STATE PROSECUTORS, COMPLAINANTS, VS. JUDGE MANUEL T. MURO, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 54, MANILA, RESPONDENT.

In assaying the requisite norms for qualifications and eminence of
a magistrate,
legal authorities place a premium on how he has complied with his continuing
duty to know the law. A quality thus
considered essential to the judicial character is that of “a man of learning who
spends tirelessly the weary hours after midnight acquainting himself with the
great body of traditions and the learning of the law; is profoundly learned in
all the learning of the law; and knows how to use that learning.”^[1]

Obviously, it is the primary duty of a judge, which he owes to
the public and to the legal profession, to know the very law he is supposed to
apply to a given controversy. He is called
upon to exhibit more than just a cursory acquaintance with the statutes and
procedural rules. Party litigants will
have great faith in the administration of justice if judges cannot justly be
accused of apparent deficiency in their grasp of the legal principles. For, service in the judiciary means a
continuous study and research on the law from beginning to end.^[2]

In a letter-complaint^[3] dated
August 19, 1992, respondent Judge Manuel T. Muro of the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Manila, Branch 54, was charged by State Prosecutors Nilo C. Mariano,
George C. Dee and Paterno V. Tac-an with ignorance of the law, grave misconduct
and violations of Rules 2.01, 3.01 and 3.02 of the Code of Judicial Conduct,
committed as follows:

1.     
That on August 13, 1992, respondent judge issued an Order
dismissing eleven (11) cases (docketed as Crim. Cases Nos. 92-101959 to 92­-101969,
inclusive) filed by the undersigned complainant prosecutors (members of the DOJ
Panel of Prosecutors) against the accused Mrs. Imelda Romualdez Marcos, for
Violation of Central Bank Foreign Exchange Restrictions, as consolidated in CB
Circular No. 960, in relation to the penal provisions of Sec. 34 of R.A. 265,
as amended, x x x;

2.     
That respondent Judge issued his Order solely on the basis of
newspaper reports (August 11, 1992 issues of the Philippine Daily Inquirer and
the Daily Globe) concerning the announcement on August 10, 1992 by the President
of the Philippines of the lifting by the government of all foreign exchange
restrictions and the arrival at such decision by the Monetary Board as per
statement of Central Bank Governor Jose Cuisia;

3.     
That claiming that the reported announce­ment of the Executive
Department on the lifting of foreign exchange restrictions by two newspapers
which are reputable and of national circulation had the effect of repealing
Central Bank Circular No. 960, as allegedly supported by Supreme Court
decisions x x x, the Court
contended that it was deprived
of jurisdiction, and, therefore, motu prop(r)io had to dismiss all the eleven
cases aforementioned “for not to do so opens this Court to charges of trying
cases over which it has no more jurisdiction;”

4.     
That in dismissing aforecited cases on August 13, 1992 on the
basis of a Central Bank Circular or Monetary Board Resolution which as of date
hereof, has not even been officially issued, and basing his Order/decision on a
mere newspaper account of the advance announcement made by the President of the
said fact of lifting or liberalizing foreign exchange controls, respondent
judge acted prematurely and in indecent haste, as he had no way of determining the full intent of the new CB
Circular or Monetary Board resolution, and whether the same provided for
exception, as in the case of persons who had pending criminal cases before the
courts for violations of Central Bank Circulars and/or regulations previously
issued on the matter;

5.     
That respondent Judge’s arrogant and cavalier posture in
taking judicial notice purportedly as a matter of public knowledge a mere
newspaper account that the President had announced the lifting of foreign
exchange restrictions as basis for his assailed order of dismissal is highly
irregular, erroneous and misplaced. For
the respondent judge to take judicial notice thereof even before it is
officially released by the Central Bank and its full text published as required by law to be effective
shows his precipitate action in utter disregard of the fundamental precept of
due process which the People is also entitled to and exposes his gross
ignorance of the law, thereby tarnishing public confidence in the integrity of
the judiciary. How can the Honorable
Judge take judicial notice of something which has not yet come into force and
the contents, shape and tenor of which have not yet been published and
ascertained to be the basis of judicial action? The Honorable Judge had miserably failed to “endeavor diligently
to ascertain the facts” in the case at bar contrary to Rule 3.02 of the Code of
Judicial Conduct, constituting Grave Misconduct;

6.     
That respondent Judge did not even ha(ve) the prudence of
requiring first the comment of the prosecution on the effect of aforesaid
Central Bank Circular/Monetary Board resolution on the pending cases before
dismissing the same, thereby denying the Government of its right to due
process;

7.     
That the lightning speed with which respondent Judge acted to
dismiss the cases may be gleaned from the fact that such precipitate action was
undertaken despite already scheduled continuation of trial dates set in the
order of the court (the prosecution having started presenting its evidence x x x) dated August 11, 1992 to
wit: August 31, September 3, 10, 21,
& 23 and October 1, 1992, all at 9:30 o’clock in the morning, in brazen
disregard of all notions of fair play, thereby depriving the Government of its
right to be heard, and clearly exposing his bias and partiality; and

8.     
That, in fact, the motive of respondent Judge in dismissing
the case without even waiting for a motion to quash filed by the counsel for
accused has even placed his dismissal Order suspect.

