A.M. No. RTJ-07-2059, August 10, 2007
Augusto C. Caesar, Complainant, vs. Judge Romeo M. Gomez, Regional Trial Court, Branch 25, Maasin City, Southern Leyte, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Augusto C. Caesar was the private complainant in a criminal case for estafa against Norman Victor M. Ordiz, raffled to the sala of respondent Judge Romeo M. Gomez. After arraignment and pre-trial, but before the prosecution could present its evidence, the accused filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing novation of the contract and lack of criminal liability. Caesar opposed, contending the motion was a prohibited motion to quash filed after arraignment and that novation does not extinguish criminal liability.
Judge Gomez granted the Motion to Dismiss. He ruled that the original agreement had been novated into a creditor-debtor relationship, preventing the incipience of criminal liability for estafa. Caesar filed a Motion for Reconsideration and for Inhibition, which were denied. Caesar then filed this administrative complaint, alleging grave misconduct and gross ignorance of the law, claiming the dismissal was a premeditated act to favor the accused based on rumors of bribery and a blatant disregard of procedural rules.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Romeo M. Gomez is administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law for granting a motion to dismiss a criminal case on the ground of novation after the accused had already been arraigned.

RULING

Yes, respondent Judge is guilty of gross ignorance of the law. The Supreme Court emphasized that a judge is required to have more than a cursory acquaintance with laws and procedural rules. The respondent’s act of granting the motion to dismiss constituted a gross misapplication of basic legal principles. First, a motion to dismiss in a criminal case, based on grounds not involving insufficiency of evidence, is essentially a motion to quash under Rule 117 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, which must be filed before arraignment. The accused having been arraigned, the motion was procedurally infirm and should have been denied outright.
Second, the substantive ground relied upon—novation—is not a valid ground to quash an information for estafa. The Court reiterated the settled doctrine that novation does not extinguish criminal liability; it is merely a mode of extinguishing civil obligations. The determination of whether novation occurred is a matter of defense to be threshed out during trial, not a basis for a pre-emptive dismissal. By dismissing the case on this ground without allowing the prosecution to present its evidence, respondent Judge disregarded fundamental rules and substantive law. His defense of good faith was unavailing, as the rules involved were elementary. For this gross ignorance of the law, a serious charge, the Court imposed a fine of Forty Thousand Pesos (P40,000.00). The charge of grave misconduct based on alleged bribery was dismissed for lack of substantial evidence.