AM MTJ 96 1075; (November, 2000) (Digest)
A.M. No. MTJ-96-1075. November 27, 2000. PILAR VDA. DELA PEÑA, complainant, vs. HON. JUDGE TIBURCIO V. EMPAYNADO, JR., respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Pilar Vda. Dela Peña charged Judge Tiburcio V. Empaynado, Jr. of the Municipal Trial Court of Jaen, Nueva Ecija, with gross ignorance of the law. The allegations stemmed from the judge’s handling of Criminal Case No. 30(95) for Illegal Possession of Firearms under P.D. No. 1866, filed against Emmanuel Leabres, who was accused of killing complainant’s husband. The complainant asserted that the crime, when the unlicensed firearm is used in a killing, carries the penalty of death. She alleged gross ignorance because respondent judge set bail at P50,000 and later reduced it to P40,000, and maliciously denied a request to transfer the accused from the municipal jail to the provincial jail.
In his Comment, respondent judge defended his actions. He argued that the criminal complaint filed specifically alleged only simple illegal possession of firearms, punishable by reclusion temporal maximum to reclusion perpetua, as it did not expressly allege that the firearm was used in a homicide. Therefore, the offense was bailable. He also presented an order dated July 21, 1995, directing the transfer of the accused to the provincial jail, countering the claim of malicious denial. The complainant, in her Reply, insisted the judge antedated this order and maintained that the aggravated, non-bailable form of the crime was applicable.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Judge Tiburcio V. Empaynado, Jr. is guilty of gross ignorance of the law for granting bail to the accused in a case for illegal possession of firearms allegedly used in a homicide.
RULING
The Court dismissed the administrative charge for lack of merit. The ruling hinged on a fundamental principle of criminal procedure: the determination of bail eligibility is based on the crime as charged in the information or complaint, not on allegations of facts outside the pleading. The Court emphasized that for the accused to be charged with the aggravated form of illegal possession under P.D. No. 1866 (which prescribes the penalty of death when the firearm is used in a homicide or murder), the qualifying circumstance that the unlicensed firearm was used to commit homicide must be specifically and expressly alleged in the complaint.
Since the criminal complaint in Case No. 30(95) charged only “Illegal Possession of Firearm” without alleging its use in the killing, the offense was properly considered the simple, bailable form of the crime. Respondent judge correctly treated it as punishable by reclusion temporal maximum to reclusion perpetua and was thus within his discretion to grant bail after considering factors like voluntary surrender and lack of criminal record. His order for the accused’s transfer to the provincial jail further negated the claim of malicious denial. The Court concluded that the judge’s actions were legally sound and did not constitute gross ignorance.