Case Summary (A.M. No. RTJ-95-1293)
Nature of the Complaint
Complainant Manlavi, a senior police officer, has charged Judge Gacott with exhibiting partiality, committing a miscarriage of justice, and knowingly rendering an unjust decision concerning the dismissal of the aforementioned criminal cases. The cases pertained to the illegal possession of explosives intended for fishing and the illegal possession of fish caught using such explosives.
Case Developments and Judicial Decisions
The accused individuals in Criminal Case No. 9210 moved to have the case quashed on the grounds that the evidence was the result of an illegal search and seizure conducted without a warrant. On July 9, 1992, Judge Gacott concurred with the defense's argument, highlighting that the search was not supported by a warrant and that any warrant subsequently presented was issued post-factum. In contrast, regarding Criminal Case No. 9211, the defense argued that the information failed to allege the critical element of "for profit" in the possession of illegally caught fish. The prosecution acknowledged this omission yet dubbed it a mere technicality. Nevertheless, the Judge ruled in an order dated June 25, 1992, that the information was fatally defective for not demonstrating essential elements associated with the charges.
Arguments from the Respondent
In defending his actions, Judge Gacott asserted that his orders were legally consistent and supported by evidence. He contended that the lack of a search warrant in Criminal Case No. 9210 was admitted by the complainant himself. Additionally, he argued that the circular cited by the complainant was not applicable to the circumstances of the case, stating it allowed for seizures only under specific procedural conditions that had not been met. With regards to Criminal Case No. 9211, the respondent noted that while there was a failure to explicitly state "knowingly" in the charge, the word "wilfully" encompassed the required element of knowledge.
Legal Framework and Rulings
Under Section 33 of Presidential Decree No. 704, it is unlawful for any person to possess or deal in illegally caught fish or fishery products "for profit." The court underscored that the omission of an essential element, specifically the intent to profit, r
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.M. No. RTJ-95-1293)
Case Background
- This administrative complaint was lodged against Judge Eustaquio Z. Gacott, Jr., presiding over the Regional Trial Court, Branch 47 in Puerto Princesa City.
- The complainant, Gil V. Manlavi, a senior police officer, accused the respondent judge of partiality, miscarriage of justice, and knowingly rendering an unjust decision.
- The case arose from the dismissal of two consolidated criminal cases:
- Criminal Case No. 9210 for illegal possession of explosives intended for illegal fishing.
- Criminal Case No. 9211 for illegal possession of illegally caught fish.
Procedural History
- The accused filed a motion to quash Criminal Case No. 9210, asserting that the evidence was obtained through a warrantless and illegal search and seizure.
- Respondent Judge granted the motion on July 9, 1992, noting the prosecution's admission that no search warrant was present at the time of the seizure.
- The accused also moved to quash Criminal Case No. 9211, arguing that the information failed to include the element "for profit," which is necessary to establish the charge.
Legal Arguments
- The prosecution contended that the omission of "for profit" was a mere technicality.
- The judge agreed with the defense, stating that the information was fatally defective due to the lack of essential elements