusion perpetua, and what penalty, if any, is appropriate?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)