G.R. No. RTJ-02-1735. April 27, 2007.
Spouses Rodolfo and Sylvia Cabico vs. Judge Evelyn L. Dimaculangan-Querijero.

FACTS

Complainants, parents of a 17-year-old rape victim, charged respondent Judge with ignorance of the law, abuse of authority, and conduct unbecoming. They alleged that during a hearing, the judge angrily demanded the return of settlement money. Later, the Clerk of Court pressured them to sign an affidavit of desistance, warning the judge would be angry. When they refused, the judge allegedly confronted them in a loud voice, threatening to dismiss the case. On the same day, despite the absence of a signed affidavit, the judge issued an order dismissing the criminal case against two accused, citing the complainant’s receipt of payment and lack of interest in the criminal aspect, and ordered the release of one detained accused.
The respondent Judge denied the allegations, claiming the complaint was instigated by a disgruntled losing lawyer. She asserted the dismissal was based on the victim’s earlier court manifestations of receiving settlement and disinterest in prosecution. She argued the order was a dismissal based on the prosecution’s failure to prove guilt, not a compromise of the criminal action.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge is administratively liable for her actions in dismissing the rape case and her conduct towards the complainants.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent Judge liable for gross ignorance of the law. The legal logic is clear and multi-faceted. First, the judge displayed a fundamental misunderstanding of criminal law procedure. A criminal case for rape, being a public crime, cannot be compromised or settled by the private complainant’s mere desistance or receipt of civil liability payments. The judge’s order effectively treated the case as a private dispute subject to amicable settlement, which is legally erroneous. Second, the judge dismissed the case against an accused (Rayshawn dela Rosa) over whom the court had not acquired jurisdiction, as he remained at large; a court cannot adjudicate the case of an accused not under its custody. Third, the judge ordered the release of the detained accused based solely on the private complainant’s desistance, disregarding the state’s independent interest in prosecuting the crime. This act usurped the prosecutorial discretion of the public prosecutor. While the Court did not find conclusive evidence to support all allegations of misconduct in her interactions with the complainants, the issuance of the legally flawed dismissal order constituted gross ignorance per se. Such ignorance is not excusable for a judge of a court of record. Consequently, the Court imposed a fine of Twenty-One Thousand Pesos (P21,000.00) as a penalty.