Pursuant to a resolution of this Court dated September 8, 1992, respondent judge filed his
comment,^[4] contending, inter alia, that
there was no need to await publication of the Central Bank (CB) circular
repealing the existing law on foreign exchange controls for the simple reason
that the public announcement made by the President in several newspapers of
general circulation lifting foreign exchange controls was total, absolute,
without qualification, and was immediately effective; that having acted only on
the basis of such announcement, he cannot be blamed for relying on the
erroneous statement of the President that the new foreign exchange rules
rendered moot and academic the cases filed against Mrs. Marcos, and which was
corrected only on August 17, 1992 but published in the newspapers on August 18,
1992, and only after respondent judge had issued his order of dismissal dated
August 13, 1992; that the President was ill-advised by his advisers and,
instead of rescuing the Chief Executive from embarrassment by assuming
responsibility for errors in the latter’s announcement, they chose to toss the
blame for the consequence of their failures to respondent judge who merely
acted on the basis of the announcements of the President which had become of
public knowledge; that the “saving clause” under CB Circular No. 1353
specifically refers only to pending actions or investigations involving violations
of CB Circular No. 1318, whereas the eleven cases dismissed involved charges
for violations of CB Circular No. 960, hence the accused cannot be tried and
convicted under a law different from that under which she was charged; that
assuming that respondent judge erred in issuing the order of dismissal, the
proper remedy should have been an appeal therefrom but definitely not an
administrative complaint for his dismissal; that a mistake committed by a judge
should not necessarily be imputed as ignorance of the law; and that a “court
can reverse or modify a doctrine but it does not show ignorance of the justices
or judges whose decisions were reversed or modified” because “even doctrines
initiated by the Supreme Court are later reversed, so how much more for the
lower courts?”

He further argued that no hearing was necessary since the
prosecution had nothing to explain because, as he theorized, “What explanation
could have been given? That the
President was talking ‘through his hat’ (to use a colloquialism) and should not
be believed? That I should wait for the
publication (as now alleged by complainants), of a still then non-existent CB
circular? x x x As it turned out, CB Circular No. 3153 (sic) does not affect
my dismissal order because the said circular’s so-called saving clause does not
refer to CB Circular 960 under which the charges in the dismissed cases were
based;” that it was discretionary on him to take judicial notice of the facts
which are of public knowledge, pursuant to Section 2 of Rule 129; that the
contention of complainants that he acted prematurely and in indecent haste for
basing his order of dismissal on a mere newspaper account is contrary to the
wordings of the newspaper report wherein the President announced the lifting of
controls as an accomplished fact, not as an intention to be effected in the
future, because of the use of the present perfect tense or past tense “has
lifted,” not that he “intends to lift,” foreign exchange controls.

Finally, respondent judge asseverates that complainants who are
officers of the Department of Justice, violated Section 6, Rule 140 of the
Rules of Court which provides that “proceedings against judges of first
instance shall be private and confidential” when they caused to be published in
the newspapers the filing of the present administrative case against him; and
he emphasizes the fact that he had to immediately resolve a simple and pure
legal matter in consonance with the admonition of the Supreme Court for speedy
disposition of cases.

In their reply^[5] and
supplemental reply,^[6]
complainants aver that although the saving clause under Section 16 of CB
Circular No. 1353 made specific reference to CB Circular No. 1318, it will be
noted that Section 111 of Circular No. 1318, which contains a saving clause
substantially similar to that of the new circular, in turn refers to and
includes Circular No. 960. Hence,
whether under Circular No. 1318 or Circular No. 1353, pending cases involving
violations of Circular No. 960 are excepted from the coverage thereof. Further,
it is alleged that the precipitate dismissal of the eleven cases, without
according the prosecution the opportunity to file a motion to quash or a comment, or even to show
cause why the cases against accused Imelda R. Marcos should not be dismissed, is
clearly reflective of respondent’s partiality and bad faith. In effect, respondent judge acted as if he
were the advocate of the accused.

On December 9, 1993, this Court issued a resolution referring the
complaint to the Office of the Court Administrator for evaluation, report and
recommendation, pursuant to Section 7, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, as revised,
there being no factual issues involved. The corresponding report and
recommendation,^[7] dated February 14, 1994, was submitted by
Deputy Court Administrator Juanito A. Bernad, with the approval of Court Administrator Ernani Cruz-Paño.

The questioned order^[8] of
respondent judge reads as follows:

These eleven (11) cases are for Violation of Central Bank Foreign
Exchange Restrictions as consolidated in CB Circular No. 960 in relation to the
penal provision of Sec. 34 of R.A. 265, as amended.

