This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2014-03-19 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| The firearm, then in the custody of Branch 2 of the MTCC, would have been evidence in Criminal Case No. 34412 to prove the charge of illegal possession of a firearm and its ammunitions, but its being offered as evidence did not ultimately come to pass because of the intervening quashal of the information on October 5, 2005 upon the motion of Canlas. Being unoffered evidence, the firearm had to be properly disposed of thereafter either by the Office of the City Prosecutor of Laoag City, whose evidence the firearm was supposed to be offered in court, or by the PNP, the agency expressly authorized by law to take custody of the firearm. Under SC Circular 47-98, supra, which was a substantial reiteration of SC Circular 2 dated May 13, 1983,[20] Judge Asuncion and his clerk of court in Branch 2 had the ministerial duty and the primary responsibility to turn over the firearm to the proper office of the PNP (i.e., FESAGS) because it would no longer be needed as evidence upon the dismissal of Criminal Case No. 34412. A ministerial duty or function is one that an officer or tribunal performs in the context of a given set of facts, in a prescribed manner and without regard to the exercise of judgment upon the propriety or impropriety of the act to be done.[21] However, on April 11, 2006, Judge Asuncion denied the motion filed on January 16, 2006 by the Office of the City Prosecutor of Laoag City seeking the turnover of the firearm to the PNP. | |||||
|
2013-11-26 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| In this case, respondent failed to comply with the prescribed procedure. His admitted act of receiving P20,000 for expenses to be incurred in the execution of the writ on April 27, 2006[35] as evidenced by a mere handwritten receipt, without having made an estimate and without securing prior approval of the court, is a violation of the above rules. Respondent's explanation that he merely received the P20,000 because complainant was very insistent to implement the Alias Writ, is not acceptable. The rules are clear. Respondent should not have received any money from complainant without first providing an estimate of the expenses to be incurred and submitting the same for approval of the court.[36] He did not even advise complainant that he was not authorized to receive any amount from her and that the money for expenses should be deposited with the OCC.[37] Neither does it appear that he deposited the amount with the Clerk of Court and Ex officio Sheriff. In fact, the money which respondent had demanded and received from complainant was not among those prescribed and authorized by the Rules of Court as it was not even accounted for earlier in his Manifestation. He merely reported his receipt of the P20,000 in his liquidation of expenses only after complainant demanded an accounting and in compliance to Judge Contreras' directive. This Court has ruled that any amount received by the sheriff in excess of the lawful fees allowed by the Rules of Court is an unlawful exaction and renders him liable for grave misconduct and gross dishonesty.[38] | |||||
|
2007-02-06 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| A respondent is said to be exercising judicial function where he has the power to determine what the law is and what the legal rights of the parties are, and then undertakes to determine these questions and adjudicate upon the rights of the parties.[26] Quasi-judicial function is a term which applies to the action, discretion, etc., of public administrative officers or bodies, who are required to investigate facts or ascertain the existence of facts, hold hearings, and draw conclusions from them as a basis for their official action and to exercise discretion of a judicial nature.[27] Ministerial function is one which an officer or tribunal performs in the context of a given set of facts, in a prescribed manner and without regard to the exercise of his own judgment upon the propriety or impropriety of the act done.[28] | |||||