Title
Padilla vs. Dizon
Case Decision Date
A.C. No. 3086 Feb 23, 1988
Judge Dizon dismissed for gross incompetence, ignorance of law, and
misconduct after acquitting Lo Chi Fai in a foreign currency smuggling case,
violating Central Bank rules.
Jur.ph - Case Digest (A.C. No. 3086)
Advanced Research
Facts:
Background of the Case
This is an administrative complaint filed by Alexander Padilla, then
Commissioner of Customs, against Judge Baltazar R. Dizon of the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of Pasay City, Branch 113.
The complaint alleges that Judge Dizon rendered a manifestly erroneous
decision in Criminal Case No. 86-10126-P, acquitting Lo Chi Fai of smuggling
foreign currency out of the Philippines.
The decision was allegedly due to gross incompetence and gross ignorance of
the law.
The Criminal Case
Lo Chi Fai, a tourist from Hong Kong, was apprehended at the Manila
International Airport on July 9, 1986, while attempting to board a flight to Hong
Kong.
He was found carrying foreign currency and foreign exchange instruments
totaling US$355,349.57 in various denominations without authorization from
the Central Bank.
Lo Chi Fai presented two currency declarations from previous trips but failed
to provide proper documentation for the currency he was carrying at the time
of his apprehension.
The Law Violated
The accused was charged under Section 6 of Central Bank Circular No. 960,
which prohibits the unauthorized export of foreign currency.
The penal sanction for such a violation is provided under Section 1 of P.D. No.
1883, which imposes a penalty of reclusion temporal (12 years and 1 day to 20
years) and a fine of at least P50,000.
Defense of the Accused
Lo Chi Fai claimed he was a businessman who had brought the foreign
currency into the Philippines for investment purposes.
He argued that the money belonged to him and his business associates and that
he was taking it out of the country due to fears of political instability following
the 1986 revolution.
He presented currency declarations from previous trips as evidence.
Judge Dizon’s Decision
Judge Dizon acquitted Lo Chi Fai, ruling that the prosecution failed to prove
criminal intent (mens rea) to violate the law.
He accepted the defense’s explanation that the currency was brought into the
Philippines legally and was being taken out due to fear of political unrest.
He also ordered the release of at least US$3,000.00 to the accused, citing
Central Bank Circular No. 960.
Issue:
1. Whether Judge Baltazar R. Dizon is guilty of gross incompetence or gross
ignorance of the law in acquitting Lo Chi Fai.
2. Whether the respondent judge’s decision to release US$3,000.00 to the
accused was justified under Central Bank Circular No. 960.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court found Judge Baltazar R. Dizon guilty of gross
incompetence, gross ignorance of the law, and grave misconduct.
The Court ordered his dismissal from service, with forfeiture of all leave and
retirement benefits, and barred him from reinstatement in any government
position.
Ratio:
1. Gross Ignorance of the Law:
Judge Dizon erred in requiring proof of criminal intent (mens rea) to
convict Lo Chi Fai. Violations of Central Bank Circular No. 960 are mala
prohibita, meaning criminal intent is not required. The mere act of
attempting to export foreign currency without authorization is sufficient to
establish liability.
The respondent judge’s insistence on proving intent demonstrated a
fundamental misunderstanding of the law.
2. Gross Incompetence:
Judge Dizon’s decision to acquit Lo Chi Fai was based on a flawed analysis
of the evidence. He accepted the accused’s implausible defense without
proper scrutiny, ignoring inconsistencies in the currency declarations and
the sheer volume of foreign currency involved.
His decision to release US$3,000.00 to the accused was also baseless, as
Central Bank Circular No. 960 does not authorize such a release.
3. Grave Misconduct:
The respondent judge’s actions were prejudicial to the fair administration
of justice. His decision appeared contrived to favor the accused,
undermining public confidence in the judiciary.
His failure to recognize the gravity of the offense and his disregard for the
law’s clear provisions constituted serious misconduct.
4. Judicial Accountability:
Judges are held to high standards of competence and integrity. While
errors in judgment made in good faith are excusable, gross ignorance of
the law and misconduct warrant severe disciplinary action.
The Court emphasized its duty to maintain public trust in the judiciary by
ensuring that judges adhere to the rule of law.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the importance of judicial
competence and adherence to legal principles. Judge Dizon’s dismissal serves
as a reminder that judges must exercise their duties with diligence, integrity,
and a thorough understanding of the law.
