G.R. No. RTJ-21-006, March 15, 2021
Zahara Pendatun Maulana, Complainant, vs. Judge Oscar P. Noel, Jr., Regional Trial Court, Branch 35, General Santos City, South Cotabato, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Zahara Pendatun Maulana was a respondent in a criminal case for violation of Republic Act No. 10591 (Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition Regulation Act). Firearms were seized from her residence pursuant to Search Warrants issued by respondent Judge Oscar P. Noel, Jr. The Office of the Prosecutor dismissed the complaint against her for lack of probable cause, citing a Certification from the Firearms and Explosive Office (FEO) showing she and her co-respondent were licensed holders of two of the seized firearms. A third firearm was covered by a Letter Order and Acknowledgment Receipt, and ammunition was deemed government-issued property under the custody of her security detail. Complainant filed a Motion to Release Seized Items. Prior to the hearing, respondent Judge allegedly directed complainant to his chambers and asked her to shoulder ₱300,000 for travel expenses to Camp Crame to personally verify the firearm licenses. During the hearing, complainant’s counsel moved to withdraw the motion. However, respondent Judge issued an Order dated November 16, 2017, stating that the movant (complainant) prayed for the court, its personnel, and the prosecutor to personally verify the licenses at Camp Crame at her expense, and granted the motion. Respondent Judge denied demanding money, claiming the request for verification at complainant’s expense came from her counsel during the hearing, as shown in the transcript. Complainant later filed an Affidavit of Desistance, exonerating respondent and admitting she asked her counsel to make the offer to pay for verification, but she later denied executing the affidavit to the OCA. The OCA recommended an investigation. The Investigating Justice found the desistance voluntary and recommended dismissal. The OCA disagreed, finding respondent liable for gross ignorance of the law for issuing the November 16, 2017 Order.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge is administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law or procedure in issuing the November 16, 2017 Order.

RULING

Yes, respondent Judge is administratively liable. The Supreme Court agreed with the OCA that the complaint should not be dismissed solely based on the affidavit of desistance, as desistance does not divest the Court of its disciplinary authority. The Court found respondent Judge committed gross ignorance of the law. His duty was to rely on the official FEO Certification and other documents submitted to decide the motion for release of seized items. There was no legal basis for him to personally verify the licenses at Camp Crame, and issuing an order for such verification at private expense was improper. This demonstrated a failure to adhere to basic procedural norms and cast doubt on his integrity. The Court modified the OCA’s recommended penalty and suspended respondent Judge from office for three months without salary and benefits, with a stern warning that repetition would be dealt with more severely.