VOL.

422,FEBRUARY5,2004

21

Obedencio, Jr. vs. Murillo

*

A.M.No.RTJ031753.February5,2004.
(FormerlyOCAIPINo.031652RTJ)
CAPISTRANOOBEDENCIO,JR.,complainant,vs.JUDGE
JOAQUIN M. MURILLO, PRESIDING JUDGE, RTC,
BRANCH 26, MEDINA, MISAMIS ORIENTAL,
respondent.
Courts; Judges; Duties; Competence; A judge owes it to the
public to be knowledgeable, for ignorance of the law is the
mainspring of injustice.Ajudgeisthevisiblerepresentationofthe
lawand,moreimportant,ofjustice.Ajudgeowesittothepublicto
be knowledgeable, for ignorance of the law is the mainspring of
injustice. A judge must know the laws and apply them properly in
all good faith. Rule 3.01, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct
requires a judge to be faithful to the law and to maintain
professional competence. He should conduct the functions and
perform the duties of his office with due regard to the integrity of
thesystemofthelawitself,rememberingthatheisnotadepository
of arbitrary power, but a judge under the sanction of law. Where
thelawtransgressedissimpleandelementary,thefailuretoknow
itconstitutesgrossignoranceofthelaw.

ADMINISTRATIVEMATTERintheSupremeCourt.
UnjustlyDismissingCriminalCase.
ThefactsarestatedintheresolutionoftheCourt.
RESOLUTION
QUISUMBING,J.:
1

In a lettercomplaint, complainant Capistrano Obedencio,

Jr., charged respondent Judge Joaquin M. Murillo,
Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Medina,
Misamis Oriental, Branch 26, of unjustly dismissing
CriminalCaseNo.1401M(2000)forrape,entitledPeople
v. Dexter Z. Acenas.
Complainant averred that on May 3, 2000, he and his
wife assisted their 14yearold daughter, Licel Acenas
Obedencio, in filing with the Office of the Provincial
Prosecutor, Hall of Justice in Cagayan de Oro City, a
criminal complaint for rape allegedly committed upon her
whenshewas11yearsoldbyheruncle,DexterZ.
_______________
* SECONDDIVISION.

1Rollo,pp.67.

22

22

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Obedencio, Jr. vs. Murillo

Acenas. After the preliminary investigation, which the

accused did2 not attend, the case was filed in respondent
judgessala.
OnMay25,2001,followingLicelsabductionfromtheir
3
house, complainantsoughttosecurefromthecourtacopy
of the warrant of arrest issued against the accused. To his
greatsurprise,respondentjudgetoldhimthatthecasehad4
been dismissed three days earlier on May 22, 2001.
Accordingtorespondentjudge,LicelObedenciohadcometo
court,accompaniedbyhermaternalgrandparentsandAsst.
Provincial Prosecutor Emmanuel Hallazgo. There
she was
5
presentedtoaffirmheraffidavitofdesistance.
Complainant claims that the dismissal was marred by
seriousirregularities.Hespecificallylamentedtheabsence
ofanysubpoenaornoticeofhearingfromthecourttohim,
hiswife,ortheircounsel.HebelievesthatsinceProsecutor
Hallazgo, Licels maternal grandparents, and the accused
arerelatives,thisfactcontributedtotheunjustdismissalof
6
thecase.
7
Inhiscomment, respondentjudgestatedthatheheard
Criminal Case No. 1401M (2000) on May 22, 2001, upon
therequestofProsecutorHallazgowhowasprosecutingthe
case.Duringthehearing,ProsecutorHallazgopresentedan
affidavit of desistance executed by Licel. Then, Licel took
the witness stand and was asked on matters contained in
heraffidavit.Sherecantedtheallegationsinheraffidavit
complaint and denied having been molested by her uncle,
Dexter.Sheexplainedthathermotherforcedhertofilethe
rape charge because of family inheritance problems.
Respondent judge asserts that, with the filing of the
affidavitofdesistance,thecourthadnootherrecoursebut
8
todismissthecase.
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), through
Deputy Court Administrator Christopher O. Lock, found
respondentjudgeliableforignoranceofthelawforunjustly
dismissing Criminal Case No. 1401M (2000). OCA
recommendedthatrespondentjudge
_______________
2Id.,atp.6.
3Id.,atp.8.
4Id.,atp.1.
5Id.,atpp.1213.
6Supra,note2.
7Rollo,p.4.
8Ibid.

23

VOL.422,FEBRUARY5,2004

23

Obedencio, Jr. vs. Murillo

bereprimandedwithwarningthatarepetitionofthesame
9
orsimilaroffensewouldbedealtwithmoreseverely.
ThisCourtagreeswiththefindingsoftheOCA,butnot
withtherecommendedpenalty.
10
Article220(6) oftheFamilyCodegivestocomplainant
and his wife the right and duty to represent Licel in all
mattersaffectingherinterest.Thus,theywereentitledtobe
notifiedandtoattendeveryhearingonthecase.Asajudge,
respondentisdutyboundtoacquainthimselfwiththecases
11
pendingbeforehim. HeshouldhaveknownthatLicelfiled
the criminal complaint with the12assistance of her parents,
who are her natural guardians. It was incumbent upon
respondent judge to inquire into the reason behind their
nonappearancebeforethecourtinsteadofsimplyrelyingon
thebareexplanationofthedefensecounselthatheandhis
13
client could not find Licels parents. Respondent judge
oughttorememberthattheaccused,DexterAcenas,isthe
maternaluncleofthevictim.ThatLicelcametocourtwith
hermaternalgrandparents,andnotherparents,ontheday
she was examined to affirm her affidavit of desistance,
should have alerted respondent judge to be more
circumspect. Being still a minor, Licel cannot fully
comprehendforherselftheimpactandlegalconsequenceof
the affidavit of desistance. Given her tender age, the
probability is that Licel succumbed to illicit influence and
undue pressure on her to desist from pursuing her
complaint.
Licel was only 14 years old, definitely a minor, on May
22,2001,whenshewaspresentedbeforerespondentssala
to affirm the execution of her affidavit of desistance. This
being the case, said affidavit should have been executed
withtheconcurrenceofherparents.Licelcouldnotvalidly
giveconsenttoanaffidavitofdesis
_______________
9Id.,atpp.13.
10

