G.R. No. MTJ-04-1538; October 22, 2004
Evelyn Ong, complainant, vs. Judge Maxwel S. Rosete, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Evelyn Ong was the private offended party in multiple criminal cases for violation of the Bouncing Checks Law against Betty Jao, raffled to respondent Judge Maxwel S. Rosete, Acting Presiding Judge of the MeTC, Branch 58, San Juan. Complainant alleges that after the arraignment, respondent issued an order scheduling only the prosecution’s presentation of evidence and the tentative judgment date, omitting the defense’s schedule. Subsequently, a regular presiding judge, Judge Elvira de Castro Panganiban, was appointed on October 2, 2001. Complainant contends that respondent continued to hear and eventually granted a demurrer to evidence, dismissing all cases on December 3, 2001, despite allegedly lacking authority to act after the appointment of the regular judge.
Complainant charges respondent with bribery, gross ignorance of the law, and violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. She asserts the dismissal was based on a technicality—the prosecution’s failure to formally offer evidence—and that respondent ignored applicable jurisprudence on notice and evidence. She further submitted an affidavit alleging respondent demanded and accepted a bribe for the acquittal. Respondent defended his actions, stating the omission in the scheduling order was inadvertent and that he retained authority as Judge Panganiban had not yet assumed judicial duties pending her orientation seminar. He justified the dismissal on the merits, citing lack of proof of notice of dishonor.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Maxwel S. Rosete is administratively liable for the acts complained of, including gross ignorance of the law, usurpation of authority, and bribery.

RULING

The Court found respondent administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law and procedure. The Court clarified that under A.M. No. 99-7-07-SC, a newly appointed judge, like Judge Panganiban, cannot perform judicial functions until after completing the required orientation and immersion program. Therefore, respondent validly continued to hear the cases until his authority was properly terminated. However, respondent exhibited gross ignorance in his handling of the demurrer to evidence. His August 22, 2001 Order failed to schedule the presentation of evidence for the accused, a basic procedural requirement. More egregiously, in resolving the demurrer, he erroneously required “absolute proof” of notice of dishonor, contradicting the settled rule that proof beyond reasonable doubt, not absolute certainty, is the standard in criminal cases. This fundamental error constituted gross ignorance of basic legal principles. The charge of bribery, based on an uncorroborated affidavit, was dismissed for lack of substantial evidence. For his gross ignorance of the law, which is a serious charge under Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, respondent was FINED in the amount of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) with a STERN WARNING.