The accused Mrs. Imelda R. Marcos pleaded not guilty to all these
cases; apparently the other accused in some of these cases, Roberto S.
Benedicto, was not arrested and therefore the Court did not acquire
jurisdiction over his person; trial was commenced as against Mrs. Marcos.

His Excellency, the President of the Philippines, announced on
August 10, 1992 that the government has lifted all foreign exchange restrictions
and it is also reported that Central Bank Governor Jose Cuisia said that the
Monetary Board arrived at such decision (issue of the Philippine Daily
Inquirer, August 11, 1992 and issue of the
Daily Globe of the same date). The
Court has to give full confidence and credit to the reported announcement of
the Executive Department, specially from the highest official of that
department; the Courts are charged with judicial notice of matters which are of
public knowledge, without introduction of proof, the announcement published in
at least the two newspapers cited above which are reputable and of national
circulation.

Per several cases decided by the Supreme Court (People vs. Alcaras,
56 Phil. 520, People vs. Francisco, 56 Phil. 572, People vs. Pastor, 77 Phil.
1000, People vs. Crisanto Tamayo, 61 Phil. 225), among others, it was held that
the repeal of a penal law without re-enactment extinguishes the right to
prosecute or punish the offense committed under the old law and if the law
repealing the prior penal law fails to penalize the acts which constituted the
offense defined and penalized in the repealed law, the repealed law carries
with it the deprivation of the courts of jurisdiction to try, convict and
sentence persons charged with violations of the old law prior to its repeal. Under the aforecited decisions this doctrine applies to special
laws and not only to the crimes punishable in the Revised Penal Code, such as the Import Control Law. The Central Bank Circular No. 960 under
which the accused Mrs. Marcos is charged is considered as a penal law because
violation thereof is penalized with specific reference to the provision of Section 34 of Republic Act
265, which penalizes violations of Central Bank Circular No. 960, produces the
effect cited in the Supreme Court decisions and since according to the
decisions that repeal deprives the Court of jurisdiction, this Court motu proprio dismisses all the
eleven (11) cases as aforestated in the caption, for not to do so
opens this Court to charges of trying cases over which it has no more
jurisdiction.

This order was subsequently assailed in a petition for certiorari
filed with the Court of Appeals, entitled “People of the Philippines vs. Hon. Manuel
T. Muro, Judge, RTC of Manila, Br. 54 and Imelda R. Marcos,” docketed as
CA-G.R. SP No. 29349. When required to
file her comment, private respondent Marcos failed to file any. Likewise, after the appellate court gave due
course to the petition, private respondent was ordered, but again failed
despite notice, to file an answer to the petition and to show cause why no writ
of preliminary injunction should
issue. Eventually, on April 29, 1993,
the Court of Appeals rendered a decision^[9] setting aside the order of August 13, 1992,
and reinstating Criminal Cases Nos. 92-101959 to 92-101969.

In finding that respondent judge acted in excess of jurisdiction
and with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the order of dismissal, the
appellate court held that:

The order was issued motu
proprio, i.e., without any
motion to dismiss filed by counsel for the accused, without giving an
opportunity for the prosecution to be heard, and solely on the basis of
newspaper reports announcing that the President has lifted all foreign exchange
restrictions.

The newspaper report is not the publication required by law in
order that the enactment can become effective and binding. Laws take effect after fifteen days following the completion of their publication in the
Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation unless it is
otherwise provided (Section 1, Executive Order No. 200). The full text of CB Circular 1353, series of
1992, entitled ‘Further Liberalizing Foreign Exchange Regulation’ was published
in the August 27, 1992 issue of the Manila Chronicle, the Philippine Star and
the Manila Bulletin. Per certification
of the CB Corporate Affairs Office, CB Circular No. 1353 took effect on
September 2 x x x.

Considering that respondent judge admittedly had not seen the
official text of CB Circular No. 1353, he was in no position to rule
judiciously on whether CB Circular No. 960, under which the accused Mrs. Marcos
is charged, was already repealed by CB Circular No. 1353. x x
x

x x x

A cursory reading of the x
x x provision would have readily shown that the repeal of the
regulations on non-trade foreign exchange transactions is not absolute, as
there is a provision that with respect to violations of former regulations that
are the subject of pending actions or investigations, they shall be governed by
the regulations existing at the time the cause of action (arose). Thus his conclusion that he has lost
jurisdiction over the criminal cases is precipitate and hasty. Had he awaited the filing of a motion to
dismiss by the accused, and given opportunity for the prosecution to
comment/oppose the same, his resolution would have been the result of
deliberation, not speculation.

I.   The doctrine of
judicial notice rests on the wisdom and discretion of the courts. The power to take judicial notice is to be
exercised by courts with caution; care must be taken that the requisite
notoriety exists; and every reasonable doubt on the subject should be promptly
resolved in the negative.^[10]

Generally speaking, matters of judicial notice have three
material requisites: (1) the matter
must be one of common and general knowledge; (2) it must be well and
authoritatively settled and not doubtful or uncertain; and (3) it must be known
to be within the limits of the jurisdiction of the court.^[11]
The principal guide in determining what facts may be assumed to be judicially
known is that of notoriety.^[12]
Hence, it can be said that judicial notice is limited to facts evidenced by
public records and facts of general notoriety.^[13]

To say that a court will take judicial notice of a fact is merely
another way of saying that the usual form of evidence will be dispensed with if
knowledge of the fact can be otherwise acquired.^[14] This
is because the court assumes that the matter is so notorious that it will not
be disputed.^[15]
But judicial notice is not judicial knowledge. The mere personal knowledge of the judge is not the judicial knowledge
of the court, and he is not authorized to make his individual knowledge of a
fact, not generally or professionally known, the basis of his action. Judicial cognizance is taken only of those
matters which are “commonly” known.^[16]

Things of “common knowledge,” of which courts take judicial
notice, may be matters coming to the knowledge of men generally in the course
of the ordinary experiences of life, or they may be matters which are generally
accepted by mankind as true and are capable of ready and unquestioned
demonstration.^[17]
Thus, facts which are universally known, and which may be found in
encyclopedias, dictionaries or other publications, are judicially noticed,
provided they are of such
universal notoriety and so generally understood that they may be regarded as
forming part of the common knowledge of every person.^[18]

Respondent judge, in the guise of exercising discretion and on
the basis of a mere newspaper
account which is sometimes even referred to as hearsay evidence twice removed,
took judicial notice of the supposed lifting of foreign exchange controls, a
matter which was not and cannot be considered of common knowledge or of general
notoriety. Worse, he took cognizance of
an administrative regulation which was not yet in force when the order of
dismissal was issued. Jurisprudence
dictates that judicial notice cannot be taken of a statute before it becomes
effective.^[19]
The reason is simple. A law which is
not yet in force and hence, still inexistent, cannot be of common knowledge
capable of ready and unquestionable demonstration, which is one of the
requirements before a court can take judicial notice of a fact.

Evidently, it was impossible for respondent judge, and it was
definitely not proper for him, to have taken cognizance of CB Circular No.
1353, when the same was not yet in force at the time the improvident order of
dismissal was issued.

II.  Central Bank Circular No.
1353, which took effect on September 1, 1992, further liberalized the foreign
exchange regulations on receipts and disbursements of residents arising from
non-trade and trade transactions. Section 16 thereof provides for a saving clause, thus:

“Section 16. Final
Provisions of CB Circular No. 1318. – All the provisions in Chapter X of
CB Circular No. 1318 insofar as they are not inconsistent with, or contrary to
the provisions of this Circular, shall remain in full force and effect: Provided, however, that any regulation on
non-trade foreign exchange transactions which has been repealed, amended or
modified by this Circular, violations of which are the subject of pending
actions or investigations, shall not be considered repealed insofar as such pending
actions or investigations are concerned, it being understood that as to such
pending actions or investigations, the regulations existing at the time the
cause of action accrued shall govern.”

Respondent judge contends that the saving clause refers only to
the provisions of Circular No. 1318, whereas the eleven criminal cases he
dismissed involve a violation of CB Circular No. 960. Hence, he insists, Circular No. 960 is deemed repealed by the new
circular and since the former is not covered by the saving clause in the
latter, there is no more basis for the charges involved in the criminal cases
which therefore warrant a dismissal of the same. The contention is patently unmeritorious.

Firstly, the second part of the saving clause in Circular No.
1353 explicitly provides that “any regulation on non-trade foreign
transactions which has been repealed, amended
or modified by this Circular, violations of which are the
subject of pending actions or investigations, shall not be
considered repealed insofar as such pending actions or investigations are
concerned, it being understood that as to such pending actions or
investigations, the regulations
existing at the time the cause of action accrued shall govern.” The terms of the circular are clear and unambiguous and leave no room
for interpretation. In the case at bar,
the accused in the eleven cases had already been arraigned, had pleaded not
guilty to the charges of violations of Circular No. 960, and said cases had
already been set for trial when Circular No. 1353 took effect. Consequently, the trial court was and is supposed to proceed with the hearing of the
cases in spite of the existence of Circular No. 1353.

Secondly, had respondent judge only bothered to read a little
more carefully the texts of the circulars involved, he would have readily
perceived and known that Circular No. 1318 also contains a substantially
similar saving clause as that found in Circular No. 1353, since Section 111 of
the former provides:

Section 111. Repealing
clause. – All existing provisions
of Circulars 365, 960 and 1028, including amendments thereto, with the
exception of the second paragraph of Section 68 of Circular 1028, as well as
all other existing Central Bank rules and regulations or parts thereof, which
are inconsistent with or contrary to the provisions of this Circular, are
hereby repealed or modified
accordingly: Provided, however, that
regulations, violations of which are the subject of pending actions or
investigations, shall be considered repealed insofar as such pending actions or
investigations are concerned, it being understood that as to such pending
actions or investigations, the regulations existing at the time the cause of
action accrued shall govern.

It unequivocally appears from the section above quoted that although
Circular No. 1318 repealed Circular No. 960, the former specifically excepted
from its purview all cases covered by the old regulations which were then
pending at the time of the passage of the new regulations. Thus, any reference made to Circular No.
1318 necessarily involves and affects Circular No. 960.

III.  It has been said that
next in importance to the duty of rendering a righteous judgment is that of
doing it in such a manner as will beget no suspicion of the fairness and
integrity of the judge.^[20] This
means that a judge should not only render a just, correct and impartial
decision but should do so in such a manner as to be free from any suspicion as
to its fairness and impartiality and as to his integrity. While a judge should possess proficiency in
law in order that he can competently construe and enforce the law, it is more
important that he should act and behave in such a manner that the parties
before him should have confidence in his impartiality. Thus, it is not enough that he decides cases
without bias and favoritism. Nor is it
sufficient that he in fact rids himself of prepossessions. His actuations should moreover inspire that
belief. Like Caesar’s wife, a judge
must not only be pure but beyond suspicion.^[21]

Moreover, it has always heretofore been the rule that in
disposing of controverted cases, judges should show their full understanding of
the case, avoid the suspicion of arbitrary conclusion, promote confidence in
their intellectual integrity and contribute useful precedents to the growth of
the law.^[22]
A judge should be mindful that his duty is the application of general law to
particular instances, that ours is a government of laws and not of men, and
that he violates his duty as a minister of justice under such a system if he seeks
to do what he may personally consider substantial justice in a particular case
and disregards the general law as he knows it to be binding on him. Such action may have detrimental
consequences beyond the immediate controversy. He should administer his office with due regard to the integrity of the
system of the law itself, remembering that he is not a depository of arbitrary
power, but a judge under the sanction of the law.^[23]
These are immutable principles that go into the very essence of the task of
dispensing justice and we see no reason why they should not be duly considered
in the present case.

The assertion of respondent judge that there was no need to await
publication of Circular No. 1353 for the reason that the public announcement
made by the President in several newspapers of general circulation lifting
foreign exchange controls is total, absolute, without qualification, and
immediately effective, is beyond comprehension. As a judge of the
Regional Trial Court of Manila, respondent is supposed to be well-versed in the
elementary legal mandates on the
publication of laws before they take effect. It is inconceivable that respondent should insist on an altogether
different and illogical interpretation of an established and well-entrenched
rule if only to suit his own personal opinion and, as it were, to defend his
indefensible action. It was not for him
to indulge or even to give the appearance of catering to the at-times human
failing of yielding to first impressions.^[24] He having done so, in the face of the
foregoing premises, this Court is hard put to believe that he indeed acted in
good faith.

IV. This is not a simple case of a misapplication or erroneous
interpretation of the law. The very act
of respondent judge in altogether dismissing sua sponte the eleven criminal
cases without even a motion to quash having been filed by the accused, and
without at least giving the prosecution the basic opportunity to be heard on
the matter by way of a written comment or on oral argument, is not only a blatant
denial of elementary due process to the Government but is palpably indicative
of bad faith and partiality.

The avowed desire of respondent judge to speedily dispose of the
cases as early as possible is no license for abuse of judicial power and discretion,^[25]
nor does such professed objective, even if true, justify a deprivation of the
prosecution’s right to be heard and a violation of its right to due process of
law.^[26]

The lightning speed, to borrow the words of complainants, with
which respondent judge resolved to dismiss the cases without the benefit of a hearing
and without reasonable notice to the prosecution inevitably opened him to
suspicion of having acted out of partiality for the accused. Regardless of how carefully he may have
evaluated changes in the factual situation and legal standing of the cases, as
a result of the newspaper report, the fact remains that he gave the prosecution
no chance whatsoever to show or prove that it had strong evidence of the guilt
of the accused. To repeat, he thereby
effectively deprived the prosecution of its right to due process.^[27]
More importantly, notwithstanding the fact that respondent was not sure of the
effects and implications of the President’s announcement, as by his
own admission he was in doubt whether or not he should dismiss the cases,^[28]
he nonetheless deliberately refrained from requiring the prosecution to comment
thereon. In a puerile defense of his action,
respondent judge can but rhetorically ask: “What explanation could have been given? That the President was talking ‘through his hat’ and should not
be believed? That I should wait for the
publication of a still then non-existent CB Circular?” The pretended cogency of
this ratiocination cannot stand even the minutest legal scrutiny.

