Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 65 views

    Case Digest - Cabatingan Vs Arcueno

    Uploaded by

    Valencia and Valencia Office
    A.M. NO. MTJ-00-1323 (AUGUST 22, 2002) JUDGE PEDRO B. CABATINGAN SR. (RET.), Complainant, vs. JUDGE CELSO A. ARCUENO, MCTC, CATAINGAN, MASBATE, Respondent

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Case Digest - Cabatingan Vs Arcueno

    Uploaded by

    Valencia and Valencia Office
    65 views1 page
    A.M. NO. MTJ-00-1323 (AUGUST 22, 2002) JUDGE PEDRO B. CABATINGAN SR. (RET.), Complainant, vs. JUDGE CELSO A. ARCUENO, MCTC, CATAINGAN, MASBATE, Respondent

    Original Title

    Case Digest - Cabatingan vs Arcueno

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    A.M. NO. MTJ-00-1323 (AUGUST 22, 2002) JUDGE PEDRO B. CABATINGAN SR. (RET.), Complainant, vs. JUDGE CELSO A. ARCUENO, MCTC, CATAINGAN, MASBATE, Respondent

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    65 views1 page

    Case Digest - Cabatingan Vs Arcueno

    Uploaded by

    Valencia and Valencia Office
    A.M. NO. MTJ-00-1323 (AUGUST 22, 2002) JUDGE PEDRO B. CABATINGAN SR. (RET.), Complainant, vs. JUDGE CELSO A. ARCUENO, MCTC, CATAINGAN, MASBATE, Respondent

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    A.M. NO.

    MTJ-00-1323 (AUGUST 22, 2002)

    JUDGE PEDRO B. CABATINGAN SR. (RET.), Complainant,


    vs.
    JUDGE CELSO A. ARCUENO, MCTC, CATAINGAN, MASBATE, Respondent

    FACTS:

     Complainant, was the counsel for Benito Bucado one of the accused for the crime of Illegal Fishing docketed as
    Criminal Case No. 4877-PVC.

     Finding a prima facie respondent issued warrant of arrest fixing the bail bond at ₱50,000 each

     Benito Bucado, one of the accused, posted a property bond. Respondent, however, in violation of Section 17,
    rule 114 of the rules of Court, allegedly refused to accept the bail bond upon the contention that he no longer
    ha[d] jurisdiction over the case inasmuch as the records were already forwarded to the Office of the Assistant
    provincial Prosecutor for review.

     Judge Pedro B. Cabatingan Sr. (ret.) filed Administrative Complaint against Judge Celso A. Arcueno of
    Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Cataingan, Masbate, for gross ignorance of the law

    ISSUE:

    1. Whether or not Respondent is guilty of gross ignorance of the law for refusing to accept the bail bond

    RULING:

    1. Yes. Judge Celso A. Arcueno is found GUILTY of gross ignorance of the law

    In the case at bar, Benito Bucado was arrested in the Municipality of Cataingan after a preliminary investigation
    conducted by respondent judge. The latter therefore had the authority to grant bail and to order the release of the
    accused. Even if the records of the case had been transmitted for review to the Office of the provincial
    Prosecutor, respondent could have approved the bail bond posted by the accused. Such action cannot be validly
    attacked on jurisdictional grounds.

    Considering that one of his responsibilities as a judge was to conduct preliminary investigations, it was
    therefore his duty to keep abreast of the laws, rulings and jurisprudence on this matter. Because he had
    apparently lagged behind, he fell short of his vow to live up to the injunction of the code of Judicial Conduct to
    "maintain professional competence."

    When the law is so elementary, as in this case, not to be aware of it constitutes gross ignorance thereof. Indeed,
    everyone is presumed to know the law. Ignorance of the law, which everyone is bound to know, excuses no one
    -- certainly not a judge.

    RESPONDENT IS FINED IN THE AMOUNT OF FIFTEEN THOUSAND PESOS (₱15,000), PAYABLE


    WITHIN FIVE DAYS FROM NOTICE. HE IS FURTHER WARNED THAT A REPETITION OF THIS OR
    SIMILAR OFFENSES WILL BE DEALT WITH EVEN MORE SEVERELY.

    You might also like