Case Digest (A.M. No. 2124-MJ)
Facts:
Carlos Lopez v. Hon. Augusto H. Fernandez, A. M. No. 2124-MJ, September 11, 1980, Supreme Court First Division, De Castro, J., writing for the Court.An information for grave threats under Article 282, Revised Penal Code was filed against Carlos Lopez in the Municipal Court of Digos, Davao del Sur (Criminal Case No. 3418). On January 8, 1979, Municipal Judge Augusto H. Fernandez (respondent) rendered a decision convicting Lopez and sentencing him to 1 month and 21 days of arresto mayor, a fine of P50, and costs.
On January 17, 1979 the private prosecutor filed a motion for reconsideration arguing that, under Article 64 of the Revised Penal Code, the proper penalty in the absence of aggravating or mitigating circumstances was the medium period of arresto mayor (2 months and 1 day to 4 months). After a hearing on January 22, 1979, respondent issued an order the same day modifying his January 8 decision to increase the arresto mayor to 2 months and 1 day but denied the claim for attorney’s fees and damages.
Also on January 22, 1979, Lopez filed a notice of appeal stating he was appealing to the Court of Appeals from the January 8 decision; he received the modified order on January 25, 1979. On February 22, 1979 Lopez filed the present administrative complaint charging respondent with “grave abuse of discretion amounting to ignorance of the law” for modifying the judgment after an appeal had allegedly been perfected, and praying for respondent’s removal.
In his comment respondent conceded issuing the modification on January 22 but contended that the appeal was perfected only on January 29, 1979 and argued that the court, not the accused, determines the date of perfection. The Supreme Court considered whether the modification occurred after perfection of appeal and thus whether respondent acted in grave abuse of discretion, and reviewed the record and relevant provisions of the Rules of Court and precedent. Applying the standard of proof in disciplinary p...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was the trial court deprived of jurisdiction because the appeal was perfected before respondent's order modifying the judgment, such that the modification amounted to grave abuse of discretion?
- Did the evidence establish grave abuse of discretion amounting to ignorance of the law by respondent warranti...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)