11/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 242

514 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Gacott, Jr.

*
G.R. No. 116049. March 20, 1995.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioners, vs. HON.

EUSTAQUIO Z. GACOTT, JR., Presiding Judge, RTC,
Branch 47, Puerto Princesa City, ARNE STROM and
GRACE REYES, respondents.

Special Proceedings; Certiorari; The error committed by

respondent judge in dismissing the case is quite obvious in the
light of P.D. No. 1, LOI No. 2 and P.D. No. 1275.—The error
committed by respondent judge in dismissing the case is quite
obvious in the light of P.D. No. 1, LOI No. 2 and P.D. No. 1275
aforementioned. The intent to abolish the Anti-Dummy Board
could not have been expressed more clearly than in the
aforequoted LOI. Even assuming that the City Fiscal of Puerto
Princesa failed to cite P.D. No. 1 in his opposition to the Motion to
Quash, a mere perusal of the text of LOI No. 2 would have
immediately apprised the respondent judge of the fact that LOI
No. 2 was issued in implementation of P.D. No. 1.

Same; Same; Presidential Decrees, such as P.D. No. 1, issued

by former President Marcos under his martial law powers have the
same force and effect as the laws enacted by Congress.—As
correctly observed by the Solicitor General, Presidential Decrees,
such as P.D. No. 1, issued by the former President Marcos under
his martial law powers have the same force and effect as the laws
enacted by Congress. As held by the Supreme Court in the case of
Aquino vs. Comelec, (62 SCRA 275 [1975]), all proclamations,
orders, decrees, instructions and acts promulgated, issued, or
done by the former President are part of the law of the land, and
shall remain valid, legal, binding, and effective, unless modified,
revoked or superseded by subsequent proclamations, orders,
decrees, instructions, or other acts of the President. LOI No. 2 is
one such legal order issued by former President Marcos in the
exercise of his martial law powers to implement P.D. No. 1.
Inasmuch as neither P.D. No. 1 nor LOI No. 2 has been expressly
or impliedly revised, revoked, or repealed, both continue to have
the force and effect of law.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016e6a0958d96baa996f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/10
11/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 242

Same; Same; Respondent judge should be reminded that

courts are duty bound to take judicial notice of all the laws of the
land.—But even more glaring than respondent judge’s utter
inexcusable neglect to check the citations of the prosecution is the
mistaken belief that the

_______________

* SECOND DIVISION.

515

VOL. 242, MARCH 20, 1995 515

People vs. Gacott, Jr.

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. Respondent judge should be reminded
that courts are duty bound to take judicial notice of all the laws of
the land (Sec. 1, Rule 129, Rules of Court). Being the trier of facts,
judges are presumed to be well-informed of the existing laws,
recent enactments and jurisprudence, in keeping with their sworn
duty as members of the bar (and bench) to keep abreast of legal
developments.

Same; Same; Court is fully aware that not every error or

mistake of a judge in the performance of his duties is subject to
censure.—The Court is fully aware that not every error or mistake
of a judge in the performance of his duties is subject to censure.
But where, as in the present case, the error could have been
entirely avoided were it not for public respondent’s
irresponsibility in the performance of his duties, it is but proper
that respondent judge be reprimanded and his order of dismissal
set aside for grave ignorance of the law. For, respondent judge’s
error is not a simple error in judgment but one amounting to
gross ignorance of the law which could easily undermine the
public’s perception of the court’s competence.

Same; Same; There is less than full compliance with the

demands of professional competence, if a member of a bar does not
keep himself abreast of the trend of authoritative pronouncement.
—The responsibility to keep abreast with the changes in the law
espoused in Canon 5 above is applicable with equal force to
counsel for private respondents, Atty. Elvira T. Bermejo who first

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016e6a0958d96baa996f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/10
11/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 242

raised the issue at hand before the trial court. By insisting upon
the authority of an already abolished Anti-Dummy Board, counsel
displayed blatant irresponsibility, not to mention ignorance of the
law. She should be reminded that “The law, (it is not to be
forgotten), is a progressive science. There is less than full
compliance with the demands of professional competence, if a
member of a bar does not keep himself abreast of the trend of
authoritative pronouncements.”

