Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Uy Vs Javellana

    Uploaded by

    Lorenz Luistro
    59 views2 pages
    Judge Javellana was found to be grossly ignorant of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure in the case of People vs Lopez. In that case, Judge Javellana conducted a preliminary investigation and set the case for arraignment and pre-trial, even though the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure did not require a preliminary investigation for offenses with penalties below four years and one day. As the maximum penalty for malicious mischief in People vs Lopez was only six months, the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure should have been applied, not the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, the administrative complaint against Judge Javellana for gross ignorance of the law was found to have merit.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Uy vs Javellana.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Judge Javellana was found to be grossly ignorant of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure in the case of People vs Lopez. In that case, Judge Javellana conducted a preliminary investigation and set the case for arraignment and pre-trial, even though the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure did not require a preliminary investigation for offenses with penalties below four years and one day. As the maximum penalty for malicious mischief in People vs Lopez was only six months, the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure should have been applied, not the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, the administrative complaint against Judge Javellana for gross ignorance of the law was found to have merit.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    59 views2 pages

    Uy Vs Javellana

    Uploaded by

    Lorenz Luistro
    Judge Javellana was found to be grossly ignorant of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure in the case of People vs Lopez. In that case, Judge Javellana conducted a preliminary investigation and set the case for arraignment and pre-trial, even though the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure did not require a preliminary investigation for offenses with penalties below four years and one day. As the maximum penalty for malicious mischief in People vs Lopez was only six months, the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure should have been applied, not the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, the administrative complaint against Judge Javellana for gross ignorance of the law was found to have merit.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    LUISTRO, Lorenz James C.

    Uy vs Javellana

    Facts: An administrative case was filed against Judge Javellana arising from a verified
    complaint for “gross ignorance of the law and procedures, gross incompetence, neglect of duty,
    conduct improper and unbecoming of a judge, grave misconduct and others,” filed by Public
    Attorneys Uy and Bascug of the Public Attorneys Office.

    The complaint/allegations involve cases decided and/or were handled by Judge Javellana and
    his alleged business relation as co-agent in a surety company. In People vs Lopez, a case of
    malicious mischief, Judge Javellana did not apply the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure
    and, instead, conducted a preliminary investigation in accordance with the Revised Rules of
    Criminal Procedure, then set the case for arraignment and pre-trial, despite confirming that
    therein complainant and her witnesses had no personal knowledge of the material facts alleged
    in their affidavits, which should have been a ground for dismissal of said case.

    ISSUE/S: Whether Judge Javellana was grossly ignorant of the Revised Rule on Summary
    Procedure.

    RULING :Yes. Without any showing that the accused in People vs Lopez, et al were charged
    with the special cases of malicious mischief particularly described in Article 328 of the Revised
    Penal Code the appropriate penalty for the accused would be arresto mayor in its medium and
    maximum periods which under Article 329(a) of the Revised Penal Code, would be
    imprisonment for two (2) months and one (1) day to six (6) months. Clearly, this case should be
    governed by the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure. Also, the Revised Rule on Summary
    Procedure does not provide for a preliminary investigation prior to the filing of a criminal case
    under Rule 16, but in People vs. Lopez, Judge Javellana conducted a preliminary investigation
    even when it was not required or justified.

    Section 11 of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure states:

    “How commenced. – The filing of criminal cases falling within the scope of this Rule shall be
    etiher by complaint or by information; Provided, however, that in Metropolitan Manila and in
    Chartered Cities, such cases shall be commenced only by information, except when the offense
    cannot be prosecuted de oficio.”

    On the other hand, Section 1, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure only
    requires that a preliminary investigation be conducted before the filing of a complaint or
    information for an offense where the penalty prescribed by law is at least four (4) years, two (2)
    months and one (1) day without regard to the fine. As has been previously established herein,
    the maximum penalty imposable for malicious mischief in People vs. Lopez, et al is just six (6)
    months.

    You might also like