A.M. No. MTJ-06-1651; April 7, 2009
PROSECUTOR ROBERT M. VISBAL, Complainant, vs. JUDGE WENCESLAO B. VANILLA, MTCC – BR. 2, TACLOBAN CITY, Respondent.

FACTS

Prosecutor Robert M. Visbal filed an administrative complaint against Judge Wenceslao B. Vanilla for Grave Misconduct and Gross Ignorance of the Law. The complaint stemmed from the judge’s order to archive Criminal Case No. 2000-08-OD-01, entitled “People v. Rodelio Abayon,” after the accused failed to appear at a hearing. The complainant alleged that the prosecution’s witnesses were ready to testify, the accused had already been arraigned, and the judge’s order violated constitutional and procedural rules on the right to a speedy trial and trials in absentia.
The respondent judge, in his comment, explained that he ordered the case archived on October 9, 2003, after the accused could not be located despite subpoenas, and a warrant for his arrest was issued on the same day. The judge claimed that archiving was for practical reasons, pending the accused’s arrest.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge is administratively liable for Gross Ignorance of the Law for ordering the criminal case archived.

RULING

Yes, the respondent judge is liable for Gross Ignorance of the Law. The Supreme Court, adopting the findings of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), ruled that the order to archive the case was patently erroneous and contrary to established rules and jurisprudence. Administrative Circular No. 7-A-92 provides that a criminal case may be archived only if, after the issuance of a warrant of arrest, the accused remains at large for six months. The judge ordered the case archived on the very day the arrest warrant was issued, violating this clear procedural requirement.
Furthermore, the circumstances did not justify archiving motu proprio, as none of the exceptions under the Circular (such as an unsound mental condition of the accused or a pending prejudicial question) were present. More critically, the judge ignored the well-settled doctrine on trial in absentia under Section 14(2), Article III of the Constitution . Since the accused had been arraigned and was deemed notified (having failed to inform the court of his address change), his unjustified absence authorized the continuation of the trial without him. By archiving the case instead of proceeding, the judge allowed the accused to mock the judicial process. While no malice or bad faith was found, this failure to apply basic legal principles constitutes gross ignorance of the law. Considering it was his first offense, the Court imposed a fine of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) with a stern warning.