Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 40 views

    Dante Vicente vs. Judge Jose S. Majaducon

    Uploaded by

    Kim Loue Floro
    Judge Jose S. Majaducon granted bail to Evelyn Te, who was serving a sentence for violating the Bouncing Checks Law, which contradicted rules prohibiting bail after a final judgment unless probation is sought. The Office of the Court Administrator found Judge Majaducon guilty of gross ignorance of the law and recommended a fine of P20,000, which the Supreme Court increased to P40,000 and ordered deducted from his retirement benefits.

    Copyright:

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

    Dante Vicente vs. Judge Jose S. Majaducon

    Uploaded by

    Kim Loue Floro
    40 views2 pages
    Judge Jose S. Majaducon granted bail to Evelyn Te, who was serving a sentence for violating the Bouncing Checks Law, which contradicted rules prohibiting bail after a final judgment unless probation is sought. The Office of the Court Administrator found Judge Majaducon guilty of gross ignorance of the law and recommended a fine of P20,000, which the Supreme Court increased to P40,000 and ordered deducted from his retirement benefits.

    Original Title

    DANTE VICENTE VS. JUDGE JOSE S. MAJADUCON

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Judge Jose S. Majaducon granted bail to Evelyn Te, who was serving a sentence for violating the Bouncing Checks Law, which contradicted rules prohibiting bail after a final judgment unless probation is sought. The Office of the Court Administrator found Judge Majaducon guilty of gross ignorance of the law and recommended a fine of P20,000, which the Supreme Court increased to P40,000 and ordered deducted from his retirement benefits.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    40 views2 pages

    Dante Vicente vs. Judge Jose S. Majaducon

    Uploaded by

    Kim Loue Floro
    Judge Jose S. Majaducon granted bail to Evelyn Te, who was serving a sentence for violating the Bouncing Checks Law, which contradicted rules prohibiting bail after a final judgment unless probation is sought. The Office of the Court Administrator found Judge Majaducon guilty of gross ignorance of the law and recommended a fine of P20,000, which the Supreme Court increased to P40,000 and ordered deducted from his retirement benefits.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    Dante Vicente Vs. Judge Jose S.

    Majaducon
    A.M. NO. RTJ-02-1698. June 23, 2005

    Narrative of the Case (BAIL)

    The complaint against Judge Jose S. Majaducon involved his actions regarding
    Evelyn Te, who was serving a sentence for violating Bouncing Checks Law. Te sought
    various reliefs, including bail, citing different legal grounds. The court allowed her
    release on bail despite her serving a sentence, citing Rule 102, Sec. 14, which only
    applies to those restrained due to a criminal charge, not serving a sentence from a
    final judgment. This contradicted Rule 114, Section 24, prohibiting bail after a final
    judgment, except when probation is sought before commencing the sentence. Te
    didn't apply for probation, rendering her ineligible for bail.

    The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found Judge Majaducon guilty of gross
    ignorance of the law and recommended a fine of P20,000. The Supreme Court agreed
    with the finding but imposed a P40,000 fine, considering the serious charge and prior
    fines in related cases. Despite retirement, the court ordered the deduction from his
    retirement benefits due to pending administrative cases.

    FACTS:

    1. July 21, 2000


    - Dante Vicente files a complaint against Judge Jose S. Majaducon, accusing
    him of various offenses related to Evelyn Te's case.
    2. Series of Events Involving Evelyn Te:
    - Te was convicted of B.P. Blg. 22 (Bouncing Checks Law) violations and sentenced
    to imprisonment.
    - Te seeks clarification on serving sentences successively or simultaneously.
    - Trial court clarifies the sentence, reducing it due to humanitarian reasons.
    - Te files motions for reconsideration and habeas corpus.
    - Trial court grants Te bail despite her serving a final judgment.
    3. Media Uproar and Retaliation
    - Local media criticizes Judge Majaducon's actions.
    - Judge cites a group of journalists for indirect contempt due to a critical article.
    4. Judge's Response to Complaint
    - Judge defends his decisions, citing discretion, and justifying actions based on legal
    reasoning.
    5. Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) Report
    - OCA confirms the cases forwarded to the Supreme Court.
    - The Supreme Court returns the cases to the RTC, disagreeing with the trial court's
    actions.
    6. Findings and Court Decision
    - Judge found guilty of gross ignorance of the law.
    - Recommended a fine of P20,000.00, but the judge retired before the decision.
    7. Penalty Imposition
    - Judge retired upon reaching the compulsory age.
    - Imposition of a fine of P40,000.00 deducted from retirement benefits due to pending
    administrative cases.

    ISSUE:
    Whether or not the judge acted properly in granting bail?

    RULING:
    No.
    Rule 102, Sec. 14 pertains to bail provisions for individuals restrained due to criminal
    charges, not those serving a sentence from a final judgment. It disallows the writ where
    someone is 'suffering imprisonment under lawful judgment.' The certification of cases under
    this rule is for instances where the applicant faces a noncapital offense in another court.

    Section 24, Rule 114 prohibits bail after a final judgment and when the convict begins
    serving a sentence, except if probation is applied for before serving the sentence, which
    didn't happen in Te's case. Judge Majaducon's claim of discretion under Section 14, Rule
    102 doesn't apply as it's meant for cases where the person seeks habeas corpus due to a
    criminal charge, not serving a sentence from a final judgment.

    You might also like