Same; Same; Counsel for private respondents failed to observe

the responsibility imposed upon members of the bar to keep abreast
with the developments of the law under Canon 5 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.—Undoubtedly, counsel for private
respondents failed to observe the responsibility imposed upon
members of the bar to keep abreast with the developments of the
law under Canon 5 of the Code of Professional Responsibility as
well as to exercise candor, fairness and good faith before the court
as prescribed by Canon 10 of the same Code, for which omissions,
she should likewise be reprimanded.

516

516 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Gacott, Jr.

SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court.

Certiorari.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

     The Solicitor General for petitioners.
          Bermejo, Gualberto and Naciongayo Law Office for
private respondents.

BIDIN, J.:

This special civil action for certiorari seeks to annul the

order dated March 18, 1994 of respondent judge, the Hon.
Eustaquio Z. Gacott, Jr. of the Regional Trial Court of
Puerto Princesa City, Branch 47, granting the Motion to
Quash filed by the accused, now herein respondents Arne
Strom and Grace A. Reyes in Criminal Case No. 11529 of
said court.
On February 2, 1994, a complaint (Criminal Case No.
11529) for violation of the Anti-Dummy Law (C.A. No. 108)
was filed by Asst. City Prosecutor Perfecto E. Pe against
respondents Strom and Reyes. The accused filed a Motion
to Quash/Dismiss the criminal case contending that since
the power to prosecute is vested exclusively in the Anti-
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016e6a0958d96baa996f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/10
11/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 242

Dummy Board under Republic Act No. 1130, the City

Prosecutor of Puerto Princesa has no power or authority to
file the same. The prosecution filed an opposition pointing
out that the Anti-Dummy Board has already been
abolished by Letter of Implementation No. 2, Series of
1972. Despite such opposition, however, respondent judge
granted the motion espousing the position that the Letter
of Implementation relied upon by the City Fiscal is not the
“law” contemplated in Article 7 of the New Civil Code
which can repeal another law such as R.A. 1130. Thus,
respondent judge in the assailed order of March 18, 1994
held as follows:

“WHEREFORE, in the light of all the foregoing facts and

consideration, as the City Prosecutor has no power or authority to
file and prosecute this case for reasons amply discussed above, the
Court hereby orders this case quashed in the interest of justice,
without costs” (Rollo, p. 27).
The prosecution filed a motion for reconsideration but
respondent judge denied the same in an order dated April 12,
1994, the pertinent portions of which are quoted hereunder:

517

VOL. 242, MARCH 20, 1995 517

People vs. Gacott, Jr.

“x x x. It may be ignorance of the law to insist that the law,

Republic Act 1130 was repealed or amended by Letter of
Instruction (sic) No. 2, Series of 1972 as what the City Prosecutor
has harped all along. A Letter of Instruction (sic) is not a law by
any standard and neither has it the force and effect of law. A
contrary contention would be violative of Article 7 of the New
Civil Code which provides that laws are repealed only by
subsequent ones, and of the Rules of Statutory Construction.
“Besides, penal statutes are strictly construed against the
State and liberally in favor of the accused. The rules in all
criminal prosecutions is that all doubts are resolved in favor of
the accused. In the case at bar, the Court seriously doubts that
the City Prosecutor has the power or the authority to investigate
violations of the Anti-Dummy Law and to file and prosecute cases
of this kind before our courts, as that is lodged with the Anti-
Dummy Board under R.A. 1130.
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Motion for
Reconsideration mentioned above is hereby denied for sheer lack
of merit, and the Order dated March 18, 1994 quashing this case
is maintained (Rollo, p. 5).

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016e6a0958d96baa996f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/10
11/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 242

Hence, the present petition.

After the filing of the comments by respondents, this
Court gave due course to the petition, in a resolution dated
October 24, 1994.
The only issue to be resolved in this case is whether or
not respondent judge in granting the Motion to Quash,
gravely abused his discretion as to warrant the issuance of
a writ of certiorari as prayed for by petitioners herein.
In resolving this issue, it must be recalled that
immediately after the proclamation of martial law, the late
President Ferdinand Marcos issued Presidential Decree
No. 1 to reorganize the entire Executive Branch of the
National Government. To carry out the intent of P.D. No.
1, various Letters of Implementation were issued from time
to time. It was in the course of this reorganization that
Letter of Implementation No. 2, Series of 1972 was issued
for the purpose of reorganizing certain agencies in the
Department of Justice. One such agency was the Anti-
Dummy Board which was abolished by the aforesaid LOI,
to wit:

“Anti-Dummy Board

“1. The investigation function of the Anti-Dummy Board shall

be absorbed by the National Bureau of Investigation, and
its prosecution

518

518 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Gacott, Jr.

function by the Prosecution Staff in the Department of

Justice and the various Provincial and City Fiscals. Its
corresponding appropriation, records, equipment,
property, and subordinate personnel are transferred to the
National Bureau of Investigation and the Prosecution
Staff in the Department of justice.
“2. The services of the present members of the Anti-Dummy
Board are hereby terminated.
“3. The Anti-Dummy Board shall cease to exist as of the date
hereof.”

