A.M. No. MTJ-00-1295; August 1, 2000
Felicidad B. Dadizon, complainant, vs. Judge Aniceto A. Lirios, Municipal Trial Court, Naval, Biliran, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Felicidad B. Dadizon was a complaining witness in Criminal Case No. 3031 for Falsification of a Public Document under Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code, tried by respondent Judge Aniceto A. Lirios. In this administrative case, she charges the judge with ignorance of the law for imposing a straight penalty of seven months imprisonment and a fine of ₱1,000.00 on the accused, Pablo Suzon. Complainant argues this is contrary to Article 172, which prescribes a penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods (2 years, 4 months, and 1 day to 6 years) and a fine not exceeding ₱5,000.00. She also contests the acquittal of co-accused Maria Suzon.
Respondent Judge, in his defense, argued that the proper recourse for any sentencing error was an appeal. He justified the straight seven-month penalty by applying the mitigating circumstance of old age (the accused being 70 years old), claiming it lowered the penalty by one degree, placing seven months within the minimum period. He pleaded for leniency, citing his 33 years of service, clean record in prior administrative cases, and his recent retirement.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge is guilty of gross ignorance of the law for imposing a straight penalty of imprisonment in a case governed by the Indeterminate Sentence Law.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent Judge guilty of gross ignorance of the law. The Court held that the offense of Falsification under Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code is punishable by an indeterminate sentence, requiring a minimum and maximum term of imprisonment. The imposition of a single, straight penalty of seven months completely disregarded the mandatory application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law. While a judge may avail of the mitigating circumstance of old age, this only affects the degree and period of the penalty within the framework of the indeterminate sentence; it does not authorize the imposition of a straight penalty.
The Court emphasized that ignorance of such an elementary and fundamental law as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, especially from a judge with 33 years of service, constitutes gross ignorance. Judges are duty-bound to have more than a cursory knowledge of basic legal principles. The Court adopted the recommendation of the Court Administrator and imposed a fine of ₱5,000.00 on the retired judge, with a stern warning. The Court found no merit in the complainant’s other charges regarding the amount of the fine (which was within the legal limit) and the acquittal of Maria Suzon, as no malice or abuse of authority was shown in those aspects of the decision.