SECOND DIVISION

[A.M. No. RTJ-94-1131. August 20, 2001.]

MIGUEL ARGEL , complainant, vs . JUDGE HERMINIA M. PASCUA, RTC-

Br. 25, Vigan, Ilocos Sur , respondent.

SYNOPSIS

Complainant was acquitted by respondent judge from the crime of murder in a

decision dated July 22, 1993. On August 19, 1993; however, respondent reversed the
decision and convicted complainant. Respondent explained that she initially acquitted
complainant on the ground that there was no witness who positively identi ed
complainant as the perpetrator of the crime. But upon con rming that there was such
witness, respondent reversed her earlier decision and convicted complainant.
Respondent judge was found guilty of gross ignorance of the law. In criminal cases,
a judgment of acquittal is immediately final upon its promulgation. It cannot be recalled for
correction or amendment unless for exceptional reasons, nor withdrawn by another order
reconsidering the dismissal of the case. The inherent power of a court to modify its order
or decision does not extend to a Judgment of acquittal in a criminal case.

SYLLABUS

1. REMEDIAL LAW; CIVIL PROCEDURE; JUDGMENT; FINAL DECISION, ELUCIDATED.

— Too elementary is the rule that a decision once nal is no longer susceptible to
amendment or alteration except to correct errors which are clerical in nature, to clarify any
ambiguity caused by an omission or mistake in the dispositive portion, or to rectify a
travesty of justice brought about by a moro-moro or mock trial. A nal decision is the law
of the case and is immutable and unalterable regardless of any claim of error or
incorrectness.
2. ID.; CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL; ELUCIDATED. — In
criminal cases, a judgment of acquittal is immediately nal upon its promulgation. It
cannot be recalled for correction or amendment except in the cases already mentioned nor
withdrawn by another order reconsidering the dismissal of the case since the inherent
power of a court to modify its order or decision does not extend to a judgment of acquittal
in a criminal case.
3. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW; JUDGES GROSS IGNORANCE OF THE LAW; PRESENT
WHEN JUDGE REVERSED PROMULGATED JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL. — Complainant
herein was already acquitted of murder by respondent in a decision promulgated on 13
August 1993. The decision became nal and immutable on the same day. As a member of
the bench who is always admonished to be conversant with the latest legal and judicial
developments, more so of elementary rules, respondent should have known that she could
no longer "revise" her decision of acquittal without violating not only an elementary rule of
procedure but also the constitutional proscription against double jeopardy. When the law
is so elementary, not to know it constitutes gross ignorance of the law. The fact that
respondent never had any intention of having complainant incarcerated on the basis of the
second decision but only to make him answer for the civil liabilities arising from the crime,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 as respondent explained, cannot exculpate her from administrative liability. On the
contrary, such thinking on the part of respondent that she could still "revise" a promulgated
decision of acquittal even for such a purpose underscores, not mitigates, her gross
ignorance.
4. ID.; ID.; PREPARATION OF DECISION; JUDGES ADMONISHED TO TAKE NOTES. —
We cannot write finis to this case without also commenting on respondent's negligence in
the preparation of her decision. Judges have always been reminded to take down their
own notes of salient portions of hearings and not to rely on the transcripts of stenographic
notes. The pivotal testimony of Tito Retreta would not have been overlooked and
consequently disregarded had respondent prepared her own notes and read them as she
was supposed to.

RESOLUTION

BELLOSILLO , J : p

A.M. No. RTJ-94-1131 ( Miguel Argel v. Judge Herminia M. Pascua, RTC-Br. 25 , Vigan
Ilocos Sur). — This is an administrative complaint for Gross Ignorance of the Law led by
Miguel Argel against Judge Herminia M. Pascua, RTC-Br. 25, Vigan, Ilocos Sur. 1
Complainant alleged in his complaint that respondent Judge rendered a Decision
dated 19 August 1993 2 in Crim. Case No. 2999-V entitled People v. Miguel Argel
convicting him of murder notwithstanding the fact that he had already been previously
acquitted by respondent in her Decision 3 dated 22 July 1993, promulgated on 13 August
1993. Complainant contends that respondent Judge is guilty of gross ignorance of the law
and of violating his constitutional right against double jeopardy.AEDISC

In a letter-explanation dated 7 March 1994 respondent Judge alleged that she

rendered the judgment of acquittal dated 22 July 1993 because she erroneously thought
that there was no witness who positively identi ed the accused, herein complainant, as the
perpetrator of the crime. Her mistake was brought about by the fact that the testimony of
the eyewitness was not attached to the records at the time she wrote her decision.
However, when she re-read her notes after her attention was called by the lawyer of the
private complainant that there was such an eyewitness, respondent con rmed that there
was indeed one in the person of Tito Retreta. Hence she "revised" her previous decision
and rendered the Decision dated 19 August 1993 nding the accused guilty of murder.
Fully aware of her prior decision of acquittal, respondent nevertheless ordered the police
to bring complainant Argel to court not for the purpose of having him incarcerated but only
to inform him of her new decision so that he could be made to answer for his civil liabilities
arising from the crime. Before she could explain the matter to complainant, the latter's
brother already led a petition for habeas corpus before the Court of Appeals. 4 According
to respondent, she decided to await the hearing of the petition before setting complainant
free so that she could give him a copy of her new decision. 5
In his Reply to the letter-explanation of respondent, complainant additionally
charged respondent with gross negligence for not exercising extreme caution in the
preparation of her decision by making sure that all the transcripts of stenographic notes
were attached to the records before writing the decision. 6

