A.M. No. MTJ-02-1430 - Senson vs. Pangili

On March 14, 2000, several persons were apprehended by the Philippine National Police for violating Section 86 of Republic Act No. 8550 (The Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998).
Items seized during the arrest included:

A criminal case (Criminal Case No. 15019) was filed on the same day against the apprehended persons.

Three days after the case filing, Danilo Alayon and Norma Villarosa, claiming co-ownership of the M/B King Fisher used in the alleged illegal fishing activity, filed an “Urgent Motion for Custody of Fishing Net.”
The movants asserted that the fish net, valued at no less than P600,000.00, was in danger of being damaged or lost due to exposure to the elements.
Respondent Judge Heriberto M. Pangilinan issued an order on March 22, 2000, granting the motion in part by directing that all seized items be turned over to the movants to prevent damage or deterioration.
The order came despite vigorous objection from the public prosecutor, who was concerned that releasing the evidence could lead to tampering.

The public prosecutor filed a motion for reconsideration on March 24, 2000; however, the judge deferred its resolution until after the arraignment and pretrial of the criminal case.
Special Prosecutor Romeo B. Senson later filed an administrative complaint against Judge Pangilinan, charging him with "Gross Misconduct" and seeking his preventive suspension.
The complaint alleged that:

The premature release of evidence exposed it to possible tampering;
The deferment in resolving the motion for reconsideration effectively derailed the orderly processing of the criminal case.

Republic Act No. 8550, under which the accused were charged, does not explicitly mandate the seizure of fishing paraphernalia pending trial.
The judge argued that prosecution was not impaired since other evidentiary means (such as witness testimony) remained available.
The decision cites Rule 127, Section 12, of the Rules of Court, which authorizes search incident to a lawful arrest.
Similar instances were noted in the case of Arsenio N. Roldan, Jr. vs. Francisco Arca, where seizure of evidence following a lawful arrest was held to be valid.

Was the judge's order, authorizing the release of seized evidence before arraignment and pretrial, procedurally and substantively proper?
Did such an order expose the evidence to tampering, thereby compromising the integrity of the criminal proceedings?

Was it proper for the judge to defer resolution of the public prosecutor’s motion for reconsideration until after the arraignment and pretrial?
What are the ramifications of such deferment on the orderly processing of the criminal case?

How should Rule 127, Section 12, of the Rules of Court be interpreted in relation to the seizure of evidence in this context?
Does the statutory framework of Republic Act No. 8550 provide any basis for modifying standard evidentiary custody procedures?

Did the respondent judge act in gross ignorance of the law through his handling of the evidence?
Is the imposition of a fine and a warning an adequate sanction for the identified errors?