FIRST DIVISION
RICHARD SI y TIAN, A.M. No. MTJ-03-1483
Complainant,
Present:
PUNO,
C.J., Chairperson,
-
versus - SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
AZCUNA,
and
LEONARDO
DE CASTRO, JJ.
JUDGE ELPIDIO R. CALIS,
Respondent. Promulgated:
December
28, 2007
X
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
X
DECISION
AZCUNA, J.:
This
is an administrative complaint against a Municipal Trial Court Judge.
On
Stating
that he is the accused in the aforementioned criminal case, complainant alleged
that on March 26, 2002 at around 3:45 p.m., an accident occurred in front of
the Landbank of the Philippines Building in Sta. Cruz, Laguna, when the car he
was driving, a Toyota Corolla Model 1992 with Plate No. TEM-216, bumped the
back of a Nissan Sentra car Model 1998 with Plate No. PRX-231 being rented by
the complaining witness Atty. Ceriaco A. Sumaya, a close friend of respondent
Judge. Atty. Sumaya, complainant further
alleged, jacked up the minimal damage to his car by adding a charge for the
repair/replacement of the damaged front windshield.
Notwithstanding
the fact that the offense charged carried only the penalty of a fine,
respondent Judge issued a warrant for complainant’s arrest and fixed the bail
for his provisional liberty at P21,200.
Complainant invokes Sec. 6 (c), Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure which states:
(c)
When
warrant of arrest not necessary. – A warrant of arrest shall not issue if
the accused is already under detention pursuant to a warrant issued by the
Municipal Trial Court in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section, or if
the complaint or information was filed pursuant to Section 7 of this Rule or is
for an offense penalized by fine only.
The court then shall proceed in the exercise of its original
jurisdiction.
Respondent
Judge filed his Comment dated
On
the issuance of the warrant of arrest, respondent Judge maintained that it was
in accordance with law and jurisprudence.
He added that the matter was merely an oversight on his part and
complainant should have raised an objection through a motion to quash and
having failed to do so is deemed to have waived the same.
The
Court Administrator[1] found the
complaint meritorious with respect to the issuance of the warrant of arrest for
an offense that is punishable with a fine only, contrary to Sec. 6 (c), Rule
112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
The Court agrees with the finding of
the Court Administrator. Respondent
Judge in fact admitted in his Comment that he “might have overlooked” the
pertinent rule.
The
Code of Judicial Conduct provides:
Rule
1.01 – A Judge should be the embodiment of competence, integrity and
independence.
Rule
3.01 – A Judge shall be faithful to the law and maintain professional
competence.
It is the duty of judges to keep
themselves abreast of the law and the rules of court and the latest
jurisprudence, for ignorance of the law on their part is the mainspring of
injustice. Respondent Judge failed to
fulfill this duty. An oversight of a new
provision of the law or the rules is not a valid excuse from performing this
bounden duty.
WHEREFORE, respondent Judge Elpidio R.
Calis is hereby found GUILTY of
ignorance of the law and meted a FINE
of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) with a STERN WARNING that a repetition thereof will be more severely dealt
with.
No
costs.
SO ORDERED.
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
Chairperson
ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ RENATO C. CORONA
Associate Justice Associate Justice
TERESITA J. LEONARDO DE CASTRO
Associate Justice
[1] The Honorable Presbitero J.
Velasco, Jr., now a Member of this Court.
See Reports and
Recommendations dated