AM 02 1 27 Mctc; (May, 2002) (Digest)
A.M. No. 02-1-27-MCTC, May 7, 2002
Re: Hold-Departure Order Issued by Judge Salvador M. Occiano, MCTC-Nabua, Camarines Sur, in Criminal Cases Nos. 7353 and 7363
FACTS
On June 3, 1998, Judge-Designate Salvador M. Occiano of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Nabua-Bato, Camarines Sur, issued a hold-departure order against accused Helen S. Zabala in two criminal cases. The order was issued on the same day a motion for its issuance was filed by the prosecutor. A copy was furnished to the Commission on Immigration and Deportation. The matter reached the Supreme Court after the Department of Justice referred it, noting that under Supreme Court Circular No. 39-97, only Regional Trial Courts (RTCs) could issue such orders in criminal cases within their exclusive jurisdiction.
In his comment, Judge Occiano defended his action, asserting his court’s inherent power to issue the order despite the circular. He claimed his sole motivation was the interest of justice and the expeditious trial of the cases. The Deputy Court Administrator recommended a reprimand, noting the judge’s prior disciplinary record, including a previous suspension and another pending administrative charge.
ISSUE
Whether Judge Salvador M. Occiano is administratively liable for issuing a hold-departure order in violation of Supreme Court Circular No. 39-97.
RULING
Yes, Judge Occiano is administratively liable. The Supreme Court found him guilty of grave misconduct, deliberate violation of a lawful circular, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. Circular No. 39-97 explicitly states in its first guideline that “Hold-Departure Orders shall be issued only in criminal cases within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts.” The language is clear and simple. The criminal cases before Judge Occiano’s MCTC did not fall under RTC jurisdiction; thus, he had no authority to issue the order.
The Court rejected his justification. His claim of inherent power and concern for speedy trial constituted a willful and deliberate disregard of a binding circular from the highest court, to which he owes fealty. This was not a mere error of judgment but a grave abuse of authority that infringed on the accused’s constitutional right to travel—the very right the circular was designed to protect from indiscriminate infringement. Considering the deliberate nature of the violation and his prior record, the Court deemed the recommended penalty of reprimand too lenient. Instead, the Court imposed a fine of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000) and issued a stern warning that a repetition would be dealt with more severely.