Mabutas vs. Perello
Mabutas vs. Perello
Mabutas vs. Perello Hence, the respondent judge was suspended, he was guilty of gross ignorance of law in the AM No. RTJ-
04-1820 case
FACTS:
The case involves two admin complaints against Judge Perello by Supt. Mabutas and City Prosec. Togononon
FULL Text:
regarding Judge’s gross ignorance of the law in granting bail in dangerous drugs cases.
[A.M. No. RTJ-03-1817. June 8, 2005]
Admin Case 1 – A.M. No. RTJ-03-1817
P/SR. SUPT. ORLANDO M. MABUTAS, Regional Director, Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency,
Mabutas complains about the granting of bail to accused Omadan who was charged with possession of 57.78
Metro Manila Regional Office, complainant, vs. JUDGE NORMA C. PERELLO, Presiding
g of shabu, with no bail recommended. However, Judge Perello, in her order, stated that evidence of guilt was
Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 276, Muntinlupa City, respondent.
not strong for her to deny bail. Additionally, there may have been lapses in carrying out the arrest and
preliminary investigation of Omadan (no witness during search of Omadan’s illegal activities). Thus, Judge
[A.M. No. RTJ-04-1820. June 8, 2005]
Perello, allowed bail in the amount of P1M.
CITY PROSECUTOR EDWARD M. TOGONONON, complainant, vs. JUDGE NORMA C.
PERELLO, respondent.
Admin Case 2 - A.M. No. RTJ-04-1820
RESOLUTION
the Prosecutor likewise complains of Judge Perello’s granting of bail to 4 drug cases. These were done without
hearing. Judge Perello reasons out that since the shabu is not a dangerous drug but merely controlled AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:
precursor and that the amounts of Shabu involved were less than 1 gram which is not punishable by capital
offense and thus bail should be a matter of right without need for hearing.
Subject matters of the present administrative cases are two complaints against respondent Judge Norma
ISSUE: Whether the judge can be administratively liable for granting the bail in the drug cases C. Perello, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court (Branch 276) of Muntinlupa City.
The antecedents of Criminal Case No. 03-265 entitled People of the Philippines vs. Aiza Chona Omadan y
Chua and John Doe, for Violation of Section 11 of R.A. No. 9165, are set forth and dealt with in Admin. Matter It has been held that the pendency of an appeal from a questioned judgment renders the filing of
No. RTJ-03-1817. administrative charges premature. Where a sufficient judicial remedy exists, the filing of an administrative
complaint is not the proper remedy to correct the actions of a judge.
In Criminal Case No. 03-288 entitled People of the Philippines vs. Mary Jane Regencia y Mozo @ Grace,
for Violation of Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165, accused Regencia was charged with selling, delivering, trading and In the present administrative complaints, it was not shown that an appeal or any other proceeding had been
giving away to another 0.07 grams of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu). Respondent Judge likewise filed to reverse the respondent judges orders granting bail. It had not been shown that the present
granted Regencias motion for bail without hearing, on the ground that the quantity of shabu involved is minimal administrative complaints had any purpose other then seeking administrative sanctions against respondent
and the imposable penalty is also minimal.[7] judge.
Respondent Judge’s explanation:
In re: methamphetamine hydrochloride is a dangerous drugs and not a controlled precursor
Respondent Judge was required to comment on these two complaints.
In Admin. Matter No. RTJ-03-1817, respondent Judge contends that P/Sr. Supt. Mabutass charges Turning now to the merits of the administrative complaints, the primordial issue is: Whether or not there is an
against her are baseless; that the preliminary investigation conducted on Omadans case was outside her ambiguity in the law as to the classification of methamphetamine hydrochloride.
jurisdiction; that she did not have any hand or influence in ACP Franciscos handling of the hearing on the petition
for bail as it is within the latters control and supervision; that she denies that there was undue haste in the
Under Section 3(x) of the R.A. No. 9165 the substance was defined as:
grant of bail in Omadans favor; and that bail was granted because the prosecutions evidence of Omadans guilt
was not strong.[8]
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or commonly known as Shabu, Ice, Meth, or by its any other name. Refers
In Admin. Matter No. RTJ-04-1820, respondent Judge explains that she did not conduct any hearings to the drug having such chemical composition, including any of its isomers or derivatives in any form.
