Case Digest (G.R. No. 203386)
Facts:
Gil v. Manlavi, A.M. No. RTJ-95-1293, May 09, 1995, the Supreme Court First Division, Quiason, J., writing for the Court. The administrative complaint was filed by Complainant Gil, a senior police officer, against Respondent Judge Eustaquio Z. Gacott, Jr., presiding judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 47, Puerto Princesa City, alleging partiality, miscarriage of justice and knowingly rendering an unjust decision in connection with the dismissal of two consolidated criminal cases (Criminal Cases Nos. 9210 and 9211).
Criminal Case No. 9210 charged illegal possession of explosives intended for illegal fishing. The accused moved to quash on the ground that the evidence was the product of a warrantless search and seizure. In an Order dated July 9, 1992, respondent granted the motion after the prosecution admitted the search and seizure was not covered by a warrant and that the search warrant presented was issued after the fact. Complainant invoked Circular No. 130 (s. 1967) of the Office of the President to justify confiscation of the fish.
Criminal Case No. 9211 charged illegal possession of illegally caught fish. The accused moved to quash on the ground the information failed to allege the element "for profit." The information (quoted in the records) omitted that phrase. The City Prosecutor conceded the omission but characterized it as a mere technicality. In an Order dated June 25, 1992, respondent granted the motion, concluding the information was fatally defective for failing to allege (1) that the accused knew the fish were taken by explosives and (2) that they intended to dispose of or sell the fish for profit. The prosecution's motion for reconsideration — arguing substitution of "knowingly" by "wilfully" and that P.D. No. 704 punishes separate acts — was denied.
Complainant then filed the instant administrative complaint against respondent judge. In his answer respondent denied wrongdoing, explained the legal bases for his orders, and moved for dismissal of the administrative case. The Supreme Court resolved the administrative complaint by reviewing respondent's rulings, the applicability of Cir...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did respondent's dismissal of Criminal Case No. 9210 (for alleged warrantless search and seizure and the prosecution's reliance on Circular No. 130) amount to partiality, miscarriage of justice or other culpable judicial conduct warranting administrative discipline?
- Did respondent's dismissal of Criminal Case No. 9211 on the ground that the information failed to allege the elements "knowingly" and "for profit" amount to partiality, miscarriage of justice or other culpable judicial conduct warranting discipline?
- Does Section 4, Rule 112 (requiring prior written approval of the provincial or city fiscal) bar a court from quashing an information already filed, or otherwise prevent the dismissal o...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)