AM MTJ 03 1483; (December, 2007) (Digest)
G.R. No. MTJ-03-1483; December 28, 2007
Richard Si y Tian, Complainant, vs. Judge Elpidio R. Calis, Respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Richard Si y Tian was the accused in Criminal Case No. 30851 for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Damage to Property. The case stemmed from a minor vehicular accident involving Atty. Ceriaco A. Sumaya, who was alleged to be a close friend of respondent Judge Elpidio R. Calis of the Municipal Trial Court of Sta. Cruz, Laguna. The offense charged was punishable by a fine only.
Despite the offense being penalized solely by a fine, respondent Judge issued a warrant for complainant’s arrest and set bail at ₱21,200 for his provisional liberty. Complainant invoked Section 6(c), Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which explicitly states that a warrant of arrest shall not issue if the information is for an offense penalized by fine only, in which case the court should proceed in the exercise of its original jurisdiction.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Judge is administratively liable for issuing a warrant of arrest in a case where the prescribed penalty is a fine only, contrary to procedural rules.
RULING
Yes, respondent Judge is administratively liable for ignorance of the law. The Supreme Court agreed with the Court Administrator’s finding that the issuance of the warrant was a clear violation of Section 6(c), Rule 112. Respondent Judge admitted in his Comment that he “might have overlooked” this pertinent rule. The legal logic is straightforward: the rules provide a specific prohibition against issuing warrants for fine-only offenses to avoid unnecessary deprivation of liberty. By issuing the warrant, the judge failed to apply a clear and mandatory procedural rule.
The Court emphasized that judges have a bounden duty under the Code of Judicial Conduct to be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence. Ignorance of the law, especially of basic rules of procedure, is inexcusable as it is the mainspring of injustice. An oversight regarding a new provision does not absolve a judge from this duty. The act constituted ignorance of the law, warranting administrative sanction. Consequently, respondent Judge was found guilty and fined ₱5,000.00 with a stern warning.