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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 20 views

    74.) Gallo vs. Cordero 245 SCRA 219

    Uploaded by

    Darryl Catalan
    This case involves a complaint filed against Judge Jose Cordero for impropriety in handling a criminal case of anti-squatting. The complainant alleged that the judge met privately with the four accused persons and told the complainant that the accused could not be ejected from the land under the law. The judge was confused about the legal issues in the case but failed to properly dismiss the criminal complaint. He also opened himself to bias by meeting privately with the accused without the complainant present. The court held that the judge showed gross ignorance of law and failed to appear impartial.

    Copyright:

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

    74.) Gallo vs. Cordero 245 SCRA 219

    Uploaded by

    Darryl Catalan
    20 views2 pages
    This case involves a complaint filed against Judge Jose Cordero for impropriety in handling a criminal case of anti-squatting. The complainant alleged that the judge met privately with the four accused persons and told the complainant that the accused could not be ejected from the land under the law. The judge was confused about the legal issues in the case but failed to properly dismiss the criminal complaint. He also opened himself to bias by meeting privately with the accused without the complainant present. The court held that the judge showed gross ignorance of law and failed to appear impartial.

    Original Description:

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a complaint filed against Judge Jose Cordero for impropriety in handling a criminal case of anti-squatting. The complainant alleged that the judge met privately with the four accused persons and told the complainant that the accused could not be ejected from the land under the law. The judge was confused about the legal issues in the case but failed to properly dismiss the criminal complaint. He also opened himself to bias by meeting privately with the accused without the complainant present. The court held that the judge showed gross ignorance of law and failed to appear impartial.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    20 views2 pages

    74.) Gallo vs. Cordero 245 SCRA 219

    Uploaded by

    Darryl Catalan
    This case involves a complaint filed against Judge Jose Cordero for impropriety in handling a criminal case of anti-squatting. The complainant alleged that the judge met privately with the four accused persons and told the complainant that the accused could not be ejected from the land under the law. The judge was confused about the legal issues in the case but failed to properly dismiss the criminal complaint. He also opened himself to bias by meeting privately with the accused without the complainant present. The court held that the judge showed gross ignorance of law and failed to appear impartial.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Gallo vs.

    Cordero 245 SCRA 219

    Facts of the case:

    The complaint is made connection with Criminal Case "People v. Cristuto Barreta" which complainant
    filed in respondent judge's court for violation of P.D. No. 772, otherwise known as the Anti-Squatting
    Law. The criminal complaint alleged that several years ago, at Barangay Bagong Silang, municipality of
    Babatñgon, Leyte, the accused in the case, all taking advantage of the absence or tolerance of the land
    owners succeeded in occupying and possessing certain portions of the property of the latter against their
    will for residential and small farming purposes, and have refused to vacate the property despite demands.
    On August 26, 1994, respondent issued a subpoena to complainant requiring him to appear and to testify
    regarding his affidavit and to bring with him documents attesting to his ownership of the land.
    Complainant appeared as directed and his affidavit states:

    That on August 30, 1994 I saw Honorable Judge Jose Cordero in his office, having been summoned to
    appear before him on that day; That he then asked me if I have papers of ownership of land, such as tax
    declaration, and I said yes but did not bring them as this was no trial; and besides, he already had the
    records submitted by the chief of police; That since he insisted on seeing our tax declaration, with his
    permission I secured a certified copy of the tax declaration of land in Bagong Silang, and gave it to him;
    and noting the area to be 21 hectares the Judge commented that ours is quite a big tract of land; That
    when I asked the Judge if the accused have already been arrested, he said No; so I said, what about this
    case of ours? And he asked what I really wanted. When I said I want them ejected from our land the
    Judge said: "No, you cannot eject tenants now under the law." I countered that the four accused are not
    tenants, but the Judge said, "Even then, nobody can eject them."

    The following day, according to complainant, his son Roger Gallo went to respondent's office to deliver
    his letter in which he inquired from the judge whether he had already issued a warrant of arrest against the
    accused; that upon entering the office, Roger saw respondent conversing with the accused in the criminal
    case.

    Issue:

    Whether respondent judge committed impropriety.

    Held:

    It would thus appear that respondent was confused about what to do. He says in his comment that he
    found the criminal complaint to be insufficient because it does not state the time of commission of the
    offense and the name of the offended party. He also contends that it does not charge an offense because in
    accordance with the ruling in People v. Echaves, the offense punished under P.D. No. 772 is committed
    only in urban communities, although in Jumawan v. Eviota 10 we overruled People v. Echaves and held
    that what is punished by the law is squatting on land which is used for residential, commercial or other
    purposes. Be that as it may, however, what respondent should have done was to dismiss the criminal case.
    The fact, however, is that he did not dismiss the complaint; neither did he, on the other hand, order the
    arrest of the accused in that case. Respondent judge also opened himself to charges of partiality and bias
    by meeting privately with the four accused. He says that he merely wanted to apprise them of their
    constitutional right. Whatever his purpose was, it was improper for respondent judge to meet them
    without the presence of complainant. Thus, respondent judge not only has shown gross ignorance of law
    and procedure but has also failed to live up to the norm that "judges should not only be impartial but
    should also appear impartial."

    You might also like