G.R. No. RTJ-95-1293. May 9, 1995.
Gil V. Manlavi, complainant, vs. Judge Eustaquio Z. Gacott, Jr., Regional Trial Court, Branch 47, City of Puerto Princesa, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant, a senior police officer, filed an administrative complaint against respondent Judge for partiality and knowingly rendering an unjust judgment. The charges stemmed from the judge’s orders quashing two consolidated criminal cases. In Criminal Case No. 9210 for illegal possession of explosives, the judge granted the motion to quash because the prosecution admitted the evidence was obtained through a warrantless search and seizure. The search warrant presented was issued only after the search. Complainant argued the seizure was justified under a presidential circular allowing confiscation of fish caught with explosives.
In Criminal Case No. 9211 for illegal possession of illegally caught fish, the judge granted the motion to quash because the information was fatally defective. It failed to allege the essential element that the possession was “for profit,” as required by the penal law. The prosecution argued the omission was a mere technicality and that the word “wilfully” substituted for “knowingly.” The judge denied the motion for reconsideration.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge is administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law or partiality in dismissing the two criminal cases.

RULING

No, the respondent Judge is not administratively liable. The Court found his orders were legally justified and not tainted with bad faith. Regarding Criminal Case No. 9210, the warrantless search was indeed illegal. The presidential circular invoked by complainant pertains to a specific administrative procedure for confiscation by fisheries officials, which involves taking a sample for testing before full seizure. The arresting officers failed to comply with this very procedure. The judge correctly applied the constitutional rule against unreasonable searches.
For Criminal Case No. 9211, the judge correctly ruled the information was defective. While he erred in stating the information failed to allege “knowledge” (as “wilfully” encompasses it), his ultimate conclusion was correct. The law (P.D. No. 704) explicitly requires the act of possession to be done “for profit.” The omission of this essential element from the information rendered it invalid, as it failed to charge an offense. This is a substantive, not a mere technical, defect. The judge’s power to quash an information for failure to charge an offense is a judicial function, not subject to the prior approval of a provincial prosecutor, which rule applies only during preliminary investigation.
Administrative liability against a judge requires proof of fraud, dishonesty, corruption, or bad faith in the exercise of judicial functions. Mere errors of judgment, absent a showing of such corrupt motives, are not punishable. The respondent Judge acted within his judicial discretion based on his interpretation of applicable laws. Therefore, the complaint was dismissed.