Heirs of Yasin vs Judge Felix

Chester Cabalza recommends his visitors to please read the original & full text of the case cited. Xie xie!

Heirs of Yasin vs Judge Felix
A.M. No. RTJ-94-1167
December 4, 1995

Facts:

At about 1:30 in the afternoon of February 1, 1994, Nasser D. Yasin was fatally shot in the back with a .38 caliber revolver by an unknown assailant in Tarlac, Tarlac. In the evening of the same day, Jesus de Vera Duquesa and Abelardo Calbang executed sworn statements to the police. They stated therein that at the time, and in the place, they saw Sonny Sapad, a security guard, running after somebody. They saw Sapad shoot at the person he was pursuing but they did not see whether the person was hit or not.

On February 3, 1994, a criminal complaint for the murder of Nasser D. Yasin was filed against Sonny Sapad before the Municipal Trial Court of Tarlac by the Chief of the Investigation Division of the Tarlac Police Station. He was arrested without a warrant. On February 8, 1994, the provincial prosecutor of Tarlac filed an information for murder against him before the Regional Trial Court of Tarlac and no bail was recommended.

On February 14, 1994, Sonny Sapad, through counsel, filed a petition for habeas corpus. He alleged that he was arrested without a warrant; that his arrest was illegal because he was deprived of his substantial right to a preliminary investigation; that the subsequent filing of the complaint and information against him did not cure his continued detention; and that he was entitled to be released from custody. Considering that there is no opposition to the petition for Habeas Corpus the same is hereby granted.

Issues:

a) Can the offender Sonny Palad be arrested without warrant of arrest?

b) Whether respondent judge is robed with gross ignorance of the law by granting habeas corpus filed by the offender?

Held:

Respondent Judge stresses the unlawfulness of the warrantless arrest of Sonny Sapad. Indeed, the warrantless arrest of Sonny Sapad appears to be unlawful, for the arresting officers were not personally present when the crime was committed, and they had no personal knowledge of facts indicating that a crime had just been committed and the person to be arrested has committed it.

To constitute gross ignorance of the law, the subject decision, order or actuation of the judge in the performance of his official duties must not only be contrary to existing law and jurisprudence but, most importantly, he must be moved by bad faith, fraud, dishonesty or corruption. In the case before us, the administrative complaint does not even allege that the erroneous decision of respondent was thus motivated.
However, Judge Augusto N. Felix was found guilty of negligence in the management of his office and he is hereby ordered to pay a fine of TWO THOUSAND PESOS (P2,000.00) with a stern warning that the commission of the same or similar offense will be dealt with more severely.