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.

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 AntiDummy 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-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:
. . . . 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1130 was repealed or amended by Letter of Instruction (sic) No. 2, Series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 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New Civil Code which provides that laws are repealed only by subsequent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 counts 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 to
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).
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 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. (emphasis supplied)
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 AntiDummy 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: . . . (emphasis
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
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 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 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 1 and (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:
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 in formation 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 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 far 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], emphasis 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.
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. 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,
1999 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
be spread on the personal records of Judge Eustaquio Z. Gacott, Jr. and Atty. Elvira T.
Bermejo.
SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Regalado, Puno and Mendoza, JJ., concur.