Guillen v. Nicolas
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainants Andres Guillen, Eulalio Guillen, Vicente Cid, and Jimmy Bayag charged respondent Judge Aproniano B. Nicolas with gross ignorance of law, gross incompetence, and evident partiality. The charges stemmed from five criminal cases filed against Isidro Jacinto and others, involving charges of slander by deed, malicious mischief, direct assault, and resistance and disobedience to a person in authority. These offenses were allegedly committed on November 20, 1994. Procedural History: After the filing of the criminal complaints, respondent Judge arraigned the accused without issuing warrants of arrest. Complainants' motion for the issuance of warrants was denied, and the bail bonds required were subsequently reduced. On August 29, 1996, the respondent Judge rendered a decision acquitting most of the accused, except for Isidro Jacinto in one case. Complainants alleged impropriety due to the judge's alleged visits to the accused's house and a business partnership in lending fertilizers. The Supreme Court referred the petition to the Executive Judge of RTC, Laoag City, for investigation. The investigating judge found the respondent guilty of gross ignorance of the law, evident partiality, and violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct, recommending suspension and a fine. The Office of the Court Administrator concurred with the findings but recommended a lesser penalty. The Supreme Court agreed with the findings but found the recommended penalty too light. The Petition: The complainants alleged that respondent Judge committed evident partiality, gross ignorance of law, and grave abuse of authority by denying the motion for arrest warrants and reducing bail. They further claimed the conviction in only one case was a cover-up for partiality. The petition detailed the judge's alleged improper conduct, including visiting the accused's home and having a business relationship with one of the accused, which they argued influenced his decisions. The Supreme Court's review focused on the judge's application of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure to cases that should have followed ordinary procedure, his failure to issue arrest warrants, and his questionable acquittal of some accused, leading to a suspension and fine.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Judge committed gross ignorance of the law and evident partiality in applying the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure to cases not covered by it and in failing to issue warrants of arrest. Whether the respondent Judge committed evident partiality in acquitting the accused in the malicious mischief cases. Whether the respondent Judge committed impropriety and violated the Code of Judicial Conduct by notarizing documents related to the business of an accused.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found the respondent Judge guilty of gross ignorance of law, evident partiality amounting to grave abuse of authority, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. He was suspended for six months without pay and fined P10,000.00.
Ratio Decidendi
On the application of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure and the issuance of arrest warrants: The Court held that the respondent Judge committed gross ignorance of the law by applying the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure to all five criminal cases. While four cases (slander by deed, malicious mischief, resistance and disobedience) were covered by the Rule, Criminal Case No. 3164-P for direct assault was not. The penalty for direct assault, as alleged, was prison correccional in its medium and maximum periods, punishable by imprisonment exceeding six months, thus falling under ordinary procedure, not summary procedure. Furthermore, since the four other cases were necessarily related to the direct assault case, the Rule on Summary Procedure was inapplicable to all of them. Consequently, the respondent should have followed Section 9(b) of Rule 112 of the Rules of Court, which requires the judge to personally examine the complainant and witnesses under oath by searching questions and answers before issuing a warrant of arrest. The respondent's failure to do so, despite finding probable cause for trial, constituted gross ignorance of the law. The Court also found it highly suspect that the respondent required bail bonds for accused who were not ordered arrested, as bail presupposes custody. On evident partiality in acquitting the accused in malicious mischief cases: The Court found the respondent Judge guilty of evident partiality in acquitting the accused in Criminal Cases Nos. 3163-P and 3165-P for malicious mischief. The investigating judge found the respondent's reasoning for acquittal illogical, noting that the respondent himself found that the complainants had retreated into their houses to avoid further altercation, yet the accused still threw stones, causing damage. The Court agreed that this reasoning was "beyond comprehension" and indicated partiality. On impropriety and violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct: The Court found that while the respondent Judge's act of notarizing promissory notes for accused Isidro Jacinto, in a municipality lacking a notary public, was not inherently wrong, it violated Circular No. 1-90. This violation stemmed from his failure to remit notarial fees to the government and to certify the lack of a notary public in the area. More importantly, such acts created an appearance of impropriety and an "economic alliance" with the accused, violating Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which mandates judges to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety to promote public confidence in the judiciary. The Court concluded that the respondent's actuations were not merely due to ignorance but also apparent bias, suggesting a close friendship with the accused Isidro Jacinto.
Main Doctrine
A judge who applies the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure to cases not covered by it, fails to issue warrants of arrest when required, and engages in acts that create an appearance of impropriety, commits gross ignorance of law, evident partiality, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, warranting suspension and fine.