on the motions/petitions for bail filed in the criminal cases subject of the complaint because the crimes charged
are not capital offenses as the quantity of shabu involved therein was minimal. Criminal Case Nos. 03-065, 03-
082, and 03-288 all involve selling of less than 5 grams of shabu. Respondent Judge believes that under R.A. It can be noted that nothing in this provision indicates the classification of the substance either as a
No. 9165, shabu is not a dangerous drug but merely a controlled precursor, in which the selling of less than 5 dangerous or regulated drug.
grams is punishable only with imprisonment of 12 years to 20 years. Such being the case, respondent Judge
maintains that bail is a matter of right and a hearing is not required.[9] It is respondent judges position that shabu is not expressly classified as a dangerous drug under Section 5 of
R.A. No. 9165 and should therefore be considered merely as a chemical precursor, to wit:
The two complaints were consolidated and referred to Court of Appeals Associate Justice Jose C. Reyes,
Jr. for investigation, report, and recommendation.
...
After due proceedings, the Investigating Justice submitted his Report and Recommendation, with the
following findings and conclusion:
For clarity, the UN Single Convention was referred to in Section 3 of R.A. No. 9165 in relation to the definitions
of dangerous drugs and controlled precursors, to wit:
The charges arose out of the same set of facts and are interrelated and will be discussed together.
(h) Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals. Include those listed in Tables I and II of the
Before proceeding further, the investigating justice will first dispose respondent judges assertion that the 1988 UN Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances as
complaints should be dismissed outright claiming that where sufficient judicial remedy exists, the filing of enumerated in the attached annex, which is an integral part of this Act.
administrative complaint is not the proper remedy to correct actions of a judge citing the case of Barbers vs.
Laguio, Jr. (351 SCRA 606 [2001])
...
Anent the charge of partiality and serious misconduct, the investigating justice notes that these particular
(j) Dangerous Drugs. Include those listed in the Schedules annexed to the 1961 Single
charges were not touched upon in the testimony of any of the witnesses presented by the complainants.
Convention on Narcotic Drugs, as amended by the 1972 Protocol, and in the Schedules
Therefore, the investigating justice finds that no evidence as to partiality nor serious misconduct exists and
annexed to the 1971 Single Convention on Psychotropic Substances as enumerated in the
these charges should be dismissed for lack of evidence.
attached annex which is an integral part of this Act.
The investigating justice will now therefore tackle only the charge of gross ignorance of the law against
It should be noted, however, that by the plain wordings of R.A. No. 9165 dangerous drugs are not limited to
respondent judge.
those substances listed in the schedules attached to the 1961 United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic
Drugs because of the use of the word include. That is, there are other substances which may be considered
A close scrutiny of the said Barbers case shows that it is not applicable in the present administrative dangerous drugs even if not listed in the above-mentioned schedules.
complaints because in the said case it was clear that complainants-petitioners were not merely concerned with
the alleged act of the judge of rendering an unjust judgment but was also seeking the reversal of the
It is also worth noting that under Section 11 of R.A. No. 9165, Methamphetamine Hydrochloride was
specifically mentioned as a dangerous drug, to wit:
... conduct any hearing on the application for bail, we hold respondent Judge Go guilty of gross ignorance of the
law justifying the imposition of the severest disciplinary sanction on him. (Emphasis supplied)
(5) 50 grams or more of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu;
It is clear, therefore, that as to said criminal cases the accused were likewise not entitled to bail as a matter of
right, hence, a hearing for the grant of bail should have been conducted. However, in this last instance, no
...
such hearing was conducted.
It is clear, therefore, that the lawmakers intended to classify Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or shabu as a
In fine, respondent judge erred in granting bail to the accused in Crim. Case No. 03-065, Crim. Case No. 03-
dangerous drug. Moreover, it would be absurd to consider methamphetamine hydrochloride a dangerous drug
082, and Crim. Case No. 03-288 without hearing because the crime charge carries with it capital penalty.
under Section 11 of R.A. No. 9165 and merely a precursor under Section 5 of the same law.
As to Crim. Case No. 03-065, Crim. Case No. 03-082, and Crim. Case No. 03-288, the next issue to be
In fine, there is no question that methamphetamine hydrochloride is classified as a dangerous drug.
resolved is: whether or not the mistake amounted to gross ignorance of the law which would justify an
administrative sanction against respondent judge.