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 In a Memorandum dated 11 May 2001 the O ce of the Court Administrator
recommended that respondent be fined P20,000.00 for gross ignorance of the law.
As stated earlier, complainant was accused of murder in Crim. Case No. 2999-V of
the RTC of Vigan, Ilocos Sur. On 13 August 1993 judgment was promulgated acquitting
him on the ground that there was no witness who positively identi ed him as the
perpetrator of the crime. However after respondent's attention was called by the private
complainant's counsel to the fact that there was such a witness and con rmed by
respondent upon re-reading her notes, she issued an Order dated 16 August 1993 stating
her intention to "revise" the previous judgment of acquittal, branded the same as "uncalled
for" and "not nal," and reset the case for another "rendering of the decision." 7 The reason
given was that the judgment of acquittal was rendered without all the facts and
circumstances being brought to her attention.
Respondent Judge explained that the transcript of stenographic notes of the
testimony of eyewitness Tito Retreta was not attached to the records when she wrote her
decision. Thus, in a Decision dated 19 August 1993, respondent Judge declared herein
complainant Miguel Argel guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder on the basis of the
eyewitness account of Tito Retreta, sentenced complainant Argel to seventeen (17) years,
four (4) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua, and to pay
the heirs of the victim P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P60,000.00 for actual damages.
Too elementary is the rule that a decision once nal is no longer susceptible to
amendment or alteration except to correct errors which are clerical in nature, 8 to clarify
any ambiguity caused by an omission or mistake in the dispositive portion, 9 or to rectify a
travesty of justice brought about by a moro-moro or mock trial. 1 0 A nal decision is the
law of the case and is immutable and unalterable regardless of any claim of error or
incorrectness. 1 1
In criminal cases, a judgment of acquittal is immediately nal upon its promulgation.
12 It cannot be recalled for correction or amendment 1 3 except in the cases already
mentioned nor withdrawn by another order reconsidering the dismissal of the case since
the inherent power of a court to modify its order or decision does not extend to a
judgment of acquittal in a criminal case. 1 4C HIaTc

Complainant herein was already acquitted of murder by respondent in a decision

promulgated on 13 August 1993. Applying the aforestated rule, the decision became nal
and immutable on the same day. As a member of the bench who is always admonished to
be conversant with the latest legal and judicial developments, more so of elementary rules,
respondent should have known that she could no longer "revise" her decision of acquittal
without violating not only an elementary rule of procedure but also the constitutional
proscription against double jeopardy. When the law is so elementary, not to know it
constitutes gross ignorance of the law. 1 5
The fact that respondent never had any intention of having complainant incarcerated
on the basis of the second decision but only to make him answer for the civil liabilities
arising from the crime, as respondent explained, cannot exculpate her from administrative
liability. On the contrary, such thinking on the part of respondent that she could still "revise"
a promulgated decision of acquittal even for such a purpose underscores, not mitigates,
her gross ignorance.
We cannot write nis to this case without also commenting on respondent's
negligence in the preparation of her decision. Judges have always been reminded to take
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 down their own notes of salient portions of hearings and not to rely on the transcripts of
stenographic notes. The pivotal testimony of Tito Retreta would not have been overlooked
and consequently disregarded had respondent prepared her own notes and read them as
she was supposed to.
WHEREFORE, for Gross Ignorance of the Law respondent Judge Herminia M.
Pascua, RTC-Br. 25, Vigan, Ilocos Sur, is FINED P20,000.00, the same to be deducted from
her retirement bene ts. Since respondent has already compulsorily retired as of 18
September 1998, let her retirement bene ts be immediately released to her minus the
amount of P20,000.00 herein imposed on her as fine.
SO ORDERED.
Mendoza, Quisumbing, Buena and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.

Footnotes
1. Respondent Judge compulsorily retired on 18 September 1998.
2. Rollo, pp. 12-20.

3. Id., pp. 4-9.

4. Docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 32060. Complainant was eventually ordered released in an Order
dated 4 October 1993 of Executive Judge Efren O. Ramos, RTC, Vigan, Ilocos Sur, who
heard and decided the petition per Resolution dated 20 September 1993 of the Court of
Appeals.
5. Rollo, pp. 50-51.

6. Id., p. 54-55
7. Id., pp. 10-11.
8. Yu v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. Nos. 111810-11, 16 June 1995, 245 SCRA
134.
9. Hiyas Savings and Loan Bank v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 95625, 4 October 1991, 202
SCRA 543.
10. Galman v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 72670, 12 September 1986, 144 SCRA 43.

11. Buaya v. Stronghold Insurance Co., Inc., G.R. No. 139020, 11 October 2000.
12. Regalado, Florenz, Remedial Law Compendium, Vol. II, Seventh Rev. Ed., p. 453 citing
People v. Sison, 105 Phil. 1249 (1959).
13. People v. Sison, 105 Phil 1249 (1959).
14. Catilo v. Abaya, 94 Phil. 1014 (1954).

15. Cortes v. Agcaoili, A.M. No. RTJ-98-1414, 20 August 1998, 294 SCRA 423.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com