Title
Meris vs. Ofilada
Case
A.M. No. RTJ-97-1390, RTJ-98-1411
Decision Date
Aug 5, 1998
Judge Ofilada dismissed for grave abuse, incompetence, and partiality in quashing a search warrant and improperly granting bail in a murder case, violating due process and legal procedures.
dismissal from judiciary
grave abuse of authority
evident partiality
A

Case Digest (A.M. No. RTJ-97-1390, RTJ-98-1411)

Facts:

  • Identification of the respondent and nature of the administrative complaints
  • Judge Carlos C. Ofilada, then of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 15, Malolos, Bulacan, was charged with various administrative offenses contained in two (2) separate complaints, in addition to several others previously filed against him.
  • The administrative cases were docketed as A.M. No. RTJ-97-1390 and A.M. No. RTJ-98-1411.
  • A.M. No. RTJ-97-1390 (search warrant quashal and release of seized lumber)
  • On 16 May 1996, respondent Judge issued Search Warrant No. 20-M-96 against Thomas Jay of Lalakhan, Sta. Maria, Bulacan for illegal possession of 3,000 board feet of narra lumber, valued at more or less P360,000.00, in violation of Sec. 68, P.D. 705, as amended by E.O. 277 (Revised Forestry Code).
  • The search warrant was served immediately the following day.
  • On 20 May 1996, EIIB Operation Officer Baltazar B. Dulalia filed a Return, Compliance and Inventory (re search warrant).
  • On 21 May 1996, Thomas Jay filed a Motion to Quash Search Warrant No. 20-M-96 on the grounds that:
1) the facts charged did not constitute an offense; and 2) the warrant contained averments which, if true, would make up legal excuses or justifications.
  • Attached to the motion were photocopies of documents, namely:
1) Certificate of Transport Agreement issued by CENRO, Bayombong, Nueva Viscaya dated 22 January 1996, re conveyance of the narra lumber (Annex “4”); 2) Certificate of Lumber Origin issued by CENRO, Bayombong, Nueva Viscaya, in favor of Remitans Enterprises, for 11,754 bd. ft. = 27.71 cu. m. under Auxiliary Invoice No. 180795 and Official Receipt No. 4529171 dated 22 January 1996 issued by DENR-CENRO, Bayongbong, Nueva Voscaya (annexes “5” and “5-1”); 3) Certificate of Registration of Business Name No. 0298450 issued by the Department of Trade and industry, NCR, on 26 September 1955, for TJ Furniture owned by Tomas Jay (Annex “1”); 4) Mayor’s Permit No. 16840 issued by the Office of the City Mayor of Manila on 18 January 1996 (Annex “2”); 5) a Delivery Receipt for narra lumber dated 21 March 1996 issued by Remitans Enterprises to TJ Furniture (Annex “3”); 6) Tally Sheets of narra lumber (annexes “7”, “7-1”, “7-2”, and “7-3”).
  • The motion to quash was set for hearing on 31 May 1996 at 8:30 in the morning.
  • On 21 May 1996, Jay, through counsel Atty. Romeo Y. De Jesus, moved to have the hearing advanced to 28 May 1996 at 8:30 in the morning, stating that counsel was informed that “the calendar of the Court is not available,” and undertaking to “notify the parties concerned.”
  • Respondent’s counsel failed to notify complainant Cesar B. Meris, Regional Director, EIIB, resulting in Meris’s failure to appear on 28 May 1996.
  • On 27 May 1996, Atty. Salome T. Cansino, Special Counsel of the Department of Justice, filed an opposition to the motion to quash, contending that:
1) the pieces of narra lumber seized were not covered by any legal documents required by the Revised Forestry Code; 2) the documents submitted did not cover the lumber seized; and 3) a criminal complaint had already been filed against Jay by the DENR for Illegal Possession of Forest Products in violation of Sec. 68, P.D. 705, as amended by E.O. 277.
  • On 28 May 1996, despite the DOJ opposition, respondent Judge granted the motion to quash and ordered the immediate release of the narra lumber seized from Thomas Jay.
  • Respondent Judge’s explanation was that the pieces of lumber were owned by a legitimate enterprise and covered by proper documents, and that he considered that the pieces were long exposed to the elements and had deteriorated.
