SECOND DIVISION
[A.M. No. 604-CFI. February 20, 1981.]
TEOFILO A. HUMILDE, Assistant City Fiscal of Dagupan City; RODOLFO R. AQUINO, Assistant Provincial Fiscal of Pangasinan, and SANTOS B. ARREOLA, Practicing Lawyer, Complainants, v. JUDGE MAGNO B. PABLO of the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, Alaminos, Branch XIII, Respondent.
SYNOPSIS
Respondent judge of the Court of First Instance was administratively charged for having sentenced an accused to suffer subsidiary imprisonment in a case where the principal penalty imposable was higher than prision correccional, contrary to the provision of Article 39(3) of the Revised Penal Code; and in still another case, for having imposed an indeterminate sentence upon the accused, whose maximum term of prison did not exceed one year, which is not sanctioned by section 2 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law as amended.
The Supreme Court held that respondent judge’s plea that those mistakes were committed in good faith does not exculpate him for his failure to familiarize himself with some elementary rules in the imposition of penalties. He was severely censured or reprimanded for those errors and ordered to pay a fine equivalent to his salary for one month.
The Supreme Court held that respondent judge’s plea that those mistakes were committed in good faith does not exculpate him for his failure to familiarize himself with some elementary rules in the imposition of penalties. He was severely censured or reprimanded for those errors and ordered to pay a fine equivalent to his salary for one month.
SYLLABUS
1. CRIMINAL LAW; PENALTY SUBSIDIARY IMPRISONMENT; WHEN IMPOSABLE. — Article 39(3) of the Revised Penal Code provides that "when the principal penalty is higher than prision correccional no subsidiary imprisonment shall be imposed upon the culprit." Moreover, Republic Act No. 5465, which amended article 39 and which took effect on April 21, 1969, requires subsidiary imprisonment only for non-payment of the fine and not for the civil liability.
2. ID.; ID.; INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW; WHEN APPLICABLE. — Section 2 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, Act No. 41003, as amended, provides that the law does not apply "to those whose maximum term of prision does not exceed one year." Thus, the indeterminate sentence of two months and one day as minimum to four months of arresto mayor as maximum imposed by respondent judge in the case at bar to an accused is not sanctioned by law.
3. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; ADMINISTRATIVE SUPERVISION OF COURTS; ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT; GOOD FAITH DOES NOT EXCULPATE RESPONDENT FOR MISTAKES IN APPLICATION OF ELEMENTARY RULES IN IMPOSITION OF PENALTIES. — The plea of the respondent that his mistakes in the imposition of penalties were committed in good faith does not exculpate him for his failure to familiarize himself with some elementary rules in the imposition of penalties.
4. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; PENALTY IMPOSABLE. — For failure to familiarize himself with some elementary rules in the imposition of penalties, a judge of Court of First Instance is severely censured or reprimanded and ordered to pay a fine equivalent to his salary for one month. Furthermore, he is warned that a more drastic disciplinary action would be taken against him for similar irregularities.
2. ID.; ID.; INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW; WHEN APPLICABLE. — Section 2 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, Act No. 41003, as amended, provides that the law does not apply "to those whose maximum term of prision does not exceed one year." Thus, the indeterminate sentence of two months and one day as minimum to four months of arresto mayor as maximum imposed by respondent judge in the case at bar to an accused is not sanctioned by law.
3. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; ADMINISTRATIVE SUPERVISION OF COURTS; ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT; GOOD FAITH DOES NOT EXCULPATE RESPONDENT FOR MISTAKES IN APPLICATION OF ELEMENTARY RULES IN IMPOSITION OF PENALTIES. — The plea of the respondent that his mistakes in the imposition of penalties were committed in good faith does not exculpate him for his failure to familiarize himself with some elementary rules in the imposition of penalties.
4. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; PENALTY IMPOSABLE. — For failure to familiarize himself with some elementary rules in the imposition of penalties, a judge of Court of First Instance is severely censured or reprimanded and ordered to pay a fine equivalent to his salary for one month. Furthermore, he is warned that a more drastic disciplinary action would be taken against him for similar irregularities.
