This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2005-01-31 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The acts of a judge which pertain to his judicial functions are not subject to disciplinary power unless they are committed with fraud, dishonesty, corruption or bad faith.[16] As a matter of policy, in the absence of fraud, dishonesty or corruption, the acts of a judge in his judicial capacity are not subject to disciplinary action even though such acts are erroneous.[17] Otherwise, a judicial office would be untenable, for "no one called upon to try the facts or interpret the law in the administration of justice can be infallible."[18] He cannot be subjected to liability - civil, criminal, or administrative - for any of his official acts, no matter how erroneous, as long as he acts in good faith. In such a case, the remedy of the aggrieved party is not to file an administrative complaint against the judge but to elevate the error to the higher court for review and correction,[19] because an administrative complaint is not an appropriate remedy where judicial recourse is still available.[20] The court has to be shown acts or conduct of the judge clearly indicative of arbitrariness or prejudice before the latter can be branded the stigma of being biased and partial.[21] Not every error or mistake that a judge committed in the performance of his duties renders him liable, unless he is shown to have acted in bad faith or with deliberate intent to do an injustice.[22] Otherwise, perhaps, no judge, however competent, honest or dedicated he may be, can ever hope to retire from the judiciary with an unblemished record.[23] | |||||
|
2001-06-19 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Likewise, petitioners' insistence that the Ombudsman and the Sandiganbayan had lost jurisdiction over them after the initial dismissal of the charges against them is untenable. In the case of Abdula v. Guiani,[16] this Court held: With respect to the allegation that the respondent had no legal authority to order a reinvestigation of the criminal charge considering that the said charge had been previously dismissed as against them, we hold that respondent did not abuse his discretion in doing so.[17] It is not material either that no new matter or evidence was presented during the reinvestigation of the case. It should be stressed that reinvestigation, as the word itself implies, is merely a repeat investigation of the case. New matters or evidence are not prerequisites for a reinvestigation, which is simply a chance for the prosecutor, or in this case the Office of the Ombudsman, to review and re-evaluate its findings and the evidence already submitted. | |||||