In order that bias may not be imputed to a judge, he should have
the patience and circumspection to give the opposing party a chance to present
his evidence even if he thinks that the oppositor’s proofs might not be
adequate to overthrow the case for the other party. A display of petulance and impatience in the conduct of the trial
is a
norm of conduct which is inconsistent with the “cold neutrality of an impartial
judge.”^[29]
At the very least, respondent judge acted injudiciously and with unjustified
haste in the outright dismissal of the eleven cases, and thereby rendered his
actuation highly dubious.

V. It bears stressing that the questioned order of respondent
judge could have seriously and substantially affected the rights of the
prosecution had the accused invoked the defense of double jeopardy, considering
that the dismissal was ordered after arraignment and without the consent of
said accused. This could have spawned
legal complications and inevitable delay in the criminal proceedings, were it
not for the holding of the Court of Appeals that respondent judge acted with
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. This saved the day for the People since in
the absence of jurisdiction, double jeopardy will not set in. To stress this point, and as a caveat to trial
courts against falling into the same judicial error, we reiterate what we
have heretofore declared:

It is
settled doctrine that double jeopardy cannot be invoked against this
Court’s setting aside of the trial
court’s judgment of dismissal or acquittal where the prosecution which
represents the sovereign people in criminal cases is denied due process. x x x.

Where the prosecution is deprived of a fair opportunity to
prosecute and prove its case, its right to due process is thereby violated.

The cardinal precept is that where there is a violation of basic
constitutional rights, courts are ousted of their jurisdiction. Thus, the violation of the State’s right to
due process raises a serious jurisdictional issue x x x which cannot be glossed over or disregarded at will. Where the denial of the fundamental right of
due process is apparent, a decision rendered in disregard of that right is void for lack
of jurisdiction x x x.^[30]

It is also significant that accused Marcos, despite due notice,
never submitted either her comment on or an answer to the petition for certiorari
as required by the Court of Appeals, nor was double jeopardy invoked in her
defense. This serves to further
underscore the fact that the
order of dismissal was clearly unjustified and erroneous. Furthermore, considering that the accused is
a prominent public figure with a record of influence and power, it is not easy
to allay public skepticism and suspicions on how said dismissal order came to
be, to the consequent although undeserved discredit of the entire judiciary.

VI. To hold a judge liable for rendering a manifestly unjust
order through inexcusable negligence or ignorance, it must be clearly shown
that although he has acted without malice, he failed to observe in the
performance of his duty that diligence,
prudence and care which the law is entitled to exact in the rendering of any public service. Negligence and ignorance are inexcusable if
they imply a manifest injustice which cannot be explained by a reasonable
interpretation, and even though there is a misunderstanding or error of the law applied, it nevertheless results
logically and reasonably, and in a very clear and indisputable manner, in the notorious violation of the legal precept.^[31]

In the present case, a cursory perusal of the comment filed by
respondent judge reveals that no substantial argument has been advanced in
plausible justification of his act. He
utterly failed to show any legal, factual, or even equitable justification for
the dismissal of the eleven criminal cases. The explanation given is no explanation at all. The
strained and fallacious submissions therein do not speak well of respondent and
cannot but further depreciate his probity
as a judge. On this point, it is best
that pertinent unedited excerpts from his comment^[32]
be quoted by way of graphic
illustration and emphasis:

On the alleged ignorance of the law imputed to me, it is said that
I issued the Order dismissing the eleven (11) cases against Mrs. Imelda R. Marcos
on the basis of newspaper reports referred to in paragraph 2 of the letter
complaint without awaiting the official publication of the Central Bank
Circular. Ordinarily a Central Bank
Circular/Resolution must be published in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper
of general circulation, but the lifting of “all foreign exchange controls” was
announced by the President of the Philippines WITHOUT QUALIFICATIONS; as
published in the Daily Globe, August 11, 1992” the government has lifted ALL
foreign exchange controls,” and in the words of the Philippine Daily Inquirer
report of the same date “The government yesterday LIFTED the LAST remaining
restrictions on foreign exchange transactions, x x x” (emphasis in both quotations supplied) not only the
President made the announcement but also the Central Bank Governor Jose Cuisia
joined in the announcement by saying that “the Monetary Board arrived at the
decision after noting how the ‘partial liberalization’ initiated early this
year worked.”

Therefore, because of the ABSOLUTE lifting of ALL restrictions on
foreign exchange transactions, there was no need to await the publication of
the repealing circuar of the Central Bank. The purpose of requiring publication of laws and administrative rules
affecting the public is to inform the latter as to how they will conduct their
affairs and how they will conform to the laws or the rules. In this particular case, with the total
lifting of the controls, there is no need to await publication. It would have been different if the circular
that in effect repealed Central Bank Circular No. 960, under which the accused
was charged in the cases dismissed by me, had provided for penalties and/or
modified the provisions of said Circular No. 960.

