AM RTJ 93 956; (September, 1995) (Digest)
G.R. No. RTJ-93-956 September 27, 1995
Panfilo S. Amatan, complainant, vs. Judge Vicente Aujero, respondent.
FACTS
A criminal information charged Rodrigo Umpad with Homicide for fatally shooting Genaro Tagsip. During arraignment, the parties, with the acquiescence of the public prosecutor and the consent of the victim’s wife, entered into a plea bargain. The accused pleaded guilty to the lesser offense of Attempted Homicide. Respondent Judge Vicente Aujero, in his decision, accepted the plea and convicted Umpad of Attempted Homicide, imposing a penalty in accordance with the agreement.
Complainant Panfilo S. Amatan, the brother-in-law of the deceased, filed an administrative complaint against Judge Aujero for gross incompetence, ignorance of the law, and misconduct. He argued that convicting the accused of Attempted Homicide when the victim indisputably died was a glaring legal error. The judge defended his action by citing Section 2, Rule 116 of the 1985 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which allows a plea of guilty to a lesser offense with the consent of the offended party and the prosecutor.
ISSUE
Whether respondent judge is administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law for approving a plea bargain to Attempted Homicide in a case where the victim died.
RULING
Yes, the respondent judge is administratively liable. The Supreme Court found him guilty of gross ignorance of the law. While Section 2, Rule 116 permits plea bargaining to a lesser offense “regardless of whether or not it is necessarily included in the crime charged,” this procedural rule cannot override substantive law and basic logic. The crime of Homicide, as defined in Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code, has death as a necessary element. Attempted Homicide, by its very nature, presupposes that death did not occur.
The Court held that a literal application of the procedural rule in this case led to an absurd and unjust result directly opposed to common sense. Judges are not mere automatons; they must exercise sound discretion and interpret laws in a manner that promotes right and justice, as mandated by Article 10 of the Civil Code. The undeniable fact of the victim’s death should have alerted the judge to the fundamental incompatibility of the plea. His failure to recognize this cardinal legal principle and to prevent such a manifest injustice demonstrated a serious deficiency in his legal knowledge and judicial competence. The Court imposed a fine of One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00) as a penalty.