  • Letter-report and subsequent motions in A.M. No. RTJ-97-1390
  • On 5 June 1996, complainant Cesar B. Meris wrote a letter to Chief Justice Andres R. Narvasa reporting respondent Judge’s actuation as prejudicial to the government’s interest.
  • The letter reported that:
1) the order of release was issued by virtue of Search Warrant No. 20-M-96 for violation of Sec. 68, P.D. 705 as amended by E.O. 277; 2) the order of release was made without hearing the case on the merits and two (2) days prior to the scheduled hearing on 31 May 1996; 3) EIIB Region III, represented by Regional Director Atty. Cesar B. Meris, attended the scheduled hearing on 31 May 1996; however, respondent Judge had already quashed the search warrant on 28 May 1996 without affording a day in court to the Government.
  • On 3 July 1996, Meris filed an Answer (actually an opposition to the motion to quash search warrant).
  • On 10 July 1996, Meris filed a motion for reconsideration claiming that he attended a previously scheduled hearing on 31 May 1996 but learned that respondent Judge had already quashed the search warrant on 28 May 1996 even without the presence of either the complainant EIIB Regional Director or the Special Counsel representing the Government.
  • Special Counsel Salome T. Cansino also protested the hearing for lack of proper service and notice.
  • Respondent Judge denied both motions for reconsideration.
  • A.M. No. RTJ-98-1411 (murder case: bail, handling of demurrer, and release of cash bond)
  • On 18 April 1994, an Information for murder was filed with the Regional Trial Court of Bulacan against four (4) accused: Rolando Garcia, Lopito Gumasing, Eric Gumasing, and Eduardo Gumasing.
  • The Information stated that all the accused were at large, and no bail was recommended.
  • On 22 April 1994, warrants of arrest were issued against the four (4) accused.
  • On 7 June 1995 (more than one (1) year after the accused remained at large), Atty. Eufrocio Marquez appeared as counsel for the accused and submitted a “Motion to Voluntarily Surrender the Accused with Motion to Bail,” praying that the accused be allowed to post bail in the amount of P10,000.00 each in cash.
  • At the bottom of page 2 of the motion, the public prosecutor manifested in writing that he was submitting the matter to the sound discretion of the court provided that bail be increased to P15,000 in cash for each accused.
  • On 16 June 1995, respondent Judge granted the motion and allowed the four (4) accused to post bail in the amount of P10,000.00 each.
  • After the accused posted bail, respondent Judge lifted the warrant of arrest and set arraignment on 16 August 1995.
  • At the hearing of 17 July 1995 (which did not appear on record as previously scheduled), respondent Judge issued an order citing as grounds for the grant of bail:
1) voluntary surrender of the accused; 2) no evidence had been presented by the public prosecutor that evidence of guilt was strong; 3) the public prosecutor did not object to the granting of bail; and 4) the complainant, wife of the victim, submitted an affidavit of desistance.
  • The four (4) accused were later arraigned.
  • The affidavit of desistance was executed by the complainant and was marked during pre-trial.
  • After the prosecution rested, the defense manifested intention to file demurrer to evidence.
  • In an order dated 20 January 1997, respondent Judge gave the accused five (5) days to file demurrer and gave the prosecution the same period to comment.
  • In an order dated 30 January 1997, respondent Judge admitted the demurrer filed by the accused and submitted it for resolution because there was no comment from the public prosecutor.
  • On 20 February 1997, respondent Judge granted the demurrer to evidence and acquitted all four (4) accused for failure of the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonabl...(Subscriber-Only)
Unlock Full Case Digest

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms