Lack of due diligence

A judge may also be administratively liable for negligence in the performance of his duties. This case of an RTC Judge (the Judge) is an example of what constitutes such negligence.

The case involved the Information filed before the Judge for violation of Section 4 Article II of the Dangerous Drugs Acts in which the accused were Tony and Romy.

On closer scrutiny the following alterations are noticeable in the said information: the change of the word “kilos” to “grams”; the erasure of the phrase “no bail recommended” with the use of snowpake and the insertion of the words “bail recommended” in the amount P60,000; the superimposition of the word “prohibited” on an erased word; and the insertion of the word “dried” before the word marijuana. Also noticeable was the lack of any signature or countersignature on the said erasures and alterations although two Fiscals and the reviewing Fiscal affixed their original signatures on the Information itself.

Enclosed in the referral letter sent by Narcom and attached to the records of the case were the Joint Affidavit of the poseur buyer and arresting officers as well as the initial PNP laboratory report. The said referral letter and affidavit indicated that approximately 45 kilos of marijuana were confiscated from the accused, while the laboratory report stated a total of 42,410 grams of dried marijuana fruiting tops, a far cry from the 42.410 grams stated in the information.

When Tony and Romy were arraigned, the Judge relied on the Information and saw nothing wrong with it in spite of the erasures since it has been subjected to review by the prosecutor’s office. At first Tony and Romy pleaded “not guilty” to the crime charged in the information. But the defense counsel later on made a manifestation for a change of plea. After the defense and the prosecution approached the bench, the Judge instructed the clerk to re-read the Information to the accused, who both changed their plea to that of “guilty”. Considering that the offense charged in the Information involves only 42.410 grams, the Judge asked the prosecutor to comment on the imposable penalty which is 6 months and 1 day. Since the prosecutor had no objection, the Judge sentenced Tony and Romy to imprisonment of 6 months and 1 day.

That same afternoon, both Tony and Romy filed an application for probation. Since the offense to which they pleaded guilty was probationable, the Judge issued an order giving due course to the application. So Tony and Romy were already released.

A month later the Narcom agents discovered the alteration in the Information. An investigation conducted by the NBI revealed that it was altered after it was signed and approved by the Chief Inquest Fiscal and it was this altered Information which was submitted for raffle and later transmitted to the sala of the Judge.

While the Judge was not implicated in the alteration, he was still charged administratively for negligence in the performance of his duty. Was the Judge guilty?

Yes. According to the Supreme Court the significant tampering and alterations on an official document like a criminal Information should have instantly provoked the inquisitive mind of a responsible judge and elicited his suspicion, thus placing him on guard that there was something wrong in that Information especially because the erasures and alterations were not even signed or countersigned. The judge could have easily discovered the anomaly had he devoted a little more time to dutifully examine the documents attached to the records of the case and familiarize himself with the circumstances surrounding the crime charged before rendering judgment thereon. Considering further that drug cases have reached alarming proportions and drug syndicates or drug lords surreptitiously and often intervene in behalf of accused, extreme caution on the part of the Judge was demanded by the situation and his failure to do so betrayed the lack of extraordinary diligence, consciousness and thoroughness required of judges (PNP Narcom Director vs. Salazar, Jr. A.M. 96-9-332 RTC Aug. 15, 2001, 363 SCRA 8).

* * *

E-mail us at:[email protected].