Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 32 views

    Judge PEDRO B. CABATINGAN SR. (Ret.) v. Judge CELSO A. ARCUENO

    Uploaded by

    zac
    Judge Celso Arcueno refused to accept a bail bond posted by an accused, Benito Bucado, claiming he lost jurisdiction after forwarding the case file for review. However, Section 17 of Rule 114 allows any person in custody and not yet charged to apply for bail with the court in the area they are being held. As Benito Bucado was arrested in Judge Arcueno's municipality, he had authority to grant bail. Even after transmitting the file, Judge Arcueno could have approved the bail bond. By not knowing this elementary law, Judge Arcueno was guilty of gross ignorance of the law, as ignorance is no excuse, especially for a judge.

    Copyright:

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

    Judge PEDRO B. CABATINGAN SR. (Ret.) v. Judge CELSO A. ARCUENO

    Uploaded by

    zac
    32 views1 page
    Judge Celso Arcueno refused to accept a bail bond posted by an accused, Benito Bucado, claiming he lost jurisdiction after forwarding the case file for review. However, Section 17 of Rule 114 allows any person in custody and not yet charged to apply for bail with the court in the area they are being held. As Benito Bucado was arrested in Judge Arcueno's municipality, he had authority to grant bail. Even after transmitting the file, Judge Arcueno could have approved the bail bond. By not knowing this elementary law, Judge Arcueno was guilty of gross ignorance of the law, as ignorance is no excuse, especially for a judge.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Judge Celso Arcueno refused to accept a bail bond posted by an accused, Benito Bucado, claiming he lost jurisdiction after forwarding the case file for review. However, Section 17 of Rule 114 allows any person in custody and not yet charged to apply for bail with the court in the area they are being held. As Benito Bucado was arrested in Judge Arcueno's municipality, he had authority to grant bail. Even after transmitting the file, Judge Arcueno could have approved the bail bond. By not knowing this elementary law, Judge Arcueno was guilty of gross ignorance of the law, as ignorance is no excuse, especially for a judge.

    Copyright:

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

    Judge PEDRO B. CABATINGAN SR. (Ret.) v. Judge CELSO A. ARCUENO

    Uploaded by

    zac
    Judge Celso Arcueno refused to accept a bail bond posted by an accused, Benito Bucado, claiming he lost jurisdiction after forwarding the case file for review. However, Section 17 of Rule 114 allows any person in custody and not yet charged to apply for bail with the court in the area they are being held. As Benito Bucado was arrested in Judge Arcueno's municipality, he had authority to grant bail. Even after transmitting the file, Judge Arcueno could have approved the bail bond. By not knowing this elementary law, Judge Arcueno was guilty of gross ignorance of the law, as ignorance is no excuse, especially for a judge.

    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

    IGNORANCE OF THE LAW

    Judge PEDRO B. CABATINGAN SR. v. Judge CELSO A. ARCUENO

    A.M. No. MTJ-00-1323, August 22, 2002


    PANGANIBAN, J.:

    DOCTRINE:

    Ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith.


    FACTS:

    Petitioner Judge Pedro Cabatingan Sr filed a sworn Administrative Complaint


    against respondent Judge Celso Arcueno for gross ignorance of the law. Judge
    Cabatingin alleged that the latter violated Section 17, Rule 114 of the Rules of
    Court, for refusing to accept the bail bond posted by the accused Benito
    Bucado. Judge Arcueno, initially, contended that he had lost jurisdiction over
    the case after forwarding for review the records thereof to the Office of the
    Assistant Provincial Prosecutor. But in his Manifestation with Motion to Dismiss,
    he explained that he refused the bail because the complainant grossly and
    seriously violated Section 10 of Rule 114 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal
    Procedure.
    ISSUE:

    Whether or not Judge Arcueno guilty of gross ignorance of the law for refusing
    to accept the bail bond
    RULING:

    Yes. Section 17, paragraph (c) of Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Court states
    that any person in custody who is not yet charged in court may apply for bail
    with any court in the province, city or municipality where he is held. In the case
    at bar, Benito Bucado was arrested in the Municipality of Cataingan after a
    preliminary investigation conducted by Judge Arcueno. 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.
    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. Hence, Judge Arcueno is GUILTY of gross ignorance of the
    law.

    You might also like