LIM, DANIELLE

Article III. Section 1. I. Procedural Due Process A. Judicial Proceedings 2. Aspects of the Proceedings
Dayot v Garcia 353 SCRA 280
FACTS: Sofronio Dayot was accused of the crime of grave slander. He was eventually convicted by respondent
Judge Rodolfo Garcia of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Calavatra, Negros Occidental and sentenced to
imprisonment. The Regional Trial Court affirmed the conviction. Dayot filed a petition for review but the Court of
Appeals dismissed it. The motion for reconsideration was also dismissed. Dayot, then, elevated the case to the
Supreme Court, which denied due course to the petition. He availed of a motion for reconsideration and while it was
still pending, Judge Garcia issued a warrant of arrest against him and ordered his detention.
Dayot filed this case and accused Judge Garcia of misconduct of office, abuse of authority, and oppression when he
issued a warrant of arrest despite the fact that his motion for reconsideration was still pending. He also said that the
Judge did not observe due process when he issued another Order discrediting his sentence of the service from May
6, 1998 to November 6, 1998 because he served it outside of the prison cell.
ISSUES: W/N Judge Garcia observed due process when he issued the order discrediting Dayots service of his
sentence from May 6, 1998 to November 6, 1998
HELD: Yes, Dayot was denied due process.
The Order discrediting Dayots sentence was issued after Judge Garcia heard the complaint of the mother of the
offended party (the one who Dayot committed slander against) that Dayot was not serving his sentence inside a
prison cell. The Order was issued without prior hearing or notice.
Although the judge probably issued the order in order to address the issue of corruption and special treatment of
Dayot in prison, he still should not have abused his judicial discretion by depriving the petitioner of his right to be
heard. Assuming that Dayot did have special sleeping arrangements in the special sleeping quarters in the third floor
of the municipal building, this matter should have been left to the Jail Warden and the Order given by the judge
given after hearing. Although a judge is not always subjected to disciplinary action for all his erroneous decisions,
this immunity is not a license for him to be abusive or arbitrary.
Hence, respondent Judge is fined P5,000 with a stern warning that a repetition of the same shall be dealt with more
severely.