Creer v. Fabillar
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Carlos B. Creer was administratively charged by respondent Judge Concordio L. Fabillar with gross ignorance of the law, dishonesty, and abuse of official position. The charge stemmed from Criminal Case No. 1133, where respondent judge found complainant guilty of grave coercion and imposed a prison term and fine. Complainant appealed his conviction to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which affirmed the judgment. Complainant then filed a Motion for Reconsideration. Procedural History: On March 6, 1998, respondent judge issued a subpoena for complainant and his bondsmen to appear on March 10, 1998. On that date, two of the three bondsmen appeared and submitted their withdrawal. Respondent judge then issued an order for complainant's apprehension and fixed bail at P10,000.00. Complainant was arrested and jailed until March 13, 1998. Complainant alleged that on March 13, 1998, respondent judge induced him to sign an "Application for Probation" and an "Application for Release on Recognizance" while under detention. Respondent judge issued three orders on March 13, 1998: one giving due course to the probation application, another granting temporary liberty upon recognizance of Antonia C. Creer, and a third directing a post-sentence investigation. On May 5, 1998, respondent judge allegedly received a recommendation to disapprove the probation. On May 22, 1998, respondent judge issued an order denying probation and revoking bail on recognizance. Complainant was again arrested and confined from May 22, 1998, until August 8, 1998. Complainant claimed this was due to his persistence in pursuing his appeal, and respondent judge should have known the judgment was not yet final. The RTC, on November 26, 1998, reversed the conviction after giving due course to complainant's motion for reconsideration. The Petition: The Court Administrator required respondent judge to comment, which he did, denying wrongdoing. The matter was referred to an investigating judge who concluded respondent was guilty of ignorance of the law, a conclusion concurred with by the Office of the Court Administrator. The Supreme Court agreed with the findings.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Judge Fabillar committed gross ignorance of the law in acting on complainant's application for probation despite the perfection of an appeal. Whether respondent Judge Fabillar committed gross ignorance of the law in acting on the withdrawal of bondsmen instead of referring the matter to the appellate court.
Ruling
Respondent Judge Concordio L. Fabillar is SUSPENDED from the service for six (6) months, without pay, effective upon his receipt of the decision, and ORDERED to pay a fine of P20,000.00, with a warning of a most severe penalty for another infraction by him.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of acting on the probation application despite a perfected appeal: The Court found that respondent Judge Fabillar committed gross ignorance of the law by acting on complainant's application for probation. Section 4 of P.D. No. 968, as amended by P.D. No. 1990, explicitly states that no application for probation shall be entertained or granted if the defendant has perfected an appeal from the judgment of conviction. Undisputedly, at the time complainant applied for probation, an appeal had already been perfected. Although respondent Judge eventually denied the application, the fact that he acted on it by asking the probation officer to conduct a post-sentence investigation instead of outrightly denying it, as mandated by law, constituted gross ignorance. Judges are bound to know and uphold the law, and anything less than that when the law is sufficiently basic is constitutive of gross ignorance of the law. On the issue of acting on the withdrawal of bondsmen: The Investigating Judge aptly opined that respondent should not have acted on the plea for withdrawal of the bondsmen but should have referred the matter to the appellate court. Clearly, bondsmen should not be relieved of their obligation unless the custody of the accused would have first been relinquished by them to the Court or proper authorities. Respondent judge's action in this regard also demonstrated a lack of adherence to established legal procedures, further supporting the finding of ignorance of the law.
Main Doctrine
A judge commits gross ignorance of the law when they act on an application for probation despite the perfection of an appeal, contrary to the explicit mandate of P.D. No. 968, as amended by P.D. No. 1990. Furthermore, a judge should not act on the plea for withdrawal of bondsmen but should refer the matter to the appellate court, as bondsmen should not be relieved of their obligation unless the custody of the accused has first been relinquished to the Court or proper authorities.