Having made the foregoing findings, the next issue that calls for resolution is the penalty imposable to the
criminal cases under consideration. This is necessary in order to determine if the accused are entitled to bail.
Respondent judge, naturally, argued that she cannot be held liable asserting that to be held guilty of gross
Under Section 13 of Article III of the 1987 Constitution, an accused shall be entitled to bail as a matter of
ignorance, the error must have been gross, deliberate and malicious (Rollo, RTJ-04-1820, p. 74) and in
right unless charged with an offense punishable with a capital penalty.
absence of fraud, dishonesty, or corruption that judge cannot be held liable (Rollo, RTJ-04-1820, p. 75).
The Court notes that the criminal cases under consideration can be grouped into two (2): A) Crim. Case No.
However, the Supreme Court does not always require the presence of malice to find erring judges liable for
03-065 (against Rosemarie Pascual, Crim. Case No. 03-082 (against Rolando Uy), and Crim. Case No. 03-288
gross ignorance.
(against Mary Jane Regencia), which involve selling, trading, delivering or giving away Methamphetamine
Hydrochloride; and B) Crim. Case No. 03-265 (against Aiza Chona Omadan) which involve possession of the
said substance. In the above-cited Managuelod case the Supreme Court held that failure to hold a hearing before granting bail
in crimes involving capital punishment constitutes gross ignorance of the law, thus:
The investigating justice would first discuss Crim. Case No. 03-265 where the accused was charged with
possession of 57.78 grams of Methemphetamine Hydrochloride. Section 11 of R.A. No. 9165 provides that the . . . Thus, for his failure to conduct any hearing on the application for bail, we hold respondent Judge Go
penalty imposable is life imprisonment to death. Therefore, in the Crim. Case No. 03-265 accused therein is guilty of gross ignorance of the law justifying the imposition of the severest disciplinary sanction on him.
not entitled to bail as a matter of right. Rightly so, a hearing was conducted before the bail was granted.
The same should hold true in the present administrative cases considering that the criminal cases involved
The investigating justice, after a careful consideration of the evidence presented by the complainants, opines drugs, a major problem of the country today.
that there is insufficient evidence to support the allegation that bail was hastily granted to accused Aiza Chona
Omadan. Therefore, the charge of gross ignorance in relation to this case should be dismissed for lack of
In conclusion, the investigating justice finds respondent judge guilty of gross ignorance of the law in relation
factual basis.
to the granting of bail without hearing in Crim. Case Nos. 03-065, 03-082 and 03-288 and exonerate her as to
the charge in relation to Criminal Case No. 03-265.
The investigating justice will now tackle the other set of cases (Crim. Case No. 03-065; Crim. Case No. 03-
082; Crim. Case No. 03-288). Under the law, these are punishable with penalty ranging from life imprisonment
...
to death. Pertinent portions of Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165 reads:
The next issue then is the penalty imposable on respondent judge. In Mupas vs. Espanol (A.M. No. RTJ-04-
...
185014, July 14, 2004) the Supreme Court enumerated the proper penalty for gross negligence (sic), thus:
As held in Managuelod vs. Paclibon, et al. (A.M. No. RTJ-02-1726, March 29, 2004).
Under Section 8 of A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC amending Rule 140 of the Rules of Court on the Discipline of Justices
and Judges, which took effect on October 1, 2001, gross ignorance of the law is classified as a serious charge
It is imperative that judges be conversant with basic legal principles and possess sufficient proficiency in the which carries with it a penalty of either dismissal from service, suspension or a fine of more than P20,000.00
law. In offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua or death, the accused has no right to bail when the but not exceeding P40,000.00.[10]
evidence of guilt is strong. Respondent Judge Go should have known the procedure to be followed when a
motion for admission to bail is filed by the accused. Extreme care, not to mention the highest sense of
Based on the foregoing, the Investigating Justice made the following recommendation:
personal integrity, is required of him in granting bail, specially in case where bail is not a matter of right. The
fact that the provincial prosecutor interposed no objection to the application for bail by the accused did not
relieve respondent judge of the duty to set the motion for bail for hearing. A hearing is of utmost necessity WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, it is respectfully recommended that respondent Judge Norma C.
