FACTS:

The case is an administrative complaint filed by Miguel Argel against Judge Herminia M. Pascua, RTC-Br. 25, Vigan, Ilocos Sur, for gross ignorance of the law. Complainant alleges that the respondent judge rendered a decision convicting him of murder, even though he had already been previously acquitted by the same judge in her earlier decision. The respondent explains that she had mistakenly believed that there was no witness who positively identified the complainant as the perpetrator of the crime because the eyewitness testimony was not attached to the records at the time she wrote her decision. However, upon realizing her mistake, she revised her previous decision and issued a new decision finding the accused guilty of murder. The complainant argues that the respondent is guilty of gross ignorance of the law and violating his constitutional right against double jeopardy. The Office of the Court Administrator recommends that the respondent be fined P20,000 for gross ignorance of the law. It is noted that a judgment of acquittal is immediately final upon its promulgation and cannot be recalled or amended except in certain limited circumstances. The respondent's decision to revise her earlier decision of acquittal without proper legal grounds violated the rule against double jeopardy. The respondent's negligence in the preparation of her decision, wherein she failed to ensure that all the transcripts of stenographic notes were attached to the records before writing her decision, is also noted. As a result, the respondent is fined P20,000 for gross ignorance of the law.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the respondent Judge is guilty of gross ignorance of the law and of violating the complainant's constitutional right against double jeopardy.

2. Whether or not the respondent Judge's negligence in the preparation of her decision constitutes gross ignorance of the law.

RULING:

1. Yes, the respondent Judge is guilty of gross ignorance of the law and of violating the complainant's constitutional right against double jeopardy. A final decision is the law of the case and is immutable and unalterable, except to correct clerical errors, clarify ambiguities, or rectify a travesty of justice. In this case, the complainant was already acquitted by the respondent Judge in a decision that became final and immutable. The respondent's attempt to "revise" the decision and render a new one finding the complainant guilty of murder violates the principle of double jeopardy.

2. Yes, the respondent Judge's negligence in the preparation of her decision constitutes gross ignorance of the law. Judges are reminded to take down their own notes of salient portions of hearings and not to rely solely on the transcripts of stenographic notes. The respondent's failure to prepare her own notes and properly read them led to the oversight and disregard of the pivotal testimony of a witness. Such negligence demonstrates the respondent's lack of knowledge and understanding of basic legal procedures.

PRINCIPLES:

• A final decision is immutable and unalterable, except for certain exceptions.

• A judgment of acquittal in a criminal case is immediately final upon its promulgation and cannot be recalled or withdrawn.

• Gross ignorance of the law is exhibited when a judge fails to know or apply elementary legal principles.

• Judges are reminded to take down their own notes of salient portions of hearings to avoid negligence and oversight.