G.R. No. RTJ-06-1969. June 15, 2006
Atty. Hugolino V. Balayon, Jr., Complainant, vs. Judge Oscar E. Dinopol, Regional Trial Court, Branch 24, Koronadal City, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Atty. Hugolino V. Balayon, Jr. filed an administrative complaint against respondent Judge Oscar E. Dinopol for Gross Ignorance of the Law concerning the issuance of Search Warrant No. 01-03. The warrant was issued based on an application by P/S Insp. Virgilio Carreon, which relied on the sworn statement of Filoteo B. Arcallo accusing Tito Cantor of illegal possession of firearms. The warrant was implemented on January 13, 2003, but the search yielded no firearms. The complainant alleged the judge violated Sections 4 and 5, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court by issuing the warrant without conducting a proper examination and without attaching the required written searching questions and answers.
In his defense, respondent judge argued that the complainant lacked legal personality to file the complaint as he was not the aggrieved party (Tito Cantor) nor his relative. He asserted that he conducted exhaustive clarificatory interviews with the deponent, Filoteo Arcallo, in his chambers before issuing the warrant. He also suggested the complaint was motivated by ill-will from a prior unrelated case where a petition filed by the complainant was dismissed.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Oscar E. Dinopol is administratively liable for Gross Ignorance of the Law in issuing Search Warrant No. 01-03.

RULING

Yes, respondent judge is administratively liable. The Court first addressed the procedural issue of legal standing. Under Section 1, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, as amended, an administrative complaint may be instituted by any person, not necessarily the aggrieved party or a relative; it can even be anonymous if supported by public records of indubitable integrity. Thus, the complainant had the personality to file the charge.
On the substantive charge, the Court found respondent judge guilty of gross ignorance of the law. Section 4, Rule 126 mandates that a search warrant shall issue only upon probable cause determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and witnesses, which examination must be reduced to writing and attached to the record. The judge admitted he conducted interviews but failed to attach the written examination to the records. This failure constitutes a blatant disregard of a clear and simple procedural rule designed to protect constitutional rights against unreasonable searches. A judge’s duty to adhere strictly to these requisites is fundamental. His omission demonstrated a lack of sufficient grasp of basic legal procedure.
Gross ignorance of the law is a serious charge under Rule 140. Considering the circumstances and following precedents, the Court imposed a fine of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) with a stern warning that a repetition will be dealt with more severely.