because certain guidelines in fixing bail (the nature of the crime, character and reputation of the accused, Perello be DISMISSED on the ground of gross ignorance of law in relation to the grant of bail in Criminal Case
weight of evidence against him, the probability of the accused appearing at the trial, among other things) call No. 03-065, Criminal Case No. 03-082, Criminal Case No. 03-288.[11]
for the presentation of evidence. It was impossible for respondent judge to determine the application of these
guidelines in an ex-parte determination of the propriety of Palacols motion for bail. Thus, for his failure to
The issue in these administrative cases is whether respondent Judge may be administratively held liable 3. Decide whether the guilt of the accused is strong based on the summary of evidence of the prosecution;
for the grant of bail in the particular criminal cases subject of the complaints. As earlier stated, the criminal and
cases subject of the present administrative complaints all involve violations of R.A. No. 9165, or the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
4. If the guilt of the accused is not strong, discharge the accused upon the approval of the bail bond.
Admin. Matter No. RTJ-03-1817 particularly relates to Criminal Case No. 03-265 (People of the Otherwise the bail should be denied.[16]
Philippines vs. Aiza Chona Omadan), involving the possession, custody, and control of 57.78 grams of shabu,
punishable under Section 11 thereof, which reads: Based on the above-cited procedure and requirements, after the hearing, the courts order granting or
refusing bail must contain a summary of the evidence for the prosecution. A summary is defined as a
SEC. 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs.-- The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from comprehensive and usually brief abstract or digest of a text or statement. Based on the summary of evidence,
Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten Million Pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon the judge formulates his own conclusion on whether such evidence is strong enough to indicate the guilt of the
any person, who unless authorized by law, shall possess any dangerous drug in the following quantities, accused.[17]
regardless of the degree of purity thereof:
Respondent Judge committed no violation in this case
... In this case, respondent Judge complied with the foregoing duties. A hearing was held on the petition;
the prosecution was given the opportunity to present its evidence in support of its stance; respondent Judge
based her findings on the prosecutions evidence, namely, the testimonies of P02 Saturnino Mayonte and Arturo
(5) 50 grams or more of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu; (Emphasis supplied) Villarin; respondent Judges Order dated May 9, 2003 granting the accuseds petition for bail contained a summary
of the prosecutions evidence; and since it was her conclusion that the evidence of accused Omadans guilt is not
... strong, the petition for bail was granted.[18] Respondent Judge did not violate procedural requirements. Records
show that respondent Judge afforded the prosecution ample opportunity to present all the evidence it had and
there was no protest from the prosecution that it had been deprived of its right to present against the accused.
Under the foregoing provision, possession of 50 grams or more of methamphetamine hydrochloride Thus, the Court does not find any irregularity in the grant of bail in Criminal Case No. 03-265 that would render
or shabu is punishable by life imprisonment to death; hence, a capital offense.[12] As such, bail becomes a matter respondent Judge administratively liable.
of discretion. In this regard, Rule 114, Sec. 7 of the Rules of Court states:
It is noted that the other circumstances, complained of in this case, do not relate solely to respondent
No person charged with the capital offense, or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life Judges acts, but to the prosecutions conduct in handling the case. Thus, P/Insp. Darwin S. Butuyan stated in
imprisonment, shall be admitted to bail when the evidence of guilt is strong, regardless of the stage of the his report that there is something wrong in the procedures and circumstances adopted by the Office of the City
criminal prosecution. Prosecutor of Muntinlupa City and Branch 276, RTC, Muntinlupa City in handling the case leading to the granting
of bail to accused Aiza Chona Omadan y Chua.[19]
This provision is based on Section 13, Article III of the 1987 Constitution, which reads: The Court recognizes that the manner in which the strength of an accuseds guilt is proven still primarily
rests on the prosecution. The prosecutor has the right to control the quantum of evidence and the order of
presentation of the witnesses, in support of the denial of bail. After all, all criminal actions are prosecuted under
All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is
the direction and control of the public prosecutor.[20] It was the prosecutions judgment to limit the presentation
strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be released on recognizance as may be
of evidence to two witnesses, as it felt that the testimonies of the other witnesses would be merely corroborative.
provided by law. The right to bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus
It is beyond respondent Judges authority to compel the public prosecutor to exercise its discretion in a way
is suspended. Excessive bail shall not be required.
respondent Judge deems fit, so long as such exercise of discretion will not defeat the purpose for which the
hearing was held, i.e., to determine whether strong evidence of guilt exists such that the accused may not be
In re: Hearing on application for bail is mandatory entitled to bail.
