Complainant,
- versus -
JUDGE OSCAR E. DINOPOL, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 24,
Respondent.
|
A.M. No. RTJ-06-1969
(Formely OCA IPI No. 05-2159-RTJ)
Present:
PANGANIBAN, C.J.
Chairperson,
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CHICO-NAZARIO, JJ.
Promulgated:
|
"x x x.
We shall now discuss the liability of respondent Judge in issuing the search warrant without complying with the requirements of the law.
Section 4, Rule 126 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that:
Section 4. Requisites for issuing search warrant. – A search warrant shall not issue except upon probable cause in connection with one specific offense to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the things to be seized which may be anywhere in the Philippines. (Underscoring supplied)
Corollarily, Section 5 of the same rule further states that:
Section 5. Examination of complainant; record. – The judge must, before issuing the warrant, personally examine in the form of searching questions and answers, in writing and under oath, the complainant and the witnesses he may produce on facts personally known to them and attach to the record their sworn statements, together with the affidavits submitted. (Underscoring supplied)
The foregoing provisions provides that the judge must, before issuing the warrant, personally examine, under oath or affirmation, the complainant and any witnesses he may produce and take their testimonies in writing, and attach them to the record, in addition to any affidavits presented to him.
Mere affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses are thus not sufficient. The examining Judge has to make searching questions and elicit answers of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce in writing and to attach them to the record. [6]
The searching questions propounded to the applicant of the search warrant and his witnesses must depend to a large extent upon the discretion of the Judge just as long as the answers establish a reasonable ground to believe the commission of a specific offense, and that the applicant is one authorized by law, and that said answers particularly described with certainty the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. The examination or investigation which must be under oath may not be in public. It may even be held in the secrecy of his chambers. Far more important is that the examination is not merely routinary but one that is thorough and elicits the required information. To repeat, it must be under oath and must be in writing.[7] Such searching questions and answers are necessary in order that the judge may be able to properly determine the existence or non-existence of the probable cause, to hold for perjury the person giving it if it will be found later that his declarations are false.[8]
In the case at bar, respondent Judge failed to observe his mandate as required by the rules. There was no record of searching questions and answers attached to the records of the case in palpable disregard of the statutory requirement previously quoted. This was admitted by respondent Judge in his comment to the effect that there were no written searching questions and answers to support the issuance of the search warrant because the peace officer who accompanied the complainant requested not to take down the exhaustive searching inquiry of FiloteoArcallo, thus:
It (sic) no written searching questions were done to support the issuance of a search warrant, it did not mean that no searching questions were accomplished. The peace officer who accompanied the complainant personally requested that court personnel as much as possible not take down the exhaustive searching inquiry of the respondent upon Filoteo Arcallo due to the past experiences of the police that given the texting technology and as it had been proven by respondent that old time residents of Koronadal City know each other, the impending search can reach the attention of the person to be searched before the search warrant can be implemented. Respondent found wisdom and practicability in the request of the police officer. x x x[9] (Underscoring supplied).
Also, Filoteo Arcallo, in his affidavit dated 24 February 2005 , confirmed the fact that the inquiry conducted by the respondent was an oral one, pertinent portion of which reads:
On January 13, 2003 , with P/Insp. Bing Carreon we went to the Hall of Justice to file the application for search warrant. Judge Oscar Dinopolinstructed us to have my statement and that of P/Insp. Bing Carreon subscribed first by the City Prosecutor, but he already left home. When we returned to the Chamber of the Executive Judge, he interviewed P/Insp. Carreon and asked me to narrate in detail the history and I narrated to him the above information. The Executive Judge asked further questions and mentioned of securing further written questions and answer from P/Insp. Bing Carreon and I, but the former proposed instead an oral one as he had previous experiences that the search team returned empty handed because it was easy for court staff to text the person to be searched if the staff knows the person. The Executive Judge concurred to the request because, other police members he said also shared the same experience; x x x[10] (Underscoring Supplied).
We uphold the OCA’s findings that respondent Judge professed gross ignorance of the law for his failure to reduce the examination in writing. When the law is so elementary, such as the provisions of the Constitution and the Rules of Court on search warrant issuance, not to know it or as if one does not know it constitutes gross ignorance of the law. Specifically, respondent Judge failed to conform to the high standards of competence required of judges under the Code of Judicial Conduct, which mandates that:
Rule 1.01. - A judge should be the embodiment of competence, integrity, and independence.
Rule 3.01- A judge shall x x x maintain professional competence.
Competence is a mark of a good judge. When a judge displays an utter lack of familiarity with the rules, he erodes the public’s confidence in the competence of our courts.[11] It is highly imperative that judges be conversant with the law and basic legal principles.[12] Basic legal procedures must be at the palm of a judge’s hands.[13]
A judge owes it to himself and his office to know by heart basic legal principles and to harness his legal know-how correctly and justly. When a judge displays utter unfamiliarity with the law and the rules, he erodes the confidence of the public in the courts. Ignorance of the law by a judge can easily be the mainspring of injustice. As an advocate of justice and a visible representation of the law, a judge is expected to be proficient in the interpretation of our laws. When the law is so elementary, not to know it constitutes gross ignorance of the law. Ignorance of the law, which everyone is bound to know, excuses no one - not even judges. Ignorantia juris quod quisque scire tenetur non excusdat.[14] As we held in Monterola v. Judge Caoibes, Jr.[15]:
Observance of the law, which respondent ought to know, is required of every judge. When the law is sufficiently basic, a judge owes it to his office to simply apply it; anything les than that is either deliberate disregard thereof or gross ignorance of the law. It is a continuing pressing responsibility of judges to keep abreast with the law and changes therein. Ignorance of the law, which everyone is bound to know, excuses no one -not even judges - from compliance therewith x x x. Canon 4 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics requires that the judge should be studious in the principles of law. Canon 18 mandates that he should administer his office with due regard to the integrity of the system of the law itself, remembering that he is not a depository of arbitrary power, but a judge under the sanction of law. Indeed, it has been said that when the inefficiency springs from a failure to consider a basic and elementary rule, a law or principle in the discharge of his duties, a judge is either too incompetent and undeserving of the position and the title he holds or is to vicious that the oversight or omission was deliberately done in bad faith and in grave abuse of judicial authority.[16]
Clearly then, the respondent Judge displayed gross ignorance of the law in failing to observe the requirements in issuing a search warrant. He was ignorant of the basic and simple procedural rules in issuing the said warrant. Verily, respondent Judge’s actions visibly indicate his lack of sufficient grasp of the law.
Under Rule 140, Section 8, of the Rules of Court, as amended by A.M. No. 01-8-10 SC, gross ignorance of the law or procedure is classified as a serious charge. As to the penalty imposed, Section 11 of the same Rule provides:
SEC. 11. Sanctions. - A. If the respondent is guilty of a serious charge, any of the following sanctions may be imposed:
1. Dismissal from the service, forfeiture of all or part of the benefits as the Court may determine, and disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any public office, including government-owned or controlled corporations: Provided, however, that the forfeiture of benefits shall in no case include accrued leave credits;
2. Suspension from office without salary and other benefits for more than three (3) but not exceeding six (6) months; or
3. A fine of more than P20,000.00 but not exceeding P40,000.00.
Guided by our rulings in Gamas v. Oco,[17] and Sule v. Biteng,[18] a fine of P20,000.00 is justified in the case at bar.
WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Judge Oscar E. Dinopol, of the Regional Trial Court, Br. 24, Koronadal City P20,000.00 with the WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future will be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED.
x x x."