The Complainants state that the lifting of controls was not yet in
force when I dismissed the cases but it should be noted that in the report of
the two (2) newspapers aforequoted, the President’s announcement of the lifting
of controls was stated in the present perfect tense (Globe) or past tense
(Inquirer). In other words, it has
already been lifted; the announcement did not say that the government INTENDS
to lift all foreign exchange restrictions but instead says that the government
“has LIFTED all foreign exchange controls,” and in the other newspaper cited
above, that “The government yesterday lifted the last remaining restrictions on
foreign exchange transactions”. The
lifting of the last remaining exchange
regulations effectively cancelled or repealed Circular No. 960.

The President, who is the Chief Executive, publicly announced the
lifting of all foreign exchange regulations. The President has within his control directly or indirectly the Central
Bank of the Philippines, the Secretary of Finance being the Chairman of the
Monetary Board which decides the policies of the Central Bank.

No official bothered to correct or qualify the President’s
announcement of August 10, published the following day, nor made an
announcement that the lifting of the controls do not apply to cases already
pending, not until August 17 (the fourth day after my Order, and the third day
after report of said order was published) and after the President said on
August 17, reported in the INQUIRER’S issue of August 18, 1992, that the “new
foreign exchange rules have nullified government cases against Imelda R.
Marcos, telling reporters that the charges against the widow of former
President Marcos ‘have become moot and academic’ because of new ruling(s) which
allow free flow of currency in and out of the country” (Note, parenthetically,
the reference to “new rules” not to “rules still to be drafted”). The INQUIRER report continues: “A few hours later, presidential spokeswoman
Annabelle Abaya said, ramos (sic) had ‘corrected himself’.” “He had been
belatedly advised by the Central Bank Governor Jose Cuisia and Justice Secretary Franklin Drilon that the
Monetary Board Regulation excluded from its coverage all criminal cases pending
in court and such a position shall stand legal scrutiny’, Mrs. Abaya, said.”

I will elaborate on two points:

1.  If the President was wrong in making the
August 10 announcement (published in August 11, 1992, newspapers) and in the
August 17 announcement, SUPRA, and thus I should not have relied on the
Presidential announcements, and there is basis to conclude that the President
was at the very least ILL-SERVED by his financial and legal advisers, because
no one bothered to advise the President to correct his announcements, not until
August 17, 1992, a few hours after the President had made another announcement as to the charges against Imelda
Marcos having been rendered moot and academic. The President has a lot of work to do, and is not, to my knowledge, a
financier, economist, banker or lawyer. It therefore behooved his subalterns to give him timely (not “belated”)
advice, and brief him on matters of immediate and far-reaching concerns (such
as the lifting of foreign exchange controls, designed, among others to
encourage the entry of foreign investments). Instead of rescuing the Chief Executive from embarrassment by assuming
responsibility for errors in the latter’s announcement, these advisers have
chosen to toss the blame for the consequence of their failing to me, who only
acted on the basis of announcements of their Chief, which had become of public
knowledge.

x x x

The Court strongly feels that it has every right to assume and
expect that respondent judge is possessed with more than ordinary credentials
and qualifications to merit his appointment as a presiding judge in the Regional
Trial Court of the National Capital Judicial Region, stationed in the City of
Manila itself. It is, accordingly,
disheartening and regrettable to note the nature of the arguments and the kind
of logic that respondent judge would want to impose on this Court
notwithstanding the manifest lack of cogency thereof. This calls to mind similar scenarios and how this Court reacted
thereto.

In one case, an RTC Judge was administratively charged for
acquitting the accused of a violation of CB Circular No. 960 despite the fact
that the accused was apprehended with US$355,349.00 while boarding a plane for
Hongkong, erroneously ruling that the State must first prove criminal intent to
violate the law and benefit from the illegal act, and further ordering the
return of US$3,000.00 out of the total amount seized, on the mistaken
interpretation that the CB circular
exempts such amount from seizure. Respondent judge therein was ordered dismissed from the government
service for gross incompetence and ignorance of the law.^[33]

Subsequently, the Court dismissed another RTC judge, with
forfeiture of retirement benefits, for gross ignorance of the law and for
knowingly rendering an unjust order or judgment when he granted bail to an
accused charged with raping an 11-year old girl, despite the contrary
recommendation of the investigating judge, and thereafter granted the motion to dismiss the case
allegedly executed by the complainant.^[34]

Similarly, an RTC judge who was described by this Court as one
“who is ignorant of fairly elementary and quite familiar legal principles and
administrative regulations, has a
marked penchant for applying unorthodox, even strange theories and concepts in
the adjudication of controversies, exhibits indifference to and even disdain
for due process and the rule of law, applies the law whimsically, capriciously
and oppressively, and displays bias and impartiality,” was dismissed from the
service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and with prejudice to
reinstatement in any branch of the government or any of its agencies or
instrumentalities.^[35]