In any event, the complainant in this case had also filed a letter-complaint with the Department of Justice
The matter of determining whether or not the evidence is strong is a matter of judicial discretion that against the concerned public prosecutors.[21] Such matter is best left handled by the Department, and the Court
remains with the judge.[13] Such discretion must be sound and exercised within reasonable bounds.[14] will not interfere on the matter.
Under the present rules, a hearing on an application for bail is mandatory.[15] Whether bail is a matter Admin. Matter No. RTJ-04-1820, however, portrays an entirely different picture.
of right or of discretion, the prosecutor should be given reasonable notice of hearing, or at least
his recommendation on the matter must be sought. In case an application for bail is filed, the judge is In this case, respondent Judge granted bail in Criminal Cases Nos. 03-065, 03-082, and 03-288 without
entrusted to observe the following duties: the requisite hearing. In so doing, it was respondent Judges defense that under R.A. No. 9165, shabu is not
a dangerous drug but merely a controlled precursor, in which the selling of less than 5 grams is punishable only
1. In all cases, whether bail is a matter of right or discretion, notify the prosecutor of the hearing of the with imprisonment of 12 years to 20 years, and as such, bail is a matter of right and a hearing is not required.
application for bail or require him to submit his recommendation; Respondent Judge argued that:
2. Where bail is a matter of discretion, conduct a hearing of the application for bail regardless of In determining whether methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu is indeed classified as a dangerous drug
whether or not the prosecution refuses to present evidence to show that the guilt of the accused is under the said Republic Act, undersigned exhaustively studied the provision of this law and found that in
strong for the purpose of enabling the court to exercise its sound discretion; Letter H, Art. 1, Section 3: Definition of Terms, Methamphetamine Hydrochloride is listed in Table II, No. 12 of
the 1988 UN Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, which list is
attached annex, an integral part of this Act, Methamphetamine and is listed as a CONTROLLED PRECURSOR or
ESSENTIAL CHEMICAL. This is more imperatively classified as a chemical, in Letter X of the Definition, Sec. 3, (METHAMPHETAMINE)
Art. 1, where shabu is considered as such chemical. Therefore, under the definition by law itself, shabu or 8. METAMFETAMINE RACEMATE
methamphetamine hydrochloride is classified as a controlled precursor or essential chemical. 9. METHAQUALONE
10. METHYLPHE NIDATE
The definition of what are considered as DANGEROUS DRUGS, is (sic) those in Letter J, Sec. 3, Art. 1 of R.A. 11. PHENCYCLIDINE (PCP)
9165, listed in 1961 Singled Convention on Narcotic Drugs, as amended by the 1972 Protocol, which list is 12. PHENMETRAZINE
again an integral part of this Act. Methamphetamine is NOT one of the enumerations of dangerous drugs. 13. SECOBARBITAL
Therefore, the selling or trading of this substance in a quantity less than a gram is punishable with an 14. DRONABINOL (delta-9-tetrahydro-cannabinol and its stereochemical variants)
imprisonment of only twelve (12) years as provided by the second paragraph of Section 5, Article II, is not on 15. ZIPEPROL
capital offense punishable with death or life imprisonment, is bailable.
16. 2C-B (4-bromo-2,5-dimethoxyphenethylamine)
Section 11, Art. II, of the same Act, treats of POSSESSION NOT SELLING, where possession of this substance It clearly shows that methamphetamine is a psychotropic substance, or a dangerous drug.
is considered as a capital offense, punishable with death or life imprisonment, only if the accused is in
possession of it in the quantity of 50 GRAMS (50 grams), irrespective of the purity of the substance. It On the other hand, under Section 3, paragraph (h) of R.A. No. 9165, controlled precursors and essential
becomes a capital offense only if it is in the quantity of fifty grams (50 GRAMS) under No. 5 of Section 11, Art. chemicals, refer to those listed in Tables I and II of the 1988 UN Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic
II. Corollarilly, if it is less than this quantity, possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride is NOT punishable Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, which were likewise made integral part of R.A. No. 9165, to wit:
with a capital penalty, hence, bailable! To stress POSSESSION of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride is
TABLE I TABLE II
considered as capital offense punishable with capital penalty if the quantity is 50 GRAMS (50 GRAMS), (Sec.
