Sarmiento v.

Arquiza CATCHY PHRASE: Your honor, I move for the fining of the judge [Just a play of words: because there was motion to quash by counsel of accused, which the judge treated as a motion to amend; and the judge was fined at the end] Forget-me-not [One should not forget the rules on criminal procedure and remedial law for that matter, especially a judge] WHERE IT HAPPENED: Kawit, Cavite WHEN: August 21, 1980 COMPLAINT: This is a complaint filed by Rolando Daplas against Judge Belenita Arquiza of the Municipal Court of Kawit, Cavite for (6) ignorance of the law, grave abuse of discretion, gross incompetence, inefficiency and partiality. WHAT CASE WAS FILED IN HER COURT: (WHAT HAPPENED) On August 1975, Sgt. Cagalpin of the Philippine Constabulary in Imus, Cavite filed a case of Robbery with Frustrated Homicide against (3) Victoriano Caching, Ferdie Sapida and Efren Algot. The corresponding warrants of arrest against the 3 accused were issued by Judge Arquiza. Alot was arrested and the case against him was remanded to the CFI Cavite. The 2 remained at large (were not arrested) and so their case remained with the Judge Arquizas court. NOTE: The penalty for robbery with homicide is reclusion perpetua to death (20 years), thus there is need for P.I. The P.I. was filed with the MuTC, and the warrant of arrest was also filed there. However, CFI has jurisdiction over cases of robbery with homicide. A motion to quash was filed by counsel of Caching & Sapiza on the ground that the court has not acquired jurisdiction yet over the accused. Judge Arquiza granted the motion and ordered Sgt. Cagalpin to file an amended complaint charging the proper offense and at the same time recalling the warrant of arrest earlier issued. Sgt. Cagalpin filed an amended complaint for Less Serious Physical Injuries. He also filed another complaint for Robbery which according to the administrative complaint, was not accepted by Judge Arquiza. [No reason why] JUDGE ARQUIZAS DEFENSE: It is true that the counsel of the accused Caching & Sapida filed a Motion to Quash the charges. And upon finding out that the counsel just wanted to call her attention to the fact that there is no complex crime of Robbery with Frustrated Homicide, she treated the motion as a Motion to Amend, and the amendment only as to form, she ordered complainant to file an amended complainant charging the proper offense.

ALSO, she accepted the complaint of Robbery filed by the complainant which was allegedly not accepted by her. DECISION OF THE COURT: Administratively liable CHARGE: Ignorance of the law [Serious #9] PENALTY: Fine equivalent to her salary for 1 month [Less Serious] REASONS: (1) She hastily ordered the complaint against the 2 accused-at-large quashed even though they had not yet been brought under her courts jurisdiction, although she ordered the filing of an amended complaint. It is the allegations of the complaint and not the designation of the offense that determine the crime committed and charged. Mere misnomer of the offense did not justify the quashal of the complaint. (2) She herself had determined in the P.I. that a crime had been committed by the accused and had issued the warrants of arrest. Her duty was to hear the accused the P.I. under Rule 112 of the Rules of Court, maintain the charge or discharge of the accused, and thereafter elevate the record to the clerk of the CFI under Sec 12. (3) The quashing of the charges then enabled the 2 accused-at-large to remain free & make threats against the complainant-offended party Sarmiento. (4) A judge owes it to the public & to the legal profession to know the very law he is supposed to apply in a given controversy. He is expected to show more than a cursory acquaintance with the elementary rules governing procedure and preliminary investigations and well settled & authoritative doctrines. There is an apparent deficiency in her grasp of legal principles, and this will erode the great faith in the administration of justice on the part of litigants. VIOLATED CANONS [Competence] NCJC: Canon 6, Section 3 Competence, Judges shall take reasonable steps to maintain & enhance their knowledge, skills...for the proper performance of judicial duties. CJC: Rule 1.01 A judge should be the embodiment of competence... Rule 3.01 A judge shall be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence. CJE: Rule 2 The courts exist to promote justice, and thus to aid in securing the contentment & happiness of the people. Their administration should be speedy and careful. Every judge should at all times be alert in his rulings and in the conduct of the business of his court...to make it useful to litigants & to the community. He should avoid unconsciously falling into the attitude of mind that the litigants are made for the courts instead of the courts for the litigants.