DATU INOCENCIO C. SIAWAN, Complainant, v. JUDGE AQUILINO A. INOPIQUEZ, JR., Respondent. A.M.

No. MTJ-95-1056. May 21, 2001

FACTS:

This is a complaint filed by Datu Inocencio Siawan against Judge Aquilino A. Inopiquez, Jr. of the MCTC of
Kananga-Matag-ob, Leyte for gross ignorance of the law, gross abuse of power, and misconduct in
connection with the latter’s handling of a criminal case and two election cases for inclusion of voters.

2 identical complaints were filed: Referred to this Court by the DOJ, NBI, COMELEC and GSIS (dismissed)
and referred to this Court by the OP. (O.C.A. I.P.I. No. 95-54-MTJ) (redocketed as AM)

In Criminal Case (People vs. Julia Seco).

 Seco was charged with Usurpation of Authority and Official Function regarding pacquiao
contract where Seco signed as Brgy Captain.
 Seco filed a Motion for Inhibition of Judge Inopiquez because his father-in-law was
conspicuously present during the proceedings and even gave consultation to the complainant,
Pedrano, who was his protégé, but it was denied.
 Judge Inopiquez dismissed the case based on the Affidavit of Desistance filed by the
complainant.
 Seco filed an action for damages against the complainant, the latter wanted to revive the case
against Seco through Omnibus Motion.
 Seco opposed on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction based on finality and non-conformity of the
public prosecutor. However, Judge Inopiquez reinstated the case, but upon Seco’s insistence,
reconsidered the Motion to Inhibit filed earlier, added a recommendation that complainant
should just refile the case.
 Pedrano refiled the same case before the same judge.
 Judge Inopiquez inhibited again on the ground that the counsel, Atty. Eusebio Otadoy, for the
offended party is related to him.
 The case was dismissed on the ground of non-intervention of the public prosecutor.

In 1st Election Case.

 Retired Judge Ponciano Inopiquez (Herein Judge’s Uncle), filed a petition for inclusion in the list
of voters.
 He was a resident of Brgy. Talisay, Matag-ob, Leyte, qualified as a voter, failed to register only
because he could not book a plane on the last day of registration and he intended to vote in
Leyte because he had retired as RTC Judge in Manila. Judge Inopiquez did not inhibit because
the petition was meritorious.
 The Board of Election Inspectors was not a party to the proceedings; neither they were notified.
The petition was granted.

In 2nd Election Case.

  Petitioners all surnamed Herbas filed a petition for inclusion in the list of voters that they were
residents of Brgy. Sebastian, Matag-ob, Leyte for 2 years, they were refused registration by the
Board of Election Inspectors and they have not voted for 2 consecutive elections.
 The Board of Election Inspectors was not a party to the proceedings, neither they were notified.
The petition was granted.

ISSUE:

Whether Judge Inopiquez erred in granting the petition for inclusion of Former Judge Ponciano C.
Inopiquez

RULING:

Yes.

Re: Criminal Case

Although Judge Inopiquez admits that his relation to Atty. Otadoy is not within 4 th degree of
consanguinity of affinity, the evidence shows that his relationship to those helping the complainant
Pedrano. Judge Inopiquez acted with obvious partiality for complainant in the criminal case.

Accused Seco filed a Moton to Inhibit against Judge Inopiquez on the ground of his relationship to the
participants in the case, their presence during trial and Pedrano’s status as Judge Inopiquez political
protégé. Without addressing the issues raised by Seco, Judge Inopiquez denied it on the pretext that the
motion was filed with the assistance of an Atty. Superable, who was not Seco’s counsel of record.

Respondent could have recused himself from the moment his disqualification was sought by the
accused. Apparently, he later realized it was untenable for him to continue hearing the criminal case not
only because of his relationship to Atty. Otadoy, but also to Atty. Felix Sun and Edgardo Laurente
(Brother in law and Father In Law of Complainant) who were both participating in the criminal case.

Re: Election Cases

The failure of respondent to observe the requirements of the Election Code is inexcusable. As a judge of
the MCTC vested with the jurisdiction to hear and decide petitions for inclusion or exclusion of voters,
he is expected to be familiar with these requirements because it can be assumed that these election
cases were not the first cases he has decided.

Under Sec 139 of the Omnibus Election Code, a petition for inclusion may be filed only by a person:

a) Whose application for registration has been disapproved by the Board of Election Inspectors; or
b) Whose name has been stricken out from the list of voters.

No exception is provided by the law.

The petition of Former Judge Ponciano C. Inopiquez does not fall within the coverage of the law, since
he was neither refused registration by the board nor his name ordered sstricken from the list of voters
of Brgy. Talisay, Matag-ob, Leyte.

The records show that neither of the petition in Election Case No. 333 and Election Case No. 292 named
the board of election inspectors a party to the proceedings. Noris there any showing that the board of
election inspectors was ever notified ofhearings to be conducted on such inclusion proceedings either by
registered mail or bypersonal delivery, or by notice posted in a conspicuous place in the city hall
ormunicipal building and in two other conspicuous places within the city or municipalityat least 10 days
prior to the day set for the hearing