D E C I S I O N
AQUINO, J.:
Two fiscals and a practicing lawyer denounced respondent Judge for his mistakes in the imposition of penalties.chanrobles.com : virtual law library
Judge Magno B. Pablo sentenced the accused in Criminal Case No. 161-A, People v. Bustamante, to suffer subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency although the indeterminate penalty imposed on the accused was four years, two months and one day of prision correccional as minimum to eight years of prision mayor as maximum.
The imposition of subsidiary imprisonment is contrary to the provision of article 39(3) of the Revised Penal Code that "when the principal penalty imposed is higher than prision correccional no subsidiary imprisonment shall be imposed upon the culprit."cralaw virtua1aw library
Moreover, Republic Act No. 5465, which amended article 39 and which took effect on April 21, 1969, requires subsidiary imprisonment only for nonpayment of the fine and not for the civil liability. Respondent Judge did not specify for what pecuniary liability the accused was being required to serve subsidiary imprisonment.
In Criminal Case No. L-122-A, People v. Apolonio Tazal, Judge Pablo sentenced the accused to an indeterminate penalty of two months and one day as minimum to four months of arresto mayor as maximum.
That sentence is not sanctioned by the Indeterminate Sentence Law, Act No. 41003, as amended, whose section 2 provides that it does not apply "to those whose maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed one year."cralaw virtua1aw library
The plea of the respondent that those mistakes were committed in good faith does not exculpate him for his failure to familiarize himself with some elementary rules in the imposition of penalties.
He could have avoided those blunders if he had been more careful and assiduous in reading the Revised Penal Code and the Indeterminate Sentence Law. The fact that before his appointment as Judge he served as an assistant provincial fiscal of Tarlac makes his mistakes all the more inexcusable and deplorable. (He was admitted to the bar in 1936 and was appointed Judge in 1973.)
WHEREFORE, respondent Judge is severely censured or reprimanded for those errors and ordered to pay a fine equivalent to his salary for one month. He is warned that a more drastic disciplinary action would be taken against him for similar irregularities.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary
SO ORDERED.
Barredo (Chairman), Concepcion Jr., Abad Santos and De Castro, JJ., concur.
Judge Magno B. Pablo sentenced the accused in Criminal Case No. 161-A, People v. Bustamante, to suffer subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency although the indeterminate penalty imposed on the accused was four years, two months and one day of prision correccional as minimum to eight years of prision mayor as maximum.
The imposition of subsidiary imprisonment is contrary to the provision of article 39(3) of the Revised Penal Code that "when the principal penalty imposed is higher than prision correccional no subsidiary imprisonment shall be imposed upon the culprit."cralaw virtua1aw library
Moreover, Republic Act No. 5465, which amended article 39 and which took effect on April 21, 1969, requires subsidiary imprisonment only for nonpayment of the fine and not for the civil liability. Respondent Judge did not specify for what pecuniary liability the accused was being required to serve subsidiary imprisonment.
In Criminal Case No. L-122-A, People v. Apolonio Tazal, Judge Pablo sentenced the accused to an indeterminate penalty of two months and one day as minimum to four months of arresto mayor as maximum.
That sentence is not sanctioned by the Indeterminate Sentence Law, Act No. 41003, as amended, whose section 2 provides that it does not apply "to those whose maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed one year."cralaw virtua1aw library
The plea of the respondent that those mistakes were committed in good faith does not exculpate him for his failure to familiarize himself with some elementary rules in the imposition of penalties.
He could have avoided those blunders if he had been more careful and assiduous in reading the Revised Penal Code and the Indeterminate Sentence Law. The fact that before his appointment as Judge he served as an assistant provincial fiscal of Tarlac makes his mistakes all the more inexcusable and deplorable. (He was admitted to the bar in 1936 and was appointed Judge in 1973.)
WHEREFORE, respondent Judge is severely censured or reprimanded for those errors and ordered to pay a fine equivalent to his salary for one month. He is warned that a more drastic disciplinary action would be taken against him for similar irregularities.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary
SO ORDERED.
Barredo (Chairman), Concepcion Jr., Abad Santos and De Castro, JJ., concur.
Endnotes:
1. Administrative Case No. 545-SBC, December 26, 1974, 61 SCRA 484, 487.
