Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 33 views

    Digest People Gacott

    Uploaded by

    Jappy Alon
    1) Judge Gacott granted a motion to quash a criminal case without carefully reviewing relevant laws like PD No. 1, LOI No. 2, and PD No. 1275, which showed gross ignorance of the law. 2) The Supreme Court ruled that Judge Gacott exhibited inexcusable neglect of his duty to take judicial notice of applicable laws, not just rely on the prosecution. 3) However, the Court also acknowledged that not all legal errors merit censure, but Judge Gacott's error was so easily avoidable and undermined public perception of the court's competence.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Digest People Gacott

    Uploaded by

    Jappy Alon
    33 views1 page
    1) Judge Gacott granted a motion to quash a criminal case without carefully reviewing relevant laws like PD No. 1, LOI No. 2, and PD No. 1275, which showed gross ignorance of the law. 2) The Supreme Court ruled that Judge Gacott exhibited inexcusable neglect of his duty to take judicial notice of applicable laws, not just rely on the prosecution. 3) However, the Court also acknowledged that not all legal errors merit censure, but Judge Gacott's error was so easily avoidable and undermined public perception of the court's competence.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Digest_People_Gacott

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Judge Gacott granted a motion to quash a criminal case without carefully reviewing relevant laws like PD No. 1, LOI No. 2, and PD No. 1275, which showed gross ignorance of the law. 2) The Supreme Court ruled that Judge Gacott exhibited inexcusable neglect of his duty to take judicial notice of applicable laws, not just rely on the prosecution. 3) However, the Court also acknowledged that not all legal errors merit censure, but Judge Gacott's error was so easily avoidable and undermined public perception of the court's competence.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    33 views1 page

    Digest People Gacott

    Uploaded by

    Jappy Alon
    1) Judge Gacott granted a motion to quash a criminal case without carefully reviewing relevant laws like PD No. 1, LOI No. 2, and PD No. 1275, which showed gross ignorance of the law. 2) The Supreme Court ruled that Judge Gacott exhibited inexcusable neglect of his duty to take judicial notice of applicable laws, not just rely on the prosecution. 3) However, the Court also acknowledged that not all legal errors merit censure, but Judge Gacott's error was so easily avoidable and undermined public perception of the court's competence.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    People vs Gacott CANON 5 - a lawyer shall keep abreast of legal developments, participate in

    continuing legal education programs, support efforts to achieve high


    Nature: This is a case filed against Judge Gacott for gross ignorance of the
    standards in law schools as well as in the practical training of law students
    law, which the latter had filed a motion for reconsideration.
    and assist in disseminating the law and jurisprudence.
    Facts: The antecedent facts are as follows: the respondent judge granted a
    As per the constitutional basis of his argument, specifically Article VIII
    motion to quash a previous criminal case docketed in his court. The error
    Section 11, the court held that there are two situations envisaged by this
    committed was the dismissing of such case without careful perusal or even
    provision. First (1) is is the declaration of the grant of that disciplinary
    mild perusal of PD No.1, LOI No.2, and PD No. 1275. The respondent judge
    power to, and the determination of the procedure in the exercise thereof
    did not read the test of the cited LOI by prosecution. If he had merely read
    by, the court en banc. Second (2), which is the one applicable to this case
    it, then he would have acknowledge the validity of the argument proposed
    “order their dismissal by a vote of a majority of the members who actually
    by the prosecution. The respondent judge pleaded to this court to take all
    took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case voted therein”. It is
    kind consideration for the penalty he would receive, and not to have his
    to be noted that the constitution allows the court to decide on cases in
    record stained by this error he committed as this would hinder his chances
    divisions of 7, 5, or 3, hence the second version applies. Furthermore, Bar
    of promotion in the judiciary in the future. He argues that the responsibility
    Matter No. 209 laid down by the Supreme Court considers the dismissal of a
    for the decision he made in that criminal case was due to the neglect of the
    judge, officer, or employee of the judiciary, or suspending them for more
    prosecution for not being able to argue with the current existing laws
    than 1 year or a fine exceeding 10,000 or both are to be decided en banc.
    applicable, and that even so, he furthers that Article VIII Section 11 requires
    However, such is not the case.
    that dismissal or to the discipline of judges of lower courts are to be done
    en banc by the Supreme Court.

    Issue: Whether or not the judge exhibited gross ignorance of the law?

    Held: Yes, the court held that the respondent Judge’s utter inexcusable
    neglect to check the citations of the prosecution is the mistaken belief that
    the duty to inform the court on the applicable law to a particular case
    devolves solely upon the prosecution or whoever may be the advocate
    before the court. The court furthers that judges are duty bound to take
    judicial notice of all the laws of the land (Sec 1, Rule 129 of the ROC).
    However, the court also said that they are fully aware that not every error
    or mistake of a judge in the performance of his duties is subject to censure.
    But the error in this case could have been easily avoided were it not for his
    irresponsibility in the performance of his duties. This error is not merely a
    simple error, but one amounting to gross ignorance of the law which could
    easily undermine the public’s perception of the court’s competence.
    Although the court did not cite Canon 5, it is still, however, applicable to this
    case for Canon 5 of the Code of Professional Responsibility

    You might also like