Módulo profesional: Proxecto de Gandaría e Asistencia en Sanidade Animal

Maceda vs. Hon. Ombudsman Conrado Vasquez ,G.R. No. 102781, April 22, 1993

Criminal complaints against judges such as for violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and the Revised Penal Code should be filed with the Office of the Ombudsman and not with the Supreme Court.

Judges being public officers are subject to the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman who can investigate and prosecute them for violations of the criminal laws, conformably with the provisions of the Constitution.

However, if there are administrative questions relevant to the investigation of the criminal responsibility of judges and court personnel, the same should first be referred to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court must determine first whether or not a judge or a court employee acted within the scope of his administrative duties.

a)

Knowingly Rendering Unjust Judgment (ART.204,RPC)

Elements:

1. That the offender is a judge.

2. That he renders a judgment in a case submitted to him for decision. 3. That the judgment is unjust.

4. That the judge knows that his judgment is unjust.

** It must be shown beyond cavil that the judgment or order is unjust as being contrary to law so as not supported by the evidence, and that the judge rendered it with conscious and deliberate intent to do an injustice. (Rodrigo vs. Quijano, 79 SCRA 10)

De la Cruz v. Concepcion

The gist of the offense therefore is an unjust judgment be rendered maliciously or in bad faith, that is, knowing it to be unjust. Xxx xxx Mere error therefore in the interpretation or application of the law does not constitute the crime. The nature of the administrative charge of knowingly rendering an unjust judgment is the same as the criminal charge. Thus xxx xxx it must be established that respondent judge rendered a judgment or decision not supported by law and/or evidence and that he must be actuated be hatred, envy, revenge, or greed or some other similar motive.

In order that a judge may be liable for knowingly rendering an unjust judgment, it must be shown beyond reasonable doubt that the judgment is unjust as it is contrary to law or is not supported by evidence, and the same was made with conscious and deliberate intent to do an injustice.

Buenavista vs. Garcia, 187 SCRA 598

To be guilty of knowingly rendering unjust judgment, it is necessary that the judgment or order was rendered with conscious and deliberate intent to perpetrate an injustice. And the

test to determine whether the judgment or order is unjust, may be inferred from the

circumstance that it is contrary to law or is not supported by evidence. A judgment may be said unjust when it is manifestly against the law and contrary to the weight of evidence. An unjust judgment is one contrary to the standards of rights and justice or standards of conduct prescribed by the law.

Gahol vs. Riodigue, 64 SCRA 494

If the decision rendered by the judge is still on appeal, the judge cannot be disqualified on the ground of “Knowingly Rendering An Unjust Judgment”.

b)Judgment Rendered Through Negligence (Art. 205, RPC)

Elements:

1. That the offender is a judge.

2. That he renders a judgment in a case submitted to him for decision. 3. That the judgment is manifestly unjust.

4. That it is due to his inexcusable negligence or ignorance. Manifestly Unjust Judgment

It is one which is so patently against the law, public order, public policy, and good morals that a person of ordinary discernment can easily sense its invalidity and injustice.

In re: Climaco, 55 SCRA 107

To hold a judge liable for the rendition of a manifestly unjust judgment by reason of inexcusable negligence or ignorance, it must be shown, according to Groizard, that although he has acted without malice, he failed to observe in the performance of his duty, that

diligence, prudence and care which the law is entitled to exact in the rendering of any public service. Negligence and ignorance are inexcusable if they manifest injustice in which cannot be explained by a reasonable interpretation. Inexcusable mistake only exists in the legal concept when it implies a manifest injustice, that is to say, such injustice which cannot be explained by a reasonable interpretation, even though there is a misunderstanding or error of the law applied, yet in the contrary it results, logically and reasonably, in a very clear and undisputable manner, in notorious violation of the legal precept.

** It must be clearly shown that although he has acted without malice, he failed to observe in the performance of his duty the diligence, prudence and care which the law requires from a public official. Negligence and ignorance are inexcusable if they imply a manifest injustice which cannot be explained by a reasonable interpretation, (In re Climaco, 55 SCRA 107). c)Knowingly Rendering An unjust Interlocutory Order (Art. 206, RPC)

Elements:

2. That he performs any of the following acts:

a. knowingly renders unjust interlocutory order or decree; or

b. He renders manifestly unjust interlocutory order or decree through inexcusable negligence or ignorance

* An Interlocutory Order is an order which is issued by the court between the

commencement and the end of a suit or action and which decides some point or matter, but which, however, is not a final decision of the matter in issue.

d)Maliciously Delaying the Administration of Justice (Art. 207, RPC)

Elements:

1. That the offender is a judge;

2. That there is a proceeding in his court; 3. That he delays the administration of justice;

4. That the delay is malicious, that is, the delay is caused by the judge with the deliberate intent to inflict damage on either party in the case

Revised Penal Code, Reyes, p. 208 1981 Ed.

To make the judge liable, the act must be committed maliciously with deliberate intent to prejudice a party in the case. Mere delay without notice in holding trials or rendering judgments does not necessarily bring the judge within the operation of this law.

e)Malfeasance Under Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act

Section 3, (e) RA No. 3019

A judge is criminally liable for causing an undue injury to a person or giving any private party an unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official function through manifest partially, evident bad faith and gross inexcusable negligence.

Sabitsana, Jr. vs. Villamor, 202 SCRA 435

In administrative proceedings which are not based on violation of criminal or penal statutes, mere preponderance of evidence suffices to hold the judge administratively liable. An instance of this is a judge’s interference in a suit pending in another court.

BRIBERY DIRECT OR INDIRECT

Acceptance of gifts given by reason of the office of the judge is indirect bribery (Art. 211, RPC) and when he agrees to perform an act constituting a crime in connection with the performance of his official duties in consideration of any offer, promise, gift or present receive by such officer, he is guilty of direct bribery (Art. 210, RPC).

ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT

present or other pecuniary or material benefit for himself or for another under conditions provided in Section 2, b and c of the law.

EXCEPTION: Excepted are unsolicited gifts or presents of small value offered or given as a mere ordinary token of gratitude or friendship according to local custom or usage (Section 14 RA 3019).