G.R. No. MTJ-03-1487 December 1, 2003
Sangguniang Bayan of Guindulman, Bohol vs. Judge Manuel A. de Castro, Acting Presiding Judge, MCTC, Guindulman-Duero, Bohol.

FACTS

The Sangguniang Bayan of Guindulman, Bohol, filed an administrative complaint against Judge Manuel A. de Castro. The complaint stemmed from the judge’s handling of Criminal Case No. G-1912 for illegal fishing under R.A. No. 8550 (The Philippine Fisheries Code). On May 17, 2002, lawmen apprehended the boat owner, captain, and crew of the fishing boat B/B Junida-J for using a prohibited ring net within municipal waters. Charges were filed the same day.
On May 18, 2002, a Saturday, Judge de Castro held a special court session at his residence. He arraigned only two of the accused—the boat owner and captain—who pleaded guilty. A police officer, not a prosecutor, acted as the prosecution. The judge then issued an order finding them guilty only of violating Section 90 of R.A. No. 8550 , imposing a total fine of Five Thousand Pesos (₱5,000.00), and ordering their immediate release and the return of their fishing boat. The Sangguniang Bayan alleged this constituted arbitrary release, violation of procedural rules, and gross ignorance of the law regarding the proper penalty.

ISSUE

Whether Judge Manuel A. de Castro is administratively liable for his actions in the disposition of Criminal Case No. G-1912.

RULING

Yes, Judge de Castro is administratively liable for Gross Ignorance of the Law and Procedure and for violating Rule 2.01 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. The Supreme Court found his actions indefensible. First, he demonstrated gross ignorance of the substantive law. Section 90 of R.A. No. 8550 mandates a penalty of imprisonment from two to six years for the boat captain and a fine for the owner/operator. The judge imposed only a fine on both, completely disregarding the clear, mandatory penalty of imprisonment for the captain, which is not subject to probation. His claim of misapprehending the penalty due to the complaint’s wording was rejected, as judges are duty-bound to know the law they apply.
Second, he exhibited gross ignorance of procedure. He conducted proceedings on a non-working day at his residence without proper authorization, violating Administrative Circular No. 3-99. He allowed a police officer to prosecute, contravening the rule that prosecution must be conducted by a prosecutor. He also failed to ensure the accused were properly assisted by counsel during their guilty plea. His justification—the accused’s desire for a swift resolution and concerns about their boat—was unacceptable, as convenience cannot override mandatory legal procedures and penalties. The Court imposed a fine of Forty Thousand Pesos (₱40,000.00) with a stern warning.