A.M. No. RTJ-21-006 - Maulana vs. Noel, Jr.

Zahara Pendatun Maulana, a respondent in a criminal case entitled “People of the Philippines v. Misuari Matabalo Brahim and Fatima Zahara [Pendatun] Maulana,” filed an administrative complaint against Judge Oscar P. Noel, Jr. of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 35, General Santos City.
The complaint arose from actions taken during proceedings involving violation of Republic Act No. 10591 (the Comprehensive Law on Firearms and Ammunition) where certain firearms and related items were seized.

Law enforcers executed Search Warrant Nos. 17-98 and 17-99, issued by the respondent on July 11, 2017, leading to the seizure of:

One (1) unit caliber 40 pistol HS with serial number W50706.
One (1) unit MS Parabellum 9mm caliber pistol with serial number R59108.
One (1) unit caliber .380 (Pietro Beretta) Italy-made with serial number E48994Y.
Several live ammunition units for M14 rifles and magazines containing live ammunition for M16 rifles.

The case further noted that a Certification dated September 14, 2017 from the Firearms and Explosive Office (FEO) established:

The ARE (Acknowledgment Receipt of Equipment) submitted in connection with the caliber .380 firearm was found improper since it did not correspond to the items listed in the search warrants.
The live ammunition and magazines were believed to be government-issued properties under the custody of a Philippine Army member.

On September 29, 2017, complainant’s counsel filed a Motion to Release Seized Items, seeking the return of the firearms to their rightful owners.
Prior to the scheduled hearing on November 16, 2017, the respondent allegedly directed complainant in his chambers to assume the cost of approximately PhP300,000.00 for travel expenses to Camp Crame in Manila to verify firearm licenses.
During the hearing, complainant’s counsel moved to withdraw the Motion to Release Seized Items, but in open court, the respondent appeared to place the initiative on the complainant’s shoulders, thereby authorizing the travel expense order in his November 16, 2017 Order.

In a Comment dated May 11, 2018, the respondent maintained that his November 16, 2017 Order was based on the manifestation of complainant’s counsel during the hearing where the request for personal verification was purportedly made.
A Supplemental Comment dated June 8, 2018 further clarified issues surrounding the submitted documents, particularly the photocopy of the FEO Certification, which upon submission of the original, revealed inconsistencies.
The respondent also refuted the allegation that he demanded PhP300,000.00 in a manner that could be overheard by court staff, claiming such an occurrence was impossible.

On August 9, 2018, an Affidavit of Desistance was purportedly executed by the complainant, in which she exonerated the respondent and expressed her mistaken perception of the events.
However, when the authenticity of the affidavit was verified by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), the complainant denied having executed it.
The varying factual accounts and the submission of the desistance affidavit led the OCA, in its report dated May 22, 2019, to recommend further investigation.

Based on the OCA’s recommendation, the administrative complaint was referred on July 31, 2019, to the Executive Justice of the Court of Appeals, Cagayan de Oro Station for investigation.
During a January 13, 2020, hearing before the Investigating Justice, the complainant confirmed having filed an affidavit of desistance, thereby indicating her desire to have the case dismissed.
Consequently, the Investigating Justice, in her report dated January 24, 2020, recommended the immediate dismissal of the administrative complaint.

In its memorandum dated November 19, 2020, the OCA disagreed with the Investigating Justice’s recommendation to dismiss the complaint based solely on the desistance.
The OCA held that the withdrawal of the complaint did not absolve the respondent from responsibility and that his issuance of the November 16, 2017 Order constituted a breach of procedural rules and gross ignorance of the law.
The OCA recommended imposing a penalty on the respondent, suggesting a fine of Twenty Thousand Pesos (with a warning) for any similar future infractions.

Whether the complainant’s affidavit of desistance, which expressed her willingness to drop the administrative action, is adequate basis to dismiss the administrative complaint against the respondent.
Whether the existence of a desistance affidavit nullifies the jurisdiction of the Court to address alleged judicial misconduct.

Whether the respondent’s order compelling the complainant—or her counsel—to shoulder the travel expenses for personal verification of firearm licenses was proper.
Whether the respondent breached established procedural norms by deciding to personally verify the authenticity of the FEO Certification and the accompanying documents.

Whether the respondent’s conduct, even if influenced by conflicting representations during the hearing, warranted disciplinary action.
The appropriateness of the penalty imposed, particularly with reference to suspending the respondent from office as opposed to imposing a monetary fine.