Case Summary (A.M. No. RTJ-21-006)
Background of the Case
The case involved firearms that were seized under Search Warrant Nos. 17-98 and 17-99, issued by respondent Judge Noel on July 11, 2017, during a law enforcement operation at Maulana's residence. The items seized included various firearms and live ammunition. On September 25, 2017, the Office of the Prosecutor dismissed the case against Maulana due to lack of evidence, citing her ownership of some firearms and misidentification of others.
Allegations Against the Respondent
In the proceeding that followed the dismissal, Maulana's counsel filed a Motion to Release Seized Items. However, before the hearing, Judge Noel allegedly demanded that Maulana cover travel expenses amounting to P300,000.00 for a trip to verify the firearms' licenses in Manila. During the hearing on November 16, 2017, the Judge misrepresented the situation, suggesting that Maulana requested the verification process at her expense, leading to an order permitting the trip.
Respondent's Defense
Judge Noel maintained that the order issued during the hearing was based on representations from Maulana’s counsel. He also asserted that Maulana had not filed any motion for reconsideration regarding his order. Respondent claimed that any delay in the release of the firearms was due to the complainant’s failure to provide required documentation.
Developments in the Complaint
An Affidavit of Desistance was submitted by Maulana in August 2018, wherein she recanted her allegations against the respondent, citing misunderstanding of the facts. However, a verification inquiry by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) suggested that she had not executed the affidavit. The OCA proposed further investigation due to discrepancies in the testimonies of both parties.
Investigative Findings
The case was referred to the Executive Justice of the Court of Appeals for investigation. The Investigating Justice found that Maulana freely executed her affidavit of desistance and wanted the administrative complaint dismissed against the respondent, which was reported back to the OCA.
OCA Recommendations
Despite the desistance, the OCA disagreed with the Investigating Justice's recommendation. It concluded that Judge Noel committed gross ignorance of the law by not properly relying on the certifications submitted by Maulana regarding the firearms. The OCA noted that the responsibility to verify licenses did not fall on the respondent and revealed a breach of judicial standards.
Court
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.M. No. RTJ-21-006)
Overview of the Case
- This case involves a complaint filed by Zahara Pendatun Maulana (complainant) against Judge Oscar P. Noel, Jr. (respondent), a Regional Trial Court judge in General Santos City, South Cotabato.
- The complaint stems from a criminal case against the complainant for allegedly violating Republic Act No. 10591, concerning firearms and ammunition regulations.
Background of the Complaint
- Complainant was charged in the case titled "People of the Philippines v. Misuari Matabalo Brahim and Fatima Zahara [Pendatun] Maulana."
- The charge was based on firearms seized under Search Warrant Nos. 17-98 and 17-99, issued by the respondent on July 11, 2017.
- The seized items included multiple firearms and ammunition, details of which were specified in the case documentation.
Dismissal of Charges
- On September 25, 2017, the Office of the Prosecutor dismissed the complaint against the complainant due to lack of evidence and/or probable cause.
- The dismissal was based on a certification indicating that the complainant was the licensed holder of one of the firearms seized, and the evidence regarding the other firearms was insufficient for prosecution.
Motion to Release Seized Items
- Following the dismissal, the complainant's counsel filed a Motion to Release Seized Items, seeking the return of the firearms.
- Prior to the hearing on November 16, 2017, the respondent allegedly requested the complainant to shoulder travel expenses amounting to P300,000.00 for verifying the firearms' licenses at Camp Crame, Manila.
Allegations Against the Respondent
- During the hearing, the respondent purportedly misrepresented the complainant's counsel