Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 89 views

    Padilla vs. Dizon

    Uploaded by

    SophiaFrancescaEspinosa
    This document summarizes an administrative complaint filed against Judge Baltazar R. Dizon for acquitting an accused smuggler due to lack of criminal intention, which violated Central Bank Circular No. 960. The Commissioner of Customs alleged gross incompetence and ignorance of the law by the judge. It was ruled that the judge showed gross incompetence by not knowing that crimes under special laws do not require intent. The circumstances made the accused's story unbelievable and favored acquittal, negating the judge's good faith claim.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Padilla vs. Dizon

    Uploaded by

    SophiaFrancescaEspinosa
    89 views1 page
    This document summarizes an administrative complaint filed against Judge Baltazar R. Dizon for acquitting an accused smuggler due to lack of criminal intention, which violated Central Bank Circular No. 960. The Commissioner of Customs alleged gross incompetence and ignorance of the law by the judge. It was ruled that the judge showed gross incompetence by not knowing that crimes under special laws do not require intent. The circumstances made the accused's story unbelievable and favored acquittal, negating the judge's good faith claim.

    Original Description:

    padilla vs dizon

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes an administrative complaint filed against Judge Baltazar R. Dizon for acquitting an accused smuggler due to lack of criminal intention, which violated Central Bank Circular No. 960. The Commissioner of Customs alleged gross incompetence and ignorance of the law by the judge. It was ruled that the judge showed gross incompetence by not knowing that crimes under special laws do not require intent. The circumstances made the accused's story unbelievable and favored acquittal, negating the judge's good faith claim.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    89 views1 page

    Padilla vs. Dizon

    Uploaded by

    SophiaFrancescaEspinosa
    This document summarizes an administrative complaint filed against Judge Baltazar R. Dizon for acquitting an accused smuggler due to lack of criminal intention, which violated Central Bank Circular No. 960. The Commissioner of Customs alleged gross incompetence and ignorance of the law by the judge. It was ruled that the judge showed gross incompetence by not knowing that crimes under special laws do not require intent. The circumstances made the accused's story unbelievable and favored acquittal, negating the judge's good faith claim.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    Facts:

    This is an administrative complaint then Commissioner of Customs, Alexander Padilla, against


    Judge Baltazar R. Dizon for rendering a manifestly erroneous decision due, at the very least, to
    gross incompetence and gross ignorance of the law "People of the Philippines vs. Lo Chi Fai",
    acquitting said accused of the offense charged due to lack of criminal intention, i.e., smuggling
    of foreign currency out of the country. Judge alleges that he did it in good faith and that he has a
    commendable record and is a fearless prosecutor.
    Issue:
    Is Judge Dizon liable for gross incompetence and gross ignorance of the law?
    Ruling:
    The respondent-judge has shown gross incompetence or gross ignorance of the law in holding
    that to convict the accused for violation of Central Bank Circular No. 960, the prosecution must
    establish that the accused had the criminal intent to violate the law. The respondent ought to
    know that proof of malice or deliberate intent (mens rea) is not essential in offenses punished by
    special laws, which are mala prohibita. The circumstances which make the story concocted by
    the accused so palpably unbelievable as to render the findings of the respondent judge obviously
    contrived to favor the acquittal of the accused, thereby clearly negating his claim that he
    rendered the decision "in good faith."

    You might also like