Case Digest (A.M. No. MTJ-95-1056)
Facts:
Datu Inocencio C. Siawan v. Judge Aquilino A. Inopiquez, Jr., A.M. No. MTJ-95-1056 (Formerly A.M. OCA IPI 95-25-MTJ), May 21, 2001, Supreme Court Second Division, Mendoza, J., writing for the Court.Complainant Datu Inocencio C. Siawan lodged administrative charges against Judge Aquilino A. Inopiquez, Jr. for gross ignorance of the law, gross abuse of power, and misconduct arising from respondent’s handling of a criminal case (Criminal Case No. 584, People v. Julia Enriqua Seco, and later Criminal Case No. 1181) and two election inclusion proceedings (Election Cases Nos. 333 and 292). Two identical complaints were referred to the Court — one by several agencies (DOJ, NBI, COMELEC, GSIS) and another (O.C.A.I.P.I. No. 95-54-MTJ) by the Office of the President; the latter was dismissed by the First Division on October 25, 1995, while the present matter was redocketed as A.M. No. MTJ-95-1056 and, after consolidation orders, referred by the Second Division to Acting Executive Judge Fortunito L. Madrona (RTC, Ormoc City) for investigation, report, and recommendation on October 16, 1996.
Investigating Judge Fortunito L. Madrona submitted his report on September 15, 1997. His findings on Criminal Case No. 584 showed that the accused, Julia Enriqua Seco, was charged (March 19, 1987) with usurpation of authority; she moved to inhibit respondent on May 20, 1987, alleging the active participation of respondent’s relatives (notably his brother-in-law Atty. Felix Sun and the frequent presence of his father-in-law Guillermo Laurente) in the prosecution. Respondent denied that motion. After the prosecution had presented witnesses, the private complainant Restituto C. Pedrano executed an affidavit of desistance (June 4, 1992) and respondent dismissed the case on December 22, 1992. When accused Seco later sued Pedrano for damages, Pedrano (through counsel, Atty. Eusebio Otadoy, Jr.) sought to revive the criminal case (Omnibus Motion, Nov. 4, 1993); respondent then ordered withdrawal of the desistance, recalled the dismissal (Jan. 20, 1994) and reinstated the case, fixed bail (Feb. 24, 1994), but subsequently issued an order of inhibition dated March 29, 1994 citing delicadeza. A new, substantively identical complaint (Criminal Case No. 1181) was filed Apr. 21, 1994; respondent inhibited Apr. 28, 1994 but the RTC, Ormoc denied the inhibition Sept. 1, 1994 and respondent dismissed Crim. Case No. 1181 on Sept. 5, 1994, later denying motions for reconsideration; the matter was ultimately laid to rest by Feb. 17, 1995.
As to election matters, Investigating Judge Madrona found that respondent had several relatives who ran for office and, notwithstanding that relationship, failed to inhibit himself in inclusion/exclusion proceedings: in Election Case No. 333 the petitioner was respondent’s uncle, retired RTC Judge Ponciano C. Inopiquez, Sr., and in Election Case No. 292 several members of the Gervas family were petitioners. The Investigating Judge found that respondent did not comply with the Omnibus Election Code (B.P. Blg. 881) requirements — notably failure to make the board of election inspectors a party and to give the required ten-day notices — and that in at least one instance an order granting inclusion was not implemented. Madrona concluded respondent was guilty of grave abuse of official functions and/or oppression and recommended a fine of P15,000 and/or suspension for six months. The Office of the Court Administrator likewise ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did respondent commit grave abuse of authority, gross ignorance of the law, or misconduct in his handling of Criminal Case No. 584 (and the subsequent Criminal Case No. 1181)?
- Did respondent commit gross ignorance of the law and abuse of authority in Election Cases Nos. 333 and 292 by failing to recuse and by disregarding the procedural requirements ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)