AM MTJ 01 1386; (December, 2001) (Digest)
A.M. No. MTJ-01-1386. December 5, 2001. LOURDES R. LIGAD, complainant, vs. JUDGE TEODORO L. DIPOLOG, respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Lourdes Ligad charged Judge Teodoro Dipolog of the Municipal Trial Court of Plaridel, Misamis Occidental, with grave abuse of authority. The charge stemmed from the judge’s refusal to release on recognizance her grandson, Joey Sailan, a thirteen-year-old minor accused of violating P.D. No. 1602 (illegal gambling). The Public Attorney’s Office filed a motion for Sailan’s release on recognizance to his grandmother’s custody. Respondent judge denied the motion, citing Section 13, Rule 114 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, which he interpreted as requiring the accused to be in custody for a period equal to the minimum penalty of the offense charged before recognizance could be granted. The Department of Social Welfare and Development later filed a manifestation recommending Sailan’s release under Article 191 of P.D. No. 603 (The Child and Youth Welfare Code). Complainant alleged that when she followed up, the judge arrogantly stated he was the law and everything was at his discretion.
ISSUE
Whether respondent judge committed gross ignorance of the law in denying the minor accused’s release on recognizance.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent judge guilty of gross ignorance of the law. The legal logic is clear: the applicable law for a minor like Joey Sailan was not the general bail provision under the Rules of Criminal Procedure but the special law, Article 191 of P.D. No. 603 (The Child and Youth Welfare Code). This provision mandates specific procedures for youthful offenders: 1) commitment to the DSWD or a rehabilitation center; 2) separate quarters in jail if no center is available; and 3) discretionary release on recognizance to parents or a suitable person upon DSWD recommendation. Respondent judge erroneously applied the inapplicable bail rule and failed to comply with the mandatory commitment requirement under P.D. No. 603, thereby allowing the minor’s improper detention. His failure to know and apply the correct, specific law governing minors constituted gross ignorance, violating the judicial duty to maintain professional competence. The Court fined him P2,000.00 with a stern warning.