Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 2K views

    Padilla vs. Dizon

    Uploaded by

    Paolo Adalem
    Judge Dizon acquitted an individual, Lo Chi Fai, who was caught attempting to smuggle over $355,000 out of the country without declaring it as required by Central Bank regulations. Padilla, the Commissioner of Customs, filed an administrative complaint arguing the acquittal was due to Judge Dizon's gross incompetence or ignorance of the law. The Supreme Court agreed, finding that intent is not required for crimes defined by special laws, and Judge Dizon's story for the acquittal was unbelievable, demonstrating he did not render the decision in good faith

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Padilla vs. Dizon

    Uploaded by

    Paolo Adalem
    2K views2 pages
    Judge Dizon acquitted an individual, Lo Chi Fai, who was caught attempting to smuggle over $355,000 out of the country without declaring it as required by Central Bank regulations. Padilla, the Commissioner of Customs, filed an administrative complaint arguing the acquittal was due to Judge Dizon's gross incompetence or ignorance of the law. The Supreme Court agreed, finding that intent is not required for crimes defined by special laws, and Judge Dizon's story for the acquittal was unbelievable, demonstrating he did not render the decision in good faith

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Judge Dizon acquitted an individual, Lo Chi Fai, who was caught attempting to smuggle over $355,000 out of the country without declaring it as required by Central Bank regulations. Padilla, the Commissioner of Customs, filed an administrative complaint arguing the acquittal was due to Judge Dizon's gross incompetence or ignorance of the law. The Supreme Court agreed, finding that intent is not required for crimes defined by special laws, and Judge Dizon's story for the acquittal was unbelievable, demonstrating he did not render the decision in good faith

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    2K views2 pages

    Padilla vs. Dizon

    Uploaded by

    Paolo Adalem
    Judge Dizon acquitted an individual, Lo Chi Fai, who was caught attempting to smuggle over $355,000 out of the country without declaring it as required by Central Bank regulations. Padilla, the Commissioner of Customs, filed an administrative complaint arguing the acquittal was due to Judge Dizon's gross incompetence or ignorance of the law. The Supreme Court agreed, finding that intent is not required for crimes defined by special laws, and Judge Dizon's story for the acquittal was unbelievable, demonstrating he did not render the decision in good faith

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    PADILLA VS. DIZON Feb. 23, 1988 Complainant: Alexander Padilla Respondent: Hon. Baltazar R.

    Dizon, Presiding judge of the RTC of Pasay city. Subject: Crimes Mala Prohibita (Crimes Defined and Penalized by Special Laws) Nature: Administrative Complaint in the Supreme Court. Facts: A tourist, Lo Chi Fai, was caught by Customs guard at the Manila international Airport while attempting to smuggle foreign currency and foreign exchange instruments out of the country, at time of apprehension, he was found carrying with him foreign currency and foreign exchange instruments (360) amounting to US$ 355,349.57 where he failed to declare in the form prescribed by Central bank upon his arrival in the Philippines. Information was filed against the accused Lo Chi Fai with the RTC of Pasay city for violation of Sec. 6, Central Bank Circular no. 960 where Respondent judge presided. No person shall take out or transmit or attempt to take out or transmit foreign exchange in any form, out of the Philippines directly....... tourist and non-resident temporary visitors bringing with them more than US$ 3,000.00 shall declare their foreign exchange in the form prescribed by the Central Bank at points of entries upon arrival in the Philippines (CB Circular no. 960 sec. 6) Alexander Padilla, Commissioner of Customs, filed an Administrative complaint dated August 6, 1987 against Respondent Judge Baltazar R. Dizon for rendering a manifestly erroneous decision due at the very least, to gross incompetence and gross ignorance of the law, in Criminal case entitled People vs. Lo Chi Fai (no. 8610126-P). Acquitting said accused for violation of Central Bank circular no. 960 sec 6. The acquittal according to him is based on: (1) No deliberate intent, there must be a clear intention to violate the law in order for the accused to be prosecuted. (2) Money brought by the accused is for the purpose of investing in some undefined business ventures and that the reason why the accused ought to export the money is because of the fear that the Attempted Revolution might spread. Furthermore, respondent Judge Alleged that he rendered his decision in good faith.

    Issue: Whether or not the respondent judge is guilty of gross incompetence or gross ignorance of the law rendering the decision in question.

    Held: Yes, the proof of malice or deliberate intent is not essential in offenses punished by special laws, which are Mala Prohibita. Thus, in requiring proof of malice, the respondent judge has by his gross ignorance allowed the accused to go scot free. A judge cannot be held to account or answer, criminally, civilly or administratively, for an erroneous decision rendered by him in good faith. But these circumstances which make the story invented by the accused as palpably unbelievable as to render the findings of the respondent judge obviously contrived to favor the acquittal of the accused, thereby clearly negating his claim that he rendered the decision in good faith. The court finds the Respondent Judge Baltazar Dizon guilty of gross incompetence, ignorance of the law. The court thereby ordered that the Respondent Judge be Dismissed from the Service.

    You might also like