City Prosecution Office v. Bersales
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The City Prosecution Office of General Santos City filed a verified complaint against Judge Jose A. Bersales for grave abuse of power, ignorance of the Rules, obstruction of justice, and dishonesty. A complaint for Illegal Possession of Firearm and Ammunition was filed against Luis Garchitorena before Judge Bersales' court. After finding probable cause, Judge Bersales forwarded the records to the City Prosecutor's Office. The subject firearm, a .45 caliber pistol, remained with the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI). An Information for Illegal Possession of Firearm was erroneously filed with Judge Bersales' court instead of the Regional Trial Court (RTC). Judge Bersales directed the NBI to turn over the firearm to him. Instead of dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction, he conducted another preliminary investigation and dismissed the case, ruling the firearm inadmissible due to constitutional infirmity in the arrest. The Prosecution Office refiled the Information with the RTC. Separately, an Information for Direct Assault was filed against Garchitorena with another MTCC branch. A subpoena duces tecum was issued to the Branch Clerk of Court of Judge Bersales' court to submit the firearm as evidence in the Direct Assault case. The Clerk of Court manifested that the firearm was not in her custody but with Judge Bersales. The Prosecution Office requested the firearm from Judge Bersales, who ignored the request. Prosecutor Edilberto L. Jamora issued a subpoena duces tecum to Judge Bersales. Judge Bersales issued an Order requiring Prosecutor Jamora to show cause why he should not be cited for indirect contempt. Prosecutor Jamora filed an Answer and a Waiver of Appearance for a scheduled hearing. Despite the waiver, Judge Bersales ordered Prosecutor Jamora's arrest while he was in a hearing at the RTC. The RTC judge issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) enjoining the arrest. Judge Bersales failed to appear at the injunction hearing, and the TRO was extended. Judge Bersales later found Prosecutor Jamora guilty of Indirect Contempt. Procedural History: The Prosecutors of General Santos City prayed for the dismissal of Judge Bersales from the service. Judge Bersales prayed for the dismissal of the complaint, arguing that the issues were under consideration due to Prosecutor Jamora's notice of appeal and that Jamora was arrested for disobeying an order. Regarding the firearm, Judge Bersales claimed it was now the subject of a motion to release by Garchitorena's heirs, that he received it from the NBI and turned it over to his Branch Clerk, who then turned it over to him out of fear, and he eventually directed its release to Garchitorena's brother, but held its turnover in abeyance due to a directive from the Court Administrator. He argued he refused to comply with the subpoena because the issuing judge lacked jurisdiction and the firearm was not essential to Direct Assault. The Petition: The administrative complaint prayed for the dismissal of respondent Judge Jose A. Bersales from the service.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Judge Jose A. Bersales committed misconduct by displaying ignorance of jurisdictional rules and improperly taking custody of evidence. Whether respondent Judge Jose A. Bersales committed misconduct by obstructing justice, and whether he acted with grave abuse of power, ignorance of the Rules, and dishonesty.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found respondent Judge Jose A. Bersales guilty of misconduct. He was fined P20,000.00 and directed to turn over the custody of the .45 caliber pistol to the City Prosecutor's Office of General Santos City. He was sternly warned that a repetition of similar acts would be dealt with more severely.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of jurisdiction and improper dismissal of the case, and custody of the firearm: The Court held that respondent Judge displayed ignorance of the principles of jurisdiction in Criminal Procedure. The case for Illegal Possession of Firearm was beyond the jurisdiction of respondent Judge. The Court found that respondent Judge's undue interest in the handgun was shown by his refusal to surrender custody thereof to the Prosecution Office. He had no legal authority to take custody of the handgun. Respondent Judge's claim that he turned over the gun to his Branch Clerk of Court was contradicted by the Clerk of Court herself. On the issue of obstruction of justice, grave abuse of power, ignorance of the Rules, and dishonesty: The Court found that respondent Judge took advantage of his office in retaining possession of the .45 caliber pistol and, with his obstinate refusal to turn over the gun, effectively prevented the prosecution of accused Garchitorena, constituting a clear obstruction of justice. The Court reiterated that the role of a judge must be one of temperance, patience, and courtesy. In fine, respondent Judge not only failed to perform his judicial duties in accordance with the rules but also acted in disregard of the law and controlling jurisprudence.
Main Doctrine
A judge who displays ignorance of jurisdictional rules, improperly takes custody of evidence, and obstructs justice by issuing an unwarranted arrest order is guilty of misconduct and subject to disciplinary action, including a fine and directive to turn over evidence.