Bandoy vs. Jacinto, Jr.

An arraignment conducted inside a judge’s chambers, rather than in open court, constitutes gross ignorance of the law under Section 1(a), Rule 116 of the Revised Rules of Court. A judge’s failure to act on prolonged and apparently unjustified postponements of arraignment, giving the impression of leniency towards one party, constitutes bias and partiality in violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which requires judges not only to be impartial but also to appear impartial.

Gaspar Bandoy served as an election watcher for a mayoral candidate during the 2007 local elections in Occidental Mindoro. Romulo De Jesus, Jr., a public school teacher and chairperson of the Board of Election Inspectors in the same precinct, was caught in the act of ballot switching—an incident captured on video—and was subsequently charged with violating the Omnibus Election Code. A warrant of arrest was issued against De Jesus, Jr. on August 17, 2007. Three days later, De Jesus, Jr. appeared before the Provincial Prosecutor and filed a criminal complaint for Serious Illegal Detention against Bandoy, other individuals, and an election supervisor. The serious illegal detention case was raffled to Regional Trial Court, Branch 44, Mamburao, Occidental Mindoro, with Judge Jose S. Jacinto, Jr. as the Assisting Presiding Judge. Bandoy perceived the filing as retaliatory and subsequently accused Judge Jacinto, Jr. of bias and partiality in handling the case.

• The Ballot-Switching Incident: During the 2007 local elections, Bandoy was an election watcher for former Mayor Joel Panaligan, while De Jesus, Jr. served as a chairperson of the Board of Election Inspectors in Precinct 3-A, Mamburao, Occidental Mindoro. De Jesus, Jr. was allegedly associated with the rival Villarosa political family. He was caught in the act of ballot switching, captured on video, and was found by COMELEC authorities to possess ballots inside his backpack. A criminal case for violation of the Omnibus Election Code was filed, and a warrant of arrest was issued on August 17, 2007.

• Filing of the Serious Illegal Detention Case: On August 20, 2007, while a standing warrant of arrest existed against him, De Jesus, Jr. personally appeared before the Provincial Prosecutor and filed a complaint for Serious Illegal Detention against Bandoy, Peter Alfaro, Randolph Ignacio, and Election Supervisor Atty. Judy Lorenzo. De Jesus, Jr. remained at-large until he posted bail on March 7, 2008. The Provincial Prosecutor recommended no bail, resulting in Bandoy and his co-accused being incarcerated for more than two years. The case was raffled to RTC Branch 44, Mamburao, with Judge Jacinto, Jr. as Assisting Presiding Judge.

• Alleged Bias in Postponements of Arraignment: De Jesus, Jr.’s arraignment was initially scheduled on April 23, 2008, but was reset seven times until July 6, 2011. Many resettings were due to De Jesus, Jr.’s non-appearance and the failure to locate him at his given address. Bandoy claimed that despite evident defiance of court processes, Judge Jacinto, Jr. remained lenient and tolerated De Jesus, Jr.’s continuous non-appearance without resorting to legal remedies to compel attendance.

• Arraignment in Chambers: On July 6, 2011, De Jesus, Jr. finally entered a plea of not guilty. Bandoy alleged that the arraignment was conducted inside Judge Jacinto, Jr.’s chambers rather than in open court. Judge Jacinto, Jr., in his Comment and Rejoinder, did not refute this specific allegation.

• Motion to Withdraw Information: Bandoy and his co-accused moved for reconsideration and filed a petition for review with the Department of Justice. The DOJ, under Justice Secretary Leila De Lima, directed the Provincial Prosecutor to move for withdrawal of the Information. Judge Jacinto, Jr. denied the Motion to Withdraw Information in an Order dated July 5, 2011. Bandoy was later allowed to post bail of ₱100,000 for each accused, or ₱300,000 total.

• Subsequent Proceedings and Administrative Complaint: Judge Jacinto, Jr. was later replaced by Judge Wilfredo De Joya Mayor, who temporarily dismissed the serious illegal detention case but reinstated it upon reconsideration. Bandoy feared that Judge Jacinto, Jr. would again handle the case after Judge Mayor’s retirement and claimed that police, after consulting Judge Jacinto, Jr., sought to re-arrest him without a warrant. These circumstances prompted Bandoy to file the administrative complaint.

