Case Digest: JOAQUIN v. JUDGE MADRID

LORETO JOAQUIN v. JUDGE FE ALBANO MADRID

439 SCRA 567 (2004)

Holding a judge administratively accountable for every erroneous ruling or decision he renders, assuming that he erred, would be intolerable.

Loreto Joaquin filed an administrative complaint against Judge Fe Albano Madrid for Gross Misconduct for having revoked the release or bail order previously granted by the latter in favor of the former.

Joaquin posted for bail after being charged of homicide. His bail was approved but was later on withdrawn by Judge Madrid after reviewing the information. A complaint against Judge Madrid was lodged with the Office of the Court Administrator for Gross Ignorance of the Law.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Judge Madrid is guilty of Gross Ignorance of the Law

HELD:

As said Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code provides, the killing of another shall be guilty of murder when committed with any of the therein enumerated attendant circumstances, one of which is taking advantage of superior strength.

It has been the consistent ruling of this Court that what is controlling are the actual recital of facts in the body of the information and not the caption or preamble of the information.

In fine, at the time Judge Madrid ordered complainant’s detention on October 21, 2002, she was of the opinion that the allegation in the information that an unlicensed firearm was used in assaulting the minor victim called for the imposition of an increased penalty of reclusion perpetua, which opinion is of course erroneous. For the use of an unlicensed firearm in the commission of Homicide (or Murder), being a special aggravating circumstance, merely calls for the application of the penalty – reclusion temporal in the case of Homicide – in its maximum period.

At the time she gave her Comment-Answer to the Complaint, she explained that the allegation in the information contemplated the use of superior strength to qualify the killing to murder, which explanation could be tenable and puts her in good light.

To warrant a finding of gross ignorance of the law, it has been repeatedly held that the error must be ―so gross and patent as to produce an inference or bad faith.‖ For to hold a judge administratively accountable for every erroneous ruling or decision he renders, assuming that he erred, would be intolerable.

From the allegations of the information against complainant and the facts and circumstances surrounding Judge Madrid’s issuance of and justification for her order for Joaquin’s detention despite his earlier posting of bailbond, the Court is not inclined to infer that Judge Madrid acted maliciously or in bad faith, or with patent abuse of authority or in sheer ignorance of the law. In view of the foregoing, the Court does not find Judge Madrid liable for grave misconduct or ignorance of the law.