1. ACETIC ANHYDRIDE 1. ACETONE
11, Art. II) while PUSHING of methamphetamine hydrochloride (Paragraph 2, Sec. 5) to be punishable with
capital penalty must be in the quantity of FIVE GRAMS (5 GRAMS), (Guidelines for RA 9165).[22] 2. N-ACETYLANTHRANILIC ACID 2. ANTHRANILIC ACID
3. EPHEDRIN 3. ETHYL ETHER
4. ERGOMETRINE 4. HYDROCHLORIC ACID
To justify her granting bail in the three criminal cases, respondent Judge insists that she did so because
5. ERGOTAMINE 5.
of her belief that methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu is merely a precursor and therefore the sale thereof METHYL ETHYL KETONE
is not a capital offense. This opinion is blatantly erroneous. One need not even go beyond the four corners of
R.A. No. 9165 to see respondent Judges palpable error in the application of the law. 6. ISOSAFROLE 6. PHENYLACETIC ACID
7. LYSERGIC ACID 7. PIPERIDINE
Respondent Judge need not exhaustively study R.A. No. 9165, as she asserted, to determine the nature
of methamphetamine hydrochloride. A plain reading of the law would immediately show 8. 8. SULPHURIC ACID
3,4-METHYLENEDIOXYPHENYL-2
that methamphetamine hydrochloride is a dangerous drug and not a controlled precursor. If only PROPANONE
respondent Judge prudently went over the pertinent provisions of R.A. No. 9165, particularly Section 3, items
(h) and (j), and properly made the corresponding reference to the schedules and tables annexed thereto, she 9. NOREPHEDRINE 9. TOLUENE
would have easily ascertained that methamphetamine hydrochloride is listed in the 1971 UN Single Convention 10. 1-PHENYL-2-PROPANONE
on Psychotropic Substances, which are considered dangerous drugs. It is not listed in the 1988 UN Convention
Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, as respondent Judge stated.[23]
Dangerous Drugs are defined by Section 3, paragraph (j) of R.A. No. 9165, as including those in the 11. PIPERONAL
Schedules listed annexed to the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, as amended by the 1972 Protocol,
and in the Schedules annexed to the 1971 UN Single Convention on Psychotropic Substances, which were made
an integral part of R.A. No. 9165. 12. POTASSIUM PERMANGANATE
Under the foregoing section, dangerous drugs are classified into: (1) narcotic drugs, as listed in the
1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, as amended by the 1972 Protocol; and (2) psychotropic 13. PSEUDOEPHEDRINE
substances, as listed in the 1971 UN Single Convention on Psychotropic Substances.
For purposes of this case, the list of substances in Schedule II of the 1971 UN Single Convention of 14. SAFROLE
Psychotropic Substances is hereby reproduced, to wit:
Given that methamphetamine hydrochloride is a dangerous drug, the applicable provision in Criminal Case 2. Suspension from office without salary and other benefits for more than three (3) but not exceeding six (6)
Nos. 03-065, 03-082, and 03-288 subject of Admin. Matter No. RTJ-04-1820, is Section 5, paragraph 1 of R.A. months; or
No. 9165, which reads:
3. A fine of more than P20,000.00 but not exceeding P40,000.00.
SECTION 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of
Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals. The penalty of life imprisonment to In this case, the Investigating Justice recommended that respondent Judge be dismissed from the service.
death and fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos The Court finds such penalty to be too harsh. In similar cases,[31] the Court imposed a fine on the respondents
(P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, therein for gross ignorance of the law for having granted bail to the accused without notice and hearing.
administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous However, the Court takes judicial notice that this is not the first time that respondent Judge was administratively
drug, including any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity and purity involved, fined. In A.M. No. RTJ-02-1686,[32] a fine of P5,000.00 and a reprimand was imposed on respondent Judge for
or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions. dereliction of duty for her failure to act on Civil Case No. 9-138 for three years. In A.M. No. RTJ-04-
1846,[33]respondent Judge was held administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law, grave misconduct and
Respondent Judge erred for not holding hearing oppression for the delay of almost nine (9) months in the transmittal of the records of Civil Case No. 01-268 to
the Court of Appeals, and was fined P20,000.00. Thus, the Court is imposing a penalty more severe than a fine.