• Allegations of Political Links: Bandoy insinuated that Judge Jacinto, Jr. was allied with the Villarosa family, citing that Voltaire Villarosa, a rival mayoralty candidate, had been a principal sponsor at the wedding of the judge’s child, and that the Court’s audit team was housed in a Villarosa-owned property. Judge Jacinto, Jr. denied any alliance and explained that the audit team merely paid a courtesy call.

• Bias and Partiality: Bandoy maintained that Judge Jacinto, Jr. displayed manifest bias and partiality in favor of De Jesus, Jr. by granting seven postponements of arraignment from 2008 to 2011 despite De Jesus, Jr.’s repeated non-appearance, and by denying the prosecutor’s motion to withdraw the Information.

• Arraignment in Chambers: Bandoy argued that the arraignment of De Jesus, Jr. on July 6, 2011, was conducted inside the judge’s chambers, in direct violation of the rule requiring arraignment in open court.

• Abuse of Authority: Bandoy contended that Judge Jacinto, Jr. allowed or directed the police to re-arrest him and his co-accused without a warrant after the cancellation of their bail.

• Links to the Villarosa Family: Bandoy asserted that Judge Jacinto, Jr.’s actions were influenced by his personal ties to the Villarosa political clan, evidenced by the judge’s child’s wedding sponsorship and the hosting of the audit team at a Villarosa property.

• Denial of Political Alliance: Judge Jacinto, Jr. denied being an ally of the Villarosa family and explained that the audit team merely paid him a courtesy call and that he did not seek any favors regarding their accommodation.

• No Participation in Arrest Order: Judge Jacinto, Jr. claimed that when the police consulted him about the order cancelling bail, he merely remarked on its apparent incompleteness and explained the legal consequence—that the accused would return to detention—but refused to issue a warrant of arrest because he was no longer handling the case.

• Lawfulness of Issued Warrants: Judge Jacinto, Jr. clarified that warrants of arrest he later issued against other individuals were grounded on a prior finding of probable cause by the public prosecutor.

• Complaint as a Ploy to Oust Him: Judge Jacinto, Jr. maintained that Bandoy’s administrative complaint was designed to remove him from his positions as Presiding Judge of Branches 45 and 46, and as Assisting Presiding Judge of Branch 44.

• Gross Ignorance of the Law and Procedure: Whether Judge Jacinto, Jr.’s act of arraigning De Jesus, Jr. inside his chambers, instead of in open court as required by Section 1(a), Rule 116 of the Revised Rules of Court, constitutes gross ignorance of the law and procedure.

• Bias and Partiality: Whether Judge Jacinto, Jr.’s prolonged failure to compel De Jesus, Jr.’s appearance for arraignment—allowing seven postponements over more than three years—exhibited bias and partiality in violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

• Gross Ignorance of the Law and Procedure: The arraignment was improperly conducted inside the judge’s chambers, in violation of Section 1(a), Rule 116 of the Revised Rules of Court, which mandates that arraignment be made in open court. The procedural steps laid down in the rule are not empty rituals; each step is an integral part of the stage where issues are joined, without which proceedings cannot advance. Judge Jacinto, Jr.’s failure to refute the allegation of in-chambers arraignment, despite the opportunity, was taken as an implied admission. The error was gross and patent, constituting gross ignorance of the law, which cannot be excused by a claim of good faith.

• Bias and Partiality: The repeated resetting of De Jesus, Jr.’s arraignment from 2008 to 2011 without any appropriate judicial action to compel his appearance created an impression of leniency in favor of the accused. Judges must not only be impartial but must also appear impartial; litigants are entitled to the cold neutrality of an impartial judge. The appearance of bias erodes public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary. By failing to avail of known legal remedies to address De Jesus, Jr.’s dilatory conduct, Judge Jacinto, Jr. fell short of the standard required by Canon 2 and Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

• Arraignment in Open Court — Section 1(a), Rule 116 of the Revised Rules of Court requires that arraignment be made in open court. The steps—furnishing a copy of the information, reading it in a language known to the accused, and asking for a plea—are integral and indispensable. Non-compliance constitutes gross ignorance of the law.

