G.R. No. 116049 March 20, 1995
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioners, vs. HON. EUSTAQUIO Z. GACOTT, JR., Presiding Judge, RTC, Branch 47, Puerto Princesa City, ARNE STROM and GRACE REYES, respondents.

FACTS

On February 2, 1994, an Assistant City Prosecutor filed a complaint for violation of the Anti-Dummy Law (C.A. No. 108) against respondents Arne Strom and Grace A. Reyes. The accused filed a Motion to Quash/Dismiss, contending that the power to prosecute was vested exclusively in the Anti-Dummy Board under Republic Act No. 1130, and thus the City Prosecutor had no authority to file the case. The prosecution opposed, pointing out that the Anti-Dummy Board had been abolished by Letter of Implementation No. 2, Series of 1972. Respondent Judge Eustaquio Z. Gacott, Jr. granted the motion to quash, holding that a Letter of Implementation is not a “law” that can repeal another law like R.A. 1130, and therefore the City Prosecutor lacked authority. The prosecution’s motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

Whether or not respondent judge, in granting the Motion to Quash, gravely abused his discretion.

RULING

Yes, the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to gross ignorance of the law. The order of dismissal is annulled and set aside, and the criminal case is reinstated. Respondent Judge is reprimanded and fined P10,000.00. Atty. Elvira T. Bermejo, counsel for the private respondents, is likewise reprimanded and fined P10,000.00 for ignorance of the law and failure to observe candor, fairness, and good faith.
The Supreme Court held that the Anti-Dummy Board was expressly abolished by Letter of Implementation (LOI) No. 2, Series of 1972, issued pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 1. LOI No. 2 transferred the Board’s investigation function to the National Bureau of Investigation and its prosecution function to the Prosecution Staff and various provincial and city fiscals, and stated “The Anti-Dummy Board shall cease to exist as of the date hereof.” Presidential Decrees issued under martial law powers have the force and effect of law, and LOI No. 2, as an implementing order, shares this character. Furthermore, Section 3, Article XVII of the Constitution provides that all existing laws, decrees, executive orders, proclamations, letters of instructions, and other executive issuances not inconsistent with the Constitution remain operative until amended, repealed, or revoked. Neither P.D. No. 1 nor LOI No. 2 has been revoked. Later, P.D. No. 1275 reorganized the prosecution system, creating the National Prosecution Service tasked with investigating and prosecuting all violations of penal laws, including the Anti-Dummy Law. The respondent judge’s failure to take judicial notice of these laws and his mistaken belief that LOI No. 2 could not repeal R.A. 1130 constituted gross ignorance of the law. The Court also found counsel for the private respondents negligent for failing to keep abreast of legal developments and for making an inaccurate statement in her Comment before the Supreme Court.