Still in another administrative case, an RTC judge was also
dismissed by this Court for gross ignorance of the law after she ordered, in a
probate proceeding, the cancellation of the certificates of title issued in the
name of the complainant, without affording due process to the latter and other
interested parties.^[36]

Only recently, an RTC judge who had been reinstated in the
service was dismissed after he acquitted all the accused in four criminal cases
for illegal possession of firearms, on the ground that there was no proof of
malice or deliberate intent on the part of the accused to violate the law. The Court found him guilty of gross
ignorance of the law, his error of judgment being almost deliberate and tantamount
to knowingly rendering an incorrect and unjust judgment.^[37]

ACCORDINGLY, on the foregoing premises and
considerations, the Court finds respondent Judge Manuel T. Muro guilty of gross
ignorance of the law. He is hereby DISMISSED from the service, such dismissal
to carry with it cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of leave credits and
retirement benefits, and disqualification from reemployment in the government service.^[38]

Respondent is hereby ordered to CEASE and DESIST immediately
from rendering any judgment or order, or continuing any judicial action or
proceeding whatsoever, effective upon receipt of this decision.

SO ORDERED.

Cruz, Feliciano, Padilla, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Melo,
Quiason, Puno, Vitug, and Kapunan, JJ., concur.

Narvasa, C.J., concurs but vote
for the penalty of SUSPENSION for the basic reasons of the dissenting opinion.

Bidin, J., on official leave.

Bellosillo, J., in his dissent.

---

^[1]
Malcolm, Legal and Judicial Ethics, 1949 ed., 200.

^[2]
Agpalo, Legal Ethics, 1988, 4th ed., 454.

^[3]
Rollo, 3

^[4]
Rollo, 21.

^[5]
Rollo, 55.

^[6] Ibid., 63.

^[7]
Rollo, 88.

^[8] Ibid., 8.

^[9]
Justice Minerva P. Gonzaga-Reyes, ponente, with Justices Luis A. Javellana and
Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, concurring; Rollo, 80.

^[10]
31 C.J.S., Evidence, Sec. 13, 843.

^[11]
20 Am. Jur., Evidence, Sec. 17, 48.

^[12]
King vs. Gallun, et al., 109 U.S. 99, 27 L. ed. 870.

^[13]
31 C.J.S., Evidence, Secs. 6-7, 823.

^[14]
Francisco, Rules of Court, 1973 ed., Vol. VII, Part I, 71.

^[15]
Wigmore on Evidence, Vol. IX, Sec. 2567, 535.

^[16]
Op.
cit.,
71-72.

^[17]
Roden vs. Connecticut Co., et al., 155 A. 721.

^[18]
Francisco, Rules of Court, 1973 ed., Vol. VIII, Part I, 81.

^[19]
State ex rel. Brunjies vs.
Bockelman, et al., 240 S.W. 209.

^[20]
Luque vs. Kayanan, et al., G.R. No. L-26826, August 29, 1969, 29 SCRA
165.

^[21]
Agpalo, Legal Ethics, 1988, 4th ed., 454-455.

^[22]
Canon 17, Canons of Judicial Ethics.

^[23]
Canon 18, id.

^[24]
Castillo, et al. vs. Juan, G.R, Nos. 39516-17, January 28, 1975, 62 SCRA
124.

^[25]
Olaivar vs. Cinco, A.M. No. 45-MJ, March 29, 1974, 56 SCRA 232.

^[26]
Cf. Alejandro vs. Pepito, G.R. No. 52090, February 21, 1980, 96 SCRA
322.

^[27]
Cf. Piedra, et al. vs. Imbing, A.M. No. RTJ-89-336, Resolution En
Banc,
October 4, 1990.

^[28]
Comment, 10-11; Rollo, 30-31.

^[29]
Santiago, et al. vs. Santos, A.M. No. 772-CJ, April 18, 1975, 63 SCRA
392.

^[30]
Galman, et al. vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. No. 72670, September 12,
1986, 144 SCRA 43.

^[31]See
In re: Rafael C. Climaco, Adm. Case No.
134-J, January 21, 1974, 55 SCRA 107.

^[32]
Rollo, 32-35.

^[33]
Padilla vs. Dizon, Adm. Case No. 3086, February 23, 1988, 158 SCRA 127.

^[34]
Buenavista, Jr. vs. Garcia, A.M. No. RTJ-88-246, July 19, 1990, 187 SCRA
598.

^[35]
Garganera vs. Jocson, A.M. No. RTJ-88-227, September 1, 1992, 213 SCRA
149.

^[36]
Uy, et al. vs. Dizon-Capulong, A.M. No. RTJ-91-766, April 7, 1993, 221
SCRA 87.

^[37]
Zuño vs. Dizon, A.M. No.
RTJ-91-752, June 23, 1993.

^[38]
Section 9, Rule 14 of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order
No. 292 (Administrative Code of 1987).

---

6 pt
6 pt
0
3