• Gross Ignorance of the Law — A judge commits gross ignorance of the law when the error is gross or patent, deliberate or malicious, or when settled law and jurisprudence are ignored, contradicted, or not applied due to bad faith, fraud, dishonesty, or corruption. Good faith is not a defense to gross incompetence. A judge must exhibit more than a cursory acquaintance with procedural rules and maintain professional competence.

• Appearance of Impartiality — Under Canons 2 and 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, judges must not only be honest and impartial but must also appear to be so. The cold neutrality of an impartial judge is essential; any act that arouses suspicion of bias or partiality casts doubt on judicial integrity and renders due process meaningless.

• Admission by Silence in Administrative Proceedings — When a respondent judge fails to refute a direct and material allegation despite the opportunity to do so, and natural instinct would compel a denial if untrue, the silence may be taken as an implied admission.

• "The procedural steps laid down in Section 1(a) of Rule 116 are not empty rituals that a judge can take nonchalantly. Each step constitutes an integral part of that crucial stage in criminal litigation ‘where the issues are joined x x x and without which the proceedings cannot advance further.’”

• "Well-known is the judicial norm that ‘judges should not only be impartial but should also appear impartial.’ Jurisprudence repeatedly teaches that litigants are entitled to nothing less than the cold neutrality of an impartial judge. The other elements of due process, like notice and hearing, would become meaningless if the ultimate decision is rendered by a partial or biased judge."

• "When a judge displays an utter lack of familiarity with the rules, he erodes the confidence of the public in the courts. A judge owes the public and the Court the duty to be proficient in the law and is expected to keep abreast of laws and prevailing jurisprudence. Ignorance of the law by a judge can easily be the mainspring of injustice."

• People v. Estomaca, 326 Phil. 429 (1996) — Cited to establish that arraignment is a crucial stage where issues are joined, and the procedural steps under Rule 116 are integral and indispensable.

• Conquilla v. Bernardo, A.M. No. MTJ-09-1737, February 9, 2011, 642 SCRA 288 — Cited for the rule that anything less than what is required by Section 1(a) of Rule 116 constitutes gross ignorance of the law.

• Joselito Rallos, et al. v. Judge Ireneo Lee Gako, Jr., 385 Phil. 4 (2000) — Relied upon to underscore the standard that judges must not only be impartial but also appear impartial, and that court front-liners must maintain conduct beyond reproach.

• De los Santos-Reyes v. Montesa, Jr., 317 Phil. 101 (1995) — Cited for the principle that gross ignorance of the law cannot be excused by a claim of good faith.

• Dela Paz v. Adiong, 486 Phil. 81 (2004) and Mutilan v. Adiong, 433 Phil. 25 (2002) — Relied upon for the duty of judges to be proficient in the law and to keep abreast of prevailing jurisprudence.

• Section 1(a), Rule 116, Revised Rules of Court — Requires that arraignment be made in open court by furnishing the accused a copy of the complaint or information, reading it in a language known to the accused, and asking for a plea. Applied to hold Judge Jacinto, Jr. administratively liable for conducting arraignment inside chambers.

• Canon 2, Rule 2.01, Code of Judicial Conduct — Mandates that a judge avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety and behave in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. Violated when the judge’s leniency created an appearance of bias.

• Canon 3, Rule 3.01, Code of Judicial Conduct — Requires judges to perform official duties honestly, with impartiality and diligence, and to be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence. Violated by failure to apply the rules on arraignment and by inaction on prolonged postponements.

• Section 8(9), Rule 140, Rules of Court, as amended — Classifies gross ignorance of the law or procedure as a serious charge, warranting sanctions under Section 11(A) ranging from a fine of more than ₱20,000 to ₱40,000, suspension, or dismissal.

ANTONIO T. CARPIO (Chairperson), ARTURO D. BRION, MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO, MARVIC M.V.F. LEONEN — concurred without separate opinions.

• N/A (decision was unanimous and without dissenting votes)