View full case

PANFILO S. AMATAN v. JUDGE VICENTE AUJERO

FACTS:

Rodrigo Umpad, alias "Meon," was charged with the crime of Homicide for the fatal shooting of Genaro Tagsip. However, during the arraignment, the parties entered into a plea bargaining agreement wherein Umpad would plead guilty to the lesser offense of Attempted Homicide. The agreement was approved by the Public Prosecutor and the offended party. As a result, Umpad was sentenced to imprisonment for a specific period in accordance with the plea bargaining agreement. A complaint was filed against the judge, Vicente Aujero, for gross incompetence, gross ignorance of the law, and gross misconduct.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the judge's decision to accept the plea bargaining agreement and sentence the accused to attempted homicide instead of homicide amounted to gross incompetence, gross ignorance of the law, or gross misconduct.

  2. Whether the law allows an accused individual to plead guilty to a lesser offense even if it is not necessarily included in the crime charged.

RULING:

  1. The Supreme Court found the judge guilty of gross ignorance of the law. The Court ruled that the plea of guilty to attempted homicide, instead of homicide, was inconsistent with the fact of the victim's death. The crime of homicide necessarily results in death, while attempted homicide does not. The judge should have recognized this inconsistency and injustice. The Court emphasized that judges should promote right and justice when a provision of law is silent or ambiguous. The judge's lack of prudence and failure to exercise common sense in recognizing this injustice amounted to gross ignorance of the law. However, the Court noted that the judge's error was not tainted with malice or bad faith, and he had already reached the compulsory retirement age, which warranted leniency. The judge was reprimanded and fined.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Judges must take principles of right and justice at heart, especially in cases where a literal application of a provision of law would lead to injustice or result in opposition to logic and common sense.

  • When a provision of law is silent or ambiguous, judges should invoke a solution responsive to the vehement urge of conscience to promote right and justice.

  • Ignorance of a law that is elementary and should be known by a judge constitutes gross ignorance of the law.

  • Judges must possess competence, integrity, and independence, and should exercise ordinary common sense to render fair decisions that can be legally and factually sustained or justified.