Case Digest (A.M. No. RTJ-91-752)
Facts:
Senior State Prosecutor Jovencito R. Zuno, Sr. v. Hon. Baltazar Dizon, A.M. No. RTJ-91-752, June 23, 1993, Supreme Court En Banc, Per Curiam. Complainant Jovencito R. Zuno, Sr. (Senior State Prosecutor, Task Force NAIA) filed an administrative complaint on July 17, 1991 against respondent Judge Baltazar R. Dizon, Regional Trial Court, Branch 113, Pasay City, charging him with gross ignorance of the law for having acquitted defendants in four separate illegal-possession-of-firearms prosecutions arising from arrests at Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA).Zuno identified the four criminal informations decided by Judge Dizon as: Criminal Case No. 91-0464-P (People v. Adolf Werner Borchert), Crim. Case No. 91-0881 (People v. Robert Wayne Wilkins), Crim. Case No. 91-0586 (People v. Nelson S. Leonor), and Crim. Case No. 90-5860 (People v. Elizabeth Vicky Nua). In each criminal matter the accused were intercepted at NAIA with firearms in luggage or suitcases; Judge Dizon acquitted them, relying principally on precedents that require proof of intent to use or to carry and on various factual findings (e.g., supposed lack of ammunition, asserted temporary or inadvertent possession, or voluntary disclosure).
Respondent Judge filed a comment urging dismissal of the administrative complaint as the act of "a disgruntled State Prosecutor." On January 20, 1992 the Court referred the matter to Justice Artemon D. Luna of the Court of Appeals for investigation, report and recommendation. Justice Luna’s report (September 28, 1992) summarized the factual circumstances of each criminal case, reproduced Judge Dizon’s decisions (which repeatedly invoked People v. Asuncion, People v. Lopez, and similar authorities), and recounted the prosecutors’ motions asserting that after Executive Orders 107 and 222 the amnesty period expired on December 31, 1987 and that, since then, mere possession of unlicensed firearms has been punishable under P.D. 1866, Sec. 1.
Justice Luna traced the historical development of the firearms laws (Revised Administrative Code §2692; Commonwealth Act No. 56; R.A. No. 4; R.A. No. 482; P.D. No. 9; P.D. 1866; E.O. 107 and E.O. 222), concluded that the amnesty period had long expired and that Judge Dizon had misapplied the Asuncion/Lopez line of cases to post-amnesty prosecutions, and recommended a finding of gross incompetence and gross ignorance of the law. The report also noted respondent’s prior administrative sanction in Padilla v. Dizon (Adm. Case No. 3086, 158 SCRA 127) and recommended dismissal as an appropriate penalty for a second offense.
The Supreme Court, acting En Banc, adopted the Report’s essential conclusions and found Judge Dizon guilty of gross incompetence, gross ignorance of the law, and of knowingly rendering incorrect judgments; ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Is respondent Judge Baltazar R. Dizon administratively liable for gross incompetence/gross ignorance of the law for acquitting four accused of illegal possession of firearms?
- Was Judge Dizon’s legal rationale—principally his reliance on the Asuncion/Lopez line of authorities and his insistence that the informations must allege intent to use or carrying—correct under P.D. 1866, Sec. 1...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)