“Done in the City of Manila, this 29th day of September in the

year of our Lord, nineteen hundred and seventy-two.” (italics
supplied)

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016e6a0958d96baa996f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/10
11/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 242

Later, P.D. No. 1275 was issued which reorganized the

entire prosecution system of the government with the
creation of the National Prosecution Service (NPS) under
the supervision and control of the Secretary of Justice,
tasked with the investigation and prosecution of all
violations of penal laws, including violation of C.A. No.
108, the Anti-Dummy Law.
In his Comment on the petition, respondent judge insists
that the dismissal of the case is supported by the law and
existing jurisprudence. Inasmuch as the City Prosecutor
relied mainly on LOI No. 2, which according to respondent
judge, is not even a law, the Anti-Dummy Board cannot be
considered as having been effectively abolished.
We reverse.
The error committed by respondent judge in dismissing
the case is quite obvious in the light of P.D. No. 1, LOI No.
2, and P.D. No. 1275 aforementioned. The intent to abolish
the Anti-Dummy Board could not have been expressed
more clearly than in the aforequoted LOI. Even assuming
that the City Fiscal of Puerto Princesa failed to cite P.D.
No. 1 in his opposition to the Motion to Quash, a mere
perusal of the text of LOI No. 2 would have immediately
apprised the respondent judge of the fact that LOI No. 2
was issued in implementation of P.D. No. 1. Paragraph 1 of
LOI No. 2 reads:

“Pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 1, dated September 23, 1972,

Reorganizing the Executive Branch of the National Government,
the following agencies of the Department of Justice are hereby
reorganized or activated in accordance with the applicable
provisions of the Integrated Reorganization Plan and the
following instructions: x x x”

519

VOL. 242, MARCH 20, 1995 519

People vs. Gacott, Jr.

(italics supplied).

Obviously, respondent judge did not even bother to read

the text of the cited LOI; otherwise, he would have readily
acknowledged the validity of the argument advanced by the
prosecution. As correctly observed by the Solicitor General,
Presidential Decrees, such as P.D. No. 1, issued by the
former President Marcos under his martial law powers
have the same force and effect as the laws enacted by
Congress. As held by the Supreme Court in the case of
Aquino vs. Comelec, (62 SCRA 275 [1975]), all
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016e6a0958d96baa996f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/10
11/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 242

proclamations, orders, decrees, instructions and acts

promulgated, issued, or done by the former President are
part of the law of the land, and shall remain valid, legal,
binding, and effective, unless modified, revoked or
superseded by subsequent proclamations, orders, decrees,
instructions, or other acts of the President. LOI No. 2 is
one such legal order issued by former President Marcos in
the exercise of his martial law powers to implement P.D.
No. 1. Inasmuch as neither P.D. No. 1 nor LOI No. 2 has
been expressly or impliedly revised, revoked, or repealed,
both continue to have the force and effect of law. (Rollo, pp.
7-8).
Indeed, Section 3, Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution
explicitly ordains:

“Sec. 3. All existing laws, decrees, executive orders,

proclamations, letters of instructions, and other executive
issuances not inconsistent with this Constitution shall remain
operative until amended, repealed, or revoked.”

But even more glaring than 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. Respondent judge should be reminded that courts
are duty bound to take judicial notice of all the laws of the
land (Sec. 1, Rule 129, Rules of Court). Being the trier of
facts, judges are presumed to be well-informed of the
existing laws, recent enactments and jurisprudence, in
keeping with their sworn duty as members of the bar (and
bench) to keep abreast of legal developments. As provided
in the Code of Professional Responsibility:
520

520 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Gacott, Jr.

“CANON 5—A lawyer shall keep abreast of legal developments,

participate in continuing legal education programs, support
efforts to achieve high standards in law schools as well as in the
practical training of law students and assist in disseminating
information regarding the law and jurisprudence.
“CANON 6—These canons shall apply to lawyers in
government service in the discharge of their official tasks.

