AM 96 1353; (March, 1997) (Digest)
A.M. No. RTJ-96-1353. March 11, 1997. DANILO B. PARADA, complainant, vs. JUDGE LORENZO B. VENERACION, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 47, MANILA, respondent.
FACTS:
Danilo B. Parada, the accused in Criminal Cases Nos. 93-121385 to 88 for estafa, filed an administrative complaint against Judge Lorenzo B. Veneracion for gross ignorance of the law, abuse of authority, and rendering unjust orders. The cases were initially raffled to another branch, where Parada, who was out on bail, formally notified the court and his bonding company of his change of address in October 1993. After the presiding judge inhibited himself, the cases were re-raffled to respondent judge’s sala in February 1994.
Respondent judge set the case for hearing in June 1994. However, the notice was sent to Parada’s old address. Due to Parada’s non-appearance on June 3, 1994, respondent judge ordered his arrest, confiscated his bond, and proceeded with trial in absentia, assigning a counsel de oficio. The court issued a warrant of arrest with “no bail recommended,” convicted Parada in a decision promulgated in his absence, and caused his incarceration. The Court of Appeals later annulled this judgment, finding it void for denying Parada due process, and remanded the case.
ISSUE
Whether respondent judge is administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law and abuse of authority in conducting the trial and issuing orders that deprived the accused of due process.
RULING
Yes, respondent judge is administratively liable. The Supreme Court agreed with the Office of the Court Administrator’s findings. For a valid trial in absentia under Section 14(2), Article III of the Constitution , the accused must have been arraigned and duly notified, and his absence must be unjustifiable. Here, Parada had duly informed the previous court of his address change, but respondent judge sent notices to the old address. His failure to verify the records and ensure proper notification constituted a denial of due process.
Furthermore, issuing a warrant of arrest with “no bail recommended” for the bailable offense of estafa was a blatant violation of Parada’s constitutional right to bail. This demonstrated gross ignorance of basic legal principles. Judges must maintain professional competence and be circumspect in their duties. Respondent judge’s actions exhibited a degree of ignorance the Court cannot countenance. Accordingly, he was fined P10,000.00 and sternly warned.