AM 604; (February, 1981) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.M. No. 604-CFI February 20, 1981
TEOFILO A. HUMILDE, RODOLFO R. AQUINO, and SANTOS B. ARREOLA, complainants, vs. JUDGE MAGNO B. PABLO of the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, respondent.
FACTS
Complainants, two fiscals and a practicing lawyer, denounced respondent Judge Magno B. Pablo for erroneous impositions of penalties in two criminal cases. In People vs. Bustamante (Criminal Case No. 161-A), Judge Pablo sentenced the accused to an indeterminate penalty ranging from four years, two months, and one day of prision correccional as minimum to eight years of prision mayor as maximum. He further ordered the accused to suffer subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency without specifying the associated pecuniary liability.
In People vs. Apolonio Tazal (Criminal Case No. L-122-A), the judge imposed an indeterminate penalty of two months and one day as minimum to four months of arresto mayor as maximum. This application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law was fundamentally flawed, as the law explicitly excludes offenses where the maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed one year.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Judge Magno B. Pablo is administratively liable for his errors in applying the Revised Penal Code and the Indeterminate Sentence Law.
RULING
Yes, the respondent Judge is administratively liable. The Supreme Court found the errors to be elementary and inexcusable. In the Bustamante case, the imposition of subsidiary imprisonment was legally erroneous on two grounds. First, under Article 39(3) of the Revised Penal Code, no subsidiary imprisonment shall be imposed when the principal penalty is higher than prision correccional. The penalty imposed included prision mayor, which is higher. Second, Republic Act No. 5465, which amended Article 39, limits subsidiary imprisonment to non-payment of a fine, not for civil liability, and the judge failed to specify the basis for the subsidiary penalty.
In the Tazal case, the application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law was a clear misreading of Section 2 of Act No. 4103 , which prohibits its application where the maximum imprisonment is one year or less. The four-month maximum in this case fell squarely under this exclusion. The Court rejected the judge’s plea of good faith, emphasizing that his prior experience as an assistant provincial fiscal made such basic legal lapses even more deplorable. Consequently, Judge Pablo was severely censured, fined an amount equivalent to one month’s salary, and warned of more severe sanctions for future infractions.