This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2006-07-27 |
|||||
| To constitute gross ignorance of the law, it is not enough that the subject decision, order or actuation of the judge in the performance of his official duties is contrary to existing law and jurisprudence but, most importantly, he must be moved by bad faith, fraud, dishonesty, or corruption.[25] Good faith and absence of malice, corrupt motives or improper considerations, are sufficient defenses in which a judge charged with ignorance of the law can find refuge.[26] In this case, we are convinced that respondent conducted the PI and the subsequent issuance of the warrants of arrest in clean conscience, in good faith and in accordance with law, jurisprudence, rules and procedures. | |||||