The Court is fully aware that not every error or mistake of

a judge in the performance of his duties is subject to
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016e6a0958d96baa996f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/10
11/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 242

censure. But where, as in the present case, the error could

have been entirely avoided were it not for public
respondent’s irresponsibility in the performance of his
duties, it is but proper that respondent judge be
reprimanded and his order of dismissal set aside for grave
ignorance of the law. For, respondent judge’s error is not a
simple error in judgment but one amounting to gross
ignorance of the law which could easily undermine the
public’s perception of the court’s competence.
The responsibility to keep abreast with the changes in
the law espoused in Canon 5 above is applicable with equal
force to counsel for private respondents, Atty. Elvira T.
Bermejo who first raised the issue at hand before the trial
court. By insisting upon the authority of an already
abolished Anti-Dummy Board, counsel displayed blatant
irresponsibility, not to mention ignorance of the law. She
should be reminded that “The law, (it is not to be
forgotten), is a progressive science. There is less than full
compliance with the demands of professional competence, if
a member of a bar does not keep himself abreast of the trend
of authoritative pronouncements” (Bautista v. Rebueno, 81
SCRA 535 [1978], italics supplied).
Equally deplorable is the terse half-paged pleading
entitled Comment filed in behalf of private respondents by
the same counsel Atty. Elvira T. Bermejo, before this
Court, wherein she alleges:

“1. That private respondents ARNE STROM AND GRACE

REYES was (sic) properly represented by the undersigned
attorney;
“2. That private respondents ARNE STROM AND GRACE
REYES has (sic) nothing to do with the decision of HON.
EUSTAQUIO Z. GACOTT, JR,.

521

VOL. 242, MARCH 20, 1995 521

People vs. Gacott, Jr.

“WHEREFORE, upon premises considered it is most respectfully

prayed of this Court that said certiorari (sic) be dismissed.” (Rollo,
p. 33)

It need not be emphasized that the order of dismissal of the

criminal case against private respondents arose out of the
resolution of the Motion to Quash/Dismiss filed by private
respondents themselves, through counsel Bermejo, on the
ground of lack of authority of the City Fiscal to prosecute.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016e6a0958d96baa996f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/10
11/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 242

In other words, such dismissal was not ordered by

respondent judge motu proprio but rather, as prayed for by,
and on motion of, private respondents through said
counsel. It is quite disturbing, therefore, for counsel to
brazenly deny before this Court that private respondents
had “nothing to do” with the assailed resolution, the
issuance of which was based on their very own pleading.
Moreover, counsel did not even bother to defend the
position of private respondents before this Court by
restating in the Comment, their arguments before the trial
court, being content instead with the short allegations
aforequoted. These acts are indicative of counsel’s
incompetence and lack of respect which this Court cannot
countenance.
Undoubtedly, counsel for private respondents failed to
observe the responsibility imposed upon members of the
bar to keep abreast with the developments of the law under
Canon 5 of the Code of Professional Responsibility as well
as to exercise candor, fairness and good faith before the
court as prescribed by Canon 10 of the same Code, for
which omissions, she should likewise be reprimanded.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the order of
respondent judge dated March 18, 1994 dismissing
Criminal Case No. 11529 is hereby ANNULLED AND SET
ASIDE and the aforesaid criminal case is REINSTATED.
Respondent judge is hereby REPRIMANDED AND FINED
in the amount of P10,000.00 for gross ignorance of the law
with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or a
similar offense shall merit serious consequences. Atty.
Elvira T. Bermejo is likewise REPRIMANDED AND
FINED P10,000.00 for ignorance of the law and for her
failure to observe candor, fairness and good faith before
this Court, with a stern warning that a repetition of the
same or a similar offense will be dealt with more severely
by this Court. Let a copy of this decision
522

522 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Yaranon vs. Rulloda

be spread on the personal records of Judge Eustaquio Z.

Gacott, Jr. and Atty. Elvira T. Bermejo.
SO ORDERED.

          Narvasa (C.J., Chairman), Regalado, Puno and

Mendoza, JJ., concur.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016e6a0958d96baa996f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/10
11/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 242

Order annulled and set aside. Respondent Judge and

Atty. Bermejo reprimanded and fined.

Note.—A judge is called upon to exhibit more than just

a cursory acquaintance with the statutes and procedural
rules. (Libarios vs. Dabalos, 199 SCRA 48 [1991])

——o0o——

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016e6a0958d96baa996f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/10