Article 204 of the Revised Penal Code

 
HELD: NO. Regional Trial Court Judge Silverio Q. Castillo is FINED P10,000 with a STERN WARNING
that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely
·         The law requires that
o    (a) the offender is a judge;
o    (b) he renders a judgment in a case submitted to him for decision;
o    (c) the judgment is unjust;
o    (d) he knew that said judgment is unjust
·         even assuming that a judge erred in acquitting an accused, he still cannot be
administratively charged lacking the element of bad faith, malice or corrupt purpose
·         As a matter of public policy then, the acts of a judge in his official capacity are not subject
to disciplinary action, even though such acts are erroneous. 
·         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.
·         error committed by respondent Judge being gross and patent, the same constitutes
ignorance of the law of a nature sufficient to warrant disciplinary action
 
"The felony on BIGAMY as defined and penalized by the RPC explicitly mandates that it must be
committed with criminal intent. In other words, there must be an unquestionable
demonstration on the part of the perpetrator that he/she criminally, willfully and unlawfully
contracted a second marriage despite knowledge that his/her first marriage is still existing."
 
 
Notes
 
Art. 204. Knowingly rendering unjust judgment. — Any judge who shall knowingly render an unjust
judgment in any case submitted to him for decision, shall be punished by prision mayor and
perpetual absolute disqualification.

Padilla vs Dizon, 158 SCRA 127 (1988)

Commissioner of Customs, Alexander Padilla, complainant
Baltazar R. Dizon, RTC Judge, Branch 115, Pasay City, respondent
 
 Facts:
 Respondent Baltazar R. Dizon acquitted, in his decision, the tourist and accused, Lo
Chi Fai, saying that Lo Chi Fai had no willful intention to violate the law. He also
directed the release to Lo Chi Fai of at least the amount of US$3,000.00 under
Central Bank Circular No. 960.
 Lo Chi Fai was caught by Customs guard at the Manila International Airport while
attempting to smuggle foreign currency and foreign exchange instruments out of the
country.
 An information was filed against Lo Chi Fai with the RTC for violation of Sec. 6,
Central Bank Circular No. 960 with a penal sanction provided by Sec. 1, PD NO. 1883.
 At the trial, Lo Chi Fai tried to establish that he was a businessman from Hongkong,
that he had come to the Philippines 9 to 10 times to invest in business in the country
 with his business associates, and that he and his business associates declared all the
money they brought in and all declarations were handed to and kept by him.
 Because of the revolution taking place in Manila during that time, Lo Chi Fai was
urged by his business associates to come to Manila to bring the money out of the
Philippines.
 Commissioner of Customs, Alexander Padilla, then filed a complaint against Baltazar
R. Dizon for acquitting Lo Chi Fai.
 
Issue:
 W/N respondent Baltazar R. Dizon is guilty of gross incompetence or gross
ignorance of the law in holding that the accused, Lo Chi Fai, for violation of Central
Bank Circular No. 960, the prosecution must establish that the accused had the
criminal intent to violate the law.
 
Ruling:
 Yes. Baltazar R. Dizon ignored the fact that the foreign currency and foreign
currency instruments found in the possession of Lo Chi Fai when he was
apprehended at the airport and the amounts of such foreign exchange did not
correspond to the foreign currency declarations presented by Lo Chi Fai at the trial,
and that these currency declarations were declarations belonging to other people. 
 In invoking the provisions of the Central Bank Circular No. 960 to justify the release
of US$3,000.00 to Lo Chi Fai, Baltazar R. Dizon again displayed gross incompetence
and gross ignorance of law. There is nothing in the Central Bank Circular which could
be taken as authority for the trial court to release the said amount of US Currency to
Lo Chi Fai.
 
Notes
 
Section 6 of Circular No. 960 of the Central Bank provides as follows:
 
Sec. 6. Export, import of foreign exchange; exceptions. — No person shall take out or
transmit or attempt to take out or transmit foreign exchange in any form, out of the
Philippines directly, through other persons, through the mails or through international
carriers except when specifically authorized by the Central Bank or allowed under existing
international agreements or Central Bank regulations.
 
Tourists and non-resident visitors may take out or send out from the Philippine foreign
exchange in amounts not exceeding such amounts of foreign exchange brought in by them.
For purposes of establishing the amount of foreign exchange brought in or out of the
Philippines, tourists and non-resident temporary visitors bringing with them more than
US$3,000.00 or its equivalent in other foreign currencies shall declare their foreign exchange
in the form prescribed by the Central Bank at points of entries upon arrival in the
Philippines.
 
Penal Saction by Section 1, P.D. No. 1883:
 
Section 1. Blackmarketing of Foreign Exchange — That any person who shall engage in the
trading or purchase and sale of foreign currency in violation of existing laws or rules and
regulations of the Central Bank shall be guilty of the crime of blackmarketing of foreign
exchange and shall suffer the penalty of reclusion temporal, (minimum of 12 years and 1 day
and maximum of 20 years) and a fine of no less than fifty thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos.
  

Jacinto vs. People G.R. No. 162540, July 13, 2009

FACTS:
Petitioner, Gemma Jacinto was an employee of Mega Foam Int'l., Inc., received a check amounting
to Php10,000 as payment of Isabelita Aquino Milabo (Baby Aquino) to her purchase to Mega Foam
Int'l., Inc.
 
Instead of delivering it to Mega Foam Int'l., Inc., she deposited it to her bank account.
 
The check was later discovered to be unfunded.
 
Both RTC and CA ruled that the petitioner was guilty of qualified theft. Petitioner filed a petition
for review of certiorari to SC.
 
ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioner is correctly convicted for the crime of Qualified Theft.
 
RULING:
NO. Petitioner is guilty of committing an impossible crime of theft only.
Requisites of an impossible crime:
(1) that the act performed would be an offense against persons or property;
(2) that the act was done with evil intent; and
(3) that its accomplishment was inherently impossible, or the means employed was either
inadequate or ineffectual.
 
Petitioner’s evil intent cannot be denied, as the mere act of unlawfully taking the check meant for
Mega Foam showed her intent to gain or be unjustly enriched. Were it not for the fact that the check
bounced, she would have received the face value thereof, which was not rightfully hers. Therefore, it
was only due to the extraneous circumstance of the check being unfunded, a fact unknown to
petitioner at the time, that prevented the crime from being produced. 
 
The thing unlawfully taken by petitioner turned out to be absolutely worthless, because the check
was eventually dishonored, and Mega Foam had received the cash to replace the value of said
dishonored check.
 
NOTES:
Art. 310. Qualified theft.
 
The crime of theft shall be punished by the penalties next higher by two degrees than those
respectively specified in the next preceding article, if committed by a domestic servant, or with grave
abuse of confidence, or if the property stolen is motor vehicle, mail matter or large cattle or consists
of coconuts taken from the premises of the plantation or fish taken from a fishpond or fishery, or if
property is taken on the occasion of fire, earthquake, typhoon, volcanic eruption, or any other
calamity, vehicular accident or civil disturbance. (As amended by R.A. 120 and B.P. Blg. 71. May 1,
1980).
 
Art. 4. Criminal liability.
 
Criminal liability shall be incurred:
1. By any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from that
which he intended.
2. By any person performing an act which would be an offense against persons or property, were it
not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or an account of the employment of
inadequate or ineffectual means.