Suspension from office for six (6) months in Admin. Matter No. RTJ-04-1820, excluding Criminal Case No.
Regardless of quantity, the sale, trade, administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution and 03-265 (People of the Philippines vs. Aiza Chona Omadan), is sufficient and reasonable.
transportation of shabu is punishable by life imprisonment to death. Being a capital offense, it is incumbent
upon respondent Judge to hold a hearing on the petitions/motions for bail filed by the accused therein to The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) also notes, in its Memorandum dated November 22, 2002,
determine whether evidence of guilt is strong. To grant an application for bail and fix the amount thereof without that respondent Judge caused the release from the National Bilibid Prison of several persons convicted of
a hearing duly called for the purpose of determining whether the evidence of guilt is strong constitutes gross violation of the drugs law by granting the petitions for habeas corpus filed in her court, i.e., Spl. Proc. Nos. 02-
ignorance or incompetence whose grossness cannot be excused by a claim of good faith or excusable 002, 02-008, 02-10, 98-023 and 98-048. The OCA further stated that in Spl. Proc. Nos. 98-023 and 98-048,
negligence.[26] respondent Judge granted the petitions without determining the veracity of the allegations therein; without any
material evidence in support of her findings and conclusion; and that at the time the petitions were granted, an
In Gallardo vs. Tabamo,[27] the Court rejected the defense that the judges failure to apply the clear appeal from the convictions in these two cases is pending before the Court (G. R. Nos. 131622-23). Thus, the
provisions of the law is merely an error of judgment, and the judge was held administratively liable for gross OCA recommends that an investigation, report, and recommendation on these two cases be made, and that it
ignorance of the law where the applicable legal provisions are crystal clear and need no interpretation. be authorized to conduct an audit on all the petitions for habeas corpus in all the courts of the Regional Trial
Moreover, such gross ignorance of law is in violation of Rule 3.01 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which Court of Muntinlupa City from 1998 to the present.[34]
states that a judge shall be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence. WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered:
The indispensable nature of a bail hearing in petitions for bail has always been ardently and indefatigably (1) In Admin. Matter No. RTJ-03-1817, DISMISSING the complaint against respondent Judge; and,
stressed by the Court. The Code of Judicial Conduct enjoins judges to be faithful to the law and maintain
(2) In Admin. Matter No. RTJ-04-1820, finding respondent Judge Norma C. Perello, Presiding Judge
professional competence. A judge is called upon to exhibit more than just a cursory acquaintance with
of the Regional Trial Court (Branch 276) of Muntinlupa City GUILTY of gross ignorance of law, and she is
statutes and procedural rules; it is imperative that he be conversant with basic legal principles and be aware
hereby SUSPENDED for Six (6) Months, with warning that a repetition of similar acts shall be dealt with more
of well-settled authoritative doctrines. He should strive for excellence exceeded only by his passion for truth,
severely.
to the end that he be the personification of justice and the Rule of Law.[28]
AS TO OTHER MATTERS:
Although judges cannot be held to account or answer criminally, civilly or administratively for every
(a) The Court ORDERS the Office of the Court Administrator to initiate the appropriate complaint for
erroneous judgment or decision rendered by him in good faith, it is imperative that they should have basic
grave misconduct and/or gross ignorance of the law against respondent Judge, insofar as Spl. Proc. Nos. 02-
knowledge of the law.[29]
002, 02-008, 02-10, 98-023 and 98-048 are concerned; and to conduct preliminary investigation and submit
Even if a judge acted in good faith but his ignorance is so gross, he should be held administratively report thereon within ninety (90) days from notice hereof.
liable.[30]
(b) The Office of the Court Administrator is AUTHORIZED to conduct an audit and submit a report within
ninety (90) days from notice hereof, on all the petitions for habeas corpus in all the courts of the Regional Trial
Court of Muntinlupa City from 1998 to present.
SO ORDERED.