A.M. No. RTJ-99-1472. September 20, 2001. SPOUSES HERMINIO and MILA DIZON and SPOUSES NOEL and LILIA ZAMORA, complainants, vs. HON. DEMETRIO D. CALIMAG, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Santiago City, Branch 35, respondent.
FACTS

Complainants, wives of the accused, charged respondent Judge Demetrio D. Calimag with grave misconduct and gross ignorance of the law. The case stemmed from three criminal cases raffled to his branch: two for illegal possession of firearms under P.D. No. 1866 (Criminal Cases Nos. 2565-66) and one for grave threats (Criminal Case No. 2581). The judge issued a warrant of arrest for grave threats, ruled it was non-bailable, and subsequently denied the accused’s petitions for bail in all cases. He also denied their motion to quash the informations for illegal possession, which argued the RTC lacked jurisdiction. The accused then filed a petition for habeas corpus with the Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals granted the petition. It ordered the release of the accused upon posting bail for the grave threats case and dismissed the illegal possession cases, directing they be filed with the proper Municipal Trial Court due to lack of RTC jurisdiction. Complainants thus alleged the judge’s denial of their motions was illegal, whimsical, and demonstrated gross ignorance.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Demetrio D. Calimag is administratively liable for Gross Ignorance of the Law.

RULING

Yes, respondent judge is liable for Gross Ignorance of the Law. The Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the Office of the Court Administrator and the Court of Appeals. The ruling hinges on the judge’s fundamental errors regarding jurisdiction and bail. For illegal possession of firearms under the amended law, the prescribed penalty is prision correccional maximum, which has a maximum period of six years. Under B.P. Blg. 129, as amended, offenses punishable with imprisonment not exceeding six years fall under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court, not the RTC. The judge’s failure to recognize this basic jurisdictional rule is inexcusable.
Furthermore, his reasoning for denying bail was legally flawed. He erroneously concluded that the grave threats charge, by referencing a killing “by means of fire and explosion,” was punishable by reclusion perpetua and thus non-bailable. This betrayed a misapprehension of the rule on graduation of penalties for the crime of grave threats under the Revised Penal Code. A judge is expected to have more than a cursory knowledge of such elementary legal principles. His failure to follow these basic legal commands constitutes gross ignorance of the law, which cannot be excused by a claim of good faith or the exercise of judicial discretion. Accordingly, the Court imposed a fine of Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000.00) with a stern warning.