BELINDA LUISTRO MAÑOZCA, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE ROGER A. DOMAGAS, RESPONDENT.

Belinda Luistro Mañozca in a sworn letter-complaint dated 25
April 1995 charged respondent Judge Roger A. Domagas with gross ignorance of
the law resulting in a manifestly unjust judgment.

The complaint stemmed from the following facts:

1. Criminal Case No. V-8201 entitled “People v. Elmer de
Jesus Mañozca”, a case for bigamy initiated by herein complainant
against her husband, was raffled to respondent judge then presiding over Branch
46, RTC of Urdaneta, Pangasinan.

2. After the prosecution had rested its case, a Demurrer to
Evidence was filed by the defense in said case. It was granted by Judge Domagas based on the ruling in U.S. v.
Enriquez (32 Phil 302).

Complainant contends before this Court that respondent judge’s
reliance on the abovecited case amounts to gross ignorance of the law since the
facts of the two (2) cases are different.

In U.S. v. Enriquez, true
enough, the accused was acquitted of the charge of contracting an illegal
marriage based on a finding that the accused therein had a reasonable and
well-founded belief that his first wife was dead when he contracted his second
marriage, since he had no knowledge of her whereabouts for many years, and his
persistent and diligent efforts to locate her had proved futile.

Complainant argues that said Enriquez case could not be validly applied to the charge for
bigamy against her husband since good faith was negated by the fact that he
contacted the second marriage only thirteen (13) days after he had filed a
petition for annulment of his first marriage to herein complainant.

Complainant further argues that respondent judge erroneously
relied on a notarized document denominated “Separation of Property with
Renunciation of Rights” jointly executed by herself and her husband
wherein they freed themselves of all their marital obligations to each other,
in ruling that her husband had no fraudulent intent to contract the bigamous marriage. Such finding of lack of fraudulent intent became the basis for the grant
of the demurrer to evidence which amounted to an acquittal of the
accused-husband.

When required to comment on the complaint, Judge Domagas stated
that U.S. v. Enriquez was cited by him merely by way of analogy, to show
lack of criminal intent of the accused who had relied on the notarized document
jointly executed by the spouses, which made him believe they were each free to
choose his or her life partner.

While this case was being evaluated by the Office of the Court
Administrator for appropriate action, respondent Judge Roger A. Domagas passed
away on 30 July 1995.

Following our ruling in Hermosa v. Paraiso (62 SCRA
361), we will resolve this case notwithstanding the death of respondent Judge.

The Court notes, firstly, that respondent judge had been fined
twice also for gross ignorance of the law. In Lim v. Domagas (227 SCRA 258), the Court ordered him to pay a
P10,000.00 fine for disregarding the provisions of Sec 3(b) Rule 71 of the
Rules of Court requiring notice and hearing of charges of indirect
contempt. In Tucay v. Domagas (A.M. No.
RTJ-95-1286, 2 March 1995), respondent judge was fined P20,000.00 for granting
bail to the accused without the required hearing. In both cases, the Court warned him that the commission of the
same or similar acts in the future will be dealt with more severely.

In the present case, the
grant of the questioned demurrer to evidence again exhibited ignorance of the
law.

The cited document executed by the parties cannot be the basis of
a finding of good faith on the part of the accused, since, as respondent judge
himself stated in his order granting the demurrer to evidence, “the x x x agreement
is contrary to law.” Further, the accused’s fraudulent intent was manifest
considering that he filed a petition to annul his first marriage on 17 January
1992, executed the document entitled “Separation of Property with
Renunciation of Rights” on 18 January 1992 and contracted the bigamous
marriage on 30 January 1992 without the first marriage being as yet annulled.

The foregoing circumstances clearly preclude any finding of good
faith on the part of the accused in the bigamy charge, and do not justify the
grant of the demurrer to evidence.

ACCORDINGLY, the amount of P5,000.00 is hereby
ordered forfeited and deducted from the retirement benefits to which respondent
judge may be entitled, for gross ignorance of the law in rendering the
aforementioned order.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., Bellosillo, Kapunan, and
Hermosisima, Jr., JJ., concur.