ART. 220. The parents and those exercising parental authority

shall have with respect to their unemancipated children or wards the

followingrightsandduties:
...
(6)Torepresenttheminallmattersaffectingtheirinterests.
11Madredijo

v. Loyao, Jr.,375Phil.1,23;316SCRA544(1999).

12 THE FAMILY CODE, Art. 211. The father and the mother shall

jointly exercise parental authority over the persons of their common

children....
13TSN,22May2001,p.6.

24

24

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Obedencio, Jr. vs. Murillo

tance, for a minor is incompetent to execute such an

instrument. Yet, notwithstanding the absence of her
parentsconformitytotheaffidavitofdesistanceandlackof

notice to them or their lawyer of the scheduled hearing,

respondent judge dismissed the criminal case. Truly, he
shouldhaveexercisedmoreprudenceandcautioninsteadof
perfunctorily dismissing the case, considering the nature
andgravityoftheoffensecharged.
At the very least, herein respondent should have
appointed a guardian ad litem for Licel, to protect her
welfareandinterest,insteadofhastilydismissingtherape
14
case.TheRuleonExaminationofaChildWitness, which
tookeffectonDecember15,2000,governstheexamination
ofchildwitnesseswhoarevictimsof,accusedof,orwitnesses
toacrime.Intheabsenceorincapacityoftheparentstobe
15
the guardian, Section 5 (a) of said rule provides that the
courtmayappointaguardianad litemtopromotethebest
interestsofthechild.Thisrulewasalreadyineffectwhen
respondentjudgedismissedtherapecaseonMay22,2001.
Respondent is reminded that a judge is the visible
16
representationofthelawand,moreimportant,ofjustice. A
judge owes it to the public to be knowledgeable,
for
17
ignoranceofthelawisthemainspringofinjustice. Ajudge
must18know the laws and apply them properly in all good
faith. Rule3.01,Canon3oftheCodeofJudicialConduct
requires a judge to be faithful to the law and to maintain
professional competence. He should conduct the functions
and perform the duties of his office with due regard to the
integrity of the system of the law itself, remembering that
heisnotadeposi
_______________
14A.M.No.00407SC.
15SEC.5.Guardian

ad litem.

(a) The court may appoint a guardian ad litem for a child who is a
victim of, accused of, or a witness to a crime to promote the best
interests of the child. In making the appointment, the court shall
consider the background of the guardian ad litem and his familiarity
with the judicial process, social service programs, and child
development,givingpreferencetotheparentsofthechild,ifqualified..
..
16Arban

v. Judge Borja,227Phil.597,605;143SCRA634(1986).

17 Spouses

Bio v. Judge Valera, 327 Phil. 249, 254; 257 SCRA 462

(1996).
18 Miaque v. Pamonag, A.M. No. MTJ021412, 28 March 2003, 400

SCRA9.
25

VOL.422,FEBRUARY5,2004

25

Obedencio, Jr. vs. Murillo

tory19of arbitrary power, but a judge under the sanction of
law. Wherethelawtransgressedissimpleandelementary,
the 20failure to know it constitutes gross ignorance of the
law.
For respondent judges infraction, the penalty of
reprimand,recommendedbytheOCA,isinapplicable.Itis
too light and incommensurate to the gravity of the
administrative offense charged and proved. Instead, the

penaltyoffineisproperinthiscase,followingSandoval
v.
21
Garin, intheamountofP10,000.00.
WHEREFORE, the respondent Judge Joaquin M.
Murillo, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of
Medina,MisamisOriental,Branch26,isfoundLIABLEfor
gross ignorance of the law in connection with the unjust
dismissal of Criminal Case No. 1401M (2000). He is
ORDEREDtopaythefineofTenThousandPesos(P10,000)
and ADMONISHED to be more circumspect in the
performance of his judicial duties and functions. He is
further warned sternly that a repetition of the same or
similaroffensewouldbedealtwithmoreseverely.
SOORDERED.
Puno (Chairman), AustriaMartinez, Callejo, Sr.and
Tinga, JJ.,concur.
Respondent Judge meted a P10,000 fine for gross
ignorance of the law and admonished to be more circumspect
in performance of duties, with stern warning against
repetition of similar offense.
Note.Whenthelawiselementary,soelementary,not
toknowitconstitutesgrossignoranceofthelaw.(Madredijo
vs. Loyao, Jr.,316SCRA544[1999])
o0o
_______________
19 Enriquez

v. Judge Vallarta, A.M. No. MTJ021398, 27 February

2002,378SCRA12,18.
20 BorjaManzano

v. Sanchez, A.M. No. MTJ001329, 8 March 2001,

354SCRA1,67.
21 385 Phil. 939, 948; 329 SCRA 300 (2000). But

see Rule 140 of the

RulesofCourt,amendedSeptember11,2001.
26

Copyright 2015 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.