8/10/2019 8_State Prosecutors v. Muro_Andres

1/1

STATE PROSECUTORS v. JUDGE MANUEL T. MURO

A.M. No. RTJ-92-876

19 September 1994

Aspects of the Proceedings (Sec. 1, Article III)

FACTS:

State Prosecutors, the complainants, filed an administrative case against respondent Judge

Manuel T. Muro on the ground of ignorance of the law, grave misconduct, and violations of the Code

of Judicial Conduct.

The complainants filed the case after respondent Judge dismissed eleven (11) cases submitted

by the state prosecutors against the accused Mrs. Imelda Romualdez Marcos for violation of Central

Bank Foreign Exchange Restrictions, as provided in CB Circular No. 960.

The complainants argued that the judge erroneously dismissed the eleven cases by basing his

Order on a mere newspaper report announcing that the President has lifted foreign exchange

restrictions purportedly repealing CB Circular No. 960. In dismissing the case, the complainantscontended, that the respondent judge violated the prosecutions right to due process, since they were

not even given the opportunity to submit evidence to prove their case.

On the other hand, the respondent judge averred that the Presidents announcement in the

newspaper has effectively repealed CB Circular No. 960 without need of any publication of the

repealing law, because the said announcement was total, absolute, without qualification, and was

immediately effective. This has therefore, as the judge claimed, deprived the court motu proprio of

jurisdiction of the said case, since the complainants raised a violation that was no longer prohibited by

law. And so, respondent judge ruled that the case against Mrs. Imelda Marcos has become moot and

academic.

With this, the complainants pursed the administrative case against the respondent judge.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the State Prosecutors were denied of due process

HELD:

Yes.

The mere fact that the state prosecutors were not given the opportunity to present evidence on

the matter through a written comment or oral argument is an act of blatant disregard of due process by

the respondent judge.

Speedy disposition of cases does not license a judge to exercise abuse of judicial power and

discretion, nor does it justify a deprivation of the prosecutions right to be heard. Whether or not thejudge clearly knew the factual circumstances of the case based on a newspaper report, it was still

imperative that the prosecution be allowed to at least show or prove that it had strong evidence of the

guilt of the accused. To do otherwise would be tantamount to deprivation of the prosecutions right

to due process.

As the Supreme Court rightly stressed, in order that bias may not be imputed to a judge, he

should have the patience and circumspection to give the opposing party a chance to present his

evidence even if he thinks that the oppositor's proofs might not be adequate to overthrow the case for

the other party. A display of petulance and impatience in the conduct of the trial is a norm of conduct

which is inconsistent with the "cold neutrality of an impartial judge."

Prepared